re: 2014 and 2016 US Elections

Post Reply New Topic

This is in reply to a post in a thread about Obama's SOTU, some people have been whining about going off topic so I decided just to post this in it's own thread. Elections are something of a special interest of mine anyways, I've always been interested in them even before I formed my own beliefs. Just the competitive nature of them intrigues me, following polls and the scandals and the debates. I don't think I made any of this post with bias despite my own strongly held opinions on a lot of these races. I'd be interested in hearing what your thoughts are on 2014 and 2016 as well, who you would like to see run or how you think it will go or whatever.

You did read that article right? It's pretty old now but Nate Silver's point was that it was becoming increasingly likely that GOP would gain the majority in the US Senate, putting it at 'even money' and that was more than 6 months ago. A lot has happened in that time frame; the IRS scandal, the NSA revelations, the government shutdown, and the disastrous implementation of the already unpopular Obamacare. The Democrats have 20 seats up for grabs to 15 for the Republicans in the Senate, the GOP needs 6 seats to take the majority. They're pretty much guaranteed pick ups in South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana so that +3 right there. They're in good position to potentially pick up seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina with states like Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Iowa being in play as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see Minnesota, Virginia, or Oregon become competitive either. The GOP won't win all of these seats but they only need 6 to take the majority in the Senate.

Only 2 of the GOP seats up even look competitive which the Democrats would pretty much need to pick up at least 1 of to retain control; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's seat in Kentucky and the open seat in Georgia. McConnell is facing a tough primary in the Kentucky from businessman Matt Bevin who is backed by the Tea Party, Bevin being the stronger general election candidate in my opinion due the fact the seat is only vulnerable because of McConnell's personal unpopularity rather than any partisan trend. You can't sell McConnell short though, he is an immensely powerful man and in all likelihood would become the Majority Leader if the GOP took control of the Senate. Georgia is an open seat being vacated by Saxby Chambliss who was facing a primary challenge from his right, the Democrats are running Michelle Nunn who is the daughter of a former Senator Sam Nunn while the GOP primary has a very crowded primary.

Georgia is probably the Democrat's best chance at picking up a seat and polling actually has Nunn slightly ahead right now but I think that is mainly because of name recognition and the lack of a clear presumptive nominee on the GOP side, Georgia is still a very conservative state in the deep south and 2014 will be a very GOP friendly year so we'll see how that turns out.

Something to keep in mind is that the president's party almost always loses seats in midterms and this Senate class was proceeded by the Obama wave year of 2008 so any incumbent Republican already survived when the political winds where in almost the complete opposite direction while the Democrats won in many places they normally wouldn't. As for the House, the Democrats need 18 seats to retake control but nobody expects much movement either way as most congressional districts have been made friendlier to the incumbent with redistricting. The Democrats were trying to make some noise about retaking the House after the shutdown but they're being forced to give that dream up to protect the Senate.

It's definitely not to early to speculate on 2016 either, I think it will be tough to retain the presidency for the Democrats after 8 years of Obama but their ace in the hole is Hilary Clinton who is polling pretty strongly at this time. Hilary will be 69 on election day 2016 and her favorability took a hit from the Benghazi scandal, she's pretty closely tied to the Obama administration but I imagine you'd probably hear her try to distance herself from it. If Hilary doesn't run the bench is pretty slim pickings for Democrats, Joe Biden would almost assuredly run but I imagine you'd see quite a few jump into the race in this scenario. Andrew Cuomo, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley, Barry Schweitzer. Schweitzer would be an interesting candidate for the Democrats, he's really the only candidate that they have that could truly run against Obama's legacy which might be their only chance at winning in the general election but that's just my opinion.

The Republican nominee in 2016 isn't so clear. Rand Paul will likely run but after that I don't know, Chris Christie was the establishment favorite but I have a hard time seeing him running now or having any chance of winning if he did. Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan have fell out of favor, Jeb Bush maybe but the Bush name is pretty damaged(Jeb's son George P. Bush has political aspirations of his own so that could play a factor in him running or not as well), and you got your governors like Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Bobby Jindall. I have heard a lot of establishment figures in the GOP talk about how they need a governor to run, I imagine most were talking about Chris Christie rather than actually believing that. You have your social conservative wildcards like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum but I have a hard time seeing them emerging from the primaries when they're not seen as electable in the general. Ted Cruz might try to compete with Rand Paul for Tea Party votes while wooing neoconservatives as well, I'm not sure what he'll do. Nutters like Peter King, Donald Trump, and John Bolton should provide some laughs.

Barring something major happening, the midterms are looking pretty good for the GOP.

I'm not even going to try and call 2016, it's just too far out, and anything could happen. Hillary not running would make for a more interesting race, as everyone is matching up potential GOP contenders against her on the assumption she'll run, where I think Schweitzer could actually be the stronger candidate given the current political climate. I hope you're right about Christie being out of it, my personal nightmare matchup in 08 was Hillary vs Giuliani, and Hillary vs Christie would definitely fall into that category.

I will cast no vote for either the Commies of the Left or the Fundies of the Right.

I honestly don't think Christie would be able to make it thru the GOP primary even before his bridge scandal, I don't think he'd appeal to voters outside the big northeastern states. Giuliani's campaign was DOA in Iowa and he was considered the front runner longer than anyone. After? I don't think he'll even run.

I forgot the mention the prospects of any third party or independent candidates, I'd probably say slim to none that one would win but Gary Johnson is interested in running again as a Libertarian. I hope Gary doesn't run against Rand if he's able to secure the nomination but I'll probably end up voting for him again if some nightmare scenario does happen. Bernie Sanders has expressed interest in running, he's pretty old and I doubt he'd run against Hilary and would probably support whoever the Democrats nominate. Donald Trump, lolnope. Jesse Ventura and Howard Stern probably won't even run but they'd be a funny protest vote. Michael Bloomberg? God help us all.

Probably republican, though whoever they prop up will only be only slightly less revolting than what the democrats drag out.
2016 promises to be a dog and pony show just like every other presidential election year.

I guess that means Democrat, as the only other electable party is full of Fundies and no major party is Communist.

Reposted

Democrats are an inclusive party, and offer free stuff, Republicans don't. So it is game over for Republicans.

47 million Americans on food stamps and Republicans want deep cuts to food stamps ( http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-0 ... -bill-deal )

Republicans alienate woman with their anti-abortion position, and effort to prevent raped woman from getting abortions, and blame-the-victim rape statements:

- -Spousal Rape should not a crime says Republican ( http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ot-a-crime )
-- Republican Henry Aldridge stated that when a woman is raped, “the juices don’t flow,” thus, woman does not get pregnant when raped/ Thus, raped women cannot get pregnant.
-- John C. Willke’s claims in an article that the “trauma” of rape prevents pregnancy — i.e., he “basically just makes s**t up,” writes Katie J. M. Baker at Jezebel.
-- GOP donor asks, “Want contraception? Put an aspirin between your knees.”
-- GOP lawmakers seek to legally redefine rape as “forcible rape” so fewer women will qualify as victims.
-- Another GOP lawmaker (surprise, surprise) worries that women will claim rape just to get abortions. This March, Idaho Sen. Chuck Winder, who had already proposed that women go through two forced
ultrasounds, including one at a right-wing “crisis pregnancy center,” went a step further by voicing his concern that women might use the “rape issue” to go abortion-crazy.
-- Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, respectively, think rape victims should “make the best” of it and see the unwanted child as a gift and sometimes cool people are conceived in rape.

source, http://www.salon.com/2012/08/22/eight_s ... and_women/

Republicans alienate civilian government workers by the sequestration, forcing a three year pay freeze, and not allowing a pay raise this year which was only given based and calls to cut government agencies.

Republicans alienate people who want "free health care" per the ACA

Republicans refuse to raise taxes on the upper class ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... 03715.html ) while so many millions of Americans work low wage service jobs, and have nothing. Republicans refuse to raise taxes on multi-millionaires.

Republicans block immigration efforts to legalize 11 million illegals, thus upsetting these very people who are likely soon to be citizens

Republicans are antagonist towards LGBT rights and many openly ridicule LGBT people

Republicans vote down the minimum wage for the ballooning lower class of low wage service workers ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/1 ... 84912.html ) thus, angering the millions of workers in the service industry which is where the job growth is happening ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -recovery/ )

Hispanics support Democrats 77% vs 22% last presidential election for Republicans and historically Hispanics vote or Democrats 2 times as much as for Republicans see table 5 ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... -7-charts/ )

Black voters overwhelmingly vote for Democrats , in the last election Romeny won only 6% of the black vote ( http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electi ... ed_12.html )

Asians vote overwhelmingly for Democrats despite being a upper class group ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... an-fiasco/)

108 million Americans on some form of public assistance ( http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christiner ... e-n1731984 ) and Republicans want to cut welfare ( http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... s-welfare/ ) Republicans are said to call the poor "lazy, moochers"

Republicans shut down the government in the last debt ceiling negotiations

Republicans alienate LGTB people by being anti-gay marriage

I probably missed some groups that they offend, however, the picture is very clear. The Republican party is dead at the national level, and will eventually become a fringe party UNLESS they make major changes immediately.

Since I first became eligible to vote, in the Reagan years, each President seems worse to me than the one before. At this rate, if I live long enough, I expect to be asked to choose between Hitler and Stalin.

Maybe, maybe not, but not this year.

Good news, a few Republicans have put forward an alternative to Obamacare!

Bad news, it's actually a giant tax hike on income.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherp ... -tax-hike/

Doubtful, every time someone has declared one of the political parties dead they've been wrong and they've probably been making silly declarative statements like that since the very beginning of the party system. All those offended groups you mentioned are already at their zenith of support for Democrats. Hispanics will grow as a percentage of the population but I find it unlikely that Democrats maintain that level of current support while the white vote will likely become increasingly conservative as their percentage of the electorate shrinks. The Hispanic vote doesn't care about amnesty, that narrative that the GOP needs to embrace "immigration reform" or risk being shunned by the Hispanic vote is totally false. Reagan passed amnesty in the 80s and didn't see any increase in the Hispanic vote, if the GOP passes it now it will be the same story. The fact is, the biggest losers if amnesty is passed is poor people who Democrats supposedly care so much about. Big business wants amnesty because they want cheaper labor, they bankroll parties and own the media so we're pounded with this constant narrative but it's not reality. What the talking heads and empty suits say is important isn't what is truly important to real Americans.

The GOP will change tho, it has to and it already is. Neoconservatism is going out the door, social conservatism is receding, and libertarianism is rising. I think ending the drug war, non-interventionism, and stemming the tide of police state are winning issues that could attract non-traditional Republican voters. Gay marriage is something I think won't even be a real issue in a generation, it is amazing how quickly public opinion has change even in my young lifetime. I don't think it is a litmus test issue for Republicans anymore that they have to be against, there is no way the trend is going to reverse. The GOP need to offer something the other party doesn't, becoming Democrat-lite isn't going win elections.

isn't that what Obamacare is?

(I don't support that plan if you're wondering)

The elephant in the room when it comes to immigration is that we need a bunch of cheap, desperate labor to harvest our crops. The last time we tried to hire Americans to do it, millions of dollars worth of product was left to rot in the field. So when it comes to immigration reform, benevolence isn't exactly the objective. We need sweatshop-esque laborers to exploit and more cannon fodder for the armed forces.

I hate this argument, maybe instead of providing sweatshop-esqe laborers to for big business to exploit how about they actually pay worker's a wage that Americans will be willing to work for? Our country is living in a fantasy world of cheap exploitive goods, they do not realize how much our standard of living has decreased. There is no need to raise the minimum wage, just get rid of these bogus "free" trade agreements and secure our borders and the market will force them to raise it.

Republicans are dead in California, so when are they going to "change" as you say?

The electoral map is nearly a guaranteed win for Democrats.