The other day, I heard from an acquaintance who is a fanatical Ron Paul fan that “The economy is the only thing Obama’s good on”. This is a guy who a couple years ago was warning that we were headed for hyperinflation, Greek-style default, etc. When a guy like that is saying something grudging like this about the issue American voters generally find the most important, it’s a bad, bad, bad sign for the GOP. And they didn’t need any more bad signs.
I’ll say one thing: I get the impression that social issues may be a particularly tricky balancing act for Republican candidates this election, especially stuff like gay rights.
What’s equally interesting to me is what they’ll say they’ll do post-Obamacare (I’m assuming they’ll all say they’ll repeal — I’m interested in what they say they’ll do after that to the system).
Yeah, they are between a rock and a hard place, bigtime. Their base won’t let them give up on any of that stuff, but people in the middle aren’t going to be cool with it.
Bottom line: what states that Obama won in 2012 can the Republicans realistically pick up? I just don’t see it.
At the moment the left-wing sites are making hay over this guy, a Tea Party member who found out what was in the ACA bill after they passed it and likes it very much.
I’m not sure what to think about the fact that he likes Obamacare becuase it let him retire at 50 and without it he’d have to go back to work. But I bet there are a lot of Tea Partiers out there who might have second thoughts about losing healthcare benefits they gained under Obamacare.
I think you’re right in general; but that guy in particular, I feel sure, is doing some weird, dry form of snark.
Only 44% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, while 50% disapprove:
I’d say that’s a bad sign for the Democrats.
Not only that, but the odds are better than even that the economy crashes before the end of Obama’s term or the end of the next president’s irate term. Historically there’s a recession every 8 to 10 years and we’re getting to be due another. Either way that’s not good for Hillary. Best outcome for her is a small dip early in her first term that she can take credit for navigating well.
Doh, I mean “next president’s first term.” Although if Cruz wins, it will be an irate term.
So your hopes are for getting a Republican after Hillary. I’m not worrying about that far ahead; and by then, the old white people who now make up the core of the GOP base will be severely diminished.
For anyone who thinks a Republican can win in 2016, what’s your electoral map? 2008 was a high water mark, admittedly; but let’s think about 2012, when the economy was certainly much worse than now, and the GOP was coming off a big year in 2010. Obama still won easily. If you give next year’s GOP nominee every state Obama won by less than 5 points, that still leaves Hillary ahead 278-260. I just don’t see where those last ten, or even nine, EVs come from.
Depends on the candidate.
Florida, Iowa, and Nevada are not out of the question.
A Walker and/or Kasich ticket could bring Ohio and Wisconsin. Virginia has only recently swung the wrong way. And if those other states are taken it’s not needed anyway.
I would not be over confident if I were a Democrat. What the economy does in the next 18 months and who the Republicans nominate will make or break either side. What kind of campaign either runs will also count big time.
Hopefully primary voters learned from their stupid choices in '08 and '12.
Walker trails Hillary by double digits. Not gonna happen. In presidential years, WI is a solid blue state. When did they last go Republican, '88? (Checking) Nope, they went for Dukakis even then. Not since '84.
Taking Florida, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio seems unlikely to me but *still *wouldn’t get the GOP over the line–you’d also need Virginia. Dreamers can dream, I guess.
The economy over the next 18 months is not going to help the GOP.
And who is it you think would have beaten Obama in '08 or '12? Actually, I’ll make it even a lower bar to clear: who would have outperformed McCain and Romney? In 2008, I think maybe Huckabee would have–but he still would have lost. In 2012, I can’t see anyone doing better than Romney except maybe Huntsman, and he had **no **shot at the nom.
12 points is nothing when there are 19 months to go and Walker hasn’t even declared his candidacy yet.
Yeah, anyone doing the Hillary Victory Dance at this point has blinders on. So much could happen between now and the election. The GOP does need to step up its game and get someone who can compete. It’s not going to be Rand Paul or Ted Cruz, so forget about them. It’s going to be Kasich or Christie or someone else with more experience. Og forgive us if it’s Bush v Clinton again, but that is a distinct possibility.
I’m not saying 2016 will be a Republican year, either. But I am saying the Democrats better put a check on their smug.
Think about 2000. Economy was humming right along. Bill Clinton had high popularity. I didn’t vote for him, but I kind of figured Gore would walk right into the White House.
- George HW Bush had some of the highest approval ratings in Presidential history. 1992 came along and kicked his ass.
19 months is an eternity in politics.
I assume you’re talking about the republican primary voters. You can’t make stupid choices if you win.
So who in those primaries would have been more electable than McCain and Romney? Huckabee and Gingrich?
Whoops, left a window open way too long. I agree with John Mace. I could easily see HRC losing the general.
Paul actually polls best against Clinton. I don’t know how much of a consideration that will be to GOP primary voters, but if that continues to show up in trial heat polls it’s a big selling point.
How many of those people may think Obama has gone to far to the right?
The same poll that says Obama has 41% approval and 52% disapproval ratings says the Republicans in Congress have a 22% approval and 69% disapproval ratings. And most surprising of all the Republicans in Congress have a 49% disapproval over a 42% approval rating even among people who identify themselves as Republicans. (The comparable figures among Democrats for their Congressmen is 54% approval and 34% disapproval.) That’s not a bad sign. That’s an impending disaster.
Yet in the election where this should matter most, the one for Congress, Republicans did very well. Congressional approval ratings have pretty much no correlation to election results. Presidential approval ratings on the other hand…
All I’m saying is this; Rick Perry’s wearing spectacles this time around. Shit’s about to get real!
Hope springs eternal. Charlie Brown kept hoping to win a baseball game, kept trying to kick that football.
I so wish we could wager money on this!
It’s not going to be Christie. That’s another one you can take to the bank.
I’m not predicting Democrats will take the House. Republican voters are very efficiently distributed among congressional districts, while Democrats are very inefficiently concentrated in a smaller number of urban districts. But when it comes to states and electoral votes, things reverse–despite the fact that the low-population Western red states have a disproportionate share of the Electoral College based on their population.
Again: in 2012, Republicans easily kept control of the House, while Obama cruised to reelection. That was not some kind of banner year for Democrats; it’s just that the structural advantages for Dems in the Electoral College have really solidified.
Read this and weep, Republicans, and maybe gnash some teeth while you’re at it. “Almost every state loses at least two points off its white population” between 2012 and 2016. A simulation found that even if every state’s white population votes as Republican as it did in 2012 (whites’ most Republican year), and Latinos vote as Republican as they did in 2004 (which is not going to happen, LOL), the GOP still loses 303-235. It’s just basic math. If Dukakis had this demographic mix to work with, he would have kicked Daddy Bush’s ass.