Bad time to be a Democrat

[Reaganfan]

I understand the level of hackery on this forum, but it's gotten quite ridiculous.

Every indication is that it is at present a bad time to be a Democrat. Obama's approval ratings, Obamacare, the possibility of losing the Senate, you just lost another seat in the house, Americans more than ever are buying guns and ammo and a strong libertarian tide appears to be moving across the country. We are two years away from a Presidential election to succeed a two-term Democrat and their best chance is a 90s has been who is nearing her 70s, vastly polarizing and extremely unpopular with men, and who was a member of the incumbent unpopular Democratic administration.

Now I'm not saying Democrats can't win, but I would much rather be in the Republican fold right now than the Democratic. It just doesn't seem good. Am I wrong?

If anything, doesn't it seem like as of today, Republicans are in a better spot than Democrats?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama's approval rating is unchanged since October.

[IceSpear]

I understand the level of hackery on this forum, but it's gotten quite ridiculous.

No less hackish than this thread.

Obama's approval ratings

Have been static for months.

Obamacare

Gradually getting more popular.

the possibility of losing the Senate

This has always been a possibility.

you just lost another seat in the house

No we didn't. It was a Republican hold.

Americans more than ever are buying guns and ammo and a strong libertarian tide appears to be moving across the country.

If there truly is a "libertarian tide", that sounds like just as much bad news for the GOP as it is for the Democrats.

We are two years away from a Presidential election to succeed a two-term Democrat and their best chance is a 90s has been who is nearing her 70s, vastly polarizing and extremely unpopular with men, and who was a member of the incumbent unpopular Democratic administration.

And yet she easily leads every member of the GOP clowncar. What does that say about them?

[Mordecai]

If anything, doesn't it seem like as of today, Republicans are in a better spot than Democrats?

No, because they basically have no one who is smart enough, sane enough and electable enough to be President at this time.

The only way it's bad to be a Democrat is for people like Martin O'Malley who want to be President but will probably have to wait another six or ten years and Hillary will have to find a new goal besides health insurance reform.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Am I wrong?

Yes... not just for this specific question but in general

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Oh the irony of Mike Naso attacking Clinton for being a throwback to the 90s when he can't stop throwing back to the 80s.

[King]

Great thread.

[Niemeyerite]

We are two years away from a Presidential election to succeed a two-term Democrat and their best chance is a 90s has been who is nearing her 70s, vastly polarizing

REAGANfan.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Of course Democrats will say you are wrong x_x

Because we're right.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I understand the level of hackery on this forum, but it's gotten quite ridiculous.

Every indication is that it is at present a bad time to be a Democrat. Obama's approval ratings, Obamacare, the possibility of losing the Senate, you just lost another seat in the house, Americans more than ever are buying guns and ammo and a strong libertarian tide appears to be moving across the country. We are two years away from a Presidential election to succeed a two-term Democrat and their best chance is a 90s has been who is nearing her 70s, vastly polarizing and extremely unpopular with men, and who was a member of the incumbent unpopular Democratic administration.

Now I'm not saying Democrats can't win, but I would much rather be in the Republican fold right now than the Democratic. It just doesn't seem good. Am I wrong?

If anything, doesn't it seem like as of today, Republicans are in a better spot than Democrats?

That's the same age that your party's savior was elected President. And as someone else already said on here, she leads all the clowns in the Republican circus. I'd say your party is the one that's in trouble. If you all couldn't beat a black Kenyan socialist Muslim communist etc., there's no way you're going to defeat the most powerful woman in the world.

[Heimdal]

The way I see it, the two parties are quite equal in strength as of now. The Republicans are obviously in better shape than the “Emerging Democratic Majority”- narrative would suggest. They control the House, and a lot of State legislatures and governorships. In 2012 they did very well with against an incumbent president, with a seriously flawed candidate. This year they might pick up enough seats to win control of the Senate.

The Democrats control the upper chamber of Congress and have the presidency. In 2012 they regained some lost ground. Even if the GOP takes the Senate this year, the Democrats might be able to take it back as early as 2016. They probably won’t win the House back for a while, but the current battle map favors them during Presidential elections.

So both parties have a decent shot at winning the Presidential election in 2016. On one hand history suggests that the GOP will win, since parties rarely hold the White House for three consecutive terms. On the other hand there is a chance that the Republican primary will produce a badly flawed candidate. So both parties appear to be in pretty good shape at the moment. The situation was far more lopsided in the early years of Bush’s first term, or the immediate aftermath of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It is obvious we will net governorships this year in FL, Pa, MI and ME for sure.  These states in addt to CO make up the electoral math right there to win, excluding OH, with a popular Gov Kasich. Enough seats won't flip this time, but we can win enough House seats, 7-10 so that 2016 will be a Democratic year. Unfortunately, the Obamacare rollout damaged what little chance we had to recapture the House.

[Kevin]

Of course Democrats will say you are wrong x_x

Because we're right.

That's an awfully coincided comment.

[whanztastic]

So is starting a thread just troll...

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Of course Democrats will say you are wrong x_x

Because we're right.

That's an awfully coincided comment.

That sentence makes literally no sense - the proper word is "conceited". And we are correct, as stated by many others to whom Reaganfan has yet to respond.

[Donerail]

I'd say your party is the one that's in trouble. If you all couldn't beat a black Kenyan socialist Muslim communist etc., there's no way you're going to defeat the most powerful woman in the world.

Good thing that Merkel and Rousseff have both denied interest in running for the Presidency, then.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The way I see it, the two parties are quite equal in strength as of now. The Republicans are obviously in better shape than the “Emerging Democratic Majority”- narrative would suggest. They control the House, and a lot of State legislatures and governorships. In 2012 they did very well with against an incumbent president, with a seriously flawed candidate. This year they might pick up enough seats to win control of the Senate.

Don't read too much into the Republican control of the House. Gerrymandering has given them a decided advantage there that likely won't be reflected in the Presidential election in 2016.

[Orser67]

It's a bad time to be a Democrat in March 2014. I'd still rather be a Democrat in 2016.

[Heimdal]

The way I see it, the two parties are quite equal in strength as of now. The Republicans are obviously in better shape than the “Emerging Democratic Majority”- narrative would suggest. They control the House, and a lot of State legislatures and governorships. In 2012 they did very well with against an incumbent president, with a seriously flawed candidate. This year they might pick up enough seats to win control of the Senate.

Don't read too much into the Republican control of the House. Gerrymandering has given them a decided advantage there that likely won't be reflected in the Presidential election in 2016.

Gerrymandering is definitely a part of the picture, but its importance shouldn’t be overstated. The current Republican coalition is better suited to win the House than the Democratic coalition. Not to mention that the Democrats have done their share of gerrymandering as well (Illinois and Maryland for example). 

It is obvious that control of the House won’t help them in 2016, just as it didn’t help the Democrats during the 1980s. The election will be decided by the quality of the candidates, the state of the economy and events.

[pbrower2a]

Now I'm not saying Democrats can't win, but I would much rather be in the Republican fold right now than the Democratic. It just doesn't seem good. Am I wrong?

If anything, doesn't it seem like as of today, Republicans are in a better spot than Democrats?

If you are to play a game, then make sure that the game is worth winning.

1. President Obama is not so unpopular that he hurts the Democrats. His approval range is where he must be to have a chance to win re-election for the Presidency this year. (Of course the election is in 2016, and he cannot run for a Third Term.

2. Ratings of the majority-Republican House of Representatives are just above those for brush fires, rattlesnakes, heroin, HIV, syphilis, Charles Manson, and the emerald ash borer.

3. Hillary Clinton projects to win the White House against any potential Republican nominee by roughly the same margin as did Barack Obama.

4. Republicans have a majority in the House due to gerrymandering that gives the Republicans an advantage in winning seats -- and they have used that advantage largely to elect extremists. A district with a Cook R+4 district is tailor-made for a Gerald Ford, and not for some borderline f@$c!$t.. But the Republicans have few people like Gerald Ford. Moderate Democrats can win such districts against extremists on occasion.

5. Your Party is becoming hostile to ideological difference within your party.  The Republican Party offers the same ideology to suburban Philadelphia as to the Texas Panhandle.

6. Gay rights are on our side, and Republicans are handling them badly.  

Now, your advantage:

Many of the Senate seats that are up for election are D seats in states that went R in the Presidential election of 2008. One of those has an appointed Senator (those usually lose). Two are open seats. Republicans are going to win those three Senate seats. That's how the Senate election is aligned this year. Of course in 2016 you will find a bunch of unpopular Senators elected in 2010 who will need a depressed turnout to win -- in a year with a Presidential election.  
    

[Joshgreen]

This thread is a joke and waste of space.

[The Mikado]

The Republicans are likely sailing to smashing victories this November in the midterms, yes.  I don't think many here are disputing that.

2016 isn't 2014, and the utter lack of any real GOP presidential bench and the strong possibility that they'll be running a nobody like Scott Walker or a has-been like Jeb Bush (Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State in 2012, Jeb won't have had a political position in a decade by the election day) means that 2016 presidential is a far more compelling option than 2014.

[Potatoe]

The Republicans are likely sailing to smashing victories this November in the midterms, yes.  I don't think many here are disputing that.

Smashing? Really? While the big 4 Pickups (Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia) seem likely, a slightly more than split chance of defeating the Minority leader, and the somewhat shaky chance to pick up a seat in Georgia is not smashing.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This thread is a joke and waste of space.

Much like your existence on this forum, Mr. The Democrats Will Beat Chris McDaniels.

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

The Republicans are likely sailing to smashing victories this November in the midterms, yes.  I don't think many here are disputing that.

I disagree. While a think a general Republican victory is not disputed, the scope is still very much in flux. If ObamaCare and Obama himself recover (which they very well may, considering they actually managed to get 6 million enrollments), then the GOP victory won't be as large.