Actually, given the American electorate’s feelings about our recent massive expenditures of blood and treasure and the dubious results thereof, a candidate who actually did advocate that America take care of its own and let the rest of the world go to hell would be posed to win in a landslide.
Wasn’t the Egyptian coup a net benefit to us, anyway? I seem to recall the new government being more to our liking (or at least, less to our disliking) than the old one.
Being as the post was about stuff that happened when Clinton was Secretary of State, I’m assuming it was referring to the 2011 coup which overthrew Mubarak rather than the 2013 coup which overthrew Morsi.
Although I suppose if Clinton was a terrible Secretary of State because there was a shift in the Egyptian government away from America while she was in office, then John Kerry must be a great Secretary of State because there was a shift back while he was in office.
Gail Collins in the NY Times has a really interesting look at how difficult it is for Presidents to be succeeded by members of their own party. It’s very rare, and when it happens, it usually results in disaster for the party anyway:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/gail-collins-hillary-versus-history.html?_r=0
Adaher, both you & Gail Collins seem to have forgotten Harry S. Truman. He did indeed follow Roosevelt into office after the latter’s death, but was re-elected on his own merits in '48. No “cosmic disaster” there… LBJ also, although one could conceivably posit that as at least a minor disaster.
Those are exceptions because they got to run for President as incumbents. I’m sure if Obama fails to survive his term, Joe Biden will win election in 2016, regardless of what Hillary Clinton wants. Incumbents are hard to beat, even harder to primary.
Every republican president elected after a democratic administration has been a disaster, so there’s that to consider too.
Personally I hope the democratic candidate loses in 2016, just so long as the dems regain the senate. My reasoning is that the GOP will have 4 years to pursue ineffective policies designed to benefit the rich and well connected and screw everyone else over (the dems only do that 70% of the time, opposed to the 95% of hte time the GOP does it. yay democracy).
If the dems lose in 2016 then 2020 is a great rebound year. The millennials will all be eligible to vote, and I’ve heard 2020 is ‘the’ year when demographic changes (assuming they keep partisan loyalty) will really hit. Many fox news viewers will have died of old age and 40% of eligible voters will be millennials. Several more southern states (texas, Georgia, South Carolina?) will be in play for the presidency. Redistricting will occur. So if the GOP wins the presidency in 2016 and the dems massively rebound in 2020 it will be better in the long term as a strong 2020 victory will make the next 10+ years easier.
The chances of a strong showing in 2020 if the dems win the presidency in 2016 aren’t nearly as good. People get tired of 1 party rule.
I don’t know. As a counterpoint, the fact that the dems have to make sure all their laws are palatable to the most conservative democrats makes many liberal voters feel like ‘what the point of voting’. After the 2008 sweep many liberals and union members (which combined make up something like 30% of hte electorate) saw how the dems kept getting outclassed and outmaneuvered, or acting like CHarlie brown trying to kick the football to get tricked again. The consensus was the dems are either incompetent or complicit. Probably both. So why bother voting to give them a majority, they won’t do much with it except try to placate republicans and the most conservative democrats while getting their asses procedurally handed to them by the republicans.
So if the dems can actually get their base motivated to vote (at least in mid terms) that will help them out. I don’t know if it would hurt in presidential elections. It might, as you say but in mid terms it would be a net benefit to play to their base.
The reason the dems keep losing mid terms is because democrats stay home and republicans vote in those elections.
I find it hard to believe a majority would consider Reagans 8 years a "disaster’ on it’s own merits, but even less so when compared to the 4 years of Carter that preceded it.
I wouldn’t count on 2020 being a great year for the reasons you mentioned. Sure, if a Republican wins in 2016 and is unpopular, 2020 will be a great year for Democrats, but it won’t be because southern states are in play. The South in theory has always had demographics that should be friendly to Democrats, yet the friendlier the demographics look, the more hostile the South becomes. The only way to win the South is to have a majority non-white population. As long as any southern state is 50.1% white, the Republicans will win it more often than not.
I know I keep repeating the same point but I think it’s valid. I think the issue is that only the more extreme voters turn out for midterm elections while a broader spectrum turns out for Presidential elections.
So in midterm elections, you have conservatives vs liberals and there are more conservatives. In Presidential elections you have conservatives vs moderates and liberals and there are more moderates and liberals.
Democrats could theoretically win midterm elections by skewing to the left during midterms and then skewing back to the center during Presidential elections. But that’s a tough strategy to follow in the real world. Those liberal midterm campaigns are going to weigh against winning over the moderate voters needed in the Presidential elections.
The better strategy is figuring out a way to increase voter turnout in midterm elections. If the Democrats could get moderates to vote in every election, they’d be beating the Republicans more often.
Not totally true. Virginian, Florida & NC have all moved to the left. Virginia & NC went from being safe red states to a slightly blue and purple state respectively. Texas and Georgia could be in play in 2020. I’ve even heard South Carolina could be in play in the next decade (I’m not sure about that state). I doubt the deep south will be in play anytime soon, but for presidential elections it doesn’t matter.
The biggest, most populated states in the south are moving from deep red to purple (FL, TX, VA, NC, GA). Even if the democrats don’t win them, the GOP can’t take them for granted. They have to spend time and money there while in the past they could take those states for granted. It’d be no different than if California was in play, the dems would need to spend millions to keep it while now they can just ignore it.
The rise of the non-white population is part of why parts of the south moved left. Other parts are the fact that whites from more liberal states moved to the large cities in places like NC, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, etc. Also in some states the youth white vote is to the left of the older white vote. not in all states (I think texas is about the same for young vs old whites) but in other states there is a 20 point gap.
Also the white vote varies by southern state. I think in the deep south the white vote is 90% GOP, in the rest of the south it is closer to 60-70% GOP. With enough demographic trends several southern states could be in play.
Again, not that it matters. But if the GOP has to defend texas, that means they have less money to spend in Ohio, the southwest, Florida, etc.
I don’t think it is just moderates, it is also disadvantaged people. The poor, single parents, the disabled, etc. make up a big hunk of the democratic coalition. They lean left but they don’t vote unless it is an important election. I don’t know if I’d label those people moderates on the issues, but their turnout is low. If the dems could get them to vote in each election they’d do better.
There are a lot of things dems could do to help them vote
Make election day a paid national holiday
Make absentee voting and voting by mail easier
Same day and/or instant registration
Cut voter ID laws
Fund groups that drive people to polling stations
Possibly open up voting via phone or online
Basically the opposite of what the GOP has done the last 4 years. But again, the dems are either incompetent or complicit because they aren’t doing anything to make it easier to vote. So again, liberals look at that track record and say ‘why bother, even if they win they are inept’.
They already mailed ballots in Colorado, Democrats still didn’t vote. That’s what happens when the Democratic campaign is focused like a laser beam on women’s uteruses.
Increasing turnout can only be done by giving people something they want to vote for. Gimmicks have been tried and mostly failed. It’s sore loserdom as far as I’m concerned. Can’t win with the electorate? Get a new one. Fortunately it doesn’t usually work.
Democrats came out in record numbers in 2008. You don’t need to make it easier to vote, it’s already easy to vote. What you need is a candidate that makes people want to vote, only this time get one who actually means what he says. Thanks to Obama, there are about 3 million young people who stayed home in 2012 and probably won’t be there for Democrats in 2016 either.
As opposed to issues that affect everyone like estate taxes or oil pipelines or medical device taxes?
Half the voters in the country have uteruses. The Republican party needs to stop treating them like they’re some fringe minority.
The Democrats don’t object to the electorate. They just want them to show up and vote.
Face facts. The Republicans are the party that doesn’t want every eligible voter to show up on Election Day.
The Republicans believe that in an election, people can choose who they vote for, or if none of the choices interest them, not choose at all… Democrats are under the impression that voting is “hard” somehow. Well, in Colorado they couldn’t have made it any easier and the result was the worst Democratic turnout in decades.
The problem is Democrats, not the ease or difficulty of voting. It’s not about race or economic disadvantage either. OUR poor show up, OUR minorities show up. Yours don’t. Simple as that.
Adaher, cut it out! You’re making me laugh! We SEE all your minority supporters showing up in droves at all your conventions! Bwahahahahahahahaha!