In the long-term, would it be better to lose this election?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that the party that wins this November is going to be blamed for what happens in the next four years, if what happens is dismal enough, it would better long term not to be tarred with such disasters.  Also, losing tends to concentrate attention on what flaws need to be fixed in one's message and method.  So in a very real sense, losing might be good in the long-term for one or both parties.  What do y'all think?  Feel free to post an extended analysis.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

If I didn't live in the US, I'd say yes for the Democrats.  A loss would likely bring them to someone like Warner, or Schweitzer, which would be better electorally in the future.

[© tweed]

I never liked this line of logic

[Person Man]

Who knows? ...but whoever wins may be screwed if America's condition becomes unimaginably bad.  Then again, Reagan was able to survive the brunt of the problems that were started in the 70s, but may or may not have been compounded by Reagan's changes in the 81-82 period, when the sh**t hit the fan the most.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Here's how I see the presidential races shaking out if each side wins:

Obama wins:
Romney/Palin primary battle, either one defeats Obama in general
Palin/Romney is in turn also a one-termer beaten by conservative Dem

McCain wins:
Serves one term, Palin runs and loses to Hillary
Hillary serves one term and is defeated by libertarian leaning Republican

I think if McCain wins Hillary is guaranteed the presidency in 2012

[Ronnie]

Here's how I see the presidential races shaking out if each side wins:

Obama wins:
Romney/Palin primary battle, either one defeats Obama in general
Palin/Romney is in turn also a one-termer beaten by conservative Dem

McCain wins:
Serves one term, Palin runs and loses to Hillary
Hillary serves one term and is defeated by libertarian leaning Republican

I think if McCain wins Hillary is guaranteed the presidency in 2012

If she runs, of course.  Unless she's absolutely desperate, I don't think she would.

If McCain gives up his presidency to Palin, on the other hand, she would be able to beat Hillary IMO.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If McCain loses, I don't see Palin in the running for the 2012 nomination.  The only losing VP nom to go on and be the P nom in the following election was Mondale in 1984 and we all know how that turned out.  She might be able to pull off a Franklin Roosevelt or Bob Dole (who were both losing VP candidates who got the nod in a much later election than the one immediately following) and be a factor in a later election in the 2020s, but 2012 would be too soon.  Conceivably, she could be the VP nom in 2012 regardless of where McCain wins, but not the P nom.

[cannonia]

Re: In the long-term, would it be better to lose this election?

Absolutely not.

The next president is bringing the troops home from Iraq and will get credit for the end of the housing slump.

[Person Man]

Re: In the long-term, would it be better to lose this election?

Absolutely not.

The next president is bringing the troops home from Iraq and will get credit for the end of the housing slump.

These are small potatoes compared to Iran and the Global Economic Cooldown and Global Warming if simply denying it isn't enough.

[minionofmidas]

2010 is more important than 2008. That doesn't mean you should try and lose 2008.

[Frodo]

Probably better for Republicans to lose this one.  Obama may or may not turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, but regardless of the outcome of an Obama administration, being forced into the wilderness has a way of focusing attention on purging those elements of your party that brought you to this state.  If Obama wins this year, and again in 2012, the GOP will emerge from the wilderness as a significantly different party.  It will become, if anything, more fiscally conservative, with as much antipathy towards the cut taxes-and-spend policy of the Bush era as tax-and-spend fiscal liberalism.  Pork barrel earmarks will be seen with as much favor by the new GOP as tax increases. 

If you're trying to think of an image of this new party, think of conservative reformers like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, Sean Parnell, Bobby Jindal, and others like them. 

[Person Man]

Probably better for Republicans to lose this one.  Obama may or may not turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, but regardless of the outcome of an Obama administration, being forced into the wilderness has a way of focusing attention on purging those elements of your party that brought you to this state.  If Obama wins this year, and again in 2012, the GOP will emerge from the wilderness as a significantly different party.  It will become, if anything, more fiscally conservative, with as much antipathy towards the cut taxes-and-spend policy of the Bush era as tax-and-spend fiscal liberalism.  Pork barrel earmarks will be seen with as much favor by the new GOP as tax increases. 

If you're trying to think of an image of this new party, think of conservative reformers like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, Sean Parnell, Bobby Jindal, and others like them. 

So, basically the same party they are today. I mean, I think today's and tommorow's GOP believes in fiscal responsibility, but they are simply not responsible, capable or temperate enough to ever live up to their goals.

[Frodo]

Probably better for Republicans to lose this one.  Obama may or may not turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, but regardless of the outcome of an Obama administration, being forced into the wilderness has a way of focusing attention on purging those elements of your party that brought you to this state.  If Obama wins this year, and again in 2012, the GOP will emerge from the wilderness as a significantly different party.  It will become, if anything, more fiscally conservative, with as much antipathy towards the cut taxes-and-spend policy of the Bush era as tax-and-spend fiscal liberalism.  Pork barrel earmarks will be seen with as much favor by the new GOP as tax increases. 

If you're trying to think of an image of this new party, think of conservative reformers like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, Sean Parnell, Bobby Jindal, and others like them. 

So, basically the same party they are today. I mean, I think today's and tommorow's GOP believes in fiscal responsibility, but they are simply not responsible, capable or temperate enough to ever live up to their goals.

Unless we have divided government, because I can assure you that Democrats (on their own) are no better. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Probably better for Republicans to lose this one.  Obama may or may not turn out to be another Jimmy Carter, but regardless of the outcome of an Obama administration, being forced into the wilderness has a way of focusing attention on purging those elements of your party that brought you to this state.  If Obama wins this year, and again in 2012, the GOP will emerge from the wilderness as a significantly different party.  It will become, if anything, more fiscally conservative, with as much antipathy towards the cut taxes-and-spend policy of the Bush era as tax-and-spend fiscal liberalism.  Pork barrel earmarks will be seen with as much favor by the new GOP as tax increases. 

If you're trying to think of an image of this new party, think of conservative reformers like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, Sean Parnell, Bobby Jindal, and others like them. 

So, basically the same party they are today. I mean, I think today's and tommorow's GOP believes in fiscal responsibility, but they are simply not responsible, capable or temperate enough to ever live up to their goals.

Unless we have divided government, because I can assure you that Democrats (on their own) are no better. 

Congressional Democrats don't count as divided government. When's the last time they stood up to Bush? In Gallup, Bush has a 35% favorable and McCain has a 54% favorable rating. McCain is as extreme as Bush. Yeah, I think I'll pass on the "divided" government that consists of a bunch of spineless center-rightists giving an extreme far rightist every damn thing he wants.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats should disband if they can't win this one.

[ChrisFromNJ]

The Democrats should disband if they can't win this one.

It's certainly a low point in Democratic history, but if the Republicans recovered from 20 straight years of Democratic rule (1932-1952), the Democrats can recover from 12 straight years of Republican rule.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Democrats should disband if they can't win this one.

It's certainly a low point in Democratic history, but if the Republicans recovered from 20 straight years of Democratic rule (1932-1952), the Democrats can recover from 12 straight years of Republican rule.

Except that from 1932-1952, things got better; whereas from 2000-2012, things will get worse.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democrats should disband if they can't win this one.

It's certainly a low point in Democratic history, but if the Republicans recovered from 20 straight years of Democratic rule (1932-1952), the Democrats can recover from 12 straight years of Republican rule.

Except that FDR and Truman weren't horrible Presidents.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The Democrats should disband if they can't win this one.

It's certainly a low point in Democratic history, but if the Republicans recovered from 20 straight years of Democratic rule (1932-1952), the Democrats can recover from 12 straight years of Republican rule.

Except that from 1932-1952, things got better; whereas from 2000-2012, things will get worse.

I love how people assume everything will be worse unless we elect Obama.

[??????????]

The Democrats should disband if they can't win this one.

It's certainly a low point in Democratic history, but if the Republicans recovered from 20 straight years of Democratic rule (1932-1952), the Democrats can recover from 12 straight years of Republican rule.

Except that FDR and Truman weren't horrible Presidents.

That's certainly up for debate.

[opebo]

Who knows? ...but whoever wins may be screwed if America's condition becomes unimaginably bad.  Then again, Reagan was able to survive the brunt of the problems that were started in the 70s, but may or may not have been compounded by Reagan's changes in the 81-82 period, when the sh**t hit the fan the most.

Actually Reagan benefited electorally from the 'recovery' that was already baked into the cake before he even took office.

Personally I think the next president will benefit from a similar recovery - you can see it coming.  It is likely that the government will eventually inflate confidence out of the credit crisis, and then we'll have another little boomlet, just like usual.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Democrats should disband if they can't win this one.

It's certainly a low point in Democratic history, but if the Republicans recovered from 20 straight years of Democratic rule (1932-1952), the Democrats can recover from 12 straight years of Republican rule.

Except that from 1932-1952, things got better; whereas from 2000-2012, things will get worse.

I love how people assume everything will be worse unless we elect Obama.

And Republicans think it will get worse unless we elect McCain.

[YRABNNRM]

The Democrats should disband if they can't win this one.

It's certainly a low point in Democratic history, but if the Republicans recovered from 20 straight years of Democratic rule (1932-1952), the Democrats can recover from 12 straight years of Republican rule.

Except that from 1932-1952, things got better; whereas from 2000-2012, things will get worse.

I love how people assume everything will be worse unless we elect Obama.

I think the Republican will benefit no matter what. Obama will have no clue how to run this nation if elected, and it will be 4 long years for the Democrats. Republicans will control the White House in 4 years

[Psychic Octopus]

If the democrats lose, I will laugh my head off. Things are so far into their favor.

[Workers' Friend]

No matter who wins, The Republicans will go further to the economic left. Fiscal Conservatism has been forever raped by Bush.