And what would you like to do with this majority should you get one?
And if it happens, there is no way that it lasts beyond 2016.
I don’t understand how in fifty-plus tries it never occurred to them to title one of them “A Bill To Replace Obamacare With No-More-Obamacare”, thus enabling them to claim that they had offered a replacement only to be rejected.
Bricker: Do you perceive yourself to have become more partisan over the last six years? If so, do you have a sense as to why?
That’s pretty optimistic of you. Note that Republicans have a very unfavorable map for their governors, yet it’s very possible they will take no losses, or only net -1. If they can defend those governors, they can defend their Senate seats.
If Obama continues to be unpopular in 2016, nothing will save the Democrats.
Hardy har har. Hillary v Cruz or Paul, what more do we need?
Yes, I do.
And I’m confident I know why, since this shove-it-in-your-face partisanship manifests here on the SDMB and not elsewhere.
The SDMB, collectively, exults in liberal groupthink and liberal superiority. It ignores liberal bad arguments unless they’re awful and leaps on tiny flaws in conservative bad arguments, and then denies any extant bias.
That kind of behavior motivates me.
Find one post from me in 2012 that suggests I was wallowing in horror.
You mean a forum that is majority liberal demonstrates some amount of liberal bias?
That said, I would hold off on the gloating until you actually win.
Silver is still giving Democrats close to 40% odds on maintaining control, which means it’s eminently possible that they’ll do so. Things that are less than 40% likely happen all the time.
And if that does happen, you will have your face rubbed in it - I can give 100% odds on that happening.
If you think you’ll win you can gloat then - no need to get ahead of yourself. As you say, it’s just a week.
I was asking – I don’t remember if you were one of the poll-deniers and Romney hypers or not.
Didn’t you actually vote for Obama yourself? If so it’s not a valid comparison, because your guy won.
Cruz is probably unelectable. Paul maybe. But the GOP nominee is not likely to be one of those. It’s more likely to be Jindal, or Christie, or Walker, or Kasich. All four are plausible Presidents and none of them are extreme. And no party has ever won a third straight Presidential term without the incumbent having an approval of 60% or higher. Obama’s just a bit under that.
I’ve also pointed out that at this point in 2006, John McCain had a +30 approval rating, something which Hillary Clinton could only dream of. Yet Bush dragged him down. Clinton will be no more immune, especially since she worked for the guy.
And if the Presidential candidate doesn’t win, the Senate candidates won’t either.
Now obviously if Clinton does win, then the GOP probably loses the Senate as well, and possibly the House. But to say that any of this is automatic is excessive optimism, to put it mildly.
So you agree that you changed in the last six years, but you say it is limited to the SDMB and in response to partisanship here. Does that mean you think this board became more partisan in that period?
It’s not so much gloating as the only thing worth talking about is how things will change. If the Democrats win, nothing changes and that’s not very interesting. But we all assume that the Democrats can win. Chuck Schumer thinks the Dems ground game this year is worth 2-3 points that the polls are missing. George Will is worried too. So maybe.
The only really interesting thing about a Democratic win is what it means for Republicans, and it’s nothing good. If the GOP falls just a seat short, then okay, they won a bunch of seats and fell one short due to an independent, shit happens. They still won five seats and knocked off some Democratic incumbents. Plus they almost certainly gain seats in the House. So it’s a disappointment, but still a win. But the worst case scenario for the GOP is as bad as winning just one or two seats, and that would portend pretty awful things for 2016 because it would mean that Democrats can motivate their base now, even in midterms. And that our base is still too fractured to be effective.
Don’t worry, this time I’m not going to take a break if we lose. I’m too interested in discussing what it all means, because if Democrats actually vote in 2014, that’s a big frickin’ deal.
Jindal and Walker are not even close to plausible Presidents. Christie probably isn’t because I don’t think he could get through a Republican primary. And Kasich is pretty much unknown, nationally, at this point.
This is meaningless – no President has ever won after running to replace a black President either. There are a million such “nevers”, and every election gets rid of some of those “nevers”.
Bush dragged McCain down to some degree, but McCain dragged himself down far more.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but my post was not in response to you. I was responding to Bricker, whose post #999 can only be characterized as (premature) gloating, IMHO.
If you’re referring to them plausibly winning an election, which your statement about Christie seems to indicate, then I don’t know. But they are quite qualified to be Presidents in terms of experience and being in the mainstream of Republican ideology, which in real world terms has historically meant they can be elected. Ted Cruz is probably too far to the right and Rand Paul presents other problems for the GOP, namely dividing their base. But the GOP governors are all well qualified and well situated ideologically to win nomination, and in a decent GOP year, the Presidency.
You’re partly right. EVery election usually involves a first and 2016 will be no exception. We could see the first female President, and the first President to succeed an unpopular incumbent of the same party. I’m not saying it could never happen, just that it never has and we have a few examples of it not happening: Adlai Stevenson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Al Gore all severely underperformed their predecessors due to voter fatigue with the party in power. Even the example of the guy who did win, Bush 41, he had to fight like hell, and fight really dirty, to win easily in the end, but with a much lower margin than his boss in 1980 and 1984. For Hillary Clinton to outperform Barack Obama in 2016 would be a very different prospect than just being the first female President. Social trends change, we become more tolerant, yada yada. But the concept of voter fatigue with parties in power is well established and is something we’ve lived with for longer than any of us have been alive. Even VPs trying to succeed popular Presidents, like Nixon and Gore, were only able to get close. So yeah, it Clinton can overcome that history, it’s a pretty big deal. It could happen, but to point out that it’s going to be very hard is not meaningless.
Towards the end of the campaign, when he picked Palin and reacted badly to the financial crash, yes, that was on McCain. But he should have entered the 2008 general election with sky high popularity and it just wasn’t happening. the Obama campaign hung Bush around his neck and were able to convince the electorate that he would be Bush’s third term. And this was a guy who paid a steep price for opposing his party on multiple issues. My point is that if McCAin wasn’t immune to this kind of messaging, no one is. Definitely not Clinton, who no one will ever confuse for a straight-talking maverick. She will be Mrs. Typical Democrat in a race where practically no one is going to want that, not even Democrats.
Cruz and Paul appeal only to the whackiest of the whackadoodles. Jindal is a non-starter. Republicans will not nominate an ethnic. Christie will do well if he keeps himself out of another federal housing unit. Walker is going to lose his governorship next week. Kasich has no name recognition.
John McCain HAD a high approval rating, until he ran a dreadful campaign and revealed himself to be a clueless and crotchety old bastard.
The stats about not winning a third term for your party may have made sense when there were two rational parties. Until Republicans start acting rational and stop hating women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and the poor they can forget about ever winning again.
Yeah, about that woman thing. The gender gap is closing. The “War on women” campaign is falling flat these days. What Democrats failed to realize is that there are just as many pro-life women as pro-choice women. What sunk Republicans in 2012 was some terrible statements by two candidates. Smarter GOP candidates that are forthright about being pro-choice without the misogyny seem to do quite well. And Democratic hammering on issues where the country is genuinely divided doesn’t seem to get them very far.
But overall, you have a point. If the GOP makes itself unelectable, it simply won’t be elected. It is possible that between now and Nov. 2016, the GOP will take this opportunity to go even more batshit crazy than in the past. I say that the odds of that happening are less than liberals wish. Their impeachment campaign didn’t yield the desired results. Tryin’ to troll us.
It’s meaningless because it tells us nothing right now. We don’t know if Clinton will run, but if she does, it would be foolish to think she has a worse than 50-50 chance of being re-elected, at least at this point (and I think her chances are far better than 50-50). Ask yourself this – if we got rid of that pesky 22nd amendment (I’m not suggesting we should), and Bill Clinton ran in 2016, would he win? You know he would, and probably by a huge margin. He’s going to be campaigning hard for Hillary if she runs. As will Obama, at least in the demographics that still love him. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, based on what we know now, were Hillary to win in 2016.