Would it be better for the left if Hillary lost?

[bobloblaw]

Scott Walker governs Wisconsin like a dictator, completely excluding Democrats from the political debate unless they sell out. He would effectively be a regent for the Koch dynasty, and with majorities in both Houses of Congress he would support legislation that would gut civil liberties and voting rights -- and Congress would approve them and he would sign them. With the GOP majority expanded in the Supreme Court, America could become for all practical purposes an Apartheid state in which minorities and the poor are effectively shut out. Elections could become a farce even if people can participate in them. As Democrats become irrelevant, the Republican supermajorities in both Congresses and in control of 3/4 of state legislatures could amend the Constitution almost at will.

ALEC would collaborate with Republican majorities in one state after another to fully entrench the Republican party forever in most states whenever they get Republican majorities with 'model' legislation.

I see no reason to believe that Scott Walker would change his ways as President of the United States from how he behaves as Governor of Wisconsin. 

Scott Walker would be the last freely-elected president of the United States, and even his second term would be the result of a rigged election.

PBrower, just stop. You've completely lost your mind because of last year's republican wave, and now you're convinced that by screaming whatever falsehoods cross your mind that 2016 will be some sort of democratic bloodbath, and it's not realistic or funny. No matter how much you say otherwise, CA-SEN IS NOT MORE COMPETITIVE than PA-SEN, Approval Ratings aren't some highly reliable statistic (Scott Brown, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Lincoln Chafee, and Mark Begich were all popular in the senate. They still lost. Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, and Richard Burr were all unpopular, they still won.), Murkowski is not a far-right winger, Toomey is not favored to lose, Walker does not enjoy rigging elections like he's some sort of Putin clone (he didn't make democrats irrelevant in WI, why would he do it nationwide???), whatever Walker does is not necessarily in place for all eternity, etc. etc. etc.

Just get a grip on yourself, and stop this act. You're just letting it take over every part of your life on here, and it's not doing you any good.

What I did not see coming in 2014 looks like the Wave of the Future. It has huge funds behind it, and with excellent organization behind it and utter ruthlessness it would gladly destroy democracy. No human suffering is in excess so long as it turns or protects an elite profit -- so believes just about every plantation owner, Gilded-era robber baron, executive elitist, and gangster. That is the heritage of the economic component of the American Right.

Whatever shatters faith creates fear. I fear the Koch family as I never feared the Rockefeller family. (Maybe the Rockefeller family was more effective in playing both sides of the political spectrum, which kept them from being so fearsome). I see Koch front groups as sources of political rhetoric out of 1984.   

Citizens United may have begun the transformation of America into a pure and absolute plutocracy.  Democracy can die quickly in a coup (Czechoslovakia in 1948, Chile in 1973) or slowly through the degradation of necessary process.

Now for some of the points:

1.The US Senate seat from California going Republican is a possibility based upon something strange happening -- that two Republicans place #1 and #2 in the jungle primary with the Democrats splintered. If a Democrat places among the top 2... well, it's California. It just isn't set yet.

I'd give something like 500-1 odds against the Republicans placing #1 and #2 in the jungle primary of California. That's less the chance that the Minnesota Twins will win the 2015 World Series. 

2. Pat Toomey is in a state that should be difficult to get re-elected in. Pennsylvania leans Democratic in most statewide races, and a right-wing Republican getting re-elected in the year of a Presidential election will be difficult. No, he is not the new Arlen Specter, a moderate who could get re-elected in a Presidential year in which the Republican nominee for President (George W. Bush) lost the state.

He barely got elected in a wave year for Republicans, and if he gets re-elected in what should not be a wave year for Republicans, then either

(1) Pennsylvania has lurched to the Right
(2) Senator Toomey has done an excellent job of constituent service
(3) the Koch front groups are extremely effective in getting its political allies re-elected, or
(4) we have a permanent Republican majority in practice that cannot be dislodged through electoral processes.

In the fourth case, thanks to the (Citizens United) ruling we live in a plutocratic oligarchy with the trappings of a Constitutional government.

I see Senator Toomey vulnerable because he has yet to establish a reputation as a moderate in a state in which extremists go down after one term. The Republican Party can hold the Senate without him. He can't yet break 45% against imaginable opponents in a state in which the ceiling for a Republican is about 51%.

He could be a remarkable campaigner -- and lose.

3. I see Senator Lisa Murkowski vulnerable in the event that she gets primaried again. She won a write-in election with much Democratic support (she would not be as bad as the Tea Party Republican) that would vote for Mark Begich in 2016 instead. Of course such implies contingencies unlikely to return in 2016.

4. Moderate Republicans are practically extinct. As voters? Maybe not. Many of them voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and will vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. As elected officials? Practically gone.

5. The $889 million commitment of the Koch family to secure the Republican hold of the Senate and the House. That sort of money shouts.

So -- what if 2016 is a Democratic wave? The first indication on Election Night is that Democrats pick up some House seats in the earliest states to close their polls, and that the only state that anyone calls  for either Presidential nominee is Vermont. Senator Burr, R-NC, is in trouble. But we all see it coming.

Youre forgetting Santorum won in 2000, while GW Bush lost PA. Right now Toomey is leading Sestak by 10. My guess is Toomey will do far better in the Philly suburbs than last time.

[bobloblaw]

It will be better for the liberal base if she lost a primary, not a general election to a Jeb Bush, because 8 years, especially of another Bush, is heart wrenching.

I still believe that there is a populist candidate out there, that can win a primary battle out there besides Hillary and Martin O'Malley is one of them, because he had a huge black following as mayor of Baltimore and can cut into her base of support.

Until Hillary gets to SC, where Christian Blacks, and more conservative whites votes, Liberals, just like in 2008, can upset her in Iowa and NV caucuses.

If Jeb somehow manages to win, he wont be re-elected in 2020, for the same reason Hillary wont be re-elected. The 2018-19 recession.

I am a conservative. If Jeb is the nominee, I wont vote for him. Ill be rooting for Hillary. Because I know that after 12 years of Obama/Clinton, we will be looking at another GOP period like the 1920s.

[pbrower2a]

There are now ten states polled since November for Jeb Bush, a few of them two or more times. Walker is not doing better than Jeb Bush, which is undeniably clear. The polls on Iowa and South Carolina are the newest, and they leave me with one clear conclusion:

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Scott Walker will not be the next President of the United States. He would have trouble winning South Carolina and would not win Iowa, which indicates that he probably won't win anything north of the Potomac or the Ohio except Indiana. That includes his own state. Iowa is much like Wisconsin.

So much for the paranoid rant about what he would be like as President. I almost might as well have been talking about Gus Hall (Communist) returning from the dead and being elected President. 

[bobloblaw]

There are now ten states polled since November for Jeb Bush, a few of them two or more times. Walker is not doing better than Jeb Bush, which is undeniably clear. The polls on Iowa and South Carolina are the newest, and they leave me with one clear conclusion:

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Scott Walker will not be the next President of the United States. He would have trouble winning South Carolina and would not win Iowa, which indicates that he probably won't win anything north of the Potomac or the Ohio except Indiana. That includes his own state. Iowa is much like Wisconsin.

So much for the paranoid rant about what he would be like as President. I almost might as well have been talking about Gus Hall (Communist) returning from the dead and being elected President. 

it is a year until the first primaries. Perhaps you can make us a map for Clinton v Guliani 2008

[bobloblaw]

There are now ten states polled since November for Jeb Bush, a few of them two or more times. Walker is not doing better than Jeb Bush, which is undeniably clear. The polls on Iowa and South Carolina are the newest, and they leave me with one clear conclusion:

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee

Hillary Clinton vs. Scott Walker

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

Scott Walker will not be the next President of the United States. He would have trouble winning South Carolina and would not win Iowa, which indicates that he probably won't win anything north of the Potomac or the Ohio except Indiana. That includes his own state. Iowa is much like Wisconsin.

So much for the paranoid rant about what he would be like as President. I almost might as well have been talking about Gus Hall (Communist) returning from the dead and being elected President. 

February 1975....Jimmy Who???
February 1991....No one can beat GHW Bush

[pbrower2a]

(largely citing me)


February 1975....Jimmy Who???
February 1991....No one can beat GHW Bush

(largely citing me)

it is a year until the first primaries. Perhaps you can make us a map for Clinton v Guliani 2008

The projections that I had involving Barack Obama against Sarah Palin, if I could ever revive those, suggested a landslide.

Sometimes one gets predictions of elections that never happen. I am not discussing Robert F. Kennedy vs. George Romney in 1968.

[pbrower2a]

Illustration of a projection of elections (mine) from 9 September 2011, with plenty of blank spaces. One such election happened, and the other three did not.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140606.msg3017004#msg3017004

Obama vs. Romney

Obama vs. Bachmann

Obama vs. Palin

Obama vs. Perry

Intensity shows percentages instead of any measure of closeness except for white for a tie. The lead for Obama in Tennessee was for a 37-35 lead or something like that for Barack Obama which wasn't going to be maintained.  I suggest that we ignore polls in which nobody gets 40% in a binary choice.

The "Romney" map showed Romney winning Florida, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania but losing North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and the Second Congressional District of Nebraska.   A year before the election, such looks fairly good. 

Bachmann, Palin, and Perry were so awful that they were going to lose their own home states. If the polling map for Obama against Romney was reasonably correct, then just imagine how the other three were going to do.  Those landslides obviously never happened.

[Xing]

The best Democrats could hope for if Hillary lost would be a landslide in gubernatorial races in 2018, and taking back the senate and the white house in 2020, if the incumbent president was unpopular enough (which would not be a given). Still though, Republicans could do a lot of damage with complete control of the government for four years, so it's definitely better for the left to have a Democrat win in 2016, and to take back the senate, even if 2018 end up being a rough year.

[Mechaman]

Well since I took enough time to bash pbrower, I guess I deserve to give this forum my opinion on this matter:

The idea that it is better for any side in politics to "lose" an election is just incredibly dumb.  Until the day comes when people suddenly develop the mental power to predict the future the "left", the "right", the freaking Jive Turkeys or whoever the hell is running should try to win every election that comes up.  GO BIG OR GO HOME DAMN IT.

Seriously, ROTFFLMFAO.  And I'm saying this as someone who would like for Hillary Clinton to never EVER sit in a political office again.

[King]

You guys are assuming old white people who vote in midterms would magically start hating the GOP.