Unfortunately the Dems now own the war and own congress. Has anyone seen  the recent approval ratings of Congress?

in head to head matchups.

she's gotten really good press and unusual sources like Bill O'reilly are defending her,   Drudge is giving her great headlines, and no one is writing about her war flip flop, no health care plan, and her inability to compete in souther and moutain west states.

In contrast, Edwards and now Obama are getting mostly negative press

This should be no surprise.

What do the current Dems have to offer real people?

We are offering more globalisation which only destroys more households with their 3-4 jobs.

We failed to lead when we gave Bush a blank check on Iraq last month.

In the absence of leadership, the GOP is more enticing to real people.

The national and state polls don't agree with each other so it's hard to draw any conclusions about the state of the race. The state Survey polls cottradict these broad brushed statements about Giuliani/Clinton match-ups. I also think when it becomes clearer to the largely ignorant and unthinking public the Repub candidates will be labelled with the "stay the course" Republican brand.

  I don't think the issues matter as much to many people as does some sense that each of the Democratic candidates are (in different ways) too icky to vote for.  It's a perception of their personalities that has been fed by the media.  I just don't understand why people don't realize what toads each of the Republican candidates are.

Is that the netroots have been far too busy attacking Hillary and peeing and moaning about her doing well instead of spending more time going after the individual Republicans.

I have said it 100 times.  A lot of Americans still think Rudy is a hero (puh-lease I may puke) or that Thompson is another Reagan (that is laughable).

Fairly basic. The generic numbers are tied to overall favorability of the Republican party. If an individual candidate has approval numbers far above that generic percentage, then the generic slant can be overcome, particularly if the opposing individual has low approval numbers.

A generic edge is more applicable when it attaches to dozens and dozens of races, not one. It's not unlike a sports league with one conference clearly dominant above another top to bottom, but that doesn't mean the best team from the weaker conference can't be outstanding and win the title.

We're in good shape. Women and independents tend to be undecided early in the game.

Still, I'd feel a hell of a lot more comfortable if Giuliani were not running. Too many moderates and right wingers I know blindly support him due to the talk tough persona.

We need to keep hammering the point that a party that thinks government is the problem cannot do a good job of governing. Many others have made this point; I'd love to hear it from our candidates in the general election.

Good point Lex.  I remember Bill Clinton's first election and the media was always questioning if he was electable or not.  I guess we got our answer.  I take exception to the comment that the Democratic nominees are icky.  Obama provides exciting outsider leadership, Edwards genunine compassion that could be embraced by the electorate, Hillary the name recognition and experience that could serve our party well.  Richardson has exellent credentials and Biden is as tough as Guiliani anyday.  Okay, maybe Kucinich is a little icky but I think we have a great slate.  The other side has huge baggage, McCain suffers from a loss of touch with reality, Rudy has a wake of wives washed aside over the years, Thompson is a consumate lobbyist and Hollywood elitest who is married to a lady younger than his daughter.    Romney is a flip flopper and to slick.  Reagan Democrats aren't going to buy into any of those candidates.  We just need to keep reminding the voters of the reality of the GOP slate and we will do just fine.

Need to redefine  Guiliani, McCain now.

or else it will be too late.

Guiliani  & Kerik and  ? corruption

McCain and the surge and poor judgement.

Thus it is not the party but the people.

Actually, I came to a different conclusion entirely.  First, I think that generic poll questions like "which party will you vote for" can't be trusted.  But overall, I think the numbers indicate that people don;t really know as much about the Republicans as they do about the Dems in the race, with the possible exception of McCain (hence his sliding numbers).  I think most people really know very little about Mitt Romney and Guliani.  Romney changes positions every 15 minutes, so that doesn't make it any easier.

It's easy to like someone when you don't know much about their positions on the issues because the opinion is only based on the superficial.  Once the people get more information about how Romney doesn't really have any core beliefs about the issues and how Rudy is a flake, the numbers for our guys will get much better.  As we get further into the political season, our candidates will be better positioned to point out just how craptacular the Repub field is.

I remember seeing a poll that had 46% of Americans saying they're definetely NOT voting for hillary clinton. To nominate her will the same as handing the WH to Giuliani or whoever candidate the Repus put out there.

I'm really anxious to see what the dems will do.  If hillary is the candidate they wont get any money from me and I'll vote for Nader.

Peace.

The fact is that the default vote in this country is still Republican, and no matter what the polls show, the majority of Americans are far more likely to vote Republican than Democratic. They are certainly far more easily persuaded to vote Republican. THAT's what those polls mean.

The Dems won't be running against Bush, no matter how hard they might wish to. The Repubs will be running against Bush (or at least away from him), too. The Dems have to remind people on a thrice-daily basis, that Bush was vomited up by the Republican Party as their standard bearer--why should we trust the next stooge they barf at us? They are the party of torturers, sexual deviants, and thieves, the protectors of child molesters, the subverters of our Constitution, the bankrupters of our Treasury, and the party that sent our troops into an unnecessary war without adequate personal protection, then "welcomed" them home by denying them adequate health care.

So far, they show no inclination to do this. They are still letting the Republicans dictate their strategy, control the terms of debate, and are allowing themselves to appear weak and ineffectual. At this point, it should be embarrassing for an American to call himself a Republican. "Republican" should be a schoolyard insult that provokes fights when kids use it on each other. That it's not is testimony to the Dems utter incompetence at p.r. and marketing. And let's not pretend that elections are about issues. They aren't and never have been.

If the Dems don't launch a sustained, all-out assault on the criminal enterprise calling itself the Republican Party, they will lose again. And if they lose in 2008, there's no reason to think they will ever win again. If they can't win the next one, they're worthless as a political party.

What LongTom articulated above is  what I was trying to convey yesterday.

We should be cleaning all of the GOP candidates' clocks at this point and yet we are either behind or neck-and-neck in match-ups against them.

We as a party do not fight for the economic interests for the middle class like we used to. Fortunately, there is still a contigent that does.

No one is calling out globalisation for what it is - A FRAUD. It is globalisation that is destroying the middle class, inspite of the fantasies of some on this blog who foolishly think otherwise.

So what happens to the average Joe on the street who is not political like us? They get suckered into voting against thier interests on wedge issues. They have been doing this for 40+ years and they will continue to do so if we fail to lead.

Our capitulation to Bush last month on Iraq has angered many people who voted Dem in the last election. Our sinking poll numbers reflect this anger. As it stands right now, the GOP candidate will win by default. Fortunately, we have time on our side.

None of the Republican candidates can be allowed to get away with distancing himself from the failures of what should at this point be clearly seen as the failed Republican Party brand. How to best ingrain that in voters' minds is the question.

Here's my suggestion:

If you think Iraq is a success, vote Republican.
If you think Iraq is a disaster, vote Democratic.

Actually, the idea started of like this:

If you think Iraq is a success, don't you dare vote Democratic.
If you think Iraq is a disaster, don't you dare vote Republican.