GOP or Dems: Doomed if they win in '16

[EliteLX]

So, another big picture to look at here is after the current slow rebound of the economy we are due for a correction hear sometime before ~2020ish. This is agree'd on by many big economists to expect this sort of default in the next 4-6 years, so whoever win's in '16 will definitely take some heat for another likely minor recession. Which the other party will capitalize on in the 2020 elections.

For the GOP, this is a double-edged sword, as if they pull out a slim W and finally win the American's public trust with the highest office in '16 and a recession striking quickly as they begin their fiscal agenda, RIP to the GOP in national elections for a bit. At the same time, if Hilldog takes a seat in the executive spot, she will already have a lot of the nation very skeptical about trusting her as a leader. If a recession sets into place and thing's start going down hill, it will immediately having people jumping to conclusions and reaffirm the public's worries and will most likely lead to a booming Rubio 2020 win.

Discuss!

[RI]

Rubio isn't charismatic enough to ever win the Presidency.

[Mehmentum]

The benefits of holding the presidency always outweigh the risks.

[EliteLX]

The benefits of holding the presidency always outweigh the risks.

I think this is kind of empty rhetoric for both sides of the argument. For Hilldog, could possibly result in an exciting BIG GOP executive comeback in 2020, for 'Pubs, it could mean getting jammed from national office for another long period as well as loss of public trust with holding executive office.

Rubio isn't charismatic enough to ever win the Presidency.

In comparison to Kasich, Hillary Clinton, .etc? We will have to agree to disagree on a massive scale here, unless I'm not picking up your sarcasm.

[Abraham Reagan]

My head says you're right, but my gut says that we need a Republican for president as soon as possible no matter the long term effects.

[Kingpoleon]

Democratic.

If a Republican properly balances a stimulus with tax cuts, I could see the economy booming. They would have to diversify the economy. Considering that requires a balanced budget for stability, amnesty for immigration labor to prevent over-deflation, spending reforms to cut wastes and establish a firmer foundation, and a myriad of economic trade deals with the oddly-hated Germany, among various other things, I don't see it happening.

To be clear, the above isn't what I would expect. It would be what would have to be worked on heavily over time, and I cannot be very sure what other ways to help end stagnation and other issues.

[Blue3]

They said the same thing about 2008, and about how the next President would leave with approval ratings as low or even lower than Bush.

Doesn't look likely to happen.


There will probably be a minor recession in the next 9 years, but it will probably only affect things much politically if the timing is really bad (like it was in 2008). In fact, probably all recessions will seem minor after this last one, even if some people are losing their heads a little in the moment, like they were yesterday.

[EliteLX]

So, another big picture to look at here is after the current slow rebound of the economy we are due for a correction hear sometime before ~2020ish. This is agree'd on by many big economists to expect this sort of default in the next 4-6 years, so whoever win's in '16 will definitely take some heat for another likely minor recession. Which the other party will capitalize on in the 2020 elections.

This is not true and so this is a silly discussion.

Ah right that's correct, close thread folks!

/sarcasm

[madelka]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

[EliteLX]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

Interesting. I don't think it's a for sure yet, but Dems have an edge heading into 2016 if they don't  up, which Hillary look's like she's already avoiding doing that. A long time to go.

Should Hillary be in when 2020 comes around, I'd expect a secure 2020 realignment back right for that national election. A Rubio 2020 win would not surprise me.

[RFayette]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another.  


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

[okierepublican]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another.  


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

[RFayette]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another.  


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

Most conservatives now feel the Court is already "flipped" as many of them see John Roberts & Anthony Kennedy as traitors to the cause on at least some issues, but yeah, the next President will be able to sway the Court in a very significant direction ideologically. 

[Skill and Chance]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another.  


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

Most conservatives now feel the Court is already "flipped" as many of them see John Roberts & Anthony Kennedy as traitors to the cause on at least some issues, but yeah, the next President will be able to sway the Court in a very significant direction ideologically. 

Well if you think an economic crash during 2018-20 is self-evident, an interesting corollary would be whether Democrats would have traded 2 terms of President Obama for Kerry winning in 2004 and getting to appoint Rhenquist's successor (albeit with a GOP senate) when he died in 2005, but then getting wiped out by McCain in 2008?  Presumably Stevens would have also left the court in 2005-06 under a President Kerry, cementing a moderate left SCOTUS majority.  I lean left and my answer would be no, but as you noted that's primarily because Roberts provided a 5th vote for Obamacare anyway.

Also, it's worth noting that confirming a pro-life nominee to Ginsburg or Kennedy's seats or confirming a pro-choice nominee to Scalia's seat would require killing the SCOTUS filibuster for all time.  That's something serious to consider for any partisans who wouldn't want to see Mike Lee or Kamala Harris on SCOTUS in the near future.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another. 


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

Most conservatives now feel the Court is already "flipped" as many of them see John Roberts & Anthony Kennedy as traitors to the cause on at least some issues, but yeah, the next President will be able to sway the Court in a very significant direction ideologically. 

Well if you think an economic crash during 2018-20 is self-evident, an interesting corollary would be whether Democrats would have traded 2 terms of President Obama for Kerry winning in 2004 and getting to appoint Rhenquist's successor (albeit with a GOP senate) when he died in 2005, but then getting wiped out by McCain in 2008?  Presumably Stevens would have also left the court in 2005-06 under a President Kerry, cementing a moderate left SCOTUS majority.  I lean left and my answer would be no, but as you noted that's primarily because Roberts provided a 5th vote for Obamacare anyway.

Also, it's worth noting that confirming a pro-life nominee to Ginsburg or Kennedy's seats or confirming a pro-choice nominee to Scalia's seat would require killing the SCOTUS filibuster for all time.  That's something serious to consider for any partisans who wouldn't want to see Mike Lee or Kamala Harris on SCOTUS in the near future.

You're supposing that both sides will vote in such a way to lock in the ideological affiliation of those seats? Not that I think you're wrong, just that I think it's an enormous perversion of the process. Also that the process is stupid in the first place.

[RFayette]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another. 


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

Most conservatives now feel the Court is already "flipped" as many of them see John Roberts & Anthony Kennedy as traitors to the cause on at least some issues, but yeah, the next President will be able to sway the Court in a very significant direction ideologically. 

Well if you think an economic crash during 2018-20 is self-evident, an interesting corollary would be whether Democrats would have traded 2 terms of President Obama for Kerry winning in 2004 and getting to appoint Rhenquist's successor (albeit with a GOP senate) when he died in 2005, but then getting wiped out by McCain in 2008?  Presumably Stevens would have also left the court in 2005-06 under a President Kerry, cementing a moderate left SCOTUS majority.  I lean left and my answer would be no, but as you noted that's primarily because Roberts provided a 5th vote for Obamacare anyway.

Also, it's worth noting that confirming a pro-life nominee to Ginsburg or Kennedy's seats or confirming a pro-choice nominee to Scalia's seat would require killing the SCOTUS filibuster for all time.  That's something serious to consider for any partisans who wouldn't want to see Mike Lee or Kamala Harris on SCOTUS in the near future.

You're supposing that both sides will vote in such a way to lock in the ideological affiliation of those seats? Not that I think you're wrong, just that I think it's an enormous perversion of the process. Also that the process is stupid in the first place.

No, it's just that there will be massive resistance to a major sea change in SCOTUS's ideology that would happen if someone appointed was radically different than who he or she was replacing. 

[bobloblaw]

So, another big picture to look at here is after the current slow rebound of the economy we are due for a correction hear sometime before ~2020ish. This is agree'd on by many big economists to expect this sort of default in the next 4-6 years, so whoever win's in '16 will definitely take some heat for another likely minor recession. Which the other party will capitalize on in the 2020 elections.

For the GOP, this is a double-edged sword, as if they pull out a slim W and finally win the American's public trust with the highest office in '16 and a recession striking quickly as they begin their fiscal agenda, RIP to the GOP in national elections for a bit. At the same time, if Hilldog takes a seat in the executive spot, she will already have a lot of the nation very skeptical about trusting her as a leader. If a recession sets into place and thing's start going down hill, it will immediately having people jumping to conclusions and reaffirm the public's worries and will most likely lead to a booming Rubio 2020 win.

Discuss!

Yes, a recession is all but certain between 2016 and 2020

[Slander and/or Libel]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another. 


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

Most conservatives now feel the Court is already "flipped" as many of them see John Roberts & Anthony Kennedy as traitors to the cause on at least some issues, but yeah, the next President will be able to sway the Court in a very significant direction ideologically. 

Well if you think an economic crash during 2018-20 is self-evident, an interesting corollary would be whether Democrats would have traded 2 terms of President Obama for Kerry winning in 2004 and getting to appoint Rhenquist's successor (albeit with a GOP senate) when he died in 2005, but then getting wiped out by McCain in 2008?  Presumably Stevens would have also left the court in 2005-06 under a President Kerry, cementing a moderate left SCOTUS majority.  I lean left and my answer would be no, but as you noted that's primarily because Roberts provided a 5th vote for Obamacare anyway.

Also, it's worth noting that confirming a pro-life nominee to Ginsburg or Kennedy's seats or confirming a pro-choice nominee to Scalia's seat would require killing the SCOTUS filibuster for all time.  That's something serious to consider for any partisans who wouldn't want to see Mike Lee or Kamala Harris on SCOTUS in the near future.

You're supposing that both sides will vote in such a way to lock in the ideological affiliation of those seats? Not that I think you're wrong, just that I think it's an enormous perversion of the process. Also that the process is stupid in the first place.

No, it's just that there will be massive resistance to a major sea change in SCOTUS's ideology that would happen if someone appointed was radically different than who he or she was replacing. 

Was that a worry when Alito was appointed?

[Skill and Chance]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another. 


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

Most conservatives now feel the Court is already "flipped" as many of them see John Roberts & Anthony Kennedy as traitors to the cause on at least some issues, but yeah, the next President will be able to sway the Court in a very significant direction ideologically. 

Well if you think an economic crash during 2018-20 is self-evident, an interesting corollary would be whether Democrats would have traded 2 terms of President Obama for Kerry winning in 2004 and getting to appoint Rhenquist's successor (albeit with a GOP senate) when he died in 2005, but then getting wiped out by McCain in 2008?  Presumably Stevens would have also left the court in 2005-06 under a President Kerry, cementing a moderate left SCOTUS majority.  I lean left and my answer would be no, but as you noted that's primarily because Roberts provided a 5th vote for Obamacare anyway.

Also, it's worth noting that confirming a pro-life nominee to Ginsburg or Kennedy's seats or confirming a pro-choice nominee to Scalia's seat would require killing the SCOTUS filibuster for all time.  That's something serious to consider for any partisans who wouldn't want to see Mike Lee or Kamala Harris on SCOTUS in the near future.

You're supposing that both sides will vote in such a way to lock in the ideological affiliation of those seats? Not that I think you're wrong, just that I think it's an enormous perversion of the process. Also that the process is stupid in the first place.

No, it's just that there will be massive resistance to a major sea change in SCOTUS's ideology that would happen if someone appointed was radically different than who he or she was replacing. 

This is exactly what I was getting at.  Remember that in 2005, Democrats only caved on Alito after Republicans came within inches of nuking the judicial filibuster that year.  Also, due to the unfortunate timing of O'Connor's retirement with Rhenquist's death, Alito and Roberts were seen as something of a package deal.  While Alito was clearly right of O'Connor, Roberts was seen as (and really has been) clearly left of Rhenquist. 

Suppose the president of the "opposite" party has a 51 seat senate majority when Ginsburg or Scalia leaves the court.  In today's environment, they would have to pick someone very, very moderate (and presumably with the same views on abortion) to get them confirmed without going nuclear.  I think the outer edge of what either party could get away with would be a Democratic president appointing Joe Donnelly to Scalia's seat or a Republican president appointing Brian Sandoval to Ginsburg's seat, to use high profile examples.

[pbrower2a]

Dubya had the biggest disaster of a Presidency since Buchanan -- but the $#i+ didn't hit the fan until the second term. The economy was going to implode, and the wars that Dubya bumbled into had yet to show how bad they could go until the second term. I can't imagine any President being able to get America out of the mess before 2008.

The risk for the Democrats losing in 2016 is that the Republicans get lockstep control of American politics, and with that they can entrench themselves so that they never lose a free election -- ever. They can turn the political system into a system of nearly pure patronage. They can change election laws to the detriment of any but the rich. They will not be able to fully knock the Democrats out, but they can make the Democrats about as relevant as the tame, formal opposition in China. On the other side, if the Republicans really muck up, they may foster social unrest like any unknown since the 1960s -- and in a time of far greater dangers. ISIS makes the Vietcong look like saints.

The risk for the Democrats winning in 2016 is that they get caught with the end of a long bull market. Then the Republicans get to promise economic growth without telling the rest of us that it is only for the rich -- and the rest of us get $crewed. 

It's a huge mystery, one whose result nobody can predict. 

[RFayette]

The risk for the Democrats losing in 2016 is that the Republicans get lockstep control of American politics, and with that they can entrench themselves so that they never lose a free election -- ever. They can turn the political system into a system of nearly pure patronage. They can change election laws to the detriment of any but the rich. They will not be able to fully knock the Democrats out, but they can make the Democrats about as relevant as the tame, formal opposition in China. On the other side, if the Republicans really muck up, they may foster social unrest like any unknown since the 1960s -- and in a time of far greater dangers. ISIS makes the Vietcong look like saints.

It's impossible to take you seriously with garbage like this.  Empirically, there is no evidence that such a scenario is even remotely likely in the United States, given its long small-d democratic traditions.

[Bojack Horseman]

The Presidential Penalty in the midterms seems to hurt Democrats more than Republicans. If Hillary wins in 2016, then 2018 will be an even bigger disaster than 1994, 2010, and 2014 combined. You may see a GOP filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and possibly even a veto-proof majority in the House.

That said, if a Republican wins in 2016, you'll certainly see some governorships flipping, and possibly even some state legislative chambers, which make us a lot more relevant in the redistricting process, putting us on the path to eventually taking back the House.

[HillOfANight]

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/27/second-reading-on-q2-us-gdp-at-37-vs-32-expected.html
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/08/mba-on-housing-demand-from-2014-to-2024.html

GDP 3.7%. Housing is doing strong, consumers are doing well, especially with cheap oil. Huge pent up demand for housing, but people still aren't biting, but they eventually will.

From what I understand, the China economy is doing OK. The markets overshot and is correcting, and people are calming down.

[RFayette]

The Presidential Penalty in the midterms seems to hurt Democrats more than Republicans. If Hillary wins in 2016, then 2018 will be an even bigger disaster than 1994, 2010, and 2014 combined. You may see a GOP filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and possibly even a veto-proof majority in the House.

That said, if a Republican wins in 2016, you'll certainly see some governorships flipping, and possibly even some state legislative chambers, which make us a lot more relevant in the redistricting process, putting us on the path to eventually taking back the House.

Doubtful.   If a 2017-2018 recession occurs or Hillary wins in a landslide, takes the Senate, and keeps it close in or takes the House (and could get a few Republicans to support her proposals), then we can start talking.  But otherwise, I don't think there'd be the requisite anger for Republicans to take control.  Hillary would have to implement something unpopular for there to be that kind of a backlash, unless the economy went majorly south. 

[Devils30]

What if Hillary was surprisingly popular in 2018? The House and senate might then have minimal change and the governorships of MI WI FL could flip blue.