Republican Wave?

[Person Man]

If there is a Republican wave this year and next(2016), will any pundits talk about any fundamental change in our country that caused it? Will they cite demographics, economic changes or the credibility of candidates/ideology or party?

[Consciously Unconscious]

No, it will be attributed to the failure/bad luck of the Democrats more than anything else (though this might include economic change, if there's a turn for the worse and it benefits Republicans).  Credibility of the candidates might be stated as a reason, if the Republican nominee in 2016 is very good and the Democratic one very bad.   

[Person Man]

No, it will be attributed to the failure/bad luck of the Democrats more than anything else (though this might include economic change, if there's a turn for the worse and it benefits Republicans).  Credibility of the candidates might be stated as a reason, if the Republican nominee in 2016 is very good and the Democratic one very bad.   

I personally think that GOP good luck would be that worsening race relations and the oil boom is softening Obama's coalition, pulling away younger folks and lighter-skinned minorities. Of course, this is just the Republican way of countering the declining Evangelical. An offshoot of this might be a growing neoconservatism replacing weakening social conservatism.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The "wave" will be due to decreased turnout.  There is just no confidence in government right now on either side of the aisle.  We still see people becoming more socially liberal, more irreligious, and more open to allowing socialism as part of a mixed economy.  The Republicans push the same agenda over and over and they win some/lose some.  The see-saw rocked our way for the most part from 2006-2012, with that 1994-esque charade put on by the GOP in 2010 because Barry hadn't fixed EVERYTHING in the course of a year.  Thing is, there is much to suggest that the economy is improving, Obamacare is working, and that Obama has largely been an effective leader.  That gradual improvement is not sensationalist, or attention-grabbing, however, so Americans dislike Congress and the President just as much as ever.  They won't show up 5 days from now, and the swath of upper-class/upper-middle class GOP voters will flock to the polls and put their overlords back in Congress as always. 

The Democrats will have a great opportunity to capitalize on their successes in the Obama years in 2016, but I hardly expect them to do it, instead running away from Obama and any good they do the same way they ran away from Clinton in 2000 and gave away what should've been an easy win.   This is why they need a guy like Sanders on the ticket, and I can only hope Hillary selects him as her running mate.  Or at least Warren. 

[sg0508]

The GOP wave this year won't carry over to 2016.  Everyone thought Bill Clinton was done after the midterms of '94, but the GOP's momentum certainly didn't carry over to the Electoral College in '96 and they did the best they could to hold serve in the Senate/House that year.  We've learned that what happens currently or two years prior doesn't carry over.

[IceSpear]

The GOP wave this year won't carry over to 2016.  Everyone thought Bill Clinton was done after the midterms of '94, but the GOP's momentum certainly didn't carry over to the Electoral College in '96 and they did the best they could to hold serve in the Senate/House that year.  We've learned that what happens currently or two years prior doesn't carry over.

And if you just looked at 2010 you would've thought Obama was doomed in 2012.

[SPC]

The GOP wave this year won't carry over to 2016.  Everyone thought Bill Clinton was done after the midterms of '94, but the GOP's momentum certainly didn't carry over to the Electoral College in '96 and they did the best they could to hold serve in the Senate/House that year.  We've learned that what happens currently or two years prior doesn't carry over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Sure, because the media never lets facts get in the way of a good story.

[RR1997]

There won't be a GOP wave in 2016, just like there wasn't a GOP wave in 2012.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

2010 was probably the last wave election for a while. After that, it's probably just small wins and solid-but-not-wave wins from here on out. The Democrats are favored in the electoral college, but I doubt they'll get another 2008 level win, while Republicans will be strained to repeat 2004 levels of support.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I see no evidence of a wave.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2010 was probably the last wave election for a while. After that, it's probably just small wins and solid-but-not-wave wins from here on out. The Democrats are favored in the electoral college, but I doubt they'll get another 2008 level win, while Republicans will be strained to repeat 2004 levels of support.

If the GOP net 4 seats, then Dems will get them right back in 2016, NH,Pa,WI, IL with a conjunction of OH, Va, CO, NV presidential wins for 300 electoral vote.will be enough.to carry house.

But for now, a status quo election.

[Skill and Chance]

If Republicans do take the senate and make big house gains, these are the types of voters that are likely swinging toward them:

A. Jim
Location: Decaying Rust Belt suburb
Age: 52
Married
Race: White
Religion: Disaffected Catholic
Occupation: Store Clerk
Family Income: $50,000 (he lost a $80,000 union manufacturing job in 2008)
Voting history: Obama 2008 and 2012
Reason for GOP vote: Thinks Obama has officially failed to fix the economy.

B. Sara
Location: Rural West
Age: 41
Married
Race: Hispanic, family has been in the US >50 years
Religion: Active Catholic
Occupation: Stay-at-home mom, husband is rancher/farmer/miner/oilfield worker
Family Income: $75,000
Voting history: Obama 2008 and 2012
Reason for GOP vote: Much more concerned about economy than immigration, mildly pro-life

C. Emily
Location: Generic wealthy suburb
Age: 35
Single
Race: White 
Religion: None
Occupation: Management, on executive track
Family Income: $175,000
Voting History: Obama 2008 and Romney 2012, against crazy downballot GOP candidate in 2010-12
Reason for GOP Vote: A low-tax business moderate who was very turned off by social issue rhetoric, still proudly supports Hillary 2016

D. Danny

Location: Rural South
Age: 65
Married
Race: White
Religion: Protestant, possibly Evangelical
Occupation: Local sales
Family Income: $40,000
Voting History: McCain 2008 and Romney 2012, has repeatedly voted for Dem incumbent senator
Reason for GOP Vote: Finally decided that Dem incumbent senator is too liberal/supportive of Obama.

It was something of a fluke that Obama was able to draw Emily and Jim into the same coalition.  Future Sara's could give the Dems major medium to long term problems.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Presidential waves aren't that common. Here are all of the Presidential elections that had more than a 15 seat net change in the House since 1932: 1948, 1952, 1960, 1964, 1980, 2008. And 1960 was a 19 seat gain for the Republicans, LOL.

[Person Man]

Any takers?

[Boston Bread]

36.6% turnout so far. But yes the fact it could happen is really damning for present democratic strategy.

[Person Man]

Has the "Coalition of the Ascendant" been replaced with a narrative about the aging of America?

[Representative Joe Mad]

If the Republicans do well in 2016 I think some new buzzword or theme in the media will take hold, but I'll be honest in thinking it will be little more than just that, a media theme.  The parties are (depressingly so, really) far more robust than many seem to give them credit for.  I remember reading an article that discussed the aftermath of the 2004 elections.  People were talking about how the Democrats might become a long term minority party!  We all know what happened two years later.  Then, post 2012, the GOP is destined for long term decay due to demographics and an increasingly young, liberal electorate.  Then we had a few days ago happen.

To me, if the GOP does take 2016, I'll view it less as the Democratic coalition falling apart and more that after eight years of a Democrat in office (who has sagging approval ratings) enough people are desiring a Republican to usher one in with congressional majorities.  Which, of course, sounds really familiar.

[Skill and Chance]

If Republicans do take the senate and make big house gains, these are the types of voters that are likely swinging toward them:

A. Jim
Location: Decaying Rust Belt suburb
Age: 52
Married
Race: White
Religion: Disaffected Catholic
Occupation: Store Clerk
Family Income: $50,000 (he lost a $80,000 union manufacturing job in 2008)
Voting history: Obama 2008 and 2012
Reason for GOP vote: Thinks Obama has officially failed to fix the economy.

Jim and his cohort definitely flipped.  But this was expected and probably old news at this point.

B. Sara
Location: Rural West
Age: 41
Married
Race: Hispanic, family has been in the US >50 years
Religion: Active Catholic
Occupation: Stay-at-home mom, husband is rancher/farmer/miner/oilfield worker
Family Income: $75,000
Voting history: Obama 2008 and 2012
Reason for GOP vote: Much more concerned about economy than immigration, mildly pro-life

Sara and her husband are the reason Mark Udall is out of a job.  Nevada was of course a turnout disaster.  However, Dem performance among Hispanic voters was up over 2010 nationally and moderate Hispanics seemed to have split their tickets Hickenlooper/Gardner and Martinez/Udall rather than going wholesale GOP.

C. Emily
Location: Generic wealthy suburb
Age: 35
Single
Race: White 
Religion: None
Occupation: Management, on executive track
Family Income: $175,000
Voting History: Obama 2008 and Romney 2012, against crazy downballot GOP candidate in 2010-12
Reason for GOP Vote: A low-tax business moderate who was very turned off by social issue rhetoric, still proudly supports Hillary 2016

Emily, and her less wealthy college-educated cousins, were the one potential bright spot of the night for Democrats.  They saved Mark Warner and Jeanne Shaheen and kept the GOP wave much less dramatic in Colorado, California and Oregon.

D. Danny

Location: Rural South
Age: 65
Married
Race: White
Religion: Protestant, possibly Evangelical
Occupation: Local sales
Family Income: $40,000
Voting History: McCain 2008 and Romney 2012, has repeatedly voted for Dem incumbent senator
Reason for GOP Vote: Finally decided that Dem incumbent senator is too liberal/supportive of Obama.

And Danny is officially never going to vote for a Democrat again, at any level of government.  Coalitions have changed, and I only expect the GOP margin in the Deep South and rural Midwest to increase at this point.  There also might be a new generation of Danny's-in-waiting in Iowa, Maine and non-Chicago Illinois, but no one took notice until now.

It was something of a fluke that Obama was able to draw Emily and Jim into the same coalition.  Future Sara's could give the Dems major medium to long term problems.

In retrospect, the Jim/Emily tension didn't define the night.  Democrats lost the Midwest, but GOP margins in the more urban states were generally 5-10%.  "Jim" voters are presently anti-incumbent, but there is no reason they won't continue to swing with the economy.

Instead, it was a quixotic attempt to win "Danny" voters back over on behalf of various incumbent Southern senators that fell flat, when cutting those seats loose sooner to focus on liberal turnout might have saved 48-50 seats (CO and NC unambiguously).  Mark Warner in particular spent waaayyyy too much time courting Danny and ignoring the Dem base, when it was the base, plus a few Emily types who narrowly saved him.  The other Mark made the opposite mistake, and we have found that there is a limit to how much you can target suburban women without losing economic populist men.

So for the near future, it would make sense for Democrats to approach rural white voters in the same way Republicans have approached urban minorities in the Obama era--concede those areas and look for persuadable votes elsewhere.  For the 3rd cycle in a row, Democrats held on surprisingly well in wealthy suburbs, so that seems like a logical base of support to continue building upon.  It also seems that Democrats have wasted a lot of political capital in 2009-10 offering targeted help to the poor that many didn't actually want or think they need and Citizens United makes it near impossible to run an economic populist campaign without hypocrisy charges.  I still think the best bet is to try to expand the creative class strategy further out into the suburbs and smaller cities outside of the Deep South, with education being perhaps the best wedge issue available for this.  Call it the Brad Ashford/Gwen Graham strategy.

[Person Man]

Basically the hierarchy going forward should be

Emily  (Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina)
Sara (New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado)
Jim  (Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin)
Danny (give up on places like Arkansas and Kentucky, North Carolina)

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, I agree with that order:

1. It seems that Republicans have a higher floor with minority voters and Democrats have a higher floor with white voters than the CW anticipated.  So the whole "turn Texas/Arizona blue!" line of thinking needs to go out the window with the focus instead on the Bush-Obama states.  I also think the GOP will give up on NH soon.

2. Hillary has a path to a large (> or = 2008) national victory, but it doesn't rest on the Clinton Coalition states, it rests on wiping the floor 3:1 with Emily and Sara.  And there's the added benefit that her strongest supporters won't be stuck in a small number of 75% female districts, so congress could be in play.

3. Jim-type voters are understandably anti-incumbent.  Democrats peaked with them way back in 2006.  Since then, it's been about trying to break even/limit losses.  Republicans should be very interested in trying to break 60% with them, but they won't likely put a Dem over the top until the GOP has full control again.

4. Unlike TX/AZ/GA, Florida looks surprisingly promising for Dems in the medium to long run.  Scott didn't overperform polling and the Cuban voting shift seemed to continue.  The GOP should do everything they can to lock it down while they still have full control and Hillary should spend a lot of time here.

5. If US oil production continues to rival Saudi Arabia over the long term, the Democratic position on the environment will go the way of the Republican position on gay marriage over the coming years.  It could be a non-starter to talk about climate change outside of 65% Obama districts in 2025.

6. The next time they have a big wave, the Democrats need to be ready to do in CO/NM/NV/VA/NH what the Republicans have now done in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA: sweep the legislatures, win by double digits statewide and take them off the table for good.  They can't let Republicans become entrenched in 20-25 states when they only have 5-10 of their own (CA still only gets 2 senators).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

 The next time they have a big wave, the Democrats need to be ready to do in CO/NM/NV/VA/NH what the Republicans have now done in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA: sweep the legislatures, win by double digits statewide and take them off the table for good.  They can't let Republicans becotme entrenched in 20-25 states when they only have 5-10 of their own (CA still only gets 2 senators).
[/quote]

Yes, it was a wave, and the G O P won on its own turf, not a realignment election, and it had more to do with Christie testing the political waters. But, we are already living under sequester cuts and G O P budgets and 90%.of Congress will look same.

As for 2016, G O P will end their unity and turn to the primaries. We must find a way next to translate our prez victory, should Clinton win to midterm gains, since the G O P govs will be term limited.

[Free Bird]

The next time they have a big wave, the Democrats need to be ready to do in CO/NM/NV/VA/NH what the Republicans have now done in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA: sweep the legislatures, win by double digits statewide and take them off the table for good.  They can't let Republicans becotme entrenched in 20-25 states when they only have 5-10 of their own (CA still only gets 2 senators).

Yes, it was a wave, and the G O P won on its own turf, not a realignment election, and it had more to do with Christie testing the political waters. But, we are already living under sequester cuts and G O P budgets and 90%.of Congress will look same.

As for 2016, G O P will end their unity and turn to the primaries. We must find a way next to translate our prez victory, should Clinton win to midterm gains, since the G O P govs will be term limited.
[/quote]

THEY'RE CALLED ARTICLES AND CONJUNCTIONS. USE THEM

[Person Man]

Yes, I agree with that order:

1. It seems that Republicans have a higher floor with minority voters and Democrats have a higher floor with white voters than the CW anticipated.  So the whole "turn Texas/Arizona blue!" line of thinking needs to go out the window with the focus instead on the Bush-Obama states.  I also think the GOP will give up on NH soon.

2. Hillary has a path to a large (> or = 2008) national victory, but it doesn't rest on the Clinton Coalition states, it rests on wiping the floor 3:1 with Emily and Sara.  And there's the added benefit that her strongest supporters won't be stuck in a small number of 75% female districts, so congress could be in play.

3. Jim-type voters are understandably anti-incumbent.  Democrats peaked with them way back in 2006.  Since then, it's been about trying to break even/limit losses.  Republicans should be very interested in trying to break 60% with them, but they won't likely put a Dem over the top until the GOP has full control again.

4. Unlike TX/AZ/GA, Florida looks surprisingly promising for Dems in the medium to long run.  Scott didn't overperform polling and the Cuban voting shift seemed to continue.  The GOP should do everything they can to lock it down while they still have full control and Hillary should spend a lot of time here.

5. If US oil production continues to rival Saudi Arabia over the long term, the Democratic position on the environment will go the way of the Republican position on gay marriage over the coming years.  It could be a non-starter to talk about climate change outside of 65% Obama districts in 2025.

6. The next time they have a big wave, the Democrats need to be ready to do in CO/NM/NV/VA/NH what the Republicans have now done in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA: sweep the legislatures, win by double digits statewide and take them off the table for good.  They can't let Republicans become entrenched in 20-25 states when they only have 5-10 of their own (CA still only gets 2 senators).

More or less. Pushing further Into Arizona and Texas doesn't work because many Hispanics, especially lighter skinned ones eventually assimilate and say they are "Spanish". Which is whatever but it they start acting like they were always Danny.

But giving up on climate change will stop when climate change single handedly causes a recession bad enough that you can't just put farmers on welfare the way we put banks on welfare this time.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The next time they have a big wave, the Democrats need to be ready to do in CO/NM/NV/VA/NH what the Republicans have now done in WV/KY/TN/AR/LA: sweep the legislatures, win by double digits statewide and take them off the table for good.  They can't let Republicans becotme entrenched in 20-25 states when they only have 5-10 of their own (CA still only gets 2 senators).

Yes, it was a wave, and the G O P won on its own turf, not a realignment election, and it had more to do with Christie testing the political waters. But, we are already living under sequester cuts and G O P budgets and 90%.of Congress will look same.

As for 2016, G O P will end their unity

 and turn to the primaries. We must find a way next to translate our prez victory, should Clinton win to midterm gains, since the G O P govs will be term limited.

THEY'RE CALLED ARTICLES AND CONJUNCTIONS. USE THEM
[/quote]


We blew the 2014 election with Obama, but 2016 wont have Obama to kick around anymore.