2016 presidential win for GOP, one-termer in the making?

[Devils30]

Although many Democrats will be angry if someone like let's say Christie is elected. Does anyone else see the possibility that a GOP presidential term could become like Carter's? Christie for example would take fire from the tea party for not being conservative enough while his nastiness toward people might turn off just about everyone after a year or two. Possible that the GOP cuts taxes for the wealthy and the economy fails to grow. Then in 2018 Dems gain a bunch of governorships and house seats but still are in the minority. In 2020 with presidential turnout this would be a near perfect Democratic scenario.

[MurrayBannerman]

If the GOP is a one-termer, then I would see the same for the Democrats. All in all, it's something that's become incredibly hard to accomplish.

[Skill and Chance]

Well, it seems like the key to being a one-termer is unified government, particularly if your party maintains full control of congress after the midterm, so the opposition backlash only builds during the next two years.  Even in a reverse 2010, Democrats have no way of taking more than 2-3 Senate seats in 2018 and a very tough road to a House majority.   On the other hand, a Democratic president would be almost assured of divided government through the 2016-20 term.  So I could see things boiling over in 2020 after 4 years of R control.  This year's results also strongly suggest that we are still in the Republican era that started in 1980 and 2008 wasn't a true realignment.  Maybe 2020 will be the realignment year?  Also, I think Ginsburg and Breyer can hold out until 2021.  2025 would be worrying, though.

[NewYorkExpress]

Someone like Christie, who picks fights with everyone would one-termer.

Other Republicans probably wouldn't, assuming they win in the first place of course.

[Devils30]

Obamas 2008 win has a lot of parallels to Nixons 1968. He won by a modest margin in the electoral college and put new states into play for Democrats such as Nevada, Colorado and Virginia. Nixon would have won by a similar margin if not for Wallace. 2012 also would have been a larger Obama win if he faced someone like Bachmann who was the GOP version of McGovern. The demographics of America pretty much guarantee a competitive showing for Democrats in 2016 and by 2020 an unpopular Republican president could doom the GOP.

[Person Man]

The way I see it 2020 or 2020 will be a great year for Democrats.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Obamas 2008 win has a lot of parallels to Nixons 1968. He won by a modest margin in the electoral college and put new states into play for Democrats such as Nevada, Colorado and Virginia. Nixon would have won by a similar margin if not for Wallace. 2012 also would have been a larger Obama win if he faced someone like Bachmann who was the GOP version of McGovern. The demographics of America pretty much guarantee a competitive showing for Democrats in 2016 and by 2020 an unpopular Republican president could doom the GOP.

It is totally and completely your assumption (and I'll add bias) that Nixon would have scooped up all these Wallace voters.  Did HHH have a strong civil rights record?  Sure, but so did Nixon...

[Devils30]

No, but Nixon won 1968 44-43% nationally. If Nixon wins 2/3 of the Wallace vote it looks very similar to the 53-46% Obama won 2008 by. And Dems dominated Congress during the 1970s as well. What I'm saying is the rosy look of the GOP dominating all non-presidential offices is built on sand, not steel.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Well, it seems like the key to being a one-termer is unified government, particularly if your party maintains full control of congress after the midterm, so the opposition backlash only builds during the next two years.  Even in a reverse 2010, Democrats have no way of taking more than 2-3 Senate seats in 2018 and a very tough road to a House majority.   On the other hand, a Democratic president would be almost assured of divided government through the 2016-20 term.  So I could see things boiling over in 2020 after 4 years of R control.  This year's results also strongly suggest that we are still in the Republican era that started in 1980 and 2008 wasn't a true realignment.  Maybe 2020 will be the realignment year?  Also, I think Ginsburg and Breyer can hold out until 2021.  2025 would be worrying, though.

Even if 2018 is a good year for Democrats, they will almost certainly lose seats in the Senate. Their only real pickup opportunity is NV (AZ is a long-shot). Meanwhile, there are roughly 14 democratic seats that are something less than Safe D at this early point. McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Donnelly probably fall in pretty much any environment as long as the republican nominee is competent.

[Skill and Chance]

Well, it seems like the key to being a one-termer is unified government, particularly if your party maintains full control of congress after the midterm, so the opposition backlash only builds during the next two years.  Even in a reverse 2010, Democrats have no way of taking more than 2-3 Senate seats in 2018 and a very tough road to a House majority.   On the other hand, a Democratic president would be almost assured of divided government through the 2016-20 term.  So I could see things boiling over in 2020 after 4 years of R control.  This year's results also strongly suggest that we are still in the Republican era that started in 1980 and 2008 wasn't a true realignment.  Maybe 2020 will be the realignment year?  Also, I think Ginsburg and Breyer can hold out until 2021.  2025 would be worrying, though.

Even if 2018 is a good year for Democrats, they will almost certainly lose seats in the Senate. Their only real pickup opportunity is NV (AZ is a long-shot). Meanwhile, there are roughly 14 democratic seats that are something less than Safe D at this early point. McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Donnelly probably fall in pretty much any environment as long as the republican nominee is competent.

Imagine a 57/42 D generic ballot.  They would probably hold everything, pick up NV and AZ and might surprise somewhere else.

[Devils30]

It's hard to imagine now but the next unpopular Republican president will face an absolute bloodbath in terms of the # Democratic votes against. It won't be like 2006, 2010, 2014, in terms of sheer numbers it could be twice that.

[MurrayBannerman]

It's hard to imagine now but the next unpopular Republican president will face an absolute bloodbath in terms of the # Democratic votes against. It won't be like 2006, 2010, 2014, in terms of sheer numbers it could be twice that.

Republican waves have the power of a normal man; where as, Democratic waves have a greater power. Democratic waves have THE power. They're like the He-Man of voting waves.

[Mr. Smith]

Considering how everything since Ford got tossed out has played out almost like some kind of mirror version of all the events from Coolidge declining a second term to Carter himself.

Carter and Hoover were the uncharismatic humanitarians that came in against even less charismatic candidates. Both ended up in terrible economic situations and were booted out for it, and are now the lone two presidents to have been out of office for more than 30 years.

Reagan and FDR were the trend-setters

Bush and Truman were the overshadowed Veeps.

Clinton and Eisenhower were the lone ones from the opposing party,but ultimately were ideological damage control at best.

Dubya and Kennedy/LBJ were attempts to return to the old trend-setter (LBJ's Great Society was New Deal Jr and Bush tried to liken himself to Reagan), ultimately got themselves into war boondoggles

Obama and Nixon/Ford tried to get reasonable healthcare passed,but were heckled by ideologues. Both used the unpopularity of the wars by the predecessor to get in, only to extend it longer and longer. Both were seen by the bases as saviours meant to get turn it all around, only to decide and keep the status quo.

Hillary could easily be the tired old Ford who already had the big stuff (Ford was in the House for 20+ years before the big and unexpected sweep-in, Hillary has also been in the spotlight for 20 + years) happen that the establishment feels safe with,but ultimately is uninspiring. This gives her challenge from the aggravated left that gives the election to Christie/Walker/or most like 1976 a surprise attack from another Northeastern/Midwest Governor (such as LePage, Snyder, or Kasich, maybe even Larry Hogan) in a close call.

[emcee0]

I could easily see Christie becoming the next Carter, possibly Hoover to a progressive. It would be just like Reagan in the sense that Christie will be the scandal ridden President versus a fiery progressive that may be seen to liberal for the electorate, yet wins in a landslide, resulting in a re aligning election for Democrats.

[Devils30]

Christie would have scandals, that is pretty much a given. The worst case scenario for the GOP isn't losing 2016, it's winning and having a disaster of a Presidency.

Here's the absolute worst case: 2018 is a somewhat normal midterm, GOP keeps both houses of congress but Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Georgia tire of eight years of Republicans and elect Dems as governors. Then a recession hits in 2019, not a major one compared to 2008 but the first since that time. Christie then vetoes some conservative bills and angers tea partiers. He doesn't get along with the press and tells a reporter to go **** off. Then in 2020, the Dems get 43-45% of the white vote and that translates to a 57-42 win nationally. The GOP loses the Senate easily, the House by a dozen seats and a few safely gerrymandered legislatures like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Democrats take full control in New York, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada. While the GOP maintains control of Florida, Ohio legislatures, the courts draw the 2022 maps after a gubernatorial veto.

Just many crazy scenarios for the next 6 years!

[Skill and Chance]

It's hard to imagine now but the next unpopular Republican president will face an absolute bloodbath in terms of the # Democratic votes against. It won't be like 2006, 2010, 2014, in terms of sheer numbers it could be twice that.

Republican waves have the power of a normal man; where as, Democratic waves have a greater power. Democratic waves have THE power. They're like the He-Man of voting waves.

We actually haven't had an overwhelming Democratic wave in some time.  The last time they picked up more than 40 House seats in one cycle was back in 1974 after Watergate.  I could certainly see a reverse 1894 where all the gerrymanders break at once and like 100 seats flip.  I wonder what generic ballot that would take?

[Devils30]

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

This guy predicted the GOP majority in 1965 and it really took another 16 years for things to take place. Guess the emerging Democratic majority starting in 2020 isn't so absurd after all.

[Mister Mets]

Republican incumbents seem to have a worse record than Democratic incumbents in the last few cycles, but incumbents in general have numerous institutional advantages and the people elected President tend to be politically talented.

So a loss would be possible, but the Republican President would likely be the favorite for reelection.

[porky88]

We're due for a one-term president, regardless of which party wins in 2016.

[Maistre]

Obamas 2008 win has a lot of parallels to Nixons 1968. He won by a modest margin in the electoral college and put new states into play for Democrats such as Nevada, Colorado and Virginia. Nixon would have won by a similar margin if not for Wallace. 2012 also would have been a larger Obama win if he faced someone like Bachmann who was the GOP version of McGovern. The demographics of America pretty much guarantee a competitive showing for Democrats in 2016 and by 2020 an unpopular Republican president could doom the GOP.

It is totally and completely your assumption (and I'll add bias) that Nixon would have scooped up all these Wallace voters.  Did HHH have a strong civil rights record?  Sure, but so did Nixon...

Wallace voters (at least in the South) voted Republican in 1964,

[King]

A Republican win in 2016 is fools gold. We'd be due for another recession around 2019 or so.  They'd have two economic collapses in a row on their hands.

[Person Man]

A Republican win in 2016 is fools gold. We'd be due for another recession around 2019 or so.  They'd have two economic collapses in a row on their hands.

Definitely no earlier than sometime after the next election. The business cycle should conspire to make the next president a one-termer. Of course, there are ways out of as W has shown.

[Mister Mets]

We're due for a one-term president, regardless of which party wins in 2016.

The belief that something random is due is a fallacy.

If a coin has flipped on heads eight times in a row, it's not more likely to hit tails on the next throw. You may just have a string of heads, or a flawed coin that's more likely to flip on heads.

While one-term Presidents are possible, there's a confluence of things that have resulted in the current situation with three consecutive Presidents on track to finish their second terms.

The secret service has been able to protect Presidents from the things that ended the administrations of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy.

Democrats got competitive again, preventing Republicans from holding a monopoly on the White House.

I also think there is an explanation for the second term curse. Basically, Presidents are able to delay the negative consequences of their policies until after they're reelected, but it leaves the other party with the advantage to take over in the next election. I'd imagine a GOP president elected in 2016 will try to delay the drawbacks of policies until after 2020.

[Person Man]

We're due for a one-term president, regardless of which party wins in 2016.

The belief that something random is due is a fallacy.

If a coin has flipped on heads eight times in a row, it's not more likely to hit tails on the next throw. You may just have a string of heads, or a flawed coin that's more likely to flip on heads.

While one-term Presidents are possible, there's a confluence of things that have resulted in the current situation with three consecutive Presidents on track to finish their second terms.

The secret service has been able to protect Presidents from the things that ended the administrations of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy.

Democrats got competitive again, preventing Republicans from holding a monopoly on the White House.

I also think there is an explanation for the second term curse. Basically, Presidents are able to delay the negative consequences of their policies until after they're reelected, but it leaves the other party with the advantage to take over in the next election. I'd imagine a GOP president elected in 2016 will try to delay the drawbacks of policies until after 2020.

If its possible. And you may be totally correct but the business cycle might not be so harmonious as it has been to the election cycle as it has been for the last 24 year.

[Skill and Chance]

We're due for a one-term president, regardless of which party wins in 2016.

The belief that something random is due is a fallacy.

If a coin has flipped on heads eight times in a row, it's not more likely to hit tails on the next throw. You may just have a string of heads, or a flawed coin that's more likely to flip on heads.

While one-term Presidents are possible, there's a confluence of things that have resulted in the current situation with three consecutive Presidents on track to finish their second terms.

The secret service has been able to protect Presidents from the things that ended the administrations of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy.

Democrats got competitive again, preventing Republicans from holding a monopoly on the White House.

I also think there is an explanation for the second term curse. Basically, Presidents are able to delay the negative consequences of their policies until after they're reelected, but it leaves the other party with the advantage to take over in the next election. I'd imagine a GOP president elected in 2016 will try to delay the drawbacks of policies until after 2020.

If its possible. And you may be totally correct but the business cycle might not be so harmonious as it has been to the election cycle as it has been for the last 24 year.

I think there are underlying alignments and realignments in the statistical sense, but the major confounding factor is that candidates do matter enough that the fundamentals can be beaten for a single 4-8 year cycle just based on personality.  e.g. Ike would have won under any circumstances barring WWIII under Truman and would have been a shoe-in for reelection barring a 2nd Depression.  Bad, but not apocalyptic fundamentals can be overcome with a good candidate.  1992 and 2012 are probably more recent examples of this.  And you don't have to be moderate if you're nice, but you have to be nice to sell yourself as moderate.  This is why someone like Christie or Cuomo could be in a uniquely awkward situation.