Democrats can’t lose in ‘08
Sep 10, 2007 Politics and Poker
As long as they run against “W.”
The problem, of course, is that he’s not running in ‘08.
Recent Post
Recent Comments
- Ron Coleman:Thanks, Venkat. I am only scr
- Ron Coleman:Thanks, Abe.
- Abe:We'll miss you!
- Venkat:Good post! I appreciate y
- Ron Coleman:Thanks, Walter!
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®- Blogging to brand March 19, 2010My old friend David Krell, who sells the eminently attractive service of working with lawyers and law firms at not writing like lawyers, and I had a little chat about what blogging here does for “the brand” that is me. You can read it here. . Blogging to brand ©, . […]
- About that SLAPP thing March 17, 2010A number of law bloggers have posted recently (as noted by Colin Samuels at the link referred to in my previous post) in support of a federal statute to deal with the problem of lawsuits known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation”–SLAPP suits. Ken at Popehat explains, and does so very well (except for his [...] […]
- The merger doctrine and copyright in data March 17, 2010Originally posted 2007-10-01 22:08:45. Republished by Blog Post PromoterSteve Kramarsky, in the New York Law Journal: Copyright does not protect facts, but (with a few notable exceptions such as fashion design) it protects almost any kind of creative expression even if the amount of creativity is extremely small. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that facts [. […]
- This Isn’t One, Either. Heavens, No. March 17, 2010Originally posted 2005-02-17 00:04:00. Republished by Blog Post PromoterBill Heinze’s I/P Updates blog reports about a trademark registration you can see at the erstwhile movie pirating website LokiTorrent.com. You get a message that says “There are websites that provide legal downloads. This is not one of them.” The site is the property of the [...] […]
- Gotta get a Round Tuit March 17, 2010Colin Samuels’s Infamy or Praise posts its unofficial Blawg Review, Number 23 in the “Round Tuit” series. So you go right over there are read it. Also the official Blawg Review, up this week at Law Shucks. I was struck by Colin’s roundup regarding the musings of bloggers about where to put what in which blog, and [...] […]
- Blogging to brand March 19, 2010
-
-
Likelihood of Exposure
More Photos -
-
September 10th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Anytime someone says “can’t lose” I clamp down on my wallet.
P.S. Dems don’t have to run against Bush. They just have to portray the Republican nominee as ushering in Bush’s third term.
That won’t be hard: even at rock bottom Bush could count on 70% of Republicans approving of the job he’s done. So its pretty clear their nominee will probably be a rubber stamp.
Seing it this way, Independents will have every reason to run like the wind — in the other direction. The End.
A slam dunk? Hardly. But it ain’t rocket science either.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
For example, take Rudy (please!), who I’m pretty sure is going to get the nomination. If it were up to me, the Dem nominee would play a small snippet of Giuliani’s speech to the ‘04 GOP convention:
“Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and I said to him, ‘Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president.’ I say it again tonight:
“Thank God that George Bush is our president, and thank God that Dick Cheney, a man with his experience and his knowledge and his strength and his background, is our vice president.”
Kerik, Bush, Cheney! The slot machine rolls three cherries and the silver dollars come rushing out.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:41 am
The sorry performance of the Democrat-led Congress (the one that sends emissaries to far-flung terrorist-led countries like Syria to dump on America) is bound to be a factor, too, unless the Democratic nominee is not in Congress.