(11-09-2012 08:24 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I thought Romney would win but admitted many times that his chances were no better than 50/50. Among the individual states, Florida is the only one that Obama carried which I thought he couldn't carry.

2016 is a long ways off. Looking through history, there are plenty of examples of winning presidential candidates who were barely on the radar 4 years earlier. So we'll see how that turns out. One fact that I think is significant, though: since 1950, there have been 8 presidential elections in which the incumbent party has held the White House for 8 or more years: the Democrats in 1952, 1968, and 2000, and the Republicans in 1960, 1976, 1988, 1992, and 2008. The incumbent party is 1-7 in those elections. Of course there are other factors at work, but I think that is one historical trend that we should keep in mind as 2016 draws near.

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

The issue is that the GOP has moved so far to the right as to make a lot of the voters distance itself from them, even when the Dems are presiding over a bad economy. Expect the Dems to try to paint the Dems into a corner. Here's what you can expect.

1) Expect the Dream Act, and Immigration Reform to be introduced in the Senate. The Dems believe in both, but it has the additional advantage of forcing Marco Rubio to decide between his standing in the Hispanic community or keeping the tea party (who will go bananas over this) happy. Expect them to take some action regarding state laws on immigration as well.

2) Expect the Dems to really try to pile on regarding womens rights. Hint to the GOP. If I were you, I'd ban any male member of the Congressional GOP caucus from speaking on abortion. Watch out for pressure groups as well.

3) Expect the Dems to start to push Gay rights measures. One can expect ballot initiatives to repeal anti-Gay legislation in several states in the next election. This will reinforce the fact that the GOP is out of touch.

The GOP can come back. They'll need to work on figuring out how to expand their base. The dynamics of mid-term elections still is in the GOP's favor. If the Dems figure out how to do turnout for midterms like they do in general elections, you guys are in serious trouble.

(11-09-2012 08:46 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Those assumptions are if both parties are viable. Unless Jeb is running, the GOP will not be. Plus there will be historical significance of the first female president. Hillary wins the Obama states plus GA,NC,AR,TX,IN,AZ.

Jeb will not make the Republicans viable. If anything he is going to make the Democrats really pound the Republicans in the next election. If his last name wasn't Bush he might have a chance but he has no chance.

(11-09-2012 10:35 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 08:46 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Those assumptions are if both parties are viable. Unless Jeb is running, the GOP will not be. Plus there will be historical significance of the first female president. Hillary wins the Obama states plus GA,NC,AR,TX,IN,AZ.

Jeb will not make the Republicans viable. If anything he is going to make the Democrats really pound the Republicans in the next election. If his last name wasn't Bush he might have a chance but he has no chance.

I think that many Americans are willing to consider that Jeb is different than W. But any gaffes would be fatal to such a campaign. Fatal.

(11-09-2012 10:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 08:24 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I thought Romney would win but admitted many times that his chances were no better than 50/50. Among the individual states, Florida is the only one that Obama carried which I thought he couldn't carry.

2016 is a long ways off. Looking through history, there are plenty of examples of winning presidential candidates who were barely on the radar 4 years earlier. So we'll see how that turns out. One fact that I think is significant, though: since 1950, there have been 8 presidential elections in which the incumbent party has held the White House for 8 or more years: the Democrats in 1952, 1968, and 2000, and the Republicans in 1960, 1976, 1988, 1992, and 2008. The incumbent party is 1-7 in those elections. Of course there are other factors at work, but I think that is one historical trend that we should keep in mind as 2016 draws near.

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000.

The issue is that the GOP has moved so far to the right as to make a lot of the voters distance itself from them, even when the Dems are presiding over a bad economy. Expect the Dems to try to paint the Dems into a corner. Here's what you can expect.

1) Expect the Dream Act, and Immigration Reform to be introduced in the Senate. The Dems believe in both, but it has the additional advantage of forcing Marco Rubio to decide between his standing in the Hispanic community or keeping the tea party (who will go bananas over this) happy. Expect them to take some action regarding state laws on immigration as well.

2) Expect the Dems to really try to pile on regarding womens rights. Hint to the GOP. If I were you, I'd ban any male member of the Congressional GOP caucus from speaking on abortion. Watch out for pressure groups as well.

3) Expect the Dems to start to push Gay rights measures. One can expect ballot initiatives to repeal anti-Gay legislation in several states in the next election. This will reinforce the fact that the GOP is out of touch.

The GOP can come back. They'll need to work on figuring out how to expand their base. The dynamics of mid-term elections still is in the GOP's favor. If the Dems figure out how to do turnout for midterms like they do in general elections, you guys are in serious trouble.

It's encouraging me to see that dems seem to be looking for the same mistakes to be made in the next two years that Obama made his first two. Those same things that led to historic landslide for republicans in the mid-terms.

You all misread the electorate after 2008 believing they voted for uber libreal policies. They didn't, and 2010 proved it. Push more liberal policies again, 2014 will look very much the same.

Obama doesn't need his base anymore. Now he needs a legacy. Something beyond just being the first black elected president. He can't get that by being the same as he was in his first term.

And the GOP doesn't need to stop being pro-life. They need to stop nominating idiots like Akin.

When I used to vacation in Marco I would always get the Naples paper for a week. Jeb was solid. Enviromentalist, It's a damn shame what happened to W. Jeb just comes off as compassionate. I liked everything I read on him, but then again he wasn't running for a national office. He would have to tack right to get through a primary and the positives wouldn't come through then.

(11-09-2012 10:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 10:35 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 08:46 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Those assumptions are if both parties are viable. Unless Jeb is running, the GOP will not be. Plus there will be historical significance of the first female president. Hillary wins the Obama states plus GA,NC,AR,TX,IN,AZ.

Jeb will not make the Republicans viable. If anything he is going to make the Democrats really pound the Republicans in the next election. If his last name wasn't Bush he might have a chance but he has no chance.

I think that many Americans are willing to consider that Jeb is different than W. But any gaffes would be fatal to such a campaign. Fatal.

It is not just Dubya that is his problem. It is also that one term father of his, who had to be told that "it is the economy stupid.". And then there is that whole mess in Florida back in 2000 when he was the Governor. I am convinced that Jeb would get smoked in a general election for President.

(11-09-2012 10:39 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 10:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The issue is that the GOP has moved so far to the right as to make a lot of the voters distance itself from them, even when the Dems are presiding over a bad economy.

And the GOP doesn't need to stop being pro-life. They need to stop nominating idiots like Akin.

+1 on Akin. He is 65 years old and I guess he figured he had nothing to lose. But if ever a man burned his bridges with his own party, Akin is that man. There is a sense of deep resentment towards him among many pro-lifers and of course Republicans in general. Except for some people and organizations with whom he may have a personal relationship going back some years, no one else involved in conservative/GOP politics will have anything to do with him from now on. As a lobbyist, spokesman, or potential candidate, he is 100% over-and-out.
What a fool.

.........

I suspect that the phrase "so far to the right" means different things to different people. But just as a general proposition, there will always be some voters who are flat-out unwilling to support a certain political party. Of course, Romney himself famously estimated that 47% of the American voters would not even consider voting for him, and I thought he was correct from the moment I heard him say it. Among the 53% that were at least willing to consider it, Romney did well but not quite well enough. Can a different GOP'er do better next time? Maybe, maybe not. But I will predict that any effort to win over the "Democrat-no-matter-what" constituencies will fail spectacularly. Virtually no Dems would cross over, but a lot of GOP folks would stay home.

Texas will never go D. The Republicans will 'evolve' enough on immigration to keep the demographic shifts from flipping reliably red states.

I think Hillary will wait to decide until we have a better idea if the Democrats even have a chance in 2016. If Obama falls flat on his face, she won't waste the time & effort to get clobbered by Rubio.

To me, republicans are too far right on social issues and not far enough right on fiscal issues.

Hillary will have an excellent shot in 2016 no matter how these next 4 years go. Obviously if they go well the Democratic brand is better but even if not, she'll be out of the administration and won't catch any blame for it. She will still be married to one of the best economic stewards of our time, or what is perceived to be anyway.

(11-09-2012 08:08 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 07:20 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  The Romney team was shocked by the loss. They must watch FAUX News instead of the mainstream or as I call it reality based media.

I don't know why. He was a horrible candidate. He did not appeal to minorities and women....game over. I am not smart and I figured this out.

I think you are smart you just are delusional.

(11-09-2012 09:02 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Hillary would not win Texas. It might become more of a battleground state in 2016, but the Republicans will still carry it. And I don't think they're that popular in Arkansas anymore - especially her. She might turn Missouri and Montana - and then some of the ones you mentioned. The Republicans can turn quite a few states with the right candidate/ticket. But it won't matter if they can't turn Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

Without FL, OH, and VA Obama would still have been re-elected:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012...log480.png

I think Hillary puts more states in play, not less. NC for sure and maybe even places like Georgia and Arkansas

(11-09-2012 10:35 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Jeb will not make the Republicans viable. If anything he is going to make the Democrats really pound the Republicans in the next election. If his last name wasn't Bush he might have a chance but he has no chance.

There's a never again joke I'd make, but it would be in poor taste, even for me on the internet. I agree that it would be massively difficult for a Bush to win again. Even an unrelated person with the same last name. In certain circles the "Mitt Romney is just better spoken George W. Bush" attack was a winner. W's brother would make that the default tagline for the DNC.

(11-09-2012 11:17 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Texas will never go D. The Republicans will 'evolve' enough on immigration to keep the demographic shifts from flipping reliably red states.

I think Hillary will wait to decide until we have a better idea if the Democrats even have a chance in 2016. If Obama falls flat on his face, she won't waste the time & effort to get clobbered by Rubio.

Clinton was successful but Gore lost. Bush had run the place into the ground but won reelection. I don't necessarily think if Obama's second term turns out bad that Hillary won't run. It'll be her last chance, age wise, so why wouldn't she, regardless of the circumstances?

(11-09-2012 12:36 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think Hillary puts more states in play, not less. NC for sure and maybe even places like Georgia and Arkansas

Why on earth do you believe Hillary puts any of those in play?

(11-09-2012 12:43 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:36 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think Hillary puts more states in play, not less. NC for sure and maybe even places like Georgia and Arkansas

Why on earth do you believe Hillary puts any of those in play?

North Carolina is obvious as the Dems barely lost it last time. We expect the new NC supermajorities and governor to go full bore on anti-Union and religious right laws.

Obama actually did pretty good in Georgia without putting any resources into the race. He lost by 8 points. Georgia has a very fast growing Hispanic population.

Arkansas is out of reach.

(11-09-2012 11:17 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Texas will never go D. The Republicans will 'evolve' enough on immigration to keep the demographic shifts from flipping reliably red states.

I think Hillary will wait to decide until we have a better idea if the Democrats even have a chance in 2016. If Obama falls flat on his face, she won't waste the time & effort to get clobbered by Rubio.

Texas is a hard one, but Clinton might be formidable. The Texas GOP is moving towards more antagonism of Hispanics, not away from it.

Ted Cruz doesn't do much for the GOP. He's CUBAN, not Mexican (which makes a huge difference).

(11-09-2012 12:43 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:36 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I think Hillary puts more states in play, not less. NC for sure and maybe even places like Georgia and Arkansas

Why on earth do you believe Hillary puts any of those in play?

I will admit I'm largely just going off my feeling, but look at GA. Obama only lost by 8 points. I think she could make an honest run at it. It'd be tough, very tough, and a long shot, but I think she could do it. Arkansas just based on that being her home, and sure she's not the same Hillary she used to be, but I think she could still rattle the cages there. She was on the board of Walmart for a while. I think she'd have more support there than you think.

I'd prefer her over Crazy Joe.

(11-09-2012 12:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We expect the new NC supermajorities and governor to go full bore on anti-Union and religious right laws.

Boy do you have zero understanding of NC.

First, we don't need anti-union laws being a right to work state.

Second this state approved by over 60% an amendment banning gay marriage. Not sure what other "religious right" laws you might be thinking of but that's not really a losing issue in NC.

Quote:Obama actually did pretty good in Georgia without putting any resources into the race. He lost by 8 points. Georgia has a very fast growing Hispanic population.

Arkansas is out of reach.

You will never get GA with Hillary. You could make a run for it if you nominated a moderate to right leaning dem southern governor, but I don't think a candidate like that will ever win the Dem nomination again.

(11-09-2012 12:53 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  We expect the new NC supermajorities and governor to go full bore on anti-Union and religious right laws.

Boy do you have zero understanding of NC.

First, we don't need anti-union laws being a right to work state.

Second this state approved by over 60% an amendment banning gay marriage. Not sure what other "religious right" laws you might be thinking of but that's not really a losing issue in NC.

Quote:Obama actually did pretty good in Georgia without putting any resources into the race. He lost by 8 points. Georgia has a very fast growing Hispanic population.

Arkansas is out of reach.

You will never get GA with Hillary. You could make a run for it if you nominated a moderate to right leaning dem southern governor, but I don't think a candidate like that will ever win the Dem nomination again.

I'm sure the people over at ALEC can come up with something stupid and unnecessary to enrage the Unions there. And the religious right there is as bad as in Alabama.

But understand, there's a funny thing about gerrymandered majorities in the state leg and US Congress...They don't translate very well into those type of majorities for Senatorial and Presidential races. The GOP has had to learn that in Wisconsin. The might have to learn it in North Carolina.

(11-09-2012 12:50 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I will admit I'm largely just going off my feeling,

Having gone off my gut feeling for this election I can tell you it can be a dicey proposition.

Quote:but look at GA. Obama only lost by 8 points. I think she could make an honest run at it. It'd be tough, very tough, and a long shot, but I think she could do it.

Nothing about Hillary is appealing to GA voters. And Obama lost it by 3 more points this year than he did in '08.

Quote:Arkansas just based on that being her home, and sure she's not the same Hillary she used to be, but I think she could still rattle the cages there.

AK hasn't been her home in well over a decade. She wouldn't even contest the state.

Dems are done in the south unless the nominate a southern governor or senator. No candidate from the NE is going to even register.