I’m going to remind you of this the next time you bring up 2010.
And despite your repetition of the word “unpopular”, it’s already been pointed out to you that Obama’s popularity is better-than-average and a loooooooong way ahead of the GOP’s at this point. It’s entirely possible he’ll have some decent coattails in 2016.
Mitch McConnell 12/10/2013: “Let me make it clear: I’m a big fan of the Tea Party movement. It’s been extremely important in helping us regain the House and do well in the Senate in 2010.”
Mitch McConnell 3/8/2014: “I think we are going to crush (Tea Party primary challengers) everywhere. I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country”
Looks like the leading Senate Republican thinks the Tea Party is past its sell date. I think he’s whistling past the graveyard, since the primaries are often decided by who turns out and Tea Partiers vote quite religiously. The establishment GOP would love to get the Tea wing to sit out the primaries but still come out in droves in the general, not sure that’s going to happen. My guess is they’ll throw away the chance to win at least a couple winnable Senate seats by nominating whack-a-doodles.
I think it’s more likely that the anti-Obama coalition will disintegrate when he’s not on the ballot. Hillary has much more of a chance with white males than Obama ever did, and I can’t see blacks and Hispanics rushing to vote for the party that pokes them in the eye with a sharp stick at every opportunity.
I dunno - the more rabid anti-Obama contingent are not going to suddenly warm to a Democratic woman. The misogyny and other nastiness is already starting to bubble up - I can’t remember who it was here who already brought up unsubstantiated rumors about Clinton’s sexuality - and if she’s on the ticket it’ll go full bore. It’s more likely to calm down if it’s a white guy, I’m afraid.
While I’m sure electoral and demographic advantages play into it, I don’t think enthusiasm plays as much of a role as you think it does. Sure, people were psyched the first time Obama ran, but not so much the second time. What really locked it down was McCain’s nomination of Palin. The next election, Romney was widely seen as a vulturistic plutocrat. I think it’s more fear of the people Republicans are nominating than enthusiasm over who the Democrats are nominating.
I remember being pissed at Hillary because she didn’t dump Bill after all the affairs became widely known. Standing by her man, however, was perfect Republican behavior. I wonder how they’re going to try spinning that one.
I’d have to agree with this. After the first term, I was no longer a fan of Obama, but the alternative was a relative nightmare. The Republicans run and nominate scary people with crazy ideas, or ridiculously transparent opportunists like Romney.
Then how come Democrats don’t turn out in midterms?
They do, they do, at least when the POTUS is a Pub; remember 2006.
No, Democrats just won independents by a huge margin. Minority and youth turnout still stunk.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
In 2004, whites were 77% of the electorate. In 2006, they were 79%.
18-29 year olds were 17% of the electorate in 2004, in 2006 they were 12%.
So in 2006, demographics would predict that Republicans would kick ass. Didn’t happen. Thus my point that political tidal waves override demographics.
Because we’re generally not terrified by any of the people running for the nomination?
He was asking about midterms, not primaries.
I think that was his point. Midterms are local races. The only one you really vote for is your own representative and sometimes one of your senators. The presidency isn’t up for grabs, so there’s no nutcase running for a national position that’s going to bring out the anti-nutcase vote. When there IS either a nutcase or a nutcase-tool running, as in Presidential election years, then the turnout is there. I know I’ve held my nose and voted for the Democratic candidate just because the Republican one smelled even worse many times.
It’s also why I’m currently looking like a rabid Democrat…the entire Republican Party is nutcases and nutcase-tools and the thought of them winning things makes me kind of hostile to third-party advocates who want a purity pony. A protest vote for Bernie Sanders (regardless of how much I often agree with his policies) is a vote for the Republican candidate, and that’s beyond the pale for me. (And it’s why Bernie will be dead to me if he Naders up 2016.)
This year, a lot of them will turn out to vote just because the Pubs have been trying to stop them.
For that matter, Republicans mostly don’t turn out for midterms, either.
My hunch is that there is less wall-to-wall coverage and thus less interest except for those reliable voting blocks such as staunch Dem, staunch Rep, and older folks.
(Note: The above is based on no actual facts whatsoever.)
Angrier people are more motivated to vote, too. And people working multiple jobs to feed their kids have less time to vote, even if they have the means to get to the polling place (and show acceptable ID now).
Same basis for that, too. 
Please. Democrats have gone out of their way to make it so that people require no effort to vote. Yet they still can’t get their voters to the polls when Barack Obama isn’t on top of the ticket.
I’m guessing that if there’s another couple midterms that go badly for Democrats, they and the media will seek to get rid of midterms entirely, and anyone who supports midterms is obviously racist, since midterms “suppress” minority voting.
:rolleyes:
I hate the new rolleyes. It just doesn’t express the utter contempt that’s required when replying to people like adaher.
Could be worse. They could simply march all conservatives into the showers for the final solution. FEMA has been stockpiling body bags, you know…