This is just Halperin-esque punditry crap. Bullshit analysis.
The GOP corrected that mistake by nominating all credible candidates. No Akins in this bunch. If anything, the Democrats are nominating the gaffe-machines. Braley and his diarrhea of the mouth when it comes to farmers, and now the Montana candidate gets busted committing plagiarism several years back.
Sure, the GOP could fall short again, but simply the fact that they SHOULD take the Senate means they are credible. Competitiveness is credible by definition.
State boundaries were gerrymandered by the Constitutional Congress?
Actually, that’s not my claim. I HATE it when people assume they will just win, just because. The GOP will lose if they fail to match Clinton with a candidate who presents an alternative to her biggest weaknesses: Her age and her status as an icon of the status quo. Obviously, Jeb Bush doesn’t do that. Rand Paul or Bobby Jindal or Chris Christie do.
One more thing I forgot to mention: With Democrats railing against the rich and powerful, the fabulously wealthy Hillary Romney will be running against a Republican of modest origins. Other than Bush, they all come from modest origins. I wonder how Democrats will make the argument that we need a longtime member of the 1% to lead us? Probably the same way they argue in Congress as we speak that the largest companies in the world need subsidies.
That’s a very technical definition of “victory”, even if we grant the premise. Kerry would have won the election, yet lost the popular vote by 3 million. While obviously that would mean Kerry was the President, and I’d support that outcome because I believe in the Electoral College, it wouldn’t have been a Bush loss because he was unpopular or disastrous. It would have been a Bush loss because the vagaries of the Electoral College worked against him as it did Gore.
Besides, I don’t recall Dopers confidently asserting, “Yeah Kerry’s behind in the polls, but he’s going to win on a technicality!”
Paul/Jindal/Christie have already done enough to present an alternative? Boy, I hope the Republicans are as confident as you.
So you say. For now. You seem not to recall that the exposure of your candidates (there were multiple “rape guys”, as you may know) didn’t happen until after this time of year then, either. You also seem not to recall that the Teahadists are even more firmly in control of your party now than then.
Circular to the point of incoherence. Unless all you really mean is “They’ll win this time because I think they deserve to”, without showing any reasons for that, as you admit you can’t.
Kindly refer to head-to-head matchup numbers and consider how screwed you are if those are your options.
By working for the 99%, by showing they know how fortunate they are and how much the rest of us need help and how they are committed to using their power to provide it. The way FDR did it, IOW.
I’m only talking about the most superficial of issues becuase it’s so early. Clinton is old. They are young. They represent change. Clinton represents more of the same. Clinton is a play it safe politician. Paul/Jindal/Christie are unconventional.
Obviously, the actual race will involve events, policy proposals, debates, gaffes, etc. I’m not claiming the GOP will win, only that history favors them, so don’t put too much faith in current polls this far out. Which really should be an uncontroversial argument before we’re even at the midterms.
The 2016 Presidential race will be as competitive as the last few.
By unconventional, do you mean wingnutty?
BTW, no, obstructionism does not mean change, quite the opposite in fact.
Your first point is valid. It’s too early to be sure. But, we do have positive indications. Almost all of these guys are experienced politicians and none of them are known as firebrands.
I’m not sure what’s incoherent about the argument, “The GOP is expected to win the Senate, therefore they are credible.” There was a time not too long ago when the idea of the GOP winning the Senate would have been laughed at. That would be when the GOP was actually not credible.
How accurate were trial heat polls in previous elections? Not very. I’m sure Brain Glutton will be by shortly to whack us over the head for even talking about it this early.
FDR was succeeding a failed administration in a time of great crisis and running against the very guy who was failing. Hillary Clinton will be succeeding a failed administration in a time of blah and running against someone who is much more likely to pass the “guy you’d like to have a beer with” test.
C’mon, you know Clinton’s weaknesses. She never comes off as genuine. She’s not going to be facing Mitt Romney. She’s going to be facing some pretty sincere guys, guys you consider to be sincerely wrong. But still more sincere than one of the most artificial candidates ever to run for President.
Christie is a straight-talker and far from a radical. Jindal has never had problems working with his legislature and is actually quite charming when not overly scripted. Paul is a libertarian. Hard to call Paul a typical politician.
How does the obstructionism argument work against a Republican governor? Or even Rand Paul, who has gone out of his way to find partners on the other side of the aisle on a lot of issues? And succeeded.
Except when caught, i.e. Bridgegate.
Yes, more of a thug.
Gee, I wonder why? :rolleyes:
When not scripted, and sometimes even when he is, is when he shows us his wingnuttery.
IOW, yes, wingnut.
By party name. Or simply by refusing Medicaid expansion - how many Republican governors does that leave?
In what alternate universe?
Forget it Jake, its Adaher-town.
Paul, Wyden, and Udall wrote an op-ed together on NSA surveillance just last month:
Yeah, I know this is now wingnutty, Democrats having reconciled themselves to the Patriot Act just like they’ve embraced corporate welfare.
Fill in the party names and try again.
Only by using Hannity’s definition of Democratic and failed being synonyms. 
Really, you need to change the station once in a while, it will do you a world of good.
C’mon, you know she’s as familiar as anyone in public life could ever be, and that includes her weaknesses whatever they may be, and she’s still way out in front of anybody you can put forward as a plausible opponent. If your proposed strategy is to try to redefine her negatively, you’ve already lost, that can’t work. If your proposed strategy is to try to build up her negatives without offering a positive case of your own, you’ve already lost and, what’s more, you *deserve *to.
** As an initial step, we have worked with our colleagues in the House and Senate to build support for a package of real and meaningful changes to the law that would promote the restoration of Americans’ constitutional rights and freedoms, while protecting national security.
This package of reforms includes overhauling domestic surveillance laws to ban the bulk collection of Americans’ personal information, and closing the loophole that allows intelligence agencies to deliberately read Americans’ emails without a warrant. It includes reshaping the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by installing an advocate who can argue for Americans’ constitutional rights when the court is considering major cases, and by requiring that significant interpretations of U.S. law and the Constitution be made public. And it would strengthen and clarify the government’s authority to obtain individual records quickly in genuine emergency situations.**
Oh, pardon me Airbeck. You were saying something and I interrupted.
It’s lunchtime and I’m bored. Indulge me.
What a joke. If you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you in New Jersey.
Only in the minds of extreme Democratic partisans could Obama’s performance be seen as mediocre or better. Is he a failed President now? It’s debateable. It will be less debatable come 2016 if we get half a dozen more major government failures in the media and nothing but partisan attacks and fundraisers from the President during that time, while he continues to deny the media access to him.
So what was all that nonsense about Republicans hoping for failure being false?
Anyway, I agree Obama has no chance at re-election. None.
We certainly don’t want our foreign policy to fail. WOuld be nice if he’d start paying attention. Things haven’t been the same since Clinton left. Kerry’s proving how disastrous he would have been as President.
Boy I hope so. I’m really hoping for another big Democratic victory.