# Is there any reason to believe 2016 won't be a landslide victory for the Democrats? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 27, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737 "2014-09-27T19:53:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/81 "2014-10-02T13:48:44Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > From an electoral perspective, I think you kind of have to count Gore in that since Bush won on what is effectively a technicality. It was close, yes, but I’d put the 2000 election down as “no clear data” as opposed to evidence to support that claim. Not sure which technicality you mean; every recount has shown that he did in fact get a majority of votes in Florida. If you mean that he didn’t take the nationwide popular vote, that’s a fair point … though its also fair to point out that if the nationwide popular vote meant anything, all kinds of other things would have changed, too: campaign strategy, voter turnout in non-competitive states, etc. The relevant point to this thread, though, is that Clinton’s was, all in all, a successful administration handing the reins to an obvious successor … and they still lost/tied with an amiable but only moderately accomplished governor. Obama is less successful, likely will be less popular, and the next Dem candidate will have to tapdance around how much he/she wants to be seen as a successor. Meanwhile, Mike Pence is pretty amiable. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/82 "2014-10-02T13:50:57Z")
Bobby Jindal’s pretty amiable too.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/83 "2014-10-02T14:15:32Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Not sure which technicality you mean; every recount has shown that he did in fact get a majority of votes in Florida. If you mean that he didn’t take the nationwide popular vote, that’s a fair point … though its also fair to point out that if the nationwide popular vote meant anything, all kinds of other things would have changed, too: campaign strategy, voter turnout in non-competitive states, etc. On the third hand … if you’re going to question 92 as a data point, you might as well question 1960 as well. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/84 "2014-10-02T16:04:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How not? You know very well there are millions of Americans who will vote for the Dem no matter who it is, and millions who will vote for the Pub no matter who it is. Because as you are perfectly well aware, Presidential elections are won by appealing to moderates. There are not enough moderates on the SDMB to make up for the 80+% of yellow dog Democrats. > [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > It’s true that I (a registered non-partisan) don’t ‘have to’ vote for whomever the Democratic party puts forward. I could write in Sergeant Pinback if I wanted to. But the reason I vote is to attempt to elect the person I think is most likely to do the things I want him or her to do. > > Your statement bears little resemblance to real elections. In real elections, there are only two candidates who have any possibility of becoming President. If I vote for Sergeant Pinback, or if I vote for a third-party candidate who stands no chance of winning, I am, in effect, voting for the person I do _not_ want to put into office. You are a “non-partisan” who always winds up voting Democrat. Discussions with “non-partisans” in the US electorate do not automatically resolve that way. The other difference in discussions is that the default assumption is that someone who always votes for one political party is doing so because he agrees with their principles, whereas someone who always votes for the other is doing so out of blind, mindless partisanship. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/85 "2014-10-02T17:13:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You are a “non-partisan” who always winds up voting Democrat. Discussions with “non-partisans” in the US electorate do not automatically resolve that way. It seems like at least half of ‘independents’ always wind up voting for a Republican. I do tend to vote Democrat (though not always), and I do support most of their goals. Other people tend to vote Republican, and they support Republican goals. > [@Shodan](#): > > The other difference in discussions is that the default assumption is that someone who always votes for one political party is doing so because he agrees with their principles, whereas someone who always votes for the other is doing so out of blind, mindless partisanship. Which has exactly nothing to do with what I posted. I said that in the real world, you only have a choice of two. Voting for a third party you agree with more than you agree with the candidate from the party you support more than the opposition, is a vote for the opposition. If you ‘vote your conscience’, you are helping the other candidate win. In our system, you choose the lesser of two evils. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/86 "2014-10-02T17:44:45Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Not to mention, it doesn’t seem the GOP has done much to figure out why they lost in 2012, nor have they done much to show they know how to (or care to) actually govern. No, they haven’t. [And yet . . .](http://www.salon.com/2014/10/02/gops_post_shutdown_comeback_how_it_recovered_from_political_destruction/) ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/87 "2014-10-02T18:36:08Z")
Well, tell us why we lost in 2012 and I’ll tell rance Priebus. I had thought we lost because Democrats used the War on Women campaign, plus an intensely personal and negative campaign against Mitt Romney. I assume if we nominate Bobby Jindal the Democrats will break out the Indian jokes they are so well known for. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/88 "2014-10-02T18:41:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, tell us why we lost in 2012 It’s a major triumph to see you admit \*that \*you lost. Let’s just savor the moment a bit, shall we? > [@](#): > > I had thought we lost because Democrats used the War on Women campaign, plus an intensely personal and negative campaign against Mitt Romney. Wrong. > [@](#): > > I assume if we nominate Bobby Jindal the Democrats will break out the Indian jokes they are so well known for. We are? What are some of your favorites? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/89 "2014-10-02T18:49:31Z")
This one’s pretty hilarious: > **[Clinton regrets Gandhi joke](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3890946)** > > Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. apologized for what she called "lame" humor when she made a joke about Mahatma Gandhi at a fund-raiser in St. Louis. Not. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/90 "2014-10-02T19:01:15Z")
You lost because no Republican can get through a Republican primary without becoming unelectable. Everything else is gravy, not even demographics matter as much as that simple fact. Which of course means you have no chance in 2016 against basically any half decent Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/91 "2014-10-02T19:05:03Z")
That’s another fantasy. How’d we nominate John McCain and MItt Romney, and what made them unelectable? Also, you really need to refine your definition of unelectable. Walter Mondale and George McGovern were unelectable. McCain and Romney were quite electable under the right circumstances. Maybe Romney will come back in 2016 just to prove you wrong. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/92 "2014-10-02T19:28:10Z")
You nominated McCain and Romney because they both turned against absolutely anything that made them “moderate” in order to get through the primary. Which is exactly what made them unelectable. McCain had to run against immigration, Romney against his greatest accomplishment as governor. Nobody is going to get through the Republican primaries without being anti immigration, anti gay, anti women, anti poor, etc etc etc. You’ll continue to end up with electable moderates that had to take some very stupid positions in order to become palatable to the bottom of the barrel nutjobery that is the republican base. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/93 "2014-10-02T19:30:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Also, you really need to refine your definition of unelectable. Walter Mondale and George McGovern were unelectable. McCain and Romney were quite electable under the right circumstances. Maybe Romney will come back in 2016 just to prove you wrong. _I’m_ electable under the right circumstances for crying out lout. What is that qualification supposed to mean, other than completely negating the rest of the point? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/94 "2014-10-02T19:36:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > McCain and Romney were quite electable under the right circumstances. “Under the right circumstances” is another way to say “not in this reality”. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/95 "2014-10-02T19:43:37Z")
No, under the right circumstances means “if they hadn’t had to take completely idiotic positions in order to appease the troglodytes that vote in republican primaries”. Which is exactly why no Republican has a chance in 2016. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/96 "2014-10-02T19:56:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, tell us why we lost in 2012 and I’ll tell rance Priebus. [Here ya go.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16424566&postcount=859) ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/97 "2014-10-02T20:40:26Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Not sure which technicality you mean; every recount has shown that he did in fact get a majority of votes in Florida. If you mean that he didn’t take the nationwide popular vote, that’s a fair point … though its also fair to point out that if the nationwide popular vote meant anything, all kinds of other things would have changed, too: campaign strategy, voter turnout in non-competitive states, etc. Although it is also widely acknowledged that most of the 3,047 votes for Buchanan in Palm Beach were probably actually intended to be for Gore, and so if not for a confusing ballot Gore would probably have won. In any case, the Florida results (and therefor the electoral college) was really the electoral equivalent of a coin flip, which happened to land Bush side up. For the purposes of statistical analysis based on a binary treatment of electoral results, this data point should be excluded as the result was effectively random, and only adds noise to any conclusion based on it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/98 "2014-10-03T00:17:41Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > You nominated McCain and Romney because they both turned against absolutely anything that made them “moderate” in order to get through the primary. Which is exactly what made them unelectable. McCain had to run against immigration, Romney against his greatest accomplishment as governor. Nobody is going to get through the Republican primaries without being anti immigration, anti gay, anti women, anti poor, etc etc etc. You’ll continue to end up with electable moderates that had to take some very stupid positions in order to become palatable to the bottom of the barrel nutjobery that is the republican base. McCain did not run against immigration, he ran for immigration reform, but enforcement first. That’s not an extreme position, in fact it’s what the Senate immigration bill that passed overwhelmingly is supposed to do, as written. Romney did turn against a national plan similar to his own, but that was a flip flop, not an extreme position. Opposing ACA is not extreme, it’s mainstream, and if you don’t realize that you’ll be the one who is confused in 2016. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/99 "2014-10-03T00:20:39Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > _I’m_ electable under the right circumstances for crying out lout. What is that qualification supposed to mean, other than completely negating the rest of the point? It means that they came close enough to be plausible. If Bush’s approval had been 50 instead of 35 in 2008, or if Romney had had two more strong debate performances(or if Todd Akin hadn’t sabotaged everyone’s campaign). Dukakis also qualifies as plausible despite his loss because it took one of the most effective negative campaigns in history to defeat him after he opened up a huge lead coming out of the DNC. There truly is no world in which George McGovern or Walter Mondale become President. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737/100 "2014-10-03T00:21:59Z")
You know, there are still two years until 2016. Predicting a victory, let alone a landslide victory, at this point, is foolish. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-reason-to-believe-2016-wont-be-a-landslide-victory-for-the-democrats/699737.md?page=6)