1 Term GOP President from 2017-21?

[Devils30]

For all the talk about the GOP field, is the party really better off winning in 2017? If they win and attempt to cut taxes on the wealthy, repeal the healthcare law the new President will hit 40% approval within 8 months. The 2018 elections would then see Dems gaining Governorships in WI, MI, FL and possibly more like OH, GA along with sleeper races. One can see a Carter style single term where the country's changing social attitudes and demographics come roaring back at the GOP. At this point, Dems could win around a 56-57% victory and 400 electoral votes. Redistricting year too.

Of course if Hillary wins the GOP will benefit if a recession occurs during her term and Democratic fatigue is always an issue after 12 years. Not to mention Congress won't change hands before 2020 redistricting.

[dudeabides]

First of all, I have to correct the inaccurate assumption that the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich - we want to reduce taxes and reform the tax code for everyone. The Democrats oppose reform that would broaden the tax base, they'd rather borrow money.

If the GOP loses in 2016, I think it would confirm what some in the media are saying - Republicans win midterms, Democrats win presidential races. The last Republican to win nationally by more than three percentage points was George Bush in 1988. Yet, since Republicans won in 1994, Democrats have only won a majority in one mid-term election.

Now, if Obama's recent comments about him being Reagan (the ego on this guy) and Clinton being Bush Sr, then Clinton is in trouble in 2020.

[okierepublican]

It depends. If there is a recession in 17 or 18 it would be better to lose and gain a ton of seats in the senate and house and actually have a chance to get through something big with a win in 2020. If they get some good retirements they can get above 60 in the senate and really make Hillary veto everything.

[okierepublican]

First of all, I have to correct the inaccurate assumption that the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich - we want to reduce taxes and reform the tax code for everyone. The Democrats oppose reform that would broaden the tax base, they'd rather borrow money.

If the GOP loses in 2016, I think it would confirm what some in the media are saying - Republicans win midterms, Democrats win presidential races. The last Republican to win nationally by more than three percentage points was George Bush in 1988. Yet, since Republicans won in 1994, Democrats have only won a majority in one mid-term election.

Now, if Obama's recent comments about him being Reagan (the ego on this guy) and Clinton being Bush Sr, then Clinton is in trouble in 2020.

The GOP is in the opposite position it was in the 70s and 80s great in congress, bad at White House.

[Devils30]

There's really no easy way to put this, just fun to think about the different scenarios. Of course Hillary could be very popular or Kasich, Rubio decide to govern in a more inclusive way than the GOP base wants. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be a Democratic talking point, especially if  Jeb tried that. If we had a recession under Jeb, the GOP would be absolutely destroyed.

[okierepublican]

There's really no easy way to put this, just fun to think about the different scenarios. Of course Hillary could be very popular or Kasich, Rubio decide to govern in a more inclusive way than the GOP base wants. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be a Democratic talking point, especially if  Jeb tried that. If we had a recession under Jeb, the GOP would be absolutely destroyed.

The way the economy looks, it is unlikely we could keep growing until 2021. The laws of economic gravity catch up to you like it did in the early 90's and early 2000's.

[hopper]

There's really no easy way to put this, just fun to think about the different scenarios. Of course Hillary could be very popular or Kasich, Rubio decide to govern in a more inclusive way than the GOP base wants. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be a Democratic talking point, especially if  Jeb tried that. If we had a recession under Jeb, the GOP would be absolutely destroyed.

The Bush Tax Cuts are still there for households making under 450,000 dollars a year.

True usually if there is a recession the party in power usually loses. Look at Carter in 1980, Bush H.W. in 1992, and John McCain in 2008 when Bush W. was still in the White House. I think Eisenhower escaped a recession though didn't he to get re-elected in 1956?

[hopper]

For all the talk about the GOP field, is the party really better off winning in 2017? If they win and attempt to cut taxes on the wealthy, repeal the healthcare law the new President will hit 40% approval within 8 months. The 2018 elections would then see Dems gaining Governorships in WI, MI, FL and possibly more like OH, GA along with sleeper races. One can see a Carter style single term where the country's changing social attitudes and demographics come roaring back at the GOP. At this point, Dems could win around a 56-57% victory and 400 electoral votes. Redistricting year too.

Of course if Hillary wins the GOP will benefit if a recession occurs during her term and Democratic fatigue is always an issue after 12 years. Not to mention Congress won't change hands before 2020 redistricting.

I don't see the Dems winning 400 electoral votes anytime. Most of the Southern and Great Plains states are to locked in for the GOP. The current  electoral map is basically from 1992
but with VA and NC(2 Mid-Atlantic South States I like to call them) going from Lean R to Toss-Up states in 2008.

[SteveRogers]

Both major parties should, as a general rule, try to win presidential elections rather than lose them.

[DrScholl]

It actually would be good for them to win. A win is always good, but going in the new President would likely have decent economic conditions and that is what every President wants. I think Obamacare repeal would not be pushed through and the only thing pushed through would be tax cuts. The biggest potential for error would be on foreign policy and a misstep there could lead to only one term.

[OSR stands with Israel]

For all the talk about the GOP field, is the party really better off winning in 2017? If they win and attempt to cut taxes on the wealthy, repeal the healthcare law the new President will hit 40% approval within 8 months. The 2018 elections would then see Dems gaining Governorships in WI, MI, FL and possibly more like OH, GA along with sleeper races. One can see a Carter style single term where the country's changing social attitudes and demographics come roaring back at the GOP. At this point, Dems could win around a 56-57% victory and 400 electoral votes. Redistricting year too.

Of course if Hillary wins the GOP will benefit if a recession occurs during her term and Democratic fatigue is always an issue after 12 years. Not to mention Congress won't change hands before 2020 redistricting.

I totally agree with this I believe that 2016 will either be 1976 or 1988 and 2020 will either be 1980 and 1992. 2017-2021 will be a bad time to win most likely if an establishment or fringe figure from either party is elected

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems are advantaged at the gov level no matter who it is; and shpuld Clinton win; Dems will have the senate majority. Dems wont win WI & lose NV; they will at the most have gained WI; IL & FL.

And on the senate side; the 2018 senate class is much stronger than the 2014 senate class; in which Dems lost 9 seats when Obamas approval were 43 percent. Donnelly or Tester may wind up lost if Clinton approvals are near 50 percent.

As far as govs IL, FL, NV flips to Dems; as Rauner is the most endangered inc running.

[dudeabides]

First of all, I have to correct the inaccurate assumption that the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich - we want to reduce taxes and reform the tax code for everyone. The Democrats oppose reform that would broaden the tax base, they'd rather borrow money.

If the GOP loses in 2016, I think it would confirm what some in the media are saying - Republicans win midterms, Democrats win presidential races. The last Republican to win nationally by more than three percentage points was George Bush in 1988. Yet, since Republicans won in 1994, Democrats have only won a majority in one mid-term election.

Now, if Obama's recent comments about him being Reagan (the ego on this guy) and Clinton being Bush Sr, then Clinton is in trouble in 2020.

The GOP is in the opposite position it was in the 70s and 80s great in congress, bad at White House.

I completely agree with you. I think only Bush or Rubio could reverse that trend.

There's really no easy way to put this, just fun to think about the different scenarios. Of course Hillary could be very popular or Kasich, Rubio decide to govern in a more inclusive way than the GOP base wants. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be a Democratic talking point, especially if  Jeb tried that. If we had a recession under Jeb, the GOP would be absolutely destroyed.

The thing with President Bush's tax cuts was that while some of the tax relief went to things that helped stimulate economic growth, some of the tax cuts were directed at tax relief - such as increase the per-child tax deduction.

The majority of the Bush tax cuts were never reversed. Most of the GOP candidates are talking about a flat tax. Mike Huckabee is for the Fair Tax. Marco Rubio has a flatter tax proposal that lowers rates. Jeb Bush hasn't put forth a tax plan, but he has described that he wants to reduce tax rates and close loopholes to broaden the base.

The reality is, the Republicans winning the white house would lead to a stronger economy unless that Republican is Mr. Trump. Trump would lead us into another Great Depression, he'd be worse on the economy than Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. But if you get a President who reduces taxes, reverses Obama's policies, and supports free markets, you will see economic growth like we saw in the 1980s and most of the 1990s.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

If a recession is inevitable during the next presidents term, it might be better for them to lose. Democratic fatigue will definitely kick in then, although if the recession is early in the term, Republicans might be able to pin it on Obama (the way they successfully pinned the '01 recession on Clinton) and hope for moderate-to-strong growth in the election year.

First of all, I have to correct the inaccurate assumption that the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich - we want to reduce taxes and reform the tax code for everyone. The Democrats oppose reform that would broaden the tax base, they'd rather borrow money.

If the GOP loses in 2016, I think it would confirm what some in the media are saying - Republicans win midterms, Democrats win presidential races. The last Republican to win nationally by more than three percentage points was George Bush in 1988. Yet, since Republicans won in 1994, Democrats have only won a majority in one mid-term election.

Now, if Obama's recent comments about him being Reagan (the ego on this guy) and Clinton being Bush Sr, then Clinton is in trouble in 2020.

The GOP is in the opposite position it was in the 70s and 80s great in congress, bad at White House.

The GOP isn't getting the margins in Congress the Democrats did. On the other hand, the Republicans have only had Dukakis-style defeats for the presidency ('92, '96, '08)...no Mondale/McGovern-style mess-ups.

[RFayette]

It all comes down to economic cycles.  The big risk for the GOP winning in 2016 is that a recession will occur by 2019, the Democrats would likely get 12 years (at least) in the White House.  By this point, thanks to demographic/age changes, Reagan will be a distant memory and all people will remember is relative prosperity under Obama/Clinton and recessions under George W Bush/other President.

This is why the GOP losing in 2012 was very, very unfortunate.  Had Romney won, he could have capitalized on the economic recovery and helped to repair the party's brand/economic reputation.  2016 is a double-edged sword.......given how economic cycles are, I predict a 2019/2020 recession is quite likely no matter who is President.  

[Bojack Horseman]

First of all, I have to correct the inaccurate assumption that the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich - we want to reduce taxes and reform the tax code for everyone. The Democrats oppose reform that would broaden the tax base, they'd rather borrow money.

If the GOP loses in 2016, I think it would confirm what some in the media are saying - Republicans win midterms, Democrats win presidential races. The last Republican to win nationally by more than three percentage points was George Bush in 1988. Yet, since Republicans won in 1994, Democrats have only won a majority in one mid-term election.

Now, if Obama's recent comments about him being Reagan (the ego on this guy) and Clinton being Bush Sr, then Clinton is in trouble in 2020.

The GOP is in the opposite position it was in the 70s and 80s great in congress, bad at White House.

I completely agree with you. I think only Bush or Rubio could reverse that trend.

There's really no easy way to put this, just fun to think about the different scenarios. Of course Hillary could be very popular or Kasich, Rubio decide to govern in a more inclusive way than the GOP base wants. Restoring the Bush tax cuts would be a Democratic talking point, especially if  Jeb tried that. If we had a recession under Jeb, the GOP would be absolutely destroyed.

The reality is, the Republicans winning the white house would lead to another economic collapse, especially if that Republican is Mr. Trump. If you get a President who reduces taxes, reverses Obama's policies, and supports free markets, you will see economic destruction like we saw throughout the 2000's that resulted in the Republicans being fired in both 2006 and 2008.

Fixed that for you.

[Devils30]

If Jeb argues that restoring the section of his brother's tax cuts and basically implementing his brother's policies that got us growth until 2007 is the way to go, he  will get destroyed. Hillary can easily run ads based on that. Voters haven't been reminded yet about the last Bush but once the ads come, you can be sure it will leave a bitter taste in voters mouths. That's why the GOP is better with a fresh face like Rubio or Kasich.

[dudeabides]

If Jeb argues that restoring the section of his brother's tax cuts and basically implementing his brother's policies that got us growth until 2007 is the way to go, he  will get destroyed. Hillary can easily run ads based on that. Voters haven't been reminded yet about the last Bush but once the ads come, you can be sure it will leave a bitter taste in voters mouths. That's why the GOP is better with a fresh face like Rubio or Kasich.

But that hasn't been Bush's argument and he has argued for a reduction in tax rates and closing loopholes and deductions, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 increased deductions.

This paragraph is why Kasich will have difficulty in a general:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cleveland.com/morris/index.ssf/2011/01/the_race_of_gov_kasich_all_whi.html

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

I could see someone like Jeb or Kasich (Kasich would be an almost perfect analogy) being a Republican analogue of Jimmy Carter since in 2020 they might also face a primary challenge from the right and lose in a landslide.

[Devils30]

Kasich has far fewer issues than Jeb, wealthy GOP types are in denial that everyone doesnt love the Bush family.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

I could see someone like Tom Cotton primarying Kasich because he didn't rush to repeal the ACA or something like that.

[pbrower2a]

First of all, I have to correct the inaccurate assumption that the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich - we want to reduce taxes and reform the tax code for everyone. The Democrats oppose reform that would broaden the tax base, they'd rather borrow money.

The advantage would be for the rich. The federal government does comparatively little welfare, so it is not as if the increase in taxes upon the poor would have some compensation. The opportunities that arise from tax cuts to the super-rich would have to be offset by simply-incredible economic growth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2006 -- because of a bungled war and the economic hardships that preceded the economic meltdown beginning in 2007.

On the other side, if the Republican nominee who wins in 2016 proves a disaster on military or diplomatic matters or gets caught in an economic meltdown, Democrats win a midterm that looks at first sight to offer few opportunities. 2020  then reverses the 2014 election and messes up R minorities in enough states. Democrats then gerrymander seats as the Republicans did in 2011.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political fatigue?

[dudeabides]

First of all, I have to correct the inaccurate assumption that the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich - we want to reduce taxes and reform the tax code for everyone. The Democrats oppose reform that would broaden the tax base, they'd rather borrow money.

The advantage would be for the rich. The federal government does comparatively little welfare, so it is not as if the increase in taxes upon the poor would have some compensation. The opportunities that arise from tax cuts to the super-rich would have to be offset by simply-incredible economic growth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2006 -- because of a bungled war and the economic hardships that preceded the economic meltdown beginning in 2007.

On the other side, if the Republican nominee who wins in 2016 proves a disaster on military or diplomatic matters or gets caught in an economic meltdown, Democrats win a midterm that looks at first sight to offer few opportunities. 2020  then reverses the 2014 election and messes up R minorities in enough states. Democrats then gerrymander seats as the Republicans did in 2011.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Political fatigue?

The Democrats won the 2006 election only on one issue - Iraq. Howard Dean began his propaganda campaign against the mission in Iraq in 2003 and by 2006, Democrats began abandoning their support for the mission despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting they were correct in 2002.

President Obama has been in office for 6 years and 8 months. At this time in the Bush presidency, the U.S. was experiencing a stronger economy (until fall of 2007) than we are today. With all due respect, I'm going to prove you wrong on the Bush tax cuts and other factors, look at these charts:

[Blair]

Again Dudeabides quoting food stamp figures is worthless when the GOP congress passed a farm bill that cut food stamps...

Anyone remember something called the 2008 crash? You know the one that happened on your pal's watch...