The biggest factor of course is the Presidential candidates, but the national environment they run in matters a great deal. In 2004, McCain wipes the floor with any Democratic candidate who runs against him. He’s such a popular figure that the Democrats want him as their VP nominee. In 2008, that all changes, not because of anything McCain does, but because the national environment is so hostile to Republicans. I dare say no one would have come closer to beating OBama than McCain in 2008.
Also, not all Presidential candidates have long coattails. Presidents do win elections and lose seats in Congress from time to time. Vote splitting is still in vogue.
It’s pretty easy to tell when Congress is in a hurry to pass something before the public can properly scrutinize it. Patriot Act, the last few copyright bills. They tried it with the health care bill but failed(Obama wanted it by July, before recess).
Oh yeah? What if FDR ran against him? Because you can’t prove that McCain would beat FDR.
I really wish you’d pay a little attention to the words you use. John Kerry, whose judgment is continually suspect, wanted McCain. Most Democrats thought he was bonkers. (“He” in that sentence refers both to McCain and Kerry.)
How often does that happen? Tell me when it has and when it hasn’t.
Well, simply by being on the ticket with Kerry would have made a Kerry win a near certainty, so we know McCain could beat Bush from the bottom of the ticket, and Bush beat Kerry. Thus, McCain beats Kerry.
Most recently, in 2004. In 1984, the Republicans did gain seats in the House, but lost two Senate seats. And that was with a historic landslide. The Democrats had also won two Senate seats in 1972, another otherwise awful year for them.
Obama and Clinton did see gains in both chambers as part of their reelections, so maybe it’s a Democratic advantage that Republicans don’t share.
So, if they’d actually passed cap and trade, that would have been a help? Because that was the big item on the agenda that passed the House but died in the Senate.
Sorry, but this sounds to me more like the wishful thinking my side engages in. “If only we were MORE conservative ,more ambitious, fought harder!”
BTW, roid, now we’re starting to debate. So tune in and we’ll let you declare the winner on the next page.
In the 1988 election, when George H. Bush won, the Republicans gained no seats in the Senate and lost two in the House. Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colorado) commented: “Not only was Bush not wearing coattails, he was wearing a bikini.”
I am actually encouraged by this thread. Now, I could simply have blinders on, but adaher’s OP and subsequent posts and queries in this thread do seem to me to be genuine.
Color me Naive, but I think even adaher is beginning to see the Republican horror show for what it is.
Losing 13 seats doesn’t sound like “pissing off the country”. It sounds like losing 3% of the seats in the House.
So, just for comparison, how many times have the Republicans gained some seats in the House and lost some in the subsequent election?
I don’t see an increase in the minimum wage. Last time, most states were already above the federal minimum wage, we were really raising the minimum wage for fewer than 10 relatively low population states. This time there are only 20 states above the federal minimum wage and only 7 states are above $8 (only 3 above $8.25). State Minimum Wage Laws | U.S. Department of Labor Not sure we can do much more than peg the minimum wage to inflation at this point.
You can drop the gun issue, no Democrat in a swing district is talking about it unless they have to. Terry McCullough here in Virginia is deafeningly silent on the assault weapons ban that he supported previously when someone asks him about guns. Look at how close the swing states are and then look at gun ownership in those states. Guns are simply not worth losing elections over right now (there are too many more important things on deck). Democrats have probably screwed the pooch on any sort of gun control for at least a few election cycles.
We don’t need PBS to be like BBC, we already have almost a THOUSAND channels and CSPAN.
Forget about reducing the drinking age to 18, noone over 20 really wants that. Marijuana legalization might be possible but the general war on drugs is not going away.
There is a lot of reason to believe that the recession had a lot to do with 2010. Do you honestly think people would have given a shit about Obamacare if the economy had a V shaped recovery?
Have you ever had an argument with a young child? Well the one that Democrats are arguing with are holding a grenade in one hand and the pin in the other.
Do you remember how far McCain tacked to the right before the general election? Those words came back to bite him in the ass. Do you remember his Vice Presidential running mate? That didn’t work out so good for him either.
This board breeds a particular type of conservative. SDMB is like the Salusa Secundus Organizations of the Dune universe - Wikipedia for conservatives. The weak don’t last very long. I think most conservatives on this board are unhappy with the Republican party right now.
As I above, I believe the Democrats failed to campaign hard enough against Bush’s legacy in 2010 and in addition the economy will be far more robust in 2016 then in 2010.
The demographic situation in 1980 was quite different-the Democrats were on a downhill slide as they were steadily losing the South along with white working-class voters elsewhere.
And how did Democrats do differently in from 2010-2012 which resulted in a Democratic victory? “Independents” may include conservatives who are unaffilaited with the Republicans for various reasons, and considering the demographics of midterm voters, it was probably skewed toward such voters rather than say young, college-age independents who usually go for Democrats. BTW, the Independent vote went for Romney in 2012 too.
When did I say the Democrats should be irresponsible? “Governing like adults” in my mind includes passing long-needed reforms.
Fair enough.
This would certainly be true if we were talking about an Assault Weapons Ban (which is silly and unconstitutional IMO) but universal background checks have support of roughly 90% of the population according to polls and swing state Democrats such as Joe Manchin who sponsered it haven’t been hurt in the polls by voting for it.
And most of these channels are either highly specialized or leave much to be desired. In addition, none of them represent a unified American voice overseas much as BBC does for Britain
I personally support it not just because its right but because its politically plausible as letting the states decide on their drinking age who appeal to many libertarian-leaning Republicans along with ending the War on Drugs while strengthening youth turnout in favour of the Democrats in future elections for whom this is a big issue.
I really don’t get this attitude. For one thing, doing that isn’t going to raise the kind of money needed to even, say, fix all the roads etc. But also, why is it that if someone has earned some magical limit of money, you all seem to think you have the right to tell him that he has to give it to people who haven’t earned it? Where is the incentive to get an advanced education and work hard if the government is just going to go communist on your wages?
Yes, I get that we all need to pay for the roads and all that, but the answer to any budget shortfall seems to be “tax the rich!”. And “rich” is defined by a number, not by what debt might be there, who/what that person might be supporting or anything else that might end up putting that “rich” person in the middle class in reality.
Besides the revenue increases indicated below, I would also cut spending elsewhere (including military spending, farm subsidies, and ending the Drug Wars as indicated below). Also while this will probably result in an increase in the deficit, the deficit already is rapidly going down when the current economic conditions call for deficit spending.
[QUOTE]
Because we’re not going “communist”. These tax rate increases would be an increase of a few percentage points and taxes are even higher in foreign countries or even in the past in the United States.
I’m willing to adjust tax laws in accordance with such realities.
I can get behind most of that, tho I’d have to know more about what is going on with the farm subsidies. I’d much rather see cuts made than taxes raised.
I didn’t say we were going communist, I said that forcing those who earn to give part of their income to those who don’t is going communist on wages.
I couldn’t care less what the tax rates are elsewhere or were in the past. Those as facts all by themselves are worse than nothing because it doesn’t say anything about those societies, what was done with the money, what the results were. It’s like saying that gas prices are far higher in Europe, without talking about their transit system.
