|
Evil Fluffy posted:It didn't work for Specter and it wouldn't work for Kirk. and it didn't work for red state democrats in 2010 and it won't work in 2018. i dont think. this thing where the midterm electorate is so much more republican than the presidential year electorate really makes things funny. like those house seats that just flip back and forth from d to r (one of the nh ones and an il one, the giunta and dold seats, are the ones that come to mind. maybe there're more) i'm really interested to find out if a democratic wave election ever develops or if it just keeps looking stubbornly like 2012 despite everything happening upballot note that even a non-wave election is gonna knock out a lot of 2010/2014 red wave driftwood who haven't faced a presidential-year electorate yet. the opposite being true for the 2018 red state democrat senators oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 04:14 on Jul 6, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Well it will all come to an end in 2020, Democrats will not hold the presidency for four consecutive terms due to fatigue and anger at the state of things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
it feels like it should. what if it's cruz, though? is that really gonna work out for them? what if they can't not nominate a toxic candidate? i think if it's paul ryan or, hell, cory gardner, or someone else who can look in the camera and say 'the last 20 years of my career mean nothing, i actually believe [focus-grouped moderate-friendly language that peels off democratic voters]' with seeming conviction, that the republicans could win the election. i don't think much of clinton's ability to remain popular while in power. but their primary voters have to let it happen first it's not impossible to have a party that's strong in state and house races but weak in senate and presidential ones. so far it's shown some ability to sustain itself - that's thousands of won elections and real power, after all, even if it's deeply frustrating to lose at the top level. i guess i've got gardner on the brain, not saying he's gonna be president (but if he does eventually become president i demand credit), but that's an example of a guy who used right-wing politics (personhood for the fetus in his case most particularly) and discarded it when it became convenient can gardner go back to those fetushood people he pissed off and win their votes in the gop primary? if it isn't him and personhood, it's gonna be someone else and some other cherished right wing hot button issue, i feel edit: big caveat on gardner is that he won his senate seat in a wave, which is exactly how people end up getting overestimated editedit: just noticed i got beaten on the gardner thing by like six hours by a shameful boehner in the general election thread. For The Record oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 05:09 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
If the GOP nominates a third candidate it will only further crater the party's short and long-term viability. The current GOP strategy is to grin and bear it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
I firmly believe that we have yet to see the (hehhehheh) depths of Donald Trump's polling and that the shellacking he'll recieve will wake up the party's base to the fact they actually have to nominate someone capable of winning an election. Thats not so much about policies as it is about presentation. Being Tea Party is as much about the way candidates talk and act as it is the way they vote and this is going to give everyone a real look at how the country as a whole views "heart-felt idiocy."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Well it will all come to an end in 2020, Democrats will not hold the presidency for four consecutive terms due to fatigue and anger at the state of things. As long as we have at least 5 liberal justices the country might be able to survive long enough to get the Dems in control of one chamber or the white house. Though it'll still result in long-lasting damage if they get even 2 years to run the WH and both chambers of congress, though it's still far less than if they'd have a majority in the SCOTUS too since they'd rush a shitload of custom-crafted lawsuits through the courts to ensure some 5-4 rulings to dismantle the ACA, abortion, and a slew of other things to send us back to the 19th century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I firmly believe that we have yet to see the (hehhehheh) depths of Donald Trump's polling and that the shellacking he'll recieve will wake up the party's base to the fact they actually have to nominate someone capable of winning an election. Thats not so much about policies as it is about presentation. Being Tea Party is as much about the way candidates talk and act as it is the way they vote and this is going to give everyone a real look at how the country as a whole views "heart-felt idiocy." you could say this about immigration and 2012 and yet here we are. the future is not set
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I firmly believe that we have yet to see the (hehhehheh) depths of Donald Trump's polling and that the shellacking he'll recieve will wake up the party's base to the fact they actually have to nominate someone capable of winning an election. Thats not so much about policies as it is about presentation. Being Tea Party is as much about the way candidates talk and act as it is the way they vote and this is going to give everyone a real look at how the country as a whole views "heart-felt idiocy." 4 years to turn it around from the party of angry old white people is a tall order. It could be done, but with the way Trump and the rest of the party have been working hard to drive away Hispanics from the party for a generation or two, it's gonna be a real tall order. Especially since the recent history of the GOP indicates that after admitting they have a problem and promising to stop, they'll go out and drink a 5th or 2 of rage and hate come 2018.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Well it will all come to an end in 2020, Democrats will not hold the presidency for four consecutive terms due to fatigue and anger at the state of things. otoh clinton's pretty competent and i doubt that republicans will manage to nominate a sane candidate instead of a serial killer
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean who knows in 4 years but I think Paul Ryan is the only semi-credible guy at the moment, and emphasis on the semi... and even that's assuming the Old Man Witherspoon voters aren't going to get hot for some other con artist. Maybe Rubio, I guess, if he can keep his seat and his head down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Yeah, I mean who knows in 4 years but I think Paul Ryan is the only semi-credible guy at the moment, and emphasis on the semi... and even that's assuming the Old Man Witherspoon voters aren't going to get hot for some other con artist. Maybe Rubio, I guess, if he can keep his seat and his head down. Ryan is probably the best of a bad lot, but he also did not impress as a VP candidate in 2012 (remember goofy grampa Joe Biden effortlessly kicking his rear end in their one debate?). There's also the problem that anyone involved in Congressional leadership has a hard time moving to the White House - you're too involved in the ugly part of the sausage-making process, and you are forced to take incoherent ideological stances. The Republican cupboard is bare. Their whole deep bench/bumper crop of capable-seeming Governors and Senators jumped in the race this year, and every one of them was exposed as a joke. One of the reasons the #NeverTrump movement fell apart was there was no plausible alternative candidate. 2016 won't see many new Republican Governors and Senators elected, and while 2018 will, that's not really enough time to set someone up for a 2020 White House run. And there's no guarantee that any of them will be any better than the current batch of tea party halfwits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:otoh clinton's pretty competent and i doubt that republicans will manage to nominate a sane candidate instead of a serial killer that and incumbency advantage
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:that and incumbency advantage
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Rubio did not impress anyone with his 2016 campaign, which confirmed every whisper about him being a good-looking but dim lightweight who speaks and thinks entirely in slogans and has a slacker's work ethic. Ryan is the emptiest of suits, much comparable to Rubio, and his grand strategy of never taking a stance on anything going on this year will hurt him down the line if he runs. He is already getting hit from his right flank, and unlike Trump has too much shame to articulate his foreign policy. Rubio was the Rick Perry of this cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:this thing where the midterm electorate is so much more republican than the presidential year electorate really makes things funny. like those house seats that just flip back and forth from d to r (one of the nh ones and an il one, the giunta and dold seats, are the ones that come to mind. maybe there're more) TX-23, which is basically most of the US-Mexico border, is a prime example. It has basically an entirely different electorate in midterms than presidential years because of unreliable Mexican-American turnout and goes from a Likely-to-Solid D seat in Presidential years to Lean-to-Likely Republican in non-presidential years. Democrat in 2006 (wave year) and 2008, GOP in 2010, Democrat in 2012, GOP in 2014, almost certainly Democratic again this year...until the GOP takes it back in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Yeah. It's really hard to beat a sitting President. Although it's also really hard for a single party to hold the White House for a fourth consecutive term (ask Hoover or GHW Bush about that). I mean, hoover presided over the start of the great depression which has a lot more to do with it - and the guy who beat him then got four consecutive terms on his own. Bush got unlucky due to the confluence of a recession at the exact wrong time and the first serious third party candidacy in, like, a century. I don't think that statistic has any real predictive power. Even if it was harder to win the longer your party had held the White House, I would assume that the explanation was that the longer a party has been out of power, the more they're willing to sacrifice to win at all costs - think how many Democratic ideals that Clinton was willing to repudiate without significant blowback in order to win. evilweasel has issued a correction as of 18:25 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
There are plenty of long streaks. The GOP won 6 straight elections 1860-1880 (though obviously they didn't hold the Presidency that whole time because Lincoln picked a Democrat as VP), and if you expand that a bit, the GOP won 14/18 presidential elections 1860-1928. 14/18! That's absolutely staggering. Then the Democrats won the next 5 elections in a row in response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Yeah, the WH flipping back and forth during the 20th century seems to be more of a product of the overall political realignment that was going on than any truism about the presidency itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Yeah, the WH flipping back and forth during the 20th century seems to be more of a product of the overall political realignment that was going on than any truism about the presidency itself. Also, two impeachments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
I am basing my statements about voter fatigue less on American history than I am the history of other democratic nations. The party in power, over time, starts eating poo poo due to the general state of life in the country, particular parts of its agenda that are not popular, whatever economic woes occur and other harsh realities of making policy. The party out of power, freed from the burden of governing can spin whatever bullshit tale it wants. Even in countries which do naturally favor one side, the other side will occasionally find itself winning the election due to public dislike for the current face of the country's governance. Furthermore, I find the "cupboard is bare" arguments presented in this thread to be out of step with reality. People here are liberals and when they hear a Republican candidate say a Republican talking point they thing it diminishes him, it doesn't. Presentation is much more important than policy in appearing presidential, though both do matter to some extent. If anything, the Democrats have far fewer viable candidates than the Republicans do at this stage, as evidenced by Jim Webb having been the furthest west or south the Democratic field went this cycle. Cliff Racer has issued a correction as of 00:46 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I am basing my statements about voter fatigue less on American history than I am the history of other democratic nations. The party in power, over time, starts eating poo poo due to the general state of life in the country, particular parts of its agenda that are not popular, whatever economic woes occur and other harsh realities of making policy. The party out of power, freed from the burden of governing can spin whatever bullshit tale it wants. Even in countries which do naturally favor one side, the other side will occasionally find itself winning the election due to public dislike for the current face of the country's governance. 2024 is going to be like the republicans 2016 as anyone with a D at the end of their name will throw their hat in the ring. The reason the democratic cupboard is bare is because Hillary has spent the last 8 years sucking all the
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
It also has a lot to do with most states electing governors in mid-term years, which has recently meant Republican waves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WaPoSean/status/750849226561712128
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:Yeah, I mean who knows in 4 years but I think Paul Ryan is the only semi-credible guy at the moment, and emphasis on the semi... and even that's assuming the Old Man Witherspoon voters aren't going to get hot for some other con artist. Maybe Rubio, I guess, if he can keep his seat and his head down. Paul Ryan is saddled with leading the despised congress, although I guess if dems take the house his job gets a whole lot easier
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Zas posted:Paul Ryan is saddled with leading the despised congress, although I guess if dems take the house his job gets a whole lot easier the best possible result is Ryan being in charge by like 2-4 seats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
i think there will be more democrats willing to vote with nancy pelosi than there will be republicans willing to vote with paul ryan. hell, that's probably already true. the freedom caucus is only going to get more powerful, though, which is not good for paul ryan or governance in general, especially considering they'll probably get even more powerful in 2018
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Yeah. It's really hard to beat a sitting President. Although it's also really hard for a single party to hold the White House for a fourth consecutive term (ask Hoover or GHW Bush about that). Pretty much every reason why a third term going on fourth lost is a statistical aberration. Pretty much every presidential election itself is a statistical aberration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
The 1860-1928 streak for the Republicans was basically a firm "gently caress you, ex-Confederates". The Democratic party churned for a century before its realignment was complete and the modern era of elections started; considering nobody is lining up on the fields of Gettysburg this time around there will probably not be a 70 year freeze for the Republicans, but they have made a lot of political enemies among the voting public that will be permanent as long as there is no sincere and dramatic realignment, in growing demographics. There's absolutely nothing about the US political system that forces the two major parties to be in equilibrium if one or the other is unwilling to alter a toxic ideology; a balance is just how things have worked out in recent decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Democrats went from Wilson to Truman (integrating the army was a no-poo poo major thing, it started the whole "rear end in a top hat revanchist running third party" thing a la Thurmond and Wallace) in a generation and the GOP immediately snapped up the disaffected racists once '64 made it clear where the party was headed. That realignment wasn't instantaneous and it wasn't until the 2000s that it was finally over. People like David Duke were Democrats earlier in life because those Dixiecrat machines were still staggering along. I said it in 2008 and it's more true now than ever - they need to lock their knee and lean their heel into the neck of the GOP. Those filth might be on the ground now but the moment they catch half a breath they're going to be back in the game and they'll absolutely reduce the universe to ash if it means they can rule the wastes. There is no compromise, no negotiaton with something like that. You either eliminate it and bury the corpse with a warning for the next generation or you let it overwhelm you as you hold a loving olive branch out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Democrats went from Wilson to Truman (integrating the army was a no-poo poo major thing, it started the whole "rear end in a top hat revanchist running third party" thing a la Thurmond and Wallace) in a generation and the GOP immediately snapped up the disaffected racists once '64 made it clear where the party was headed. That realignment wasn't instantaneous and it wasn't until the 2000s that it was finally over. People like David Duke were Democrats earlier in life because those Dixiecrat machines were still staggering along. In other words, always be bashin the fash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 12:10
|
|
|
There's really no aggressive way to kill the GOP support in any meaningful sense, though. It sounds good but it's not that different from "killing" some sectarian insurgency. They're going to have to give up / go another direction / kill themselves. OR TRIUMPH. Ben Carson 2020!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:There's really no aggressive way to kill the GOP support in any meaningful sense, though. It sounds good but it's not that different from "killing" some sectarian insurgency. They're going to have to give up / go another direction / kill themselves. Guillotines have been proven to work. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/eliseviebeck/status/751101603197878272
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Trump now has a whole set of new feuds with Republican politicians. It's kind of stunning how fast he's able to alienate people. This convention will be hilarious to contrast to the Democratic one the following week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Trump now has a whole set of new feuds with Republican politicians. https://twitter.com/MichaelLaRosaDC/status/751179823695826944 is there a precedent for pres/senate candidates of the same party mud slinging like this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
thethreeman posted:seriously 1964 and 1972 for r's and d's augurs well for trump
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:1964 and 1972 for r's and d's hah. I've read fear & loathing, and even there I don't remember attacks on this level between McGovern and other Dems at the national level... more like local union bosses and mayors? I'm blown away by how much this has escalated beyond just "not endorsing"
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Unless the Republicans actually wake up after 2016 and change their ways, the demographics are going to be making it just that much harder to knock off the Hillary. She could definitely shoot herself in the foot, but things are lining up so that any Republican is going to be running up a mountain to win at the moment. Keeping in mind that 2020 is a census year, and a Presidential Election year, so if she does win reelection with some measure of coattails the redistricting is probably going to really help the upcoming D bench. evilweasel posted:I mean, hoover presided over the start of the great depression which has a lot more to do with it - and the guy who beat him then got four consecutive terms on his own. Bush got unlucky due to the confluence of a recession at the exact wrong time and the first serious third party candidacy in, like, a century. I don't think that statistic has any real predictive power. Even if it was harder to win the longer your party had held the White House, I would assume that the explanation was that the longer a party has been out of power, the more they're willing to sacrifice to win at all costs - think how many Democratic ideals that Clinton was willing to repudiate without significant blowback in order to win. I don't think Perot hurt Bush noticeably more than he hurt Clinton. Clinton was just charming as all gently caress and was running as a new type of Democratic Leader. Also G.H.W. Bush is like the opposite of W., and his loss likely had a lot to do with the development of the W. persona. So someone who would be one of the most charismatic Presidents in history, running during a recession against an almost textbook patrician, who had just pissed off his base, resulted in the patrician losing. On the subject of the Senate though, when are the Democrats going to start talking about Garland and the raw deal the GOP Senate is giving him?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Gyges posted:On the subject of the Senate though, when are the Democrats going to start talking about Garland and the raw deal the GOP Senate is giving him? About four months ago?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:26 |
|
|
Gyges posted:On the subject of the Senate though, when are the Democrats going to start talking about Garland and the raw deal the GOP Senate is giving him? I'll be amazed if it isn't mentioned in Clinton's acceptance speech at the DNC and probably by other speakers there as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 04:33
|
|