It’s no vice to be confused by gibberish.
The last six years have seen a huge number of Democrats lose their jobs at all levels of government. I’m not sure why you’d be ignorant of that fact.
And the Presidential field is all geriatrics. And is likely to be in 2020 as well if Clinton loses. It won’t be until 2024 that a young Democrat will get a chance, and that assumes that the current crop of young Democrats don’t also lose their jobs or get stuck where they are because they can’t win statewide elections.
Bullshit. There are numerous relatively young Democrats who would be credible presidential candidates: off the top of my head, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick (Patrick’s not that young, but he will still be young enough to run, if he chooses, in 2020 and 2024). There are many more, and there are many up-and-comers.
More bullshit. Yes, Democrats have lost some seats and some state elections, but it’s ridiculous to go from that to ‘there are no young Democrats’. Complete bullshit myths. The Demoratic “bench” is strong and there are plenty to choose from.
Let’s also bear in mind that political scientists have shown that candidates matter only to a very small degree, on the margins in very close races. We are rapidly approaching the point where structural factors will ensure that a any random anodyne functionary with a (D) in front of his or her name will be able to beat any Republican in a presidential race.
Ah yes, blue staters who have never had to work hard to get elected or appeal to a wide variety of voters.
Bullshit. Of the ones you named only one is ready to be President right now but won’t be(Massacusetts politicians just don’t translate to a national audience), and the other two have had an easy ride. I realize politics can be shallow, but you’re basing their 'talent" purely on their looks. Even smart Democrats like you seem to have learned only the lesson you want to learn from the Obama years: that young, attractive candidates make good candidates. Problem is, the public has moved on. Attractiveness is still an asset, but it’ll take more than that to win after Obama.
A guy like John Kasich will wipe the floor with any Democrat.
You just described most Democrats in office (and Obama and Biden before '08). As most Republicans in office are red-staters. Forever and all time, most Democrats (and most young Democrats and potential Presidential candidates) will come from blue states.
Says you. I think Booker and Gillibrand are both very smart, talented and capable, both quite experienced (Booker was a mayor and Gillibrand a House rep) and would be very strong national candidates. In fact, if Hillary weren’t running, I think it’s likely one or both of them would have.
Complete crap. Booker and Gillibrand are very smart, capable, talented, and experienced. The problem is that you keep trying to read my mind and are unable. Stop it. STOP TRYING TO SAY YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK. You don’t, and you never will, except when I tell you what I think. You’re just always wrong about it.
LOL. We’ll see, but this is a ridiculous prediction to make this early.
Stuff like this is not serious political discussion, just partisan hyperbole. Young Senators like Booker and Gillibrand are not just empty-headed pretty people. The Democrats are a big party in a big country with lots of potential candidates and lots of young up-and-comers. Kasich might be a tough candidate (or he might not – it’s far too early to know) but isn’t nearly a shoe-in in a general election.
If you want to be taken seriously then post serious analysis. This isn’t it.
Are you compiling a list of predictions for our convenience? 
(That’s what you used to say about Christie and Jindal and Paul, FTR).
So’s Fiorina, and likely much sooner, which is why I don’t understand why everyone’s making a big deal about this instabounce that she’s getting from having handled the kiddie table somewhat better than the other kiddies.
Because there’s still no ‘there’ there. She’s a failure in both the business and political worlds, she has no business being closer to the Oval Office than on a White House tour, and the only thing she brings to the party that the other guys don’t is that she can bash Hillary without the risk of going sexist in the process.
But that was already the case when she was getting more publicity earlier in the year, and her numbers faded. They will do so again. In two months, she’ll be back at 3% or lower; by mid-December, she’ll be at 1% or lower. Her support in IA and NH will be negligible at caucus/primary time, and then she will drop out.
The Republican field is nearly half blue and purple state candidates.
Probably, and it’s a shame Clinton has kept better candidates out. But generally, junior Senators are not Presidential material. Chuck Schumer is more qualified.
They aren’t empty headed, but if they looked like Chuck Schumer they’d be considered as much Presidential material as Chuck Schumer is, minus 20 years of experience.
Jesus, it’s amazing how one - well, you - can ignore the most elementary rules of American politics and change it all to “Obama is awful.”
Such as: the incumbent President’s party virtually always loses seats in mid-term elections. But you treat this as though each mid-term was a totally unprecedented rejection of Komrade Obama’s socialist agenda and incompetent leadership.
Or, that Americans say they don’t want divided government, but they quite consistently vote for it. You make it out like this era is the first time in history that there is a divergence of how people vote in presidential elections as opposed to local offices, and it’s all Obama’s doing.
Adaher, you’re a half-step away for blaming Obama for summoning bad juju in deep blue California that has resulted in the drought.
Aside from Hillary, the much smaller Democratic field includes a purple-state former Senator and a former Republican.
Both parties get most of their candidates from their strongholds. They also get some other candidates from swing states. There’s nothing special about the Democratic party at this time.
If you’re trying to say “Republicans seem to have more purple-state candidates at this time”, then say that. That might be a reasonable statement. But “there are no young Democrats”, or “blue-state junior Senators are not credible candidates” is not.
Bullshit on your “generally, junior Senators are not Presidential material”. There’s no “generally” here. You made partisan hyperbolic statements and were called out for it. There are plenty of strong young Democrats and future presidential candidates.
What a pathetic walk-back. No idea why you’re focused on looks here. I pointed out Booker and Gillibrand because they’re relatively young Senators who get a lot of press, do interviews and TV events, and stand out as charismatic, smart, and capable, along with impressive political experience for their age. We’re talking about young candidates, and young candidates can’t have 20 years of Senate experience.
If you want to be taken seriously than make serious posts. “Democrats have no young up-and-comers” and “Kasich would be unbeatable” and “young Democratic Senators don’t have 20 years of Senate experience and are therefore not credible” are not serious assertions.
Young and READY. Do you have young governors ready to be President? DIdn’t think so. You’ve got old people and charismatic, unready young people, without much prospect of ever becoming ready.
And Ravenman, seriously? Every President sees their party reach its weakest point in 80 years under his leadership?
Young governors are rare. That the Democrats don’t happen to have any at this moment (depending on what “young” means, they might have at least one – Steve Bullock… and the Republicans have what, one? two?) doesn’t tell us much. And governors aren’t the only office-holders “ready”, relatively speaking. In fact, pretty much no one is ready to be President (except someone who has already been President). I think Gillibrand and Booker are far more “ready” to be President than Walker, for example, and Deval Patrick is just as “ready” as Kasich.
And the Republicans have old people and uncharistmatic, unready young people (by the same criteria). You’re just tailoring your requirements so that no Democrats meet them. It’s ridiculous and self-serving. These assertions are not reasoned political discussion.
Bullshit that the party is at its “weakest point in 80 years”. Complete bullshit. The party was much weaker in the '80s, and quite a bit weaker in the mid '00s. The Democratic party has had major accomplishments in recent years, and major accomplishments still appear to be on the horizon before the next election.
Another young Democratic governor: Gina Raimondo in Rhode Island. So that’s two - Montana and Rhode Island. Pretty small states, but then, so was Arkansas.
Post debate winners and losers from Harry Enten at 538.
He averaged the change in polling of seven post debate polls (some national, some state) to arrive at a score for each candidate.
Biggest winner: Fiorina
Biggest loser: Walker
If Fiorina sustains this momentum to move into the top ten, who does she push out? Christie and Kasich are in danger, but appear to be holding steady. Huckabee might be low enough and is moving in the wrong direction.
Could you explain what you’re talking about to those of us on planet earth?
They haven’t had fewer House seats since 1928. They are similarly weak in the states. Republicans control 31, Democrats 19.
Please tell me you knew this. Also please tell me that you knew that GWB, Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan, and well, everyone else going back to Herbert Hoover didn’t see that much degradation in their party’s position in so short a time.
That’s a single measure. If they were at their “weakest point in 80 years”, then they’d have zero chance at the presidency, and they wouldn’t hold the presidency. You’re just tailoring your hyperbole to whatever the current stats are. This isn’t serious political discussion.
Yes, the Democrats have struggled in the last few years in state races – they’ve also made very significant accomplishments (with more on the way, hopefully), and won presidential elections by big margins. And they held onto the Senate from 08-14, and owned the House from 08-10.
The Democratic party is not unbeatable, not by any measure, but they aren’t “weak”, either. They’re quite strong in presidential politics, it looks like, quite weak in Congressional politics, and middling in Senate races, overall. In state elections they’re struggling too. But put the whole picture together, and you get a Democratic party that is strong in some ways and weak in some ways and middling in some ways. And we’ll see how 2016 goes.
In the context of my comments on the electorate firing a shit-ton of Democrats, it’s perfectly sensible. That is what we were talking about, after all. I’m still having trouble believing that there are actually frequent posters here that did not know the Democratic Party suffered huge losses, losses way beyond what past incumbents have suffered. Historically bad losses.
If Obama had fixed the problems caused by Republicans, which was the statement that started this tangent, then this would not have happened, or at least Democratic losses would have been less than what most Presidents suffer, not far greater losses. That’s known as a backlash.