You would think Democrats would want to talk about their biggest accomplishment since the Great Society.
if it was doing well, it’s all they’d want to talk about.
Since ACA is primarily a program meant to alleviate income inequality, perhaps we should talk about it and analyze it’s relative success before we implement any new grand plans the Democrats might have.
It’s not enough to just be laughably wrong, now you have to be bizarrely, laughably wrong? Is that what you’re going for with this post?
We already are:
Cruz: Obama’s Policies Worsen Income Inequality
Forbes:
How ObamaCare Increases Income Inequality
But it’s all OK: saying that Obamacare is a distraction from the real issues is an official Republican talking point that he’s parroting.
adaher: Nothing But Official Republican Talking Points Since Forever
Talking about ANYTHING other than Obamacare since 2010 has been a distraction, and even the Republicans fell for it by focusing on Benghazi in the final days of the election.
Of course, Hurricane Sandy had a little to do with Obama’s win as well. The guy’s got a horseshoe in his butt when it comes to elections. He draws Alan Keyes, then the bottom falls out of the economy right when McCain establishes a lead, then Sandy comes right when Romney gets ahead.
But his good luck doesn’t rub off on his fellow Democrats. Didn’t work in 2010, won’t work in 2014.
A natural and an economic disaster, how lucky can a guy get.
If only the Great Recession had happened earlier, Bush could have had that, Katrina, and 9/11 to help him get reelected. He didn’t need it, of course, but it seems a shame to have wasted the opportunity.
I seem to recall another election in there somewhere…
IIRC, I spent all of 2011 and 2012 telling you over and over and over that 2010 was an anomaly that couldn’t be used as a predictor for 2012. How soon we forget.
I don’t see how you can look at the last few presidential elections and not conclude that Democrats have an advantage now in the Electoral College. They have more safe states to begin with and a slight edge in the swing states as well. That’s not to say that the GOP can’t win if they nominate a decent candidate. What are the odds of that? I assume, though I haven’t read anything about it, that Republicans are quietly shortening their primary election schedule in order to reduce the exposure of noncrazy candidates to the Republican base. The more time and effort serious candidates are forced to spend to earn the nitwit vote the more it will drag them down with the rest of the electorate. I’m not sure how effective that will be but if they can produce a solid candidate then they certainly can win the general election. Democratic-leaning people tend to forget that the big Obama wins were built upon huge turnout in among African-Americans that we aren’t likely to see with white Democratic candidates. Dems have an edge to start with and the likelihood of facing a damaged candidate but they can’t count on a win.
And 2012 doesn’t predict 2014. Unless of course you’re telling me the polls are skewed now.
Democrats do have an electoral college advantage right now. REpublicans have a natural Senate advantage. But neither advantage is strong enough to overcome things like the performance of the economy and approval or disapproval of the party in office.
It’s hard enough for a party to maintain 12 straight years in the White House. It’s only been done once, and Reagan left office with a high approval rating. There’s no way a Democrat gets elected if Obama’s still underwater. Unless it’s someone who can completely disassociate themselves, like Brian Schweitzer. But can an Obama-basher win a Democratic nomination?
Gotta admire your relentless optimism in spite of the facts. Baghdad Bob had nothing on you. Unfortunately for Team Red, the electoral math and changing demographics are against you. The Democratic candidate starts 2016 with these states in the bag: HI, WA, OR, CA, MN, WI, IL, MI, DC, MD, DE, PA, NJ, NY, NH, VT, RI, CT, MA, and ME. That’s 246 electoral votes. Throw in near-certain wins in CO, NM, and IA and you’re at 266. Now all you need is FL or OH or VA or NC and you’re over the top.
On top of that, it looks worse each election. There are only so many angry white heterosexual male southern voters out there. And their share of the electorate is slowly shrinking. In 2004, Bush made hay by getting anti-gay ballot measures put on the ballot in key states. That ain’t gonna fly anymore, yet the party continues to act like gays are lepers. Plus they want us all to think that all Mexicans want to storm over the border, take our jobs, and drain our social services. That shit don’t work no more. And after four years of opposing every thing Obama said or did, are blacks going to suddenly start voting Republican? Not on your nellie!
Well, then, no need to persuade anyone to vote for you. Their background decides their vote. You can just sit back, relax, and watch the votes stream in no matter how badly you govern.
This is the number that should alarm you:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president
See vote by income. Democrats can only win by keeping people poor. It could very well be that a recovering economy is death to the Democratic party. At least if your logic is right, that demographics decides all.
You might also want to keep an eye on that youth vote. Didn’t look so good in the VA governors’ race. Your party got completely abandoned by the 18-24 cohort.
Hard to see how the VA governor’s race means much. You had two stinkwads running against each other.
Despite the Republicans’ continuing effort to sabotage the economy, it will not handicap Hillary- I mean the Democratic nominee. Somehow I don’t think a drop in unemployment will spell doom for Team Blue.
Yeah, the lesson in Virginia is that not even liberal Democrats like Terry McAuliffe, but he still led the Coochmeister all the way through the race, so the Democrats can run a sleazy, disliked candidate and still win.
No, it should not. It should help them, because governing well gets you voters you wouldn’t otherwise get.
What about New Jersey’s demographics allowed Chris Christie to crush Buono? If a Republican can win 60% in NJ, a Republican can win 60% nationwide, demographics be damned.
Well sure, coming off a Republican administration that was corrupt. He should have won by a landslide. Obamacare saw to it that he nearly lost.
Obamacare is also the reason the GOP candidate leads in Michigan and why Arkansas and NC are lost causes to the Democrats in 2014.
And I will be satisfied if we nearly lose in 2014.
By the way, can you tell me how Republicans pick up seats in the Senate with this kind of cannibalization going on in the primaries:
Steve Stockman Photoshops Jon Cornyn Into Obama Photo
YOu have the same shortsighted view of elections that most Republicans do. Winning by narrow margins doesn’t let you govern, it just lets you do a victory dance. If this was team sports, narrow wins would be as good as big wins. In electoral politics, big wins mean big mandates. Little wins mean, well, what you’ve seen they mean. Obama is still in office. Hurrah! He hasn’t done a damn thing! Awwww.
Yeah, but very different sorts of stinkwads. And I think there are lessons to be learned as a result.
Cuccinelli may be a wingnut, but he was much beloved of the wingnuts, and there will be a lot of Republicans a lot like him running in 2014 and 2016. If Cooch couldn’t win in Virginia in 2013, especially against a way-less-than-ideal Dem like McAuliffe, then candidates like Cuccinelli can do well in a bit less than half the country in 2014 and 2016.
What we learn from McAuliffe is that while he was able to beat the Tea Party guy in Virginia in 2013, being a faceless pro-corporate Washington insider sort of Dem is somewhat of a handicap - one that can be overcome, but you’d really rather have someone with more connection to the state, less generic, less insiderish, and less business-cozy.