True. The Dems could certainly fail. I just think it’s unwarranted to assume that the GOP win in the last election is indicative of anything but a good map and meh Dems.
I agree completely with that. However, much as with 2014, the President’s popularity will be a big factor in 2016. Voters always consider whether they want more of the same when selecting a successor to an unpopular President.
We agree on something! Do you feel that? I’m feeling a hug coming on. (づ￣ ³￣)づ
Can you name higher taxes that Hillary proposes? Or that Obama imposed? Can you name one single tax that Obama raised that affected you personally? What specific Democratic-proposed regulations do you object to? Can you name one? Didn’t think so. What Obama regulations have your knickers in a twist? Can you name one, other than the ACA?
Here’s why you can get a red governor in a blue state- have your gubernatorial elections in midterm years. Republicans have had two extraordinarily lucky midterms. In one, it was two years of fanning the flames of latent racism and unrelenting demonization of the ACA that got their side all fired up and their reddies voted in droves. In the other it was Democratic candidates who mistakenly distanced themselves from Obama and cost themselves their best advocate.
Victory can come to the Republicans.
If they cheat.
.
.
They will cheat.
“voter intensity” … is that a flavor of the “special sauce” pundits use when they interpret polls?
It’s not really a theory, just an observation of the numbers.
Not sure what you mean by that, but OK.
Well if we had Dems that WANTED to regain that ground … especially in the White House … we might have regained a bit more, eh?
The Pubbies know as well as the Dems that ACTUALLY taking down Social Security would get them bounced out of both houses of Congress and the White House so fast and hard it would make their heads spin. That’s an issue that old people care about. And old people vote.
An excellent and worthy idea, but that’s a LONG TERM strategy … and there’s no reason you can’t have both long-term and short-term plans.
That was my mistake. I meant to say she was to the right of Americans on many issues.
Wealth inequality, restoring the middle class, taxing the rich instead of said middle class, restoring the social safety net, and she’s a LOT more interested in war in the Mideast than most Americans are. I mentioned all this upthread.
No it’s not. The previous thread was to discuss the Blue Wall theory. This thread, as I tried to make clear in the OP, but possibly did not, was to discuss the notion that the Democratic primary was the true Presidential election in the absence of a credible chance of the Republicans winning. And therefore that the Democratic primary was where Democrats who are progressives should focus their energies.
I don’t think I was proven wrong, nor that Chris Ladd was. The numbers are still the same. There were a lot of objections to it, but none that I found particularly convincing. Your mileage clearly varies. Enjoy your mileage! Of course, there has been much discussion of the Blue Wall theory rather than the Democratic primaries in this thread, but I know better than to try to herd cats.
If there’s one the TEA Party can do, it’s put on a show and drag everything to the right of crazy.
In a year, this board is going to be debating some incredibly regressive proposal and settled question, because those boys can make some noise, and their bankrollers will buy them lots of megaphones.
Nope, sorry, son, the USA is owned by the right wing of the right wing now, and serves as a power base to conquer/buy the rest of the planet.
It’s cute that you think there is hope.
It would be especially wrong to put Ohio in the “blue wall.” (I don’t know if anybody actually is, but it would be a bad idea.) The whole point of the “wall” idea is that Democrats do better than average in enough states to put them over 270 electoral votes. But Democratic presidential candidates consistently do worse in Ohio than they do nationwide. I believe 2012 was the 10th straight election in which the Republican presidential candidate had an advantage in Ohio. (It’s just a small advantage, and not usually decisive.)
I can certainly name taxes that Obama imposed. With the ACA, he raised capital gains taxes and put a tax on medical devices. He has raised the federal income tax on the top bracket.
Hillary may not have proposed any specific taxes at the moment. (Heck, if she’s taken a clear stance on anything whatsoever, I’m not aware of it.) But throughout her career, she’s shown happiness to go along with her party’s tax hikes, and little enthusiasm for allowing the American people to keep any more of the money that they’ve earned. It’s perfectly reasonable to predict that she’ll be proposing more tax raises.
Let’s see… Capital gains.
Let me ask you this- did this affect you? Do you think having people who earn more than $400K are going to have their lives adversely affected by paying 5% more in capital gains tax?
With regard to the highest tax bracket decrease, he merely declined to extend the Bush cuts for the very highest earners. He did not raise taxes, he merely did not breathe life into a useless tax cut. If Republicans wanted it to be permanent, they should have written it that way. Or else read it before they passed it.
Seriously- you’re worried about a 2.3% tax on medical devices? That brings in a paltry $29 billion in a decade? Seriously?
How does this theory explain that more people voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and Gore in 2000? The Democratic Presidential candidate has gotten the majority of the votes in five of the last six elections. And the last time the Republicans won the majority of votes in a Presidential election without a Republican incumbent was thirty-four years ago.
I’m not saying the Democrats have the 2016 election in the bag. But they do have objective reasons to feel confident about it.
Sure, I’d be happy to name a large number.
FDA regulations on organic farms.
The Obama Administration’slawsuit aiming to deny poor children in Louisiana a decent education
The Administration’s meddling in how colleges and universities handle sexual assault allegations.
Intrusive regulations for truck drivers.
Increasing mandated training hours for airline pilots by 500%.
Those are not the only regulations that I object to. There’s so many that no one human being could keep track of all the ways that liberal Democrats are attacking our freedoms. Just a few days ago, Obamareleased 3,415 new regulations. All told, regulations cost Americans 1.8 trillion dollars each year. That’s almost $6,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.
Okay, so you didn’t think that I’d be able to name any regulations that I opposed. I easily named five. Looks like you were wrong. Utterly, totally, completely, entirely, and fully wrong.
Let me get this straight. Bush advocated for and signed a bill that included a tax hike after he left office. Obama signed a bill delaying the Bush tax hike for all brackets for two years, and then signed another one permanently canceling the Bush tax hike for all brackets but one.
Somehow, this turns into Obama raising taxes. What?
What about the “freedoms” of all those who would die without regulated air travel, trucking, clean water etc etc.
Your idea of freedom is how much much money can be made off the misery of others.
Okay, so we’re in agreement that Obama did increase taxes.
What about them?
No, it isn’t. Can you provide a cite to justify your statement?
The 1.8 trillion dollar figure is so absurd it isn’t even worth commenting on.
So all regulations were created by and made into law only by liberal democrats?
What freedoms, exactly, are being attacked? The freedom to manipulate financial markets? The freedom to pollute our air and water? The freedom to build commercial airliners out of spit and toilet paper? Where does your “freedom” to harm others supersede another’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I’m sure there are plenty of regulations that need to be removed. Making some blanket statement about precious freedoms being abused by those evil liberals is specious.
This post makes no sense to what I posted. Really, it doesn’t.
Clinton was not the incumbent in 1992 so how could he be judge on his record as POTUS? That part of your post alone invalidates it as opposed to what I posted.
Clinton received less than 50% of the vote in '96. I’d hammer this point except I’m certain had Perot not ran Dole still would have lost. But by '96 the Republican congress had fixed the economy well enough that Clinton got the credit for it and was reelected. God I’m going to luv the response to that! 
The economy (i.e. unemployment) was different in '96 than in '12. Had a white POTUS, of ANY party ran for re-election in '12 with the unemployment rate what it was, I contend they would not have been reelected.
Good God. The soft bigotry of low expectations? You can’t possibly be serious.
Maybe you noticed who showed up and who didn’t, several weeks back?
I’d also refer you to this rather insightful piece by Ed Kilgore on white evangelical turnout.