time to punt on 2016?

[freepcrusher]

basically the dems need to play the long game and try to get Ginsberg to retire and replace her with a Breyer or Souter type that four republicans could vote for.

Then we punt in 2016 so the governors races and redistricting battles will go the dems way in 2018 (and avoid the fiasco-waiting-to-happen that is the 2018 senate seats).

[IceSpear]

Yeah, this would only lead to complete Republican control for two years. What could possibly go wrong?

[Person Man]

There is definitely that feeling that we need to step back and try to build our vision for America before competing again so that we have something to put on the table instead of whining. The problem with just focusing on local races is that by the time we are ready to compete again as a national party, we may literally have to start over again as policy may have reverted to some neogilded or neofeudal condition.

[Mehmentum]

Sure, lets just hand the GOP control of the presidency.  I'm sure that nothing bad could possibly happen.

[Person Man]

Sure, lets just hand the GOP control of the presidency.  I'm sure that nothing bad could possibly happen.

Well, maybe we will get our act together and have something to say and maybe he will f[inks] up enough so that people will listen to us again. But would it be worth it? And that Republican might be the guy the people finally fall in love with.

[Skill and Chance]

I'm torn.  Republicans have now been able to unilaterally govern 40-60% of the country for 6 years now, with no accountability, because any and all blowback falls on Obama by default.  So, if they are going to have this much control over the debate, shouldn't they have to answer for their policies nationally?  So the very best case scenario for the Dems may well be a Republican win in 2016, followed by overreach and wave elections in 2018 and 2020 that lead to full D control in 2021 and a redistricting advantage.

But the benefits in 2018 and 2020 only come if the new Republican president is unpopular.  We may have reason to assume that presidential unpopularity after year 1 is now inevitable, but if we are wrong, the stakes are very high for Dems.  Republicans would be basically assured 4 years of full control and if the R president remains popular and 2021 redistricting is also R-controlled just about everywhere, Democrats could have no say in the federal government until 2025.  Justices Ginsberg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer would be 92, 89, 89, and 87 in January of 2025.  The next president will likely make 4 SCOTUS appointments if he/she wins a 2nd term.  So Generic 2024 D winner could be staring down a 7-2 conservative SCOTUS.

So I would say no.  If nothing else, a 2-term Hillary presidency would likely result in a 6-3 liberal SCOTUS majority, and she would have a reasonable chance at a Dem senate in 2016.  Also, center-left suburban moms can be counted on to vote in midterms, so she probably wouldn't be hit as hard in 2018/22 even with Obama's approvals.

[IceSpear]

I'm torn.  Republicans have now been able to unilaterally govern 40-60% of the country for 6 years now, with no accountability, because any and all blowback falls on Obama by default.  So, if they are going to have this much control over the debate, shouldn't they have to answer for their policies nationally?  So the very best case scenario for the Dems may well be a Republican win in 2016, followed by overreach and wave elections in 2018 and 2020 that lead to full D control in 2021 and a redistricting advantage.

But the benefits in 2018 and 2020 only come if the new Republican president is unpopular.  We may have reason to assume that presidential unpopularity after year 1 is now inevitable, but if we are wrong, the stakes are very high for Dems.  Republicans would be basically assured 4 years of full control and if the R president remains popular and 2021 redistricting is also R-controlled just about everywhere, Democrats could have no say in the federal government until 2025.  Justices Ginsberg, Scalia, Kennedy and Breyer would be 92, 89, 89, and 87 in January of 2025.  The next president will likely make 4 SCOTUS appointments if he/she wins a 2nd term.  So Generic 2024 D winner could be staring down a 7-2 conservative SCOTUS.

So I would say no.  If nothing else, a 2-term Hillary presidency would likely result in a 6-3 liberal SCOTUS majority, and she would have a reasonable chance at a Dem senate in 2016.  Also, center-left suburban moms can be counted on to vote in midterms, so she probably wouldn't be hit as hard in 2018/22 even with Obama's approvals.

Yeah, SCOTUS is paramount. We need Hillary to replace Ginsburg/Breyer, and hopefully one of the conservatives, but that would just be a bonus.

[Oakvale]

Hey Mr. Phips!

[AggregateDemand]

The situation now is tantamount to the H W Bush presidency. Democrats capitalized back then, when the Republican Party was split. If they can't figure out what to do now, they really are hopeless.

When the US does not have two viable parties, the American people lose. It's been over 30 years now. Time to evolve for good.