US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early

[wolf]

so you are saying, the GOP are always a few decades behind the Democrats.

Maybe. But what I was really trying to point out is that you have to be careful with the usual stereotypes of each party.

And there will be 20 more 'scandals' like this and it literally will not matter.

1. A Democrat will win the White House. Period. One sober look at demographics, the electoral college and the GOP platform will tell you this. Besides all of that (it's enough)...the GOP's best candidate has the surname of Bush. Surely a real attraction to middle voters who decide swing states.

2. HRC will be the Democratic nominee. Period. She's polling so high, all the smart money is already with her. Any opposition is permanently on the outside looking in. Said another way...Obama announced his candidacy for President 21 months before the 2008 election. We are already almost 18 months away.

3. She will be the next President no matter how hard the media tries A) to get someone else to run on the Democratic side (if not because of ideology, conflict is the narrative that always sells) and B) to convince everyone of something they already believe w/r/t HRC.

4. Most of the 300 million people in America did not sleep through the supposed-Clinton-scandal-a-week 1990's. Everybody knows her. They believe what they believe about her. And she's still the strong favorite. And those that don't know her as well, younger people, are going to vote Democrat no matter what.

5. Obama rode a wave of excitement the likes of our generations have never seen and he coasted by a media too afraid to dig into him too much. And he still barely got past her.

The 2016 election, most likely, is already over with. It would be a HUGE upset if she doesn't win. In a word, it would be shocking. In most election cycles, it would be far too early to be so declarative. But this is entirely unique in our modern era. It would normally take a scandal or a viable challenger to doom her. And no challenger exists...and the more the GOP nitpicks a bunch of supposed scandalous crap nobody but FOX News viewers (never voting for HRC to begin with) cares about...the more numb everyone else grows to it.

Oh, and I almost forgot...she's going to get quite a bit of female votes, maybe even some moderate conservatives. So, yeah.

So, then it looks like the Republicans will be favored to win the White House in 2024? What do you think about 2024?

The country is hungry for a non Clinton/Bush.

On the contrary, we've had nearly 8 years without any Clinton/Bush in the White House. I say the country is ready for both.

 

[BVS]

The GOP will not win another presidential race for a long time unless there is drastic change in the party, or a drastic misstep by the Democrats. You can't be that out of touch and win the highest seat in the country.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[martha]

The GOP will not win another presidential race for a long time unless there is drastic change in the party, or a drastic misstep by the Democrats. You can't be that out of touch and win the highest seat in the country.

And when your base is that old and not getting replaced.

 

[Irvine511]

Your analysis was a good read.









The Left wants her out. It's not Fox News, its the New York Times attacking her. Not to mention the Daily Beast. They want Warren bad. I want Warren to run, because I don't think she plays well to the audience outside the Liberal Cities and Academic Enclaves (Which that is not lost on Dem voters. may save Clinton for the nomination) The country is hungry for a non Clinton/Bush.



Read the articles that come out about the Uranium deal over the next few days and you'll see who has their knives out on the Left.



(It's fun to watch, I'm a political junkie)

What/who is "The Left"?

Are you equating the NYT with Fox News?

 

[Oregoropa]

The Left wing of the Democratic Party. Who? The Obama team-appartus, Warren, Sanders, O' Malley. New York Times, New Republic, Daily Beast. They want a truer blue liberal to attack Wall St. instead of cozy up to her.

I was saying the article wasn't a hit piece from Fox News, I was mentioning that it was from NYT which is a liberal institution. It's almost shocking to see how it is a media feeding frenzy already with her campaign three weeks underway.

 

[Irvine511]

The Left wing of the Democratic Party. Who? The Obama team-appartus, Warren, Sanders, O' Malley. New York Times, New Republic, Daily Beast. They want a truer blue liberal to attack Wall St. instead of cozy up to her.

I was saying the article wasn't a hit piece from Fox News, I was mentioning that it was from NYT which is a liberal institution. It's almost shocking to see how it is a media feeding frenzy already with her campaign three weeks underway.

I think you have a very skewed vision of how the media works. The NYT is not a left wing equivalent of Fox News, it's reporting is not left wing. The New Republic is classical liberal, much more hawkish than the Democratic left, and has no right wing equivalent. The Dailey Beast is much the same (minus the intelligence of TNR), and neither has the readership that would approach Fox News or the reach of right wing radio. The "feeding frenzy" you see is a right wing fabrication.

All that said, the NYT story may be an issue not because it's some liberal attack machine recalibrated to go after Hillary by the powers-that-be, but because it's the newspaper of record digging into the presumptive Democratic nominee. We will see how it develops, but it's silly to imagine that Elizabeth Warren and Obama have passed out a talking points memo to the media in the way that the Bush White House would do with Roger Ailes.

 

[Oregoropa]

because it's the newspaper of record digging into the presumptive Democratic nominee.

It is very rare to see this type of bloodletting in the Times aimed at any Democrat, let alone the Clintons. 88 paragraphs in length.

 

[Irvine511]

It is very rare to see this type of bloodletting in the Times aimed at any Democrat, let alone the Clintons. 88 paragraphs in length.

Is it? Or is there just an actual story here that the NYT reported on because they are a newspaper and it is their job to do so?

There's no master plan at work here, no one is lining up to assassinate HRC because she's not left enough. This is actual journalism at work.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

NYT and The Daily Beast are leftist? Incredible.

 

[PhilsFan]

The New York Times is centrist. I wish there was more liberalism in the media, but alas, there is not.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Irvine511]

The right wing media wants you to believe that EVERYTHING is on one side of a line or the other, that they are all foot soldiers in a war, that they are all the same, just different sides of the same coin.

They aren't.

Yes, MSNBC is liberal. Yes, Daily Kos is liberal. Yes, Rachel Maddow is liberal.

But the NYT, Time, Newsweek, CBS, whatever ... They go to great pains to actually report news. And to accuse them of bias actually pulls all dialogue to the right, because, fearing bias, they tend to over correct. There is liberal media, but "the media" is not by default liberal.

 

[PhilsFan]

CNN is a great example of overcompensating for bias.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

The right wing media wants you to believe that EVERYTHING is on one side of a line or the other, that they are all foot soldiers in a war, that they are all the same, just different sides of the same coin.

They aren't.

Yes, MSNBC is liberal. Yes, Daily Kos is liberal. Yes, Rachel Maddow is liberal.

But the NYT, Time, Newsweek, CBS, whatever ... They go to great pains to actually report news. And to accuse them of bias actually pulls all dialogue to the right, because, fearing bias, they tend to over correct. There is liberal media, but "the media" is not by default liberal.

The type of people who fall for that shit are the type of people who constantly need an enemy, no matter how vague or fictional, in their lives to justify their own worldviews to themselves and feel superior to others who don't think the same. I think this is why you see so much bigotry and outright racism/sexism/shitty viewpoints from the Tea Party types. It's purely psychological, these people tend to flock together because they all justify each other as well.

 

[wolf]

The GOP will not win another presidential race for a long time unless there is drastic change in the party, or a drastic misstep by the Democrats. You can't be that out of touch and win the highest seat in the country.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

I doubt the Republicans will be able to win the White House in the next two election cycles for reasons given earlier, but their not really that far away either. Last election, Romney got 47% of the popular vote. If he had flipped five more states red, he would have won the election. The Republicans control the Senate and the House. They also have a majority of the state governors.

And when your base is that old and not getting replaced.

The number of people voting for the Republican Presidential candidate increased by 1 million in 2012 over the 2008 figure. By comparison, the number of people voting for the Democratic candidate decreased by 3.6 million.

Finally, lets remember that over the past century, the longest either party has held onto the White House is 5 terms. Since World War II its only 3 terms. The Democrats will eventually be handing the White House back to the Republicans.

 

[BVS]

The Left wing of the Democratic Party. Who? The Obama team-appartus, Warren, Sanders, O' Malley. New York Times, New Republic, Daily Beast. They want a truer blue liberal to attack Wall St. instead of cozy up to her.

I was saying the article wasn't a hit piece from Fox News, I was mentioning that it was from NYT which is a liberal institution. It's almost shocking to see how it is a media feeding frenzy already with her campaign three weeks underway.

This is the out of touch I was talking about...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Irvine511]

Wow. Just five more states! SO CLOSE!

If the GOP wants to win the White House they need to change many of their policy positions, not simply wait it out. The longer they wait, the more Texas and Georgia will trend blue.

 

[wolf]

I remember the 1980, 1984, and 1988 elections very well. In 1980, Carter only won 6 states. In 1984, Mondale barley won a single state. In 1988, Dukakis only won 10 states. Imagine what it would have taken to turn those elections around? Flipping 5 states for them certainly would not have changed the election and in fact, it would not of even change the the level of the defeat. Five states is not close in the way 2000 and 2004 were, but overall historically, its nothing to sneeze about either.
As another poster in here said before, what puts the Democrats in such a favorable position at the moment is 1. Demographics 2. Current split in electoral college 3. Hillary's popularity, recognition, and sex. 4. Then coming in fourth would be policy positions.
Texas and Georgia are more solidly red than Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are solidly blue. Just as the Republicans won't be flipping any states in the Democrats Blue Wall anytime soon, the Democrats have even longer before they can seriously think of winning Texas or Georgia.

 

[PhilsFan]

PA will be blue again, the GOP's disastrous run in the governor's seat for the last six years assured that.

 

[DaveC]

Five states is a full 10% of the entire country swinging the complete opposite direction, you realize that right? So close!

 

[Irvine511]

the theoretical idea of an unknown GOP candidate flipping 5 states against an unknown Democratic challenger is, of course, clearly possible. my guess is Jeb Bush could flip 5 states if he were up against Bernie Sanders. i mean, anything is possible.

but to frame the 2012 as Romney losing by "only" 5 states to Obama is to minimize the size of his reelection and pretend that it was closer than it ever actually was.

also, do we not see the connection between demographics and policy positions?

 

[iron yuppie]

I don't see Clinton's election as a given. Ultimately the issue here is voter turnout. Clinton seems like a totally viable candidate, but I'm wary of her ability to energize/excite people the way Obama has done on both of his election days. The biggest dangers the Democratic Party is facing are apathy and complacency.

 

[Oregoropa]

Take me to 'Out of Touch' Court because I think the New York Times is liberal and not centrist. That's the gist I'm getting


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

Take me to 'Out of Touch' Court because I think the New York Times is liberal and not centrist. That's the gist I'm getting


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Small part...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[deep]

I don't see Clinton's election as a given. Ultimately the issue here is voter turnout. Clinton seems like a totally viable candidate, but I'm wary of her ability to energize/excite people the way Obama has done on both of his election days. The biggest dangers the Democratic Party is facing are apathy and complacency.

.

 

[wolf]

Five states is a full 10% of the entire country swinging the complete opposite direction, you realize that right? So close!

I didn't say it was "so close" or even close in the sense of the 2000 or 2004 election. By a five state lead is not an insurmountable lead for either party to overcome by the next election. Out of 126 million votes, if just 500,000 votes had changed in those five states in 2012, Obama would have lost to Romney.

the theoretical idea of an unknown GOP candidate flipping 5 states against an unknown Democratic challenger is, of course, clearly possible. my guess is Jeb Bush could flip 5 states if he were up against Bernie Sanders. i mean, anything is possible.

but to frame the 2012 as Romney losing by "only" 5 states to Obama is to minimize the size of his reelection and pretend that it was closer than it ever actually was.

also, do we not see the connection between demographics and policy positions?

There is a slight chance though unlikely that Jeb Bush could flip Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and New Mexico against Hillary in 2016. Bush would have a better chance though if he were facing Biden, Web, or Warren. Bush can certainly win Florida, and if he picks Susana Martinez to be his running mate he will take New Mexico. I think Colorado and Nevada would follow. Virginia is not going to budge though. So in that scenario Hillary takes the election by a one state margin.
As for Obama's reelection, it was essentially only by five states. Romney got 47% of the vote to 51% of the vote for Obama. It was certainly larger than Bush's reelection in 2004, but Bush won with the Republicans holding an increasing their lead in the House and Senate. Obama on the other hand lost control of the House which has hampered his policy in both his first and second term.
Certainly there is a connection between demographics and policy positions. But the type of demographics that are causing the Republicans problems is that "White non-Hispanic people", who are more likely to vote Republican, are declining as a percentage of the overall US population. In 1990, white non-Hispanic people were 75% of the United States population. Today they are only 60%. That is what is hurting Republicans the most in national elections.
Also, the policy positions of a single candidate in a single election are unlikely to move entire blocks of people that have been voting Democratic for decades. Had white non-Hispanic fertility kept up with Hispanic emigration and fertility the past two decades the voting environment would be easier for republicans today.

 

[BVS]

Certainly there is a connection between demographics and policy positions. But the type of demographics that are causing the Republicans problems is that "White non-Hispanic people", who are more likely to vote Republican, are declining as a percentage of the overall US population. In 1990, white non-Hispanic people were 75% of the United States population. Today they are only 60%. That is what is hurting Republicans the most in national elections.
Also, the policy positions of a single candidate in a single election are unlikely to move entire blocks of people that have been voting Democratic for decades. Had white non-Hispanic fertility kept up with Hispanic emigration and fertility the past two decades the voting environment would be easier for republicans today.

Is this what republicans mean by "taking their country back"?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[DaveC]

.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

And when your base is that old and not getting replaced.

Well, the Republican base is technically getting replaced in the voter rolls. Just not with Republicans.

Old white dude dies and he's replaced on the rolls by an 18 year old latina that feels strongly about immigration reform. Then the process repeats itself the next day and the next..



In all seriousness, it's literally impossible for Republicans to win the Presidency ever again, but their base is so delusional that they think there's an actual possibility. There's only three possible ways they get back in...

1) Democrats involving the country in an unpopular foreign war. This is so damn unlikely nowadays, especially given how less hawkish the blue side happens to be.

2) An actual scandal occurs that is either party-wide or involved the President. Possible, but fairly unlikely.

3) An economic collapse that happens while the Democrats are in power. This is the most likely situation. Take a look at European countries that went with a Leftist ticket for years and then got scared when things turned to shit and shifted to the right. Of course, the right typically only stays in power a few years before they piss everyone off by trying to sell out the middle class while the economy continues to struggle (see France). But this is the actual way they can get back in and the only way I expect we'll see another Republican president in our lifetimes.


And I haven't even gotten in to voter turnout. You give people across the country the ability to do same-day registration and/or automatically vote by mail and/or vote in their precincts for weeks before election and/or vote online and turnout will shoot through the roof. It hovered around 60% in the last Presidential election.

There was polling done right before the 2012 election of people that were certain they wouldn't vote. 70% supported Obama compared to only 13% for Romney (I'm assuming the rest were undecided). So if 70% of the remaining 40% that don't vote support the Democrats, then it's clear that only a marginal faction of the country supports GOP politics. Yet they turn out in such great numbers that it makes it appear that it's a 50/50 split (and things aren't helped by the pathetically low turnouts in midterm elections). A FiveThirtyEight article the other day confirmed that only 25% of voters are actual social/economic conservatives...but when almost half the country doesn't even vote in the big election...

 

[BigMacPhisto]

The Republicans control the Senate and the House. They also have a majority of the state governors.

1) House is literally impossible for Democrats to retake due to gerrymandering that occurred after the 2010 census along with the fact that a majority of Democrats are clustered around major urban areas. For example, an extra 5% to every Democratic House candidate in 2012 would still have kept it in GOP hands. Best hope for the Democrats is that they do well in 2020 elections in state houses and then can redistrict in their favor...it's possible that the districting can keep the GOP as potential House owners through 2030, but by then it will be basically game over due to the aforementioned demographics.

2) As far as the Senate is concerned, the Democrats were already playing defense trying to defend seats they barely won via the Obama-train six years prior. You then factor in the lowest turnout since World War II and voila. 2016's slate is actually horrible for the GOP because they'll be defending the Republican wave from 2010...a lot of seats that were barely won and/or won because of the lower turnout. Turnout is going to be high in 2016. GOP voters will be fired up and Democrats will want to elect the first female President...it should at least exceed 60%...and when people vote, it's always bad for the GOP.

3) State governors is also a poor thing to turn to as evidence. A majority of the state governorships don't even have elections in even numbered years, if I remember correctly...so some Republican winning in a blue state in 2013 or whatever isn't all that surprising given that nobody votes in those years.



The smart move would be to have four year House and Senate terms and also tie-in State house votes, etc. Then the public could just vote once every four years...but we all know what would happen then...The Gipper would be rolling over in his grave.

 

[Irvine511]

At least the GOP is doing all they can to stop black people and the youngs from voting. "Voter fraud" and subsequent ID laws were cooked up for a reason.

Comparisons to the past are irrelevant. We live in a 45/45 country, as evidenced in the fact that while Obama's approval ratings have never been very high, they also haven't been very low. There aren't many persuadable voters the way there were in 1988 or 1980. Politics is more polarized than ever, and it will take something truly calamitous and destructive and ruinous like the Iraq War concocted by an evil forest creature who steals our children and pushed through by a discredited half-wit president to get that 45% on either side to turn against their candidate. It comes down to the independents, and turning out the base. And as the 45% who vote GOP start to die off, all that may be left is voter suppression. Unless policies -- on SSM, on immigration -- start to change.