For now maybe. And while Bush's victory last year was impressive and historic, it was nonetheless only 3 points against a very liberal Northeastern elitist Senator. It was uncomfortably close, and its true that a shift of 60,000 votes or so in Ohio would have changed everything. Of course that bit is a leftwing soundbite excuse to make their loss seem less decisive, as the same could be said of narrowly-blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsisn, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
Reagan crushed his northern liberal opponent in one of history's greatest landslides. If the Dems nominate Hillary, then hopefully the GOP candidate will do to her what Reagan did to Mondale, instead of what Bush did to Kerry. Though in the end, beating her is all that really matters.
You're absolutely right. My real point was that the Dems seeming inability to stop their constant griping, whining, and fear-mongering is doing them in. Every time Reid or Dean talks about how horrible things are, or Pelosi or Boxer compare the Administration to fascists the Dems hurt themselves. Theirs is perhaps the most negative and defeatist rhetoric to come out of Washington in my lifetime, and it's rapidly turning off potential voters. The real question is, is it turning voters off of the DNC, or away from the voting booth entirely?
It's always funny to me when people say "a shift of 60,000 votes", as if 60,000 coin tosses could have come up tails instead of heads.
Voting doesn't work like that. 60,000 people didn't decide to vote first, then show up at the polls and flip a coin to decide who to vote for.
In order for Kerry to win Ohio, 60,000 bush voters would have to decide to stay home, and 60,000 people who stayed home would have to decide to vote for Kerry.
BTW, have you noticed that not a single MSM article has ever brought up the thought that if Ohio had swung the other way, Kerry would be "illigitimate" because he lost the popular vote by over 3 million.