Democrats Face a Grim Future -National Journal
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:24:27 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Democrats Face a Grim Future -National Journal
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Democrats Face a Grim Future -National Journal  (Read 2931 times)
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2015, 03:17:49 PM »

I agree..the future looks bleak for the Dems...if the dems win the WH in 2016,I see a bloodbath in 2018

I think a Republican wins in 2016, but, if not, I could see the Republicans in the mid-60s in the Senate after the midterms (maybe a veto-proof majority?).

Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2015, 03:28:02 PM »

I agree..the future looks bleak for the Dems...if the dems win the WH in 2016,I see a bloodbath in 2018

I think a Republican wins in 2016, but, if not, I could see the Republicans in the mid-60s in the Senate after the midterms (maybe a veto-proof majority?).

That would require double digits gains in 2018.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2015, 03:33:28 PM »

Yeah, the party that's voters are dying off any not being replaced is definitely the one with an advantage going forward.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2015, 03:59:46 PM »

>Implying that Hillary wouldn't be dominating even if the field was very strong
>Implying that Dems are "settling for Hillary" when she's easily the strongest and most electable Democrat
>Implying Sestak and Strickland ran bad campaigns in 2010 when they were supposed to get crushed in landslides
>Implying Feingold is a weak candidate because he lost in a wave even though he's currently crushing Johnson

Typical trash analysis from Josh Kraushaar.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,620
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2015, 04:22:44 PM »

As I mentioned elsewhere, the Republican bench was similarly decimated in the 80's after two landslide midterm losses (1982, 1986).
That didn't prevent them from dominating the next decade and becoming the agenda-setting party.
If a state/district starts leaning towards a certain partisan side, then its voters will vote even a nobody as long as he has the right letter next to his name.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,793
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2015, 04:30:03 PM »

A GOP win 2016 is feesable; but not inevitable. The tea party is split with the establishment, GOP.  And Latinos are the third constituency of the Democratic party.


Logged
136or142
Adam T
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,434
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2015, 04:35:19 PM »

This is the type of article I'd put into the 'dick' category.

Every elected President since Eisenhower has lost at least one race, as has over half of the current U.S Senators. I don't know about The House as a whole, but there was a piece on roll call a while back that over half of the 2014 members elected to the House had been defeated in at least one prior race, including several former members who lost in 2012 only to win in 2014.

Obviously the writers of this article have intentionally ignored the political climate at the time in 2010 (and 2014) as having any baring on the candidates and their campaigns, as well as, presumably that a candidate can learn from their mistakes and make a better run the next time around (See: Tammy Duckworth).

This is nothing more than hack, dishonest partisan junk written by hack partisan 'journalists.'  
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2015, 04:49:04 PM »

Don't worry guys, when Clinton wins in 2016 we can look forward to another two years of how Republicans are DOOMED, until the Democrats are wiped out in 2018 when we find out the Democrats are IN IRREVERSIBLE DECLINE until Clinton is reelected in 2020 with massive coattails that prove THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS LITERALLY DYING until 2022 etc.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2015, 05:48:18 PM »

I agree..the future looks bleak for the Dems...if the dems win the WH in 2016,I see a bloodbath in 2018

I think a Republican wins in 2016, but, if not, I could see the Republicans in the mid-60s in the Senate after the midterms (maybe a veto-proof majority?).

No. In general, the Administration's Party loses seats in the House and Senate in midterm elections. This is especially so if the economy is in a tailspin or if America is enmeshed in an unpopular war.

Veto-proof majority in the Senate? That would probably give the Republicans a similar majority in the House, too, and thus the ability to change the Constitution practically at will. The Republican Party is becoming more authoritarian, so I can only imagine what sort of mischief would be possible.   
Logged
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2015, 06:07:38 PM »

I agree..the future looks bleak for the Dems...if the dems win the WH in 2016,I see a bloodbath in 2018

I think a Republican wins in 2016, but, if not, I could see the Republicans in the mid-60s in the Senate after the midterms (maybe a veto-proof majority?).

No. In general, the Administration's Party loses seats in the House and Senate in midterm elections. This is especially so if the economy is in a tailspin or if America is enmeshed in an unpopular war.

Veto-proof majority in the Senate? That would probably give the Republicans a similar majority in the House, too, and thus the ability to change the Constitution practically at will. The Republican Party is becoming more authoritarian, so I can only imagine what sort of mischief would be possible.   

True.

Even if Republicans picked up Nevada and Colorado in 2016, WHILST holding all of their other seats (WI, IL, etc) they'd still need 11 more on the 2018 map. That would require defeating people like Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Joe Manchin, Maria Cantwell, Bobby Casey. Not just plucking off a few of those, but sweeping them ALL. That wouldn't have even happened if this class of Senators was up in 2010 or 2014.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,793
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2015, 06:15:18 PM »

I agree..the future looks bleak for the Dems...if the dems win the WH in 2016,I see a bloodbath in 2018

I think a Republican wins in 2016, but, if not, I could see the Republicans in the mid-60s in the Senate after the midterms (maybe a veto-proof majority?).

No. In general, the Administration's Party loses seats in the House and Senate in midterm elections. This is especially so if the economy is in a tailspin or if America is enmeshed in an unpopular war.

Veto-proof majority in the Senate? That would probably give the Republicans a similar majority in the House, too, and thus the ability to change the Constitution practically at will. The Republican Party is becoming more authoritarian, so I can only imagine what sort of mischief would be possible.   

Joe Donnelly is the one to watch in 2018; McCaskill and Tester and Heikamp can hold on.

But, the GOP couldnt get its act together to ban flag burning; even when they had votes in House and pull Conrad and Dorgan along.

But; they might not want the supermajority because of term limits would be forced upon them to pass.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2015, 06:16:09 PM »

I agree..the future looks bleak for the Dems...if the dems win the WH in 2016,I see a bloodbath in 2018

I think a Republican wins in 2016, but, if not, I could see the Republicans in the mid-60s in the Senate after the midterms (maybe a veto-proof majority?).

No. In general, the Administration's Party loses seats in the House and Senate in midterm elections. This is especially so if the economy is in a tailspin or if America is enmeshed in an unpopular war.

Veto-proof majority in the Senate? That would probably give the Republicans a similar majority in the House, too, and thus the ability to change the Constitution practically at will. The Republican Party is becoming more authoritarian, so I can only imagine what sort of mischief would be possible.   

To get a veto proof majority in the House, Republicans would need to start winning D+10 to D+13 seats.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2015, 06:20:30 PM »

It won't get better for Dems if Hillary wins in 2016...

That's unclear.  Working white women turn out much more reliably in midterms.  And even so, a Kennedy/Scalia retirement with a Dem president and senate could be worth 40 state legislatures and 230 R+5 house seats IMO.

If Kennedy or Scalia, get replaced by a liberal, that would give the court a liberal majority.  Hopefully, they'd be as aggressive as the current conservative court and start striking down all Republican gerrymanders.  After Citizens United, anything is fair game.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2015, 07:38:39 PM »

Unless a bunch of House seats change their nature (let us say R+7 to D+5)  before then, it is highly unlikely that the Democrats will have a House majority before at least 2023. With America polarized as it is and gerrymanders intact, Democrats must win the total vote for the House by about 54-46.

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a plutocratic oligarchy.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2015, 08:03:56 PM »

If Democrats won all the seats between D+6 and R+2 held by Republicans, they would have a House Majority, so it isn't impossible.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2015, 08:08:15 PM »

I agree..the future looks bleak for the Dems...if the dems win the WH in 2016,I see a bloodbath in 2018

I think a Republican wins in 2016, but, if not, I could see the Republicans in the mid-60s in the Senate after the midterms (maybe a veto-proof majority?).

No,  very little chance of this happening without some absurd blunder on the democrat's part.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2015, 12:27:06 AM »

If Democrats won all the seats between D+6 and R+2 held by Republicans, they would have a House Majority, so it isn't impossible.

But - difficult. As i said in another thread - Republicans have their share of talents and Democrats - their share of bad candidates... So, essentially, it would require a strong Democratic wave...
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2015, 08:26:04 AM »

Unless a bunch of House seats change their nature (let us say R+7 to D+5)  before then, it is highly unlikely that the Democrats will have a House majority before at least 2023. With America polarized as it is and gerrymanders intact, Democrats must win the total vote for the House by about 54-46.

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a plutocratic oligarchy.
You keep using those words. I don't think you know what they mean.

Do you trust the Koch family with democracy? I don't.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2015, 11:49:25 AM »

It's all part of a very predictable narrative:

After 2004: The Democratic Party is toast!

After 2008: The Republican Party is toast!

After 2010: The Democratic Party is toast!

After 2012: The Republican Party is toast!

After 2014: The Democratic Party is toast!

After next year's election, we'll be given plenty of reasons why the party that lost is done for. It's all sensationalism.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2015, 10:19:11 PM »

Unless a bunch of House seats change their nature (let us say R+7 to D+5)  before then, it is highly unlikely that the Democrats will have a House majority before at least 2023. With America polarized as it is and gerrymanders intact, Democrats must win the total vote for the House by about 54-46.

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a plutocratic oligarchy.

the dems need to get an outright majority before they have a shot of taking over. Remember 48.8% (the % they got in 2012) was not a majority.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2015, 10:44:47 PM »

If Clinton wins in 2016, then the Republicans will likely gain seats in the House and Senate in 2018, so yes, the Democrats face a bleak future.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2015, 10:57:30 PM »

Republicans are going to win Senate seats in 2018 under almost every imaginable scenario (2012 was extremely good for Democrats in this aspect). House - another matter...
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2015, 11:02:01 PM »

The Senate map in 2018 has so many Democratic exposed seats that they might lose seats if they lose in 2016, so I would rather them win in 2016 and take losses in 2018 then be out of government for four years while Republicans control all three branches.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,793
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2015, 06:36:04 AM »

Why is the GOP keep talking about exposed senate seats; they have exposed governorships as well; where redistricting will take place in 2020. Keep WH; win govs in 2018; control redistricting hold our losses in 2018, and redistrict the 18 seats that were targetted in House in 2014;.and win those.

I rather be in WH than not for nxt four years.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 27, 2015, 06:25:27 PM »

Unless a bunch of House seats change their nature (let us say R+7 to D+5)  before then, it is highly unlikely that the Democrats will have a House majority before at least 2023. With America polarized as it is and gerrymanders intact, Democrats must win the total vote for the House by about 54-46.

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a plutocratic oligarchy.
You keep using those words. I don't think you know what they mean.

I do.

Plutocracy -- government in practice by the wealthiest and most powerful.

Oligarchy -- few people shaping political life, with others effectively passive.

Real power is in secretive groups like ALEC that seek to transform the USA from a democracy into one in which only those politicians who most fully support the rich and powerful have a chance in politics.

Our democracy has become window dressing. We are basically in pre-WWI Germany without a Kaiser.     
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 13 queries.