A encouraging essay, both as to the White House and the Senate in 2016, after this week’s disastrous midterms: http://us.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/gergen-blue-wall-republicans-2016/?cid=ob_articlesidebarall&iref=obnetwork
This place is so funny after elections. If the Democrats win, it’s because the tide has finally turned. If the Republicans win, it’s because the tide is about to turn.
By “this place” you mean CNN?
Yeah, that’s what I mean. Excellent analysis.
Republicans have a habit of thinking that victories in friendly states and gerrymandered districts mean that America is in love with them. The blue wall is spot on, it’s virtually impossible for a Republican to win the presidency.
You mean Democratic-leaners are more inclined to evaluate a situation with a positive spin for Democrats?
Like it is virtually impossible for Republicans to win the governor’s seat in Maryland? And Illinois? And Massachusetts?
I think “impossible” to win POTUS is a much too strong of term. But with Virginia turning blue and Florida and Ohio voting blue the last few election cycles, I would accept “almost impossible”. At least for the time being.
And Democrats cannot seem to understand that their asses were soundly kicked and that Obama is a serious liability.
Look, it is easy to do the whole “Rah TEAM! We’ll get’em next time” while sticking your head in the sand.
Both parties have problems. The Republicans need to reign in the Tea Party folks, though it seems to me that this process is already underway. And unless Obama does something to turn around his approval numbers, the Democrats will have to distance themselves from him again next election. That isn’t good for the Democrats. Another problem is Obama’s response to world issues, which to a lot of people seems to be “Fuck, I don’t know what the hell to do.”
If the Republicans can drop the social issues, offer reasonable financial/tax plans and offer actual plans on how to deal with things like ISIS, then the Democrats could be in a serious world of hurt.
Of course the Republicans could screw it up as well.
Slee
Who said that about Illinois and Massachusetts? The norm in Illinois is Republican governors. Blagojevich was the first Democrat to win in 30 years and Quinn is an accidental governor who only barely kept his job in 2010, so I hope nobody was saying it was imposible for a Republican to win. And Deval Patrick was the first Democrat to be elected governor of Massachusetts since Michael Dukakis was re-elected in 1986.
Here’s a radical idea: instead of mutual sniping at each other’s party, how about we, you know, maybe discuss Gergen’s thesis of a blue wall that favours the Democrats in presidential elections?
Do the Democrats have such a lock on their 20 states that they reliably only need to pick up Florida to win? Or does the candidate make such a significant difference that “past performance is no predictor of future performance”, and the Democrats are actually more vulnerable than the “Blue Wall” hypothesis would suggest?
Gergen strikes me as a pretty smart guy with a lot of electoral insights, so I’d be inclined, as a complete outsider, to put a fair bit of weight on his analysis, but I’d love to hear counter-arguments.
Except the OP’s argument was made well before the election. It was known that 2014 would be a bad year for the Dems and that 2016 had good fundamentals for the Dems, with the all-important aspect of the election year economy being an unknown. What was not known was whether the Repubs would gain 5 or 9 Senate seats this year. Turns out we’re at the high end.
What I was going to say is that Repubs were feared to have a lock on the Presidency for a while during the 2000s, due to the construction of the electoral college. Rather similar argument.
In other news, Vox points out at totally legal, totally sleazy way that Republicans could ensure Hillary Clinton’s defeat. The Repubs control a number of blue state legislatures. The Dems control few red state legislatures. So if Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida decided that they would allocate electors in proportion to the number of votes, the Dems would face insurmountable odds. This probably won’t happen though, as it would be a violation of electoral norms. It was considered in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2012 though.
I remember a George Will column in Newsweek in early 1989, just after GHWB’s election and after Republicans had handily won the Presidency three times in a row, making just that argument. Obviously things didn’t work out that way.
And your track record for election prediction accuracy is…?
Let’s see:
THat’s completely wrong. Impossible would be if Democrats were winning consistently by 5 points or more in enough states to guarantee a majority of electoral votes. Swings of up to 10 points in the popular vote are completely normal, and such swings would easily net the Republicans the states they needed that Democrats won by less than 5 points.
Don’t forget that Republicans also managed to win statewide in many places they weren’t supposed to in 2014. IT wasn’t just friendly states.
Democrats got great turnout compared to Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Not so much in 2004. Whether 2016 looks more like 2012 or 2004 will depend in large part on how motivated the base is any the quality of the Democratic candidate. If young voters stay home again in 2016, the most important office the Democrats will hold will be the governor of California. THEN they’ll become the party of federalism.
I’m afraid adaher may be right. Young voters are progressives. Centrists control the Democratic Party, even after this last electoral debacle. The Centrists have no interest in incorporating any progressive economic ideas into their platform, because they’re just as beholden to Wall Street as the Republiicans are. The most they will do is agitate feebly for slapping some band-aids on the economy, things like raising the minimum wage.
As much as the Democrats might like to think they are for the people and the Republicans are for the rich and powerful, the Democrats tend to be run by their elite with little regard for the wishes of their constituents. the Republicans, by contrast, are run by their base and tend to adopt every crackpot theory that comes out of that base.
Seems like back in the 80s, both sides had a fairly happy medium between rule by elites and anti-intellectualism. NOw you’ve got a Democratic Party completely disconnected from their own base and a Republican Party pretty much run by the yahoos.