This doesn't seem too promising as a campaign slogan. Especially for Democrats who have expended a great deal of energy in talking down W's intelligence. It looks like they are going to give it a try though. While I believe that , as a matter of fact, the slogan would be difficult to disprove, I am unaware of any elections actually having been won with such a claim.
Why would a political party adopt such a risible tactic? To whom is such an appeal directed? The United States is on the verge of beginning troop withdrawals from Iraq because the after battle conflict is being transferred into the hands of a legitimately elected Iraqi government. It is difficult to doubt that the Iraqis will resolve the issue of the remaining terrorist thugs. The form of the resolution may be in question but the outcome is not. Why would a pol say that (s)he was duped into voting in favor of a winning battle?
I spend the odd moment doing odd things. One of the odd things that I do is to track FEC contribution and spending reports. I focus on the reports pertaining to the nationanl committees because I believe that those committees are realistic surrogates for the state of party finances as a whole. The specific number that I follow within the reports is Cash On Hand for the end of the reporting period. The reason for that focus is that while fund raising is very important, the cost of fund raising is just as important. Spending .99 to raise a dollar won't leave much in the till at the end of the day. The latest current reports are for September and include year to date (YTD) totals. A review of Howard Dean's 2005 performance as DNC chair in comparison to Terry McAuliffe's 2003 efforts reveals that Dean has significantly outraised McAuliffe - 42.4 million for Dean versus 32.8 million for McAuliffe. But the DNC had 9.8 million on hand at 9/30/03 and has 6.8 million on hand at 9/30/05. The respective numbers for the RNC are 77.9 million raised through 9/30/03 with 27 million in cash on hand and 96.2 million raised by 9/30/2005 with 34 million on hand.
As an aside, those concerned about the President's media described "preciptous decline" in popularity per the polls for which they pay, might take heart in the fact that fund raising seems to provide evidence to the alternative.
Returning to the question of "Why would a pol say that?", one answer may be that the Kossacks really are calling the shots and that the Democrat pols are simply responding to that reality. The party may be unable to maintain itself as a viable enterprise without the Soros/Bing/Lewis funding - even though accepting the SBL conditions will substantially reduce the party's ability to win elections. Alternatively, they won very few elections when McAuliffe was running things and Dean hasn't had his first turn at bat yet.
Alternative theories concerning this tactic would be welcome and appreciated.