Not on the issues that are most likely to be important to them. Those issues are most often non-partisan, such as “jobs”, “the economy”, and “foreign policy”. The public cares more about results than ideology.
I happen to agree that Clinton was a center-right President in practice. If the Democrats had controlled Congress throughout his Presidency he probably would have been more center to center left, but he didn’t seem too put out to be more towards the right. He actually seemed to bask in the glow of his rightness for awhile there. Obama, on the other hand, maybe an Eisenhower Republican, but that’s clearly just bowing to political reality. He seems to hate it and is doing his best to get very liberal policies enacted through executive orders.
If this is a permanent thing, Republicans will just control Congress for a very long time. The Republicans have their own Red Wall in Congress. Democrats can’t win without Blue Dogs. Lots of Blue Dogs, actually. If the Blue Dogs are extinct, Republicans’ lock on the legislative chamber will be as long as the Democrats’ 40-year reign.
If Obama’s approval is under 50%, a Republican will be the next President.
If his approval is over 65%, a Democrat will be the next President.
Between 50-65, it depends on the candidates. But historically, an unpopular President is a massive handicap for a member of his own party succeeding him. John McCain at this point in 2006 was far more popular than Hillary Clinton is today. One can argue that he did himself in as well as Bush hurting him, but Clinton’s never proven to be a very capable campaigner either. She will run an ultra-cautious, front-runner’s campaign, and that won’t cut it if she gets behind due to Obama fatigue.
Care to explain what makes Republicans better on jobs? Does the common man really think that cutting taxes for millionaires will make his life better? Will refusing to consider infrastructure funding increases other than the environmental disaster known as keystone create any jobs? Why on earth does anyone think Republicans would be better in foreign policy?
The Red Wall in Congress is due to gerrymandering. When the 2020 election results in Democratic majorities in more states, bye bye Red Wall.
No. The logical progression from abolishing the electoral college is having truly national elections, which is dangerous because it creates a single system to manipulate. States should always hold elections and then announce winners by the standards they have set for doing so. That’s what the electoral college is a proxy for these days.
I’m not going to get into the details in this thread, but historically neither party has had a long term advantage on these issues. And right now, the GOP has the advantage on the Big Three: The economy, jobs, and national security. If they maintain that advantage, that’s a tougher wall to scale for Democrats than merely winning Virginia is for Republicans.
Gerrymandering is good for liberal Democrats. It concentrates their most diehard supporters. Without gerrymandering the Democratic caucus would be far less liberal.
From what I understand his approval ratings have been going up, and I think the economy is going to be strong next year so I think it’s a better than even chance he finishes out his presidency above 50% approval. No idea if the Dems will win in 2016…I think it’s far to early to tell, and it’s going to hinge on who gets nominated (I don’t think it’s going to have much to do with whatever Obama’s approval ratings are at the end unless it’s Biden who gets the nomination :p).
Beg pardon? How is it more dangerous to have a single system to manipulate, rather than having your choice of systems to manipulate? You know that theorem that says that the electoral college increases the “power of the people”? That’s what they mean, that it’s easier to manipulate.
So you have no evidence, you just “know” that Republicans have an edge on these issues. I might consider the economy/jobs to be one issue, what precisely have Republicans done to earn your trust? National security? Whatever for? Invading Iraq? Torture?
I’ll put this little factoid up against the blue wall. The Republicans haven’t won the presidency without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.
Jeb has to be the GOP’s man. Or maybe this time he should be the VEEP and then go for the top job in 2024.
Republicans are doing better on the issues usually most important to Americans. Which might be why Democrats want to make 2016 about income inequality even though they’ve had a chance to do something about it and haven’t. That’s the thing about being in the White House for eight years: you run on your record, not on your future promises.
“Overall, which party, the Democrats or the Republicans, do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?”
Democrats 39%, Republicans 37%, both 4%, neither 14%.
Adaher, my dear friend, Obama could end his term in the 30s and a Democrat will still be the next president. Relying on history as a predictor for the next presidential election is a mistake in the digital age.
Democrats will turn out in large numbers regardless who the candidate is because although the midterms confuse and don’t motivate them, one thing democrats do understand is the presidential election; it’ll be their guy (or woman) against some science-hating, logic-impaired, misogynist xenophobe who wants to “take back the country” to the '50s when blacks knew their place, when the spread of forced imperialism was a right given solely to America by God himself, and when jingoism trumped empathy and any expectation of human rights, especially if those humans happened to be brown and from non-European countries.
Your guys have already pissed off and pissed on Hispanics to the point where you have lost their vote, possibly for generations. No black person today with any self-respect or sense would ever vote GOP. Republicans continue to try their damnedest to relegate women to little more than property, and to this very day point to the Christian bible as justification for discrimination (or worse) against members of the LGBTQ community.
The only things your guys have going for them are the trogs, whose numbers are slowly but surely beginning to dwindle, and the remaining ability to enact legislation that disproportionately favors the white upperclass at the expense of even the trogs who don’t have the sense to know better, or who inexplicably believe legislation against their better interests is somehow still good for them.
And finally, the relatively recent tactic of tacking crazily to the right for the primary and then doing a 180 for the general as though there are no such things as recorders or even brains in voter’s heads doesn’t work, but it won’t stop Republican candidates from employing it with gusto.
The GOP has already lost the next presidential election, and with all the ‘if this’ and ‘if that’ arguments you keep putting forward, it is obvious that you just don’t know it yet.
Some things don’t change. Hillary Clinton will be portrayed as Obama’s third term. Further, she’ll have to make a special effort to show how she is different and I don’t think she’s capable of that. She’s an ultra cautious candidate who is not likely to make waves with bold proposals or trying to draw big contrasts between herself and the President. She’s actually going to be more likely to draw big contrasts between herself and her husband’s Presidency, which will deny her the ability to rest on her husband’s laurels, the best way to combat charges that she’s just like Obama.
If another Democrat runs, an outsider, that will be different. As in, a governor, not a Senator who has enabled the President and never opposed him(which might be why Warren is picking fights right now).
Relying on increased turnout in a Presidential election is just wishing. Obama will not be on the ticket. Clinton MIGHT be able to inspire that kind of turnout due to her fame. Any other Democrat may fail to bring out the minority and youth vote. It’s not about the calender or whether it’s a Presidential election or not, it matters if the Democratic candidate is someone who inspires the Democratic voter who doesn’t usually vote.
Looks like a mixed bag to me. Even if I go by the quart of cherries that you so carefully picked, it will still come down to a person vs a person. Your team will field a captain who either IS batshit crazy or has to give a good enough imitation of batshit craziness in order to win his primary, then pretends the voters have no memories and that video files aren’t saved as he tries to come to the center.
I didn’t carefully pick anything. That’s pretty much all the polls on the subject in the last couple of months on page 1, and you can go back and look at probably 2002 if you want to go far back enough. The most recent polls show Republicans trusted more on the economy, jobs, and national security. Democrats of course maintain their edge on issues like health care and education.
As for person vs. person, there’s a lot of truth to that, but as Obama showed in 2008, its very easy to tie an unpopular incumbent to his wannabe successor. If Obama could tie a genuine maverick to GWB, how easy will it be to tie a conventional Democrat who actually worked for Obama to his administration? If Clinton tries to say, “I’m not Obama”, that makes it even worse. Sure, the Republican candidate could end up being somewhat unelectable, but again, I’m falling back on history: Republicans don’t nominate unelectable candidates. Not since Goldwater. That’s why Republicans don’t have multiple 40-state losses on their postwar resume like the Democrats do.
I actually think the Democrats are very likely to repeat their failed 2014 strategy. Not because they haven’t learned how sucky it is, but because they won’t see a better alternative. They’ll say “Abortion! Contraception!” and Republicans will say, “Do you really want four more years of Obama?” to which Democrats will respond, “We’re not going to repeat the Obama years!” which independents won’t believe and will demoralize Democrats.
