If and when the bottom falls out?

[Reaganfan]

Eight years ago, early 2008 polls showed Giuliani and McCain with leads, sometimes tremendous leads against Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and other Democrats. Despite President Bush's unpopularity, the big question was, "Can the Democrats win the White House?" Keep in mind, Hillary...Gore...McCain...Giuliani all had high name recognition so the lead for the Republicans wasn't due to the Democratic opponents being unknown.

EXAMPLE
NBC Poll February 2006

McCain: 52
Clinton: 42

McCain: 55
Gore: 38

McCain: 54
Kerry: 37

By the end of 2006 and the midterm elections, the bottom fell out. Bush's unpopularity finally caught up to Republicans as a whole in both the midterms and the upcoming Presidential race. Soon the question was "Can REPUBLICANS hold the White House?"

With Obama's unpopularity, and polls showing Hillary Clinton beating all Republicans sometimes by tremendous margins, the question is, is there the possibility that everything with Obama's approval, Obamacare, this anti-big Government attitude catches up as it did with Bush and the GOP in 2006/2007, and suddenly the Republicans become favored in 2016?

[sg0508]

You also need the "charismatic" candidate who can "wow" the American electorate and provide hope, even if it proves to be false.  Obama had that.

I would say watch the economy closely over the next 2.5 years, but seeing that the economy, which wasn't very strong in 2012 yielded a comfortable win for the president should worry the GOP.

The problem is, the GOP is now a minority party and if I'm not mistaken, they are fighting an uphill battle given that there are more registered democrats than republicans and the changing demographics continue to work against them.

[Nichlemn]

It's certainly plausible. I think these polls are a good way of showing how early leads don't necessarily mean very much. Certainly, while I think Hillary is the favourite in the general election, I think it's very unlikely she'll win by the double digit margin a number of polls have her up now, and it wouldn't be surprising if she was considered the underdog as early as a year from now.

[IceSpear]

This reminds me of the pundits who were saying the bottom would fall out from under Democrats late in the campaign, Romney would win in a landslide, and Obama would be Carter 2.0.

[Mr. Illini]

Keep in mind that the economy began to crash during the 2008 election and Obama arose as an inspirational, 'new' alternative to politics as usual.

[Reaganfan]

You are all missing my point. There are parallels to 2006.

[dmmidmi]

You are all missing my point. There are parallels to 2006.

The party of the current sitting President didn't get the country engaged in two wars with no exit strategy, nor has the current President botched the response to a natural disaster. Could both of these things happen before November? Sure. Could something that's not these two things happen that dampen Hillary Clinton's chances of winning? You bet.

The only two parallels are these:

1. There is going to be a midterm election during this President's second term
2. The individual that is considered the incumbent party's Presidential front-runner for the next election is leading in early polling

[Reaganfan]

You are all missing my point. There are parallels to 2006.

The party of the current sitting President didn't get the country engaged in two wars with no exit strategy, nor has the current President botched the response to a natural disaster. Could both of these things happen before November? Sure. Could something that's not these two things happen that dampen Hillary Clinton's chances of winning? You bet.

The only two parallels are these:

1. There is going to be a midterm election during this President's second term
2. The individual that is considered the incumbent party's Presidential front-runner for the next election is leading in early polling

Yes...that is my point. Instead of Katrina and Iraq, it's Obamacare and NSA spying.

How long until this constant barrage of negatives on the Obama White House begins to sink Democrats nationally, not to mention a potential Presidential candidate who was his Sec of State?

[dmmidmi]

You are all missing my point. There are parallels to 2006.

The party of the current sitting President didn't get the country engaged in two wars with no exit strategy, nor has the current President botched the response to a natural disaster. Could both of these things happen before November? Sure. Could something that's not these two things happen that dampen Hillary Clinton's chances of winning? You bet.

The only two parallels are these:

1. There is going to be a midterm election during this President's second term
2. The individual that is considered the incumbent party's Presidential front-runner for the next election is leading in early polling

Yes...that is my point. Instead of Katrina and Iraq, it's Obamacare and NSA spying.

How long until this constant barrage of negatives on the Obama White House begins to sink Democrats nationally, not to mention a potential Presidential candidate who was his Sec of State?

"If and when the bottom falls out" is pure speculation at best, wishful thinking at worst.

Comparing Katrina and Iraq/Afghanistan to the ACA and the NSA controversy is what we call a false equivalence.

[IceSpear]

You are all missing my point. There are parallels to 2006.

The party of the current sitting President didn't get the country engaged in two wars with no exit strategy, nor has the current President botched the response to a natural disaster. Could both of these things happen before November? Sure. Could something that's not these two things happen that dampen Hillary Clinton's chances of winning? You bet.

The only two parallels are these:

1. There is going to be a midterm election during this President's second term
2. The individual that is considered the incumbent party's Presidential front-runner for the next election is leading in early polling

Yes...that is my point. Instead of Katrina and Iraq, it's Obamacare and NSA spying.

How long until this constant barrage of negatives on the Obama White House begins to sink Democrats nationally, not to mention a potential Presidential candidate who was his Sec of State?

You can find parallels in anything if you look hard enough. My original post wasn't missing the point. The right wingers and pundits were creaming themselves over all the "parallels" that 2012 had to 1980.

[Reaganfan]

You are all missing my point. There are parallels to 2006.

The party of the current sitting President didn't get the country engaged in two wars with no exit strategy, nor has the current President botched the response to a natural disaster. Could both of these things happen before November? Sure. Could something that's not these two things happen that dampen Hillary Clinton's chances of winning? You bet.

The only two parallels are these:

1. There is going to be a midterm election during this President's second term
2. The individual that is considered the incumbent party's Presidential front-runner for the next election is leading in early polling

Yes...that is my point. Instead of Katrina and Iraq, it's Obamacare and NSA spying.

How long until this constant barrage of negatives on the Obama White House begins to sink Democrats nationally, not to mention a potential Presidential candidate who was his Sec of State?

You can find parallels in anything if you look hard enough. My original post wasn't missing the point. The right wingers and pundits were creaming themselves over all the "parallels" that 2012 had to 1980.

Well of course there were many parallels, but the general tide of the electorate gets polluted when you have litmus test voters who cast ballots.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

The difference between 2006 and 2014 is that in 2006, while Republicans may have been leading, the Democrats were still a viable alternative. They still had top-tier candidates who "could be president." They had not disqualified themselves by being nutbars. In 2006, the Democrats weren't percieved as being "anti-reality."

Today, if the bottom falls out, who is going to pick up the slack? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? The Republican bench is extremely weak, and I don't think any of them are presidents. Christie could have done it, but that's over now. The only remaining possibilities are Romney and Bush. Not exactly good odds.

To put things in perspective, the last "non-president" to be elected president was Jimmy Carter. I doubt someone like Rand Paul will get as lucky.

[Reaganfan]

The difference between 2006 and 2014 is that in 2006, while Republicans may have been leading, the Democrats were still a viable alternative. They still had top-tier candidates who "could be president." They had not disqualified themselves by being nutbars. In 2006, the Democrats weren't percieved as being "anti-reality."

Today, if the bottom falls out, who is going to pick up the slack? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? The Republican bench is extremely weak, and I don't think any of them are presidents. Christie could have done it, but that's over now. The only remaining possibilities are Romney and Bush. Not exactly good odds.

To put things in perspective, the last "non-president" to be elected president was Jimmy Carter. I doubt someone like Rand Paul will get as lucky.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are legitimate Presidential contenders. As Chuck Todd said a few weeks ago, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann were "jokes". The CEO of Godfather's Pizza? He stated that as United States Senators, Cruz and Paul are already "leaders of the country" so they're not joke candidates.

[Mr. Illini]

No one said there weren't parallels. What we said is there were also other dramatic non-parallels that impacted the course of events. Sounds like you're grasping at straws.

[Reaganfan]

Not at all, I just seem to sense a pro-Hillary atmosphere on this forum.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The difference between 2006 and 2014 is that in 2006, while Republicans may have been leading, the Democrats were still a viable alternative. They still had top-tier candidates who "could be president." They had not disqualified themselves by being nutbars. In 2006, the Democrats weren't percieved as being "anti-reality."

Today, if the bottom falls out, who is going to pick up the slack? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? The Republican bench is extremely weak, and I don't think any of them are presidents. Christie could have done it, but that's over now. The only remaining possibilities are Romney and Bush. Not exactly good odds.

To put things in perspective, the last "non-president" to be elected president was Jimmy Carter. I doubt someone like Rand Paul will get as lucky.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are legitimate Presidential contenders. As Chuck Todd said a few weeks ago, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann were "jokes". The CEO of Godfather's Pizza? He stated that as United States Senators, Cruz and Paul are already "leaders of the country" so they're not joke candidates.

I think it'd be best for America if you didn't. I have the utmost respect for Chuck Todd, and he knows what he's talking about. But he knows that Cruz and Paul are seen by REPUBLICANS as "leaders of the country" and by REPUBLICANS as "legitimate Presidential contenders". I can guarantee you that supermajorities of the population will see the two as crazy joke candidates.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Alot of people dislike her on this forum, but they still want her to win.

[Reaganfan]

Alot of people dislike her on this forum, but they still want her to win.

That's the same mentality that allows for the continuation of abusive relationships.

[Potatoe]

Alot of people dislike her on this forum, but they still want her to win.

That's the same mentality that allows for the continuation of abusive relationships.

That's pretty low.

[Reaganfan]

Alot of people dislike her on this forum, but they still want her to win.

That's the same mentality that allows for the continuation of abusive relationships.

That's pretty low.

Just being a goof.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Alot of people dislike her on this forum, but they still want her to win.

That's the same mentality that allows for the continuation of abusive relationships.

That's pretty low.

Just being a goof.

Smiley's would have been good on your previous post, Mike.

[King]

There really aren't any parallels to Feb 2006 other than it's 32 months before the election.

[eric82oslo]

There really aren't any parallels to Feb 2006 other than it's 32 months before the election.

It's only 8 months till Hillary might potentially announce her candidacy [just after the midterm elections]. (And still we don't know how 24 of the states might trend in such a scenario. Media outlets should sponsor more state polls I reccon. It seems like big players like Huffington Post, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC with more only care about the national horse race and nothing else. At this point at least.)

[sg0508]

If you think Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are getting elected, I'd like to know what you're smoking.

[Reaganfan]

If you think Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are getting elected, I'd like to know what you're smoking.

Anything can happen in politics.

Look, in 2004 and 2005 there were questions identical to the ones Republicans face now. The Democrats have alienated too many constituents, they need to nominate someone who is pro-gun, conservative, basically a DINO in order to win a national election.

They didn't have to. They nominated an African American liberal with little experience from Chicago and won states Democrats couldn't have dreamed of winning and hadn't won in nearly half a century.

So I hear the same stuff now about Republicans. "The only the way they'll win is if they nominate a pro-choice, liberal Republican. Jon Huntsman, a RINO, ect ect"

Who is to say that Republicans won't nominate a Tea Party candidate who will win the states of Washington and Minnesota? You don't know. But it's crazy to assume especially this far out.