If the Democrats win 3 in a row, what will the media narrative be?

[progressive85]

The last time a party won 3 in a row was when the Republicans won in 1980 (Reagan), 1984 (Reagan), 1988 (Bush I)... we look at that era as one that was more conservative and when the country was becoming more Republican.

By 1992, the media narrative I believe was that the Democrats needed a moderate candidate to win.  Bill Clinton campaigned as a "New Democrat."

If Democrats are able to win the presidential in 2016 (with the likely winner being HRC), what will be the medias story?  That we are in a reversal of the 80s and that we are living in a more progressive era than a conservative one?  Or that the Democrats just happened to have better candidates and it had nothing to do with a realignment in the electorate?

Just how disheartening would a loss be for the Republicans in 2016?  Would there be a "New Republican" in 2020?

Your thoughts please?

[bobloblaw]

That the electorate still hasnt forgiven the GOP for the 2008 Great Recession and the Iraq War.

That might not be the narrative but it will be the truth. Just like in 1988, the electorate had not gotten over the failures of the Dem party both foreign and domestic in 1979-80.

The narrative will be "The Dem Permanent Majority Is Here" and the "GOP is Finished" despite the fact the GOP will still control the House, 31 Govs minimum probably more and 60+ State Houses and even possibly the Senate. This will be teh narrative until the Dems suffer yet another disastrous mid term in 2018. Then the narrative will be Hillary shouldnt run in 2020.

[bobloblaw]

The last time a party won 3 in a row was when the Republicans won in 1980 (Reagan), 1984 (Reagan), 1988 (Bush I)... we look at that era as one that was more conservative and when the country was becoming more Republican.

By 1992, the media narrative I believe was that the Democrats needed a moderate candidate to win.  Bill Clinton campaigned as a "New Democrat."

If Democrats are able to win the presidential in 2016 (with the likely winner being HRC), what will be the medias story?  That we are in a reversal of the 80s and that we are living in a more progressive era than a conservative one?  Or that the Democrats just happened to have better candidates and it had nothing to do with a realignment in the electorate?

Just how disheartening would a loss be for the Republicans in 2016?  Would there be a "New Republican" in 2020?

Your thoughts please?

Whether or not there is a "New Republican" in 2020 like the endless media vomit for Jon Huntsman will depend on who the 2016 GOP candidate is. If it is Bush, then 2020 will almost certainly be Walker or perhaps Cotton. A Bush loss with a midterm win in 2018 will not create any move towards a more moderate GOP candidate in 2020. If Walker is the nominee and loses, then it becomes more problematic for the GO Pon whom to nominate in 2020.

[IceSpear]

It will further strengthen the "two electorates" theory.

[Vega]

It will further strengthen the "two electorates" theory.

[Thunderbird is the word]

The narrative will be "The Dem Permanent Majority Is Here" and the "GOP is Finished" despite the fact the GOP will still control the House, 31 Govs minimum probably more and 60+ State Houses and even possibly the Senate. This will be teh narrative until the Dems suffer yet another disastrous mid term in 2018. Then the narrative will be Hillary shouldnt run in 2020.

It really does seem like the media narrative is always ridiculously overly simplistic and every election is treated as an endsieg for one side or the other.

[Sumner 1868]

Knowing the media, they'll obsess over a specific region or demographic (probably Hispanics) and portray it as the Eternal Irreversible Future.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

More likely just "Inevitable Hillary is inevitable", if it's her.

If the Dems win with another candidate, that's when the more dramatic pronouncements will come out.

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

"THE BLUE WALL INCLUDES OH AND VA NOW!! THE GOP IS DEAD FOREVER!!!!!!!!!! MAY AS WELL JUST DISBAND AND LET THE DEMOCRATS WIN EVERYTHING FOR THE REST OF TIME!!!!!!"

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

It will further strengthen the "two electorates" theory.

[King]

Clinton is going to lose 1992 style landslide because 12 year rule!

[pbrower2a]

1. From the Right:

This is the time to redouble our efforts to convince Americans of the need for faith, freedom, and patriotism so that America can recover from what will surely be twelve years of political disaster in the White House.

2. From the Center-Left:

Americans liked what President Obama promised and still do. Republicans were fools to resist everything, as such ensured that Democrats would remain in the White House until Americans got what they wanted. Republicans got the House back in 2010 and the Senate in 2016... and lost both in a resounding election.

3. Me:

Before we get complacent, Hillary Clinton could well be what the elder Bush was in 1992 -- a 'successor' President offering a Third Term in all but name. Like the elder Bush she could get signature achievements yet have no idea of what to offer as a Second Act.       

[Rockefeller GOP]

The media will likely build up the election as a nail biter as they always do, so I doubt a DEM victory will be spun as Hillary-specific.  I think they'd probably just say it's the GOP in the same spot Dems were in in 1988 and that they're going to have to jump back to the center.

[The Other Castro]

Can we really call One president winning 2 times, 2 in a row?

Um..yeah? That's 2 complete elections, just like FDR+Truman was 5 in a row even though it was just two people.

[Mister Mets]

Much of it would depend on the circumstances. If Ted Cruz loses by one percent of the popular vote after running an atrocious campaign, there will be a different narrative than if Joe Biden wins 400 electoral votes against Marco Rubio getting Obama's numbers among minority voters and Bill Clinton's numbers among white voters.

Whatever the circumstances, there are likely to be multiple narratives. Right now, some Republicans believe that the party loses with moderates (Ford, Papa Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney) and wins with true conservatives like Reagan and W. Some Democrats think a more populist message is necessary.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems matches what Tony Blair did, win 3 straight terms.

Also, the presidency and senate has stayed pretty constant with Dems, presidency 16 out of 20 years, and senate 10 out of 10 years.

Only Tories have dominated House, with gerrymandering.

[bobloblaw]

Dems matches what Tony Blair did, win 3 straight terms.

Also, the presidency and senate has stayed pretty constant with Dems, presidency 16 out of 20 years, and senate 10 out of 10 years.

Only Tories have dominated House, with gerrymandering.

If the Dems win in 2016, how is that 16/20 years unless you mean the popular vote? Senate 10/10 years? Where does that come from?

And I hate to tell you but the GOP beat the Dems for the House vote in 2014 51-45. Since we dont elected members of the House running at large, losing by one point in 2012 hardly means the GOP stayed in power due to gerrymandering. Excess Dem votes in CA and NY dont count against closer GOP wins in other states.

[publicunofficial]

Just re-enforcing the current narrative. Republicans have trouble with minorities and won't win presidential elections until they don't, Democrats have trouble with white people and won't win midterms until they don't.