Carville: Wake up Democrats; you could lose

[Lord Zentei]

Linka, includes a video. Carville argues that the Democrats do not have the election in the bag, in contrast to general attitudes, and that they are not taking the election seriously enough WRT going on the offensive (keeping in mind the tightness of polls, and the size of Romney's war chest). This, despite the weakness of the Romney camp.

(CNN) -- A long time ago a great three-time governor of Louisiana, Earl Long, said about Jimmie Davis, the two-time not very good governor of Louisiana, "You couldn't wake up Jimmie Davis with an earthquake."

As I go around the country and see various Democrats and talk to them on the phone, honestly I'm beginning to think that we have become the party of Jimmie Davis.

My message is simple: WTFU. Translated -- wake the you-know-what up, there is an earthquake.

You think that Democrats around the country are going to win -- as I hear time and time again from people on the street.

Democratic fundraisers, activists, supporters, and even politicians alike have somehow collectively lapsed into the sentiment that the president is going to be reelected and that we have a good shot to take the House back while holding the Senate.

I ask: What are you smoking? What are you drinking? What are you snorting or just what in the hell are you thinking?

Look around the world -- do you see any governments or incumbents winning any elections out there? Did it happen in small elections in Germany or Britain, big elections in France and Greece or how about huge elections in the United States in 2008 and 2010? Please folks -- wake up!

The polling? Not that encouraging. The latest Democracy Corps poll was 47-47. The Real Clear Politics average of polls has the president up a whopping three-tenths of a percentage point. And I am hearing the garbage that Democratic donors are telling Democratic fundraisers ..."Obama has it in the bag."

Newsflash: Nothing is in the bag. Nothing can be taken for granted. Everybody from the precinct door-knocker, to the Chicago high command, to the White House, to the halls of Congress, to the Senate and House committees, to congressional leadership, here is a simple message: If we don't get on the offense, reconnect with the American people, talk about how the middle class is in a struggle for its very existence, hold the Republicans accountable and fight like the dickens, we are going to lose.

You can shoot five Bin Ladens, you can save 10,000 banks and 20 car companies, even pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don't think that you are connected to their lives and are fighting for their interests they will vote your tush out of office in a nano-second. For historical reference see Winston Churchill election of 1945 and President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

So, fellow Democrats -- we've got a fight on our hands. We've got to fight in the same way that the people we care most about have fought for quite some time. They have been crushed by high health care costs, soaring education costs, stagnant wages and financial bailouts for irresponsible firms.

Combine all of this with the fact that the Republicans are raising not millions, not tens of millions, but potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from the pollution industry as result of Citizens United v. FEC.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter and Facebook/CNNOpinion

There is a full-fledged legislative agenda in many states to keep Democrats from even voting. We are literally being attacked from every side while simultaneously being lulled into some self-induced stupor thinking that this thing is somehow in the bag. It is not.

Oh I know what you are going to say, "Look at Mitt Romney, look how pathetic he is..." Actually pathetic is a kind word for Romney and this campaign. Mitt Romney is to presidential campaigns as the Delta House grade point average was to Faber College -- the worst in history. I mean, my God, when you hold a press conference to rebut charges that you have a Cold War mentality and then you have foreign policy "experts" talk about Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union in "contemporary" terms -- really?

I know that the Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts drive swing voters and independents over the edge. I've gotten all of the reports from focus group moderators as to how devastating this is to Romney.

Why a man who knows he is running for president (who claims to know something about the American economy) would for any reason keep money in offshore accounts, I have no idea. And I know that we are going to take him out to the cornfield (like at the end of the movie "Casino") on the Ryan budget.

However, I fear that all of this will not be enough unless we have real change of attitude about the difficult campaign ahead of us. It has been said that, "Nothing so focuses a man's attention as the prospect of being hanged." Look around Democrats -- Come November lets make sure that it's Mitt and his bunch at the end of that figurative rope and not us.

I fear he may be right about the dangers of complacency. Thoughts?

[Bakustra]

James Carville saying this is hilariously ironic- he largely produced the current situation with his policies and his advice for breaking complacency is really more of the same- market, market, market. Nothing at all about doing anything to actually fix the problems, just convincing people that you will. While he may be trying to imply doing both, his history doesn't leave me particularly confident.

[B5B7]

The situations in Europe and USA can not be compared. In Europe it is a battle between centrists and other centrists/leftists. In USA incumbent president usually gets a second term, and the Republicans have struggled to choose the least nuts of all their nutty candidates. There is a limit to how much can be done to persuade the voters, and if they do elect the Republican candidate then they were beyond rational persuasion anyway.
Sure one shouldn't be complacent, but shouldn't be Chicken Little either.

[Mr Bean]

I say Obama has the election in the bag baring major scandal because his opponent is Mitt Romney and the instant after the Republican convention and the first debate the public will loath him. He's not good at anything except finely managed stage performance scripted events. Anytime he's script-less you see the wealthy privileged businessman peaking out.

The simple fact is Mitt Romney lost this election the instant the 80s roll around and he stared in all those movies where he was always trying to close down the Youth center or trying to crush the dreams of those inspiring kids or laying off you and your friends to move the company to Mexico (And in the 90's he moved it to China). He's not going to shine in a highly focused aggressive campaign where the nightly news is going to be filled with weeks of him having to take hard right positions or being savaged for NOT taking hard right positions or being savaged for both having and not having hard right positions. He looks, talks and walks like the evil CEO all Americans we raised up to hate.

[SirNitram]

It depends heavily on Southwest states. They're looking like they're in contention, and Romney may find himself stretched thin as he tries to bullshit over so many states.

[Zinegata]

I say Obama has the election in the bag baring major scandal because his opponent is Mitt Romney and the instant after the Republican convention and the first debate the public will loath him. He's not good at anything except finely managed stage performance scripted events. Anytime he's script-less you see the wealthy privileged businessman peaking out.

The simple fact is Mitt Romney lost this election the instant the 80s roll around and he stared in all those movies where he was always trying to close down the Youth center or trying to crush the dreams of those inspiring kids or laying off you and your friends to move the company to Mexico (And in the 90's he moved it to China). He's not going to shine in a highly focused aggressive campaign where the nightly news is going to be filled with weeks of him having to take hard right positions or being savaged for NOT taking hard right positions or being savaged for both having and not having hard right positions. He looks, talks and walks like the evil CEO all Americans we raised up to hate.

Yeah, this seems likely. Makes one wish that Santorum got the nomination instead, because the crazy part of the Republican party will just insist that they lost because they nominated a "liberal" and the next time they should nominate a TRUE CONSERVATIVE - meaning a truly awful fucknuts insane candidate.

Whereas Santorum getting crushed in the election would deal those crazies a harsh defeat that could hopefully let more moderate elements of the party regain some ground.

[ChaserGrey]

Yeah, this seems likely. Makes one wish that Santorum got the nomination instead, because the crazy part of the Republican party will just insist that they lost because they nominated a "liberal" and the next time they should nominate a TRUE CONSERVATIVE - meaning a truly awful fucknuts insane candidate.

Whereas Santorum getting crushed in the election would deal those crazies a harsh defeat that could hopefully let more moderate elements of the party regain some ground.

Speaking as one of the vanishing breed of moderate conservatives, this is so, so unfortunately true. Some of the more out-there Santorum voters are already talking about sitting out the general election since they "don't see a difference between Romney and Obama" (yes, really). If he loses that'll just be seen as proving their points.

I was kinda hoping Santorum bagged the nomination because he was enough of a scumbag that he'd probably have lost no matter how insane the Republican base got- there's a long list of stories if you've lived in PA. Then maybe the moderates would have a chance at grabbing the wheel back from the Secret-Muslim-Kenyan-Marxist crowd. But, nooo...

[Gil Hamilton]

The Democrats should still fight like hell though. Obama is probably going to win; the electoral math is significantly in his favor and Romney is a dud for an opponent, but it would be nice to make gains in the House and Senate so that Obama, if he gets elected, can help get more shit done rather than be a hostage to a Republican congress using Procedure to keep the government locked down.

[Gandalf]

The Democrats should still fight like hell though. Obama is probably going to win; the electoral math is significantly in his favor and Romney is a dud for an opponent, but it would be nice to make gains in the House and Senate so that Obama, if he gets elected, can help get more shit done rather than be a hostage to a Republican congress using Procedure to keep the government locked down.

Also, it might slow the rightward shift in American politics.

[Mr Bean]

Also, it might slow the rightward shift in American politics.

It won't as the current Democratic leadership is still fundamentally weak. Reid is a give up to get along kind of guy, Obama has been willing to surrender on many points in hopes of getting agreement in others and when such surrender fails to win him concessions he gives away more.

Your choice in this election is four years of democratic social issues and conservative economic issues
Or
Four to eight years of conservative social issues and conservative economic issues.

[Sea Skimmer]

The election isn’t in the bag, it would be if the economy kept significantly improving but uncertainly in the US and Europe makes that completely uncertain. Meanwhile sure lots of people will come to loath Romney, but lots and lots of people already loath Obama for a long list of different reasons.

[Gil Hamilton]

Tons of people loathed President Bush, too, for a list of valid and not-so-valid reasons as long as your arm. However, that didn't help Kerry win, because "I'm not that guy!" isn't enough. So far, the Romney campaign has more or less been about him saying literally anything that his team thinks will make him sound electable without taking any real positions other than he's most definitely against everything Obama is against, even when it's stuff that he's for. That's not going to help him get swing voters to his cause, which he desperately needs.

As it is, Romney has to win MOST of the swing states in order to get elected and the people who think Obama is the anti-Christ aren't going to factor into that so much, because they were already voting for anything with an (R) next to his name no matter what. As it is, Obama is polling stronger in Pennsylvania and Ohio than Romney is and the Midwest and New Mexico are probably going to go Obama as well. This if the economy continues to slowly but steadily improve, things are going to get better for Obama.

The Republicans really need to do better than they are doing if they are going to capture the middle and Romney is between a rock and a hard place there, because he can't capture the middle without proving what conservatives suspect about him that he's a RINO that isn't one of them. There is a certain segment of the Republican base that won't vote for any candidate that has ever supported legalized abortion, for example, and Romney was a pro-Choice republican right up until he decided that he wanted to be President. This showed in the Primary; conservatives uniformly against him in favor of Santorum and you'll not that establishment guys only started backing him after Santorum dropped out. He's not going to get away from having to keep pandering to the far right and if "Severely Conservative" Romney is the candidate that Obama has to go against, Obama is going to get a second term.

[Gil Hamilton]

Murder and corporate welfare. We could probably do with a little less of that shit.

And, of course, the ongoing domestic tyranny, though that has the support of both parties. I'm kinda hoping Romney wins though, since he's at least not batshit crazy and might help the progressives find their spines, even if only temporarily.

Please, if a Republican president had done either, they'd call it "national defense" and "pro-business" and be singing their accomplishments from the damn hilltops. You'd probably get a screen printed "I killed Bin Laden!" t-shirt in the mail. GOP hypocrisy on both issues has been tremendous.

[Aaron MkII]

Look at my domestic policy "successes"! I've kept us "safe" from "terror plots" the FBI engineered!

Sorry, whats this?

[Bakustra]

Things like the Newburgh Four, whose supposed terrorist plots were largely to entirely the product of the FBI. Certainly their cashflow was.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's exactly what King Obama is doing!


edit: that's what is most sad about this... the Democrats aren't campaigning on their differences. They are campaigning on how right-wing they are.

Look at my foreign policy "successes"! I've murdered more people (foreign and domestic) than anyone for decades!

Look at my economic "successes"! I've bailed out numerous corporations!

Look at my domestic policy "successes"! I've kept us "safe" from "terror plots" the FBI engineered!


GWB 2.0, now more "conservative" than ever!

I fucking hate it when people say Obama is the same as Bush.

Obama is too centrist, too prone to compromising, and poor on civil liberties. But he is not just like Bush.

Saying he's just like Bush is a simplistic, pitiful one-liner.

And stop calling Obama King Obama. Its annoying and inaccurate. He's not a king in the normal sense, as he did not inherit his position and will not hold it for life. Calling him a dictator would be more accurate, albeit still an unfair exaggeration.

[Bakustra]

Would you mind making a list of the substantive policy differences between them?

[Jim Raynor]

Would you mind making a list of the substantive policy differences between them?

For one, he didn't push HARD for and get a massive war against another country on the grounds of nonexistent WMD. And please don't go ahead equate Iraq with Iran, so far the Obama administration has expressed restraint in the face of Israeli and Republican pressure to do something already. Bush was the guy who flat out told other countries that they are "either with us or against us." Obama has at least made efforts at repairing relations with other countries.

Oh no, Obama likes to use drones to take out terrorist leaders and an American citizen who openly incited terrorism. Bush sent in the troops for a war that has resulted far, far more deaths on every side.

Bush lowered taxes, and the current Republican party treats any tax increase back to previous levels as out of the question. Obama calls for increases in tax rates (something that is NOT in his power to enact himself), but the Republican controlled Congress refuses to budge on that issue. He compromised and allowed the Bush tax cuts to continue.

Bush was a religious conservative and did not fight for gay rights. Under Obama, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was repealed, and just today he openly supported gay marriage.

Really, people calling Obama "king" or "dictator" in this thread is just outrageously exaggerated, even if they're saying that just to voice displeasure. It doesn't make a good point and just lowers the level of discussion. Someone here even sarcastically called Romney a more sane alternative (because Obama is "batshit crazy," yeah okay)...as if Romney would not be continuing the current drone strikes, or stepping up the rhetoric against Iran.

Obama is too weak, too restrained, and too powerless of a leader do much of anything in the face of massive Republican opposition in Congress. He's been sabotaged and insulted at every turn. Worst "dictator" ever.

[Bakustra]

So Obama is pro-war, but isn't dumb enough to risk actual troops when killing people.

He's "in favor of tax increases", by which you mean allowing temporary tax cuts to expire. This seems like a disingenuous way to describe it. If he was actually advocating increases above Clinton levels, that would be something. Well, there's the "millionaire's tax", which is a genuine policy difference.

He repealed DADT, a policy that the vast majority of the country and military disliked. He also advocated the exact same position as George W. Bush- gay rights ought to be left up to the states.

So policy-wise, we have that he prefers robots killing people to people killing people, he is willing to do things that people want as long as it's a social issue and not an economic issue, and he's willing to advocate a conservative approach to tax policy, as opposed to the reactionary one of the Republican party. Lots and lots of differences there.

[Jim Raynor]

So Obama is pro-war, but isn't dumb enough to risk actual troops when killing people.

Yeah, huge difference there. To the scale of tens of thousands of deaths, if not more. I'll take small scale drone attacks on terrorists over a ground invasion to take out WMD that wasn't actually there.

He's "in favor of tax increases", by which you mean allowing temporary tax cuts to expire. This seems like a disingenuous way to describe it. If he was actually advocating increases above Clinton levels, that would be something. Well, there's the "millionaire's tax", which is a genuine policy difference.

Ttax cuts which we had for years at that point, and which the Republicans quite simply do not want to EVER go away. Their members in Congress even went so far as to near unanimously sign a pledge to never increase taxes over what they are today.

He repealed DADT, a policy that the vast majority of the country and military disliked. He also advocated the exact same position as George W. Bush- gay rights ought to be left up to the states.

[Jim Raynor]

We better be careful with what we're posting in this thread. King-dictator-emperor Obama and his black helicopters might come for us!

[Bakustra]

We better be careful with what we're posting in this thread. King-dictator-emperor Obama and his black helicopters might come for us!

I asked how he differed from George W. Bush. Since Bush put the expiration date in his tax cut bills in the first place, that shows that there is only really a minor difference between the two. Also, posts like this are downright vile. What they're saying is that you're absolutely cool with the President of the United States asserting the power to kill people on his own cognizance, using torture not against accused terrorists but accused whistleblowers, maintaining electronic wiretaps, continuing humiliating and uncertainly effective policies at airports... these are all civil liberties violations by the Obama Administration. By posting like this, you are saying that these are A-OK. So either commit to "due process of law means the president says it's okay" or don't, but don't try to hang in the balance like this.

[Jim Raynor]

No one here will disagree that Obama can't change everything in the face of unified Republican opposition. Republican opposition that campaigns on the idea that Obama is way too soft on America's enemies (because you know, he at best doesn't want America to be strong, and at worst might actually be a Muslim infiltrator) and needs to push HARDER to stop the Iranian doomsday weapon.

So are you done with the exaggerated histrionics yet?

[Bakustra]

No one here will disagree that Obama can't change everything in the face of unified Republican opposition. Republican opposition that campaigns on the idea that Obama is way too soft on America's enemies (because you know, he at best doesn't want America to be strong, and at worst might actually be a Muslim infiltrator) and needs to push HARDER to stop the Iranian doomsday weapon.

So are you done with the exaggerated histrionics yet?

In the real world, people have the ability to respond and to fight back and to alter the course of debate. You do a far greater disservice to Barack Obama when you remove him of agency than when other people use hyperbole to point out his authoritarian presidency.

[Jim Raynor]

Also, posts like this are downright vile. What they're saying is that you're absolutely cool with the President of the United States asserting the power to kill people on his own cognizance,

I'm cool with the President sending drones after terrorists and someone rather openly working with terrorists. And I don't give a rat's ass that Awlaki was an American citizen - the logical conclusion to that being that it's better if Obama orders the killing of non-Americans for the same reasons.

using torture not against accused terrorists but accused whistleblowers, maintaining electronic wiretaps, continuing humiliating and uncertainly effective policies at airports... these are all civil liberties violations by the Obama Administration. By posting like this, you are saying that these are A-OK. So either commit to "due process of law means the president says it's okay" or don't, but don't try to hang in the balance like this.

And here we go with MORE outrageous exaggerations! Nice to see that you're trying to remain level-headed and reasonable here, and stick to a rational discussion of the facts. Also nice how you put words in my mouth.

Really, a two-sentence post asking people not to engage in hyperbolic whining is the same as endorsing civil rights violations as "A-OK." Gotcha. Ridiculous and extreme posts are the way to go from now on. Cool.