At 11/7/14 10:45 AM, Korriken wrote: So you're telling me that Democrats, other than the ones running against her are going to say she's too old to run? Now, Republicans saying it goes without saying.

You just shifted the goal posts and your asking me if I stand behind something I didn't say. Let's try this again: I said, and I believe, that should Hillary Clinton nominate, as her VP and running mate, a political unknown who then proceeds to show they are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED to hold an office of extreme importance, power, and decision making, and that individual is to then be placed one heart beat away from THE most important office which has all those qualifiers I listed that yes, for Democrats, that is going to be an issue that's commented on, and that will keep some from voting for her. Because that is logical, and not everybody who registers as a certain party, or votes for a certain party is a complete party hack who will vote the party line no matter what. Fuck, politicians who are IN the damn party don't always chirp whatever the perceived leader of the party wants them to do (see Democrats running like fuck away from Obama during this mid-term. Also, to further prove you aren't making an apples to apples comparison, let's compare the age of Hillary Clinton in 2016, with the age of McCain in 2008:

If McCain had won, he would have been 72, average male life span is about 75

If Clinton wins in 2016, she'll be 69, average female life span is about 85

See how this isn't an apples to apples? But honestly, had McCain not stuck Sarah Palin on the ticket, and had somebody who was at least good at pretending to be competent, I truly don't believe his age would have ever been an issue. It becam an issue when he put an incompetent running mate up, so too did people (myself for certain) start to question McCain's judgement and decision making to allow his handlers and staff and himself to be saddled with someone like Palin and seek to install her in that office. Made me (and I'm sure others) wonder what else McCain might get wrong. But again, the economy was what sunk McCain.

No, not everyone. Only about 70% of those who vote do.

Which still leaves the other 20%, so I don't see how you've actually picked at my point.

I never brought up Palin being incompetent. You did.

I did, because that was what started the age meme and complaint. Prior to Palin, I don't recall anybody making McCain's age an issue. Once he put up Palin and she began to flail and look terrible, the idea that she was one heart beat away from the presidency, and that heart beat was a pretty old one, started to worry some folks and become an issue.

I'm just pointing out that was the propaganda used against him. Then again, the whole "Palin is an idiot" thing was also pure propaganda. Effective, but propaganda nonetheless.

Yeah....cause Sarah Palin has proven her political savvy since....when was the last political office she held after she QUIT being governor of Alaska mid-term to go be a paid political hack?

I'm just saying that propaganda works and works well.

Sure does, but it works as well as it does because of what I was saying. Stupidity and a lack of any real ability or desire to get the real story makes these things effective.

At 11/6/14 04:20 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/6/14 01:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm kind of curious as to exactly why the shift to red happened.

All of the metrics show that the country has significantly improved under Obama.

Camaro:

I hate to break it to you, but the metrics are mixed in terms of improvement and in terms of degree none of them really point to any sort of improvement that can be termed 'signifcantly'.

Everyone focuses on the U-3 number which is the number of people who are looking/want a job and cannot find one. However, once you expand your focus to a broader metric after six years we are back to where we were in Oct 2008 (11.1%). Yes it is better than the high of 17.1%. But when you look at the record it has taken a lot to get us here. The averages from 2009-present are (in order): 16.2%, 16.7%, 15.9%, 14.7%, 13.8%, and 12.2%. This means Obama's average total unemployment rate is 14.9%.

However, the average under Bush was 9.2%. Comparatively, this is dismal. Yes Obama had a much deeper recession to contend with than Bush had to deal with early on. You can blame the crash on Bush, but remember it was a result of doubling down on policies that Clinton enacted and Obama is tangentally attached to (he worked on one of the lawsuits that put pressure on Clinton to lower credit worthiness for FANNIE/FREDDIE loans).

What we want to see in terms of unemployment (U-3) reported in the news is an increase. It means people are feeling better about the economy and see themselves as having a positive future. It means more people are hiring. The reality is we are not creating enough jobs to really give everyone who wants one a job...much less enough to get us back to Sept 17, 2008.
Source

As for other metrics: Wall Street is doing just fine, but there is a general feeling that it is a fragile recovery there as evidenced by the Fed not raising interest rates. This spans two things: 1) they are worried that such a shock would cause the market to tumble and 2) that it would stifle the economic activity of average Americans. Hell, I've been reading reports of changes in homebuying...more people are buying in cash and it is still hard for people to get loans.

Then there is consumer confidence which is still depressed. The inflation rate remains flat and (outside of 2011) has struggled to get over 2%. Why is this a bad thing: it means the US economy is NOT growing.

So I'm sorry, but the metrics pointing to an improved (much less significantly) just are not there.

Regardless of whether or not this is true, your average Republican is not going to believe this. Democrats need to stop believing that you can convince somebody to vote blue by endlessly citing facts. It's simply not going to work, and hasn't.

Two points Feoric:
1) This is not a Republican only phenomenon. The Democrats don't want to accept facts that are outside of their worldview either. I mean if they are the Vulcans you imply they are...they would not be pushing for gun control...even 'universal' background checks.

2) Moving forward, the Democratic party in Congress is the radical party. In 2010 the Democratic Party's moderates who won election in 2006 were swept out. With the pick-ups the Republicans made in the House last Tuesday...the party is once again reduced to its furthest Left members in the House and lost a significant amount of their moderates in the Senate. If the headline on RCP is to be believed, they are keeping Pelosi and Reid in as minority leaders. This just shows their disconnection. I mean shortly after a billionaire paid Dems to keep the Senate chamber open for a climate change fillibuster...Reid went on an anti-Koch rant where he claimed Dems didn't have billionaires on his side!

What we need now is moderates on both sides who can work together. I think that's what we have on the Republican side (this was not a Tea-Party led victory)...unfortunately we have a Congress where the Left has been distilled to their most radical components and so we'll get two more years of obstructionism.

I also wonder if the biggest loser in this election was Hillary.

There were several reports of how the Clintons were helping Dems while Obama stayed off the campaign trail because he (BHO) was dragging the Dems down. The Clintons were going to be the Blue Wall against the Republican tide. In Arkansas, Pryor didn't need to ask for Clinton's help because Clinton just knew when and where he was needed...and would magically just show-up.

In the end, they could not save any of the Senate Dems. This is an indicator that her coattails will be short and she may not be that capable of bringing Dems into the Congress and governor's mansions with her. So she may be abandoned by some, many, or all of her party allies.

So in 2016, many Dems who want to be president (but think Hillary is inevitable) may actually decide to throw their hat into the ring. Thus Hillary could experience what Romney experinced in 2012: the inevitable party nominee getting destroyed by their own party's ideological core during the primaries.

I wonder if she's even contemplating not running now...

At 11/9/14 12:28 PM, TheMason wrote: Two points Feoric:
1) This is not a Republican only phenomenon. The Democrats don't want to accept facts that are outside of their worldview either. I mean if they are the Vulcans you imply they are...they would not be pushing for gun control...even 'universal' background checks.

I don't think that's true either, because the Dem leadership was doing just fine not pushing gun control laws at the national level up until a classroom full of kindergarteners got mowed down which understandably generated massive public outcry. And, considering everything I said about the proposed AWB renewal came completely true during that round of negitations after the fallout from Sandy Hook, and the complete silence on the issue afterwards, I think Democrats know gun control is a dead issue they will always lose outside of extremely liberal areas, and have known this for quite some time.

2) Moving forward, the Democratic party in Congress is the radical party. In 2010 the Democratic Party's moderates who won election in 2006 were swept out. With the pick-ups the Republicans made in the House last Tuesday...the party is once again reduced to its furthest Left members in the House and lost a significant amount of their moderates in the Senate. If the headline on RCP is to be believed, they are keeping Pelosi and Reid in as minority leaders. This just shows their disconnection. I mean shortly after a billionaire paid Dems to keep the Senate chamber open for a climate change fillibuster...Reid went on an anti-Koch rant where he claimed Dems didn't have billionaires on his side!

Yes, the extreme Far Left Republican-lite Democrats who didn't run on any of Obama's policies. The horror!

What we need now is moderates on both sides who can work together. I think that's what we have on the Republican side (this was not a Tea-Party led victory)...unfortunately we have a Congress where the Left has been distilled to their most radical components and so we'll get two more years of obstructionism.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

edit: to be clear, the Democratic Party in no way shape or form resembles a far left party.

At 11/9/14 12:39 PM, TheMason wrote: I also wonder if the biggest loser in this election was Hillary.

I wonder if she's even contemplating not running now...

That's certainly wishful thinking on your part. I disagree with your assessment that Obama is not popular with Democrats -- he's clearly popular with enough of the base, just not the general public, which explains the (disastrous) pivot the party made during the recent elections. This would otherwise put Hillary in a tough spot -- running against Obama is easy but not as a Democrat, since you'd be upsetting a non-negligible chunk of the base who are emotionally invested in him. However, this is the reason why you're dead wrong about the midterms being bad for Hillary: an R Congress is her saving grace which presents her an opportunity to run against the Republican Congress instead of the Obama administration and his policies:

"And a Republican-led Senate creates a handy foil for her to run against: Rather than the delicate task of trying to draw a stark contrast with an unpopular president in whose administration she served, her loyalists say, Mrs. Clinton can instead present herself as a pragmatic alternative to what they predict will be an obstructionist Republican Congress.

"Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and their allies in the House" will be "pushing Republican leadership hard," said Geoff Garin, a pollster who succeeded Mark Penn as chief strategist for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign. "When that happens it will give Hillary Clinton or whoever the Democratic nominee is a better platform to run.""

Instead of running against/distancing herself from Obama, she can run against whatever batshit insane thing Ted Cruz said the other day. Keep in mind we don't know the precise reason why Obama's approval ratings are so low as of yet -- is it a matter of policy or is it something else, like perceived competency, or a combination of both? If it's the former she needs to make it clear she's not continuing unpopular policies; if it's the latter, she doesn't necessarily have to run against him per se, but rather project an air of competency. A Republican Congress is the perfect scenario to set the stage for that either way. Clinton is not Obama, she is not an idiot nor naive. She is ruthlessly opportunistic and calculating, just like her husband. Republicans would be wise to not underestimate her and her ability to affect voter turnout (especially women) during a Congressional election year. This is her race to lose.

has anyone here notice that the markets like the DOW and NASDAQ spiked when it was announced the high probability of a GOP controlled congress? and oil prices went down too!

At 11/9/14 06:07 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: has anyone here notice that the markets like the DOW and NASDAQ spiked when it was announced the high probability of a GOP controlled congress? and oil prices went down too!

A GOP controlled Congress has been baked into the market for quite some time now, it was no secret that they were going to take the Senate. It was being called months beforehand. The market has been bullish for quite some time now as job reports continue to provide cautious optimism (TheMason provides quite accurate caveats to this above, however), which is coupled with continued declines in investor uncertainty, which means dropping commodities like gold and oil. Speaking of oil, there are rumors about the Saudis supposedly extending their pipeline infrastructure which is heavily influencing the oil market. Politics normally doesn't influence the broader markets to a very large degree unless there's something creating volatility (see: Congress failing to pass the bailout the first time, the S&P downgrade due to the GOP fucking with the debt ceiling, etc) or there's some sort of policy that intimately ties to the market, like the Keystone Pipeline or some sort of financial regulation.

edit: the DJI/NASDAQ shouldn't be used as a metric to gauge how healthy the economy is, fyi.

Now that the Republicans control the House and Senate, there should be a higher chance for the next President to be a Republican. Agree or disagree?

At 11/9/14 02:18 PM, Feoric wrote: Moved the goal posts, appealed to emotion, and other irrelevancies.

In the comment to which I am replying, the underlying implication is that: 1) this is a Republican-centric phenomenon and 2) the Republicans deny and/or ignore reality and objectively researched data.

The original comment did NOT imply you are discussing what policies are or are not politically viable. Therefore making a counter-argument to my comments about the political viability of gun control policies are irrelevant.

My point was if Democrats also looked at objective facts and scientific data...there would be no gun control movement pushing policies (viable or otherwise) since the vast majority of their talking points are easily discredited by facts. In essence Michael Bloomberg would not be wasting his money on the movement.

Yes, the extreme Far Left Republican-lite Democrats who didn't run on any of Obama's policies. The horror!

Umm...there are actually Dems who ran on Obama's policies and won because of the political geography of the districts they are in. Obama's policies are not unpopular everywhere, and the geography will favor Dems in 2016.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

How about honestly and intelligently?

edit: to be clear, the Democratic Party in no way shape or form resembles a far left party.

This is intellectually dishonest because I know you are smarter than this. You are doing mental gymnastics to re-cast the House Democratic Caucus as moderate.

1) Yes you are right: on a global scale the Democratic Party in the US would NOT be a far left party. For example in England their policies would be center-left. In France it would be centerist.

2) In a topic discusing US politics and the effect of the Midterms on US policy, point one is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT. The political compass is relative to the country which is being discussed.

3) The US Democratic Party is the umbrella party that represents the Left. Ergo strip away all the people who fall between 0 and -0.25 (or -0.33 depending on who you ask) on the American political compass; all you are left with is the extreme Left of the American political spectrum.

So my point is: the Democrats in Congress (especially the House) has had most of their moderates voted out of office. Those who are left are the ones with the most ideologically rigid and partisan.

At 11/9/14 08:21 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Now that the Republicans control the House and Senate, there should be a higher chance for the next President to be a Republican. Agree or disagree?

Not really.

Midterm elections are different from presidential elections.

* The people who turn-out for midterms are generally older and whiter; demographics the Dems have historically lost.

* The House is actually fairly locked in place due to Republican gerrymandering and unlikely to switch to Blue in the next 4-6 years.

* Only 1/3 of the Senate are up for election every two years. This year the geography of seats in play favored Republicans (most Red Southern states). In 2016, the campaign will be Republicans who hold seats in Blue states.

At 11/10/14 09:42 AM, TheMason wrote: In the comment to which I am replying, the underlying implication is that: 1) this is a Republican-centric phenomenon and 2) the Republicans deny and/or ignore reality and objectively researched data.

Yes, which is why I roll my eyes so hard they get stuck in the back of my head whenever I see people say "both sides do it so therefore the truth is in the middle" ad nauseam like Korriken. The problem with this position is that for a large number of issues -- climate change being the best example to use -- there does not exist two equally honest sides to the debate, nor does there exist a truly subjective and rational middle ground; there's only one side that is objectively correct (climate change is an objective scientific truth), and the other side, which is not only wrong objectively, but often also morally reprehensible and voiced by corporate funded delegates who tackle the issue in bad faith which intentionally obfuscates the issue in order to confuse the general public. Other issues backed by decades worth of research and data points include public-option health care (it objectively works better), medical marijuana legalization (medical research shows it objectively should be legalized), food stamps (economic data proves that food stamps objectively have the highest ROI out of any social spending program), an extremely vast array of other economic issues (trickle-down economics is objectively bullshit, the Laffer Curve is objectively bullshit, nonsensical comparisons between government debt and business/household debt, etc), things like creationism in science class, etc etc. The middle point between the truth and a lie is still a lie, yet supposedly "neutral" media outlets like CNN keep on playing into the "both sides" narrative out of fear of being branded as overtly partisan (see: the manufactured outrage from the right over Candy Crowley). You should note where each respective party falls on the aforementioned issues. It's entirely lopsided.

The original comment did NOT imply you are discussing what policies are or are not politically viable. Therefore making a counter-argument to my comments about the political viability of gun control policies are irrelevant.

My point was if Democrats also looked at objective facts and scientific data...there would be no gun control movement pushing policies (viable or otherwise) since the vast majority of their talking points are easily discredited by facts. In essence Michael Bloomberg would not be wasting his money on the movement.

Political viability absolutely affects whether or not a party is going to make said issue part of the party platform, so it's ridiculous to suggest that viability is irrelevant to the discussion. As of right now there exists no gun control movement because it's not politically viable. The Democrats were defeated on the issue as well as their talking points, and there's nothing to suggest that they're about to start winning any time soon, so it can't logically be said that the Democrats are currently pushing for a gun control movement. If anything they've abandoned the issue entirely. To my knowledge no Democratic candidate on the ballot even mentioned gun control on the campaign trail, let alone made it a centerpiece to their campaign. BTW, Bloomberg is an Independent.

Umm...there are actually Dems who ran on Obama's policies and won because of the political geography of the districts they are in. Obama's policies are not unpopular everywhere, and the geography will favor Dems in 2016.

I don't consider extremely blue/red areas of the country to be useful metrics to gauge whether or not there is support among the general population. The Democrats, for whatever reason, distanced themselves from the President, especially outside of deep blue districts. The general public wasn't interested in what they were selling, and either voted R or didn't vote at all. The fact that they also lost Colorado is telling.

Concerning 2016: The Dems lost their Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, and Colorado seats. They would have to win every race currently leaning blue on top of either a) winning 2/3 tossup states while keeping control of NV or b) losing NV and winning all three tossup states. This would only put them at 50, which, while technically a majority, does not create a cushion to comfortably allow bipartisan Dem Senators to vote R under a hypothetical President Christie administration. While the environment does favor the Democrats overall, their losses may be too deep to recover from in 2016 alone. I'm sceptical that they can pull it off, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility at all if their is considerable turnout (the 2014 midterm elections had the lowest turnout rate since WW2). 2018 heavily favors Republicans, so if Democrats don't retake the Senate in 2016 we're looking at a Republican controlled Congress until at least 2020.

This is intellectually dishonest because I know you are smarter than this. You are doing mental gymnastics to re-cast the House Democratic Caucus as moderate.

So my point is: the Democrats in Congress (especially the House) has had most of their moderates voted out of office. Those who are left are the ones with the most ideologically rigid and partisan.

I'm not buying this. You'd have to demonstrate that this is the case.

If a Republican President wins in 2016, with a Republican House and Senate, the GOP would be able to accomplish almost anything politically.

At 11/10/14 09:57 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: If a Republican President wins in 2016, with a Republican House and Senate, the GOP would be able to accomplish almost anything politically.

Oh lordy, it'll be 2001-2007 all over again. Who else remembers those golden years?

I think you people misunderstand the average apathy and ignorance of the average U.S. voter, it doesn't matter if the leading party does really good or really bad, whoever has the flashiest ads win, end of story.

At 11/6/14 01:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm kind of curious as to exactly why the shift to red happened.

All of the metrics show that the country has significantly improved under Obama.

I don't care for Obama that much because he seems mostly to be only a democratic in name but people in america (especially the midwest) are sheep, case closed.

At 11/9/14 06:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: "I'm a shill who doens't look at the government objectively."

Oh lawdy this is hilarious. No one looks at the government objectively; we're all human and we all have inherent bias that come from how we were raised to which country to our experiences and beliefs which we can't fully remove from our conscious. You can be less biased, but you lean more towards the incredibly biased side which doesn't even try to be objective. Just a hint here; anyone who says they're objective and totally rational are the least objective and rational people in existence. Just a quick life lesson there.

I really do, which is why I purpurt what I do.

All right, just tell me real quick who is the Secretary of Transportation? Don't google this answer now. I'd assume if you knew how the government worked you'd be familiar with who he or she is.

You on the other hand..... shameful.

So if your political leanings are on the Left that means you don't understand the government and if they're on the right you do?

At 11/10/14 09:57 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: If a Republican President wins in 2016, with a Republican House and Senate, the GOP would be able to accomplish almost anything politically.

yeah its gonna be nazi germany all over again

At 11/9/14 05:06 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/9/14 12:39 PM, TheMason wrote: I also wonder if the biggest loser in this election was Hillary.

I wonder if she's even contemplating not running now...

That's certainly wishful thinking on your part.

I will admit that Hillary winning in 2016 is suboptimal to how I hope the election goes. However, I do not think Hillary would be a horrible president. Nor do I allow my personal feelings and ideological leaning to have a disproportionate impact on my analysis.

The midterms were a setback and defeat for the Democrats. Period. Not really up for debate.

This includes Hillary.

Now how much does it hurt her presidential pursuits? That is up for debate. Running for president is physically, emotionally, and financially exhausting. Any major defeat such as what happened a week ago should have any reasonable and rational person question whether or not she should run. Especially if she has any medical conditions.

I disagree with your assessment that Obama is not popular with Democrats

Moving the goal posts dude...and actually totally missing an undercurrent of my post. That Hillary would face opposition from the Left means there are Democrats who find Obama and his policies appealing.

So what you are disagreeing with is not my assessment...but possibly a strawman of your own design and desire.

"Quotes a person who stands to gain personally by becoming Hillary's chief campaign spin doctor."

Methinks I am not the only one thinking wishfully!

"Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and their allies in the House"

I watched Rand Paul talk about the election from Mitch McConnell's victory party. During the Midterms, Tea Party candidates did not do so well against 'establishment' Repubs. In short, I think they have learned their lessons and matured in office by learning from their mistakes.

While I am NOT saying that Repubs will definately play their hand artfully and masterfully...I think it is equally premature to assume they are going to be like Biden and prove to be gaffe machines!

Keep in mind we don't know the precise reason why Obama's approval ratings are so low as of yet -- is it a matter of policy or is it something else, like perceived competency, or a combination of both? If it's the former she needs to make it clear she's not continuing unpopular policies; if it's the latter, she doesn't necessarily have to run against him per se, but rather project an air of competency. .

I think the polls indicate it's a combination. If it's the latter...it is probably worse for her. She was a major figure in his administration. Any incompetency is something she is intimately attached to. It will be easy for Repubs to paint her as part of the competency problem.

At 11/10/14 09:57 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: If a Republican President wins in 2016, with a Republican House and Senate, the GOP would be able to accomplish almost anything politically.

That depends on their margins of control in each chamber of Congress as well as party unity. The GOP isn't very unified right now.

At 11/11/14 01:08 AM, TheMason wrote: The midterms were a setback and defeat for the Democrats. Period. Not really up for debate.

Actually it is. Midterm elections tend to be bad news for the party in control of the White House. It's very rare that the party that has the White House gains seats. The last time it happened was in 2002 which was fresh after the aftermath of 9/11. The elections were in red states where it's very tough to run as a Democrat, so it's not like the Democrats are losing their base. The 2nd term of most Presidents tends to be their worst term, and so by consequence so are the Midterms. It doesn't matter who, since WWII mid terms have been bad news for each President from Reagan to Jimmy Carter. So the Democrats losing seats if anything was the expected outcome if going by political trends. In order for the Democrats to win Obama would've had to been a legendary President, in that sense better than Reagan or Clinton (At least in their terms, Reagan is definitely alot more popular than he was when he was President same with Clinton and all Presidents pretty much).

At 11/11/14 01:08 AM, TheMason wrote: The midterms were a setback and defeat for the Democrats. Period. Not really up for debate.

This includes Hillary.

I agree that it's certainly not good for Democrats right now, but I still maintain my original point that Hillary is in a much better position than you think she is.

Now how much does it hurt her presidential pursuits? That is up for debate. Running for president is physically, emotionally, and financially exhausting. Any major defeat such as what happened a week ago should have any reasonable and rational person question whether or not she should run. Especially if she has any medical conditions.

I think someone like Hillary knew the prospects of a GOP victory before the election just like anyone else who was paying even the slightest of attention, and I think she also understands the issue of turnout which was a major contributing factor to the Dem's defeat. It's not like this came out of left field. She's running and she's running because she thinks she can do what Obama couldn't/wouldn't while bringing out voters. If she didn't think she could do that then she wouldn't be running. I'm not convinced the midterms are giving her second guesses.

Moving the goal posts dude...and actually totally missing an undercurrent of my post. That Hillary would face opposition from the Left means there are Democrats who find Obama and his policies appealing.

I misread what you wrote when you said Obama was "dragging the Dems down," my bad. Actually I think the left is completely irrelevant as far as the mainstream Democratic party is concerned. The only actual credible candidate with enough national recognition who could challenge Hillary from the left is Warren. Sanders (who I would vote for) is an actual socialist, which is all that needs to be said. Who else? The bench is incredibly weak and Hillary is, well, Hillary.

Methinks I am not the only one thinking wishfully!

I'm not thinking wishfully, that's a legitimately good political strategy and makes complete sense when you look at the issues she's facing among her electorate.

I watched Rand Paul talk about the election from Mitch McConnell's victory party. During the Midterms, Tea Party candidates did not do so well against 'establishment' Repubs. In short, I think they have learned their lessons and matured in office by learning from their mistakes.

While I am NOT saying that Repubs will definately play their hand artfully and masterfully...I think it is equally premature to assume they are going to be like Biden and prove to be gaffe machines!

There is certainly an air of truth to the overall point you're making, but keep in mind I was talking specifically about what will likely be Hillary's strategy going forward, which largely disregards the bane in the Tea Party caucus. While the GOP is nowhere near as electorally chaotic as it was through 2010-2013, there's still loud obnoxious hardliners for Hillary to home in on to distract Obama supporters she'd otherwise be ostracising. We'll start to see what sorts of games the GOP will make "in retaliation" for Obama's impending EO on immigration by the end of the year once the new Congress is sworn in.

I think the polls indicate it's a combination. If it's the latter...it is probably worse for her. She was a major figure in his administration. Any incompetency is something she is intimately attached to. It will be easy for Repubs to paint her as part of the competency problem.

I don't disagree with this, but I wonder how much mileage they will get with people not already voting R if they go that route. Probably not much. They pushed Benghazi way too hard and nothing ever came of it. What else is there to atatck her on? Her time being SoS minus that was pretty lame and largely uneventful.

At 11/11/14 01:32 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/11/14 01:08 AM, TheMason wrote: The midterms were a setback and defeat for the Democrats. Period. Not really up for debate.

Actually it is.

Sorry...but no it is not.

Yes you are correct, the historical trend is for the party in the White House to loose seats in midterms.

What you are missing is that the gains are usually made in vacancies. Incumbents typically have an advantage. That so many incumbents were toppled giving Republicans their biggest midterm pick-up in 80 years means there is something different about these midterms. Furthermore, going into this election many observers did not think the Repubs could make any gains in the House (myself included). So their double-digit pick-up is huge. Along with pick-ups in governor's races.

It is not merely about loses in the midterms...but how deep they are. Are they a wave, or merely an adjustment? Obama lost deeply in a wave. I doubt Begich will win...so that means Repubs pick-up 8 before Louisianna's run-off which means it could reach 9. It was a wave election despite Juan Williams being in denial and claiming it was not (and then moments later talking about how Repubs took out all of the Dem's bulwarks against a wave).

But we should not be surprised. Obama's 2012 victory was a whimper not a bang. Compare 2012 to 2008:

2008: 69.5 million popular votes (52.9%) and 365 EVs (28 states + DC and a split in Nebraska)
2012: 65.9 million popular votes (51.1%) and 332 EVs (26 states + DC)

This was a historic result, no other modern president has won a second term while losing a share of the vote. All other presidents who won a second term (minus FDR's 3rd & 4th terms) going back to the mid-1800s...have increased vote share over their initial win. He did not win on a message of how good his policies were...but on painting his opponent as a rich white guy who was part of the problem to begin with (while ignoring Dem culpability including policies he endorsed).

It is entirely possible that history will not be as kind to BHO as WJC, GHWB, RWR, LBJ, HST, or even RMN. He will probably occupy a place in history next to Jimmy Carter in terms of presidents who held great promise coming in but in the end did not measure up to the job.

At 11/11/14 02:26 AM, TheMason wrote: What you are missing is that the gains are usually made in vacancies.

Where are you getting this from? Between the 104 special elections held since 1990 there have only been 18 instances where the incumbent party flipped.

edit:

At 11/11/14 02:26 AM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, going into this election many observers did not think the Repubs could make any gains in the House (myself included).

This is also confusing. Sabato, Cook, 538 et al all had the GOP gaining seats in the House.

At 11/11/14 02:26 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/11/14 01:32 AM, Warforger wrote:

Sorry...but no it is not.

Yes you are correct, the historical trend is for the party in the White House to loose seats in midterms.

What you are missing is that the gains are usually made in vacancies. Incumbents typically have an advantage. That so many incumbents were toppled giving Republicans their biggest midterm pick-up in 80 years means there is something different about these midterms. Furthermore, going into this election many observers did not think the Repubs could make any gains in the House (myself included). So their double-digit pick-up is huge. Along with pick-ups in governor's races.

The current max for 2014 is 9, this one is 8 in 1986 for the Democrats. So it doesn't sound like it's out of the ordinary.

It is not merely about loses in the midterms...but how deep they are. Are they a wave, or merely an adjustment? Obama lost deeply in a wave. I doubt Begich will win...so that means Repubs pick-up 8 before Louisianna's run-off which means it could reach 9. It was a wave election despite Juan Williams being in denial and claiming it was not (and then moments later talking about how Repubs took out all of the Dem's bulwarks against a wave).

No this is a generic wave, it's just the culmination of decades of the removal of the Democrats from the South.

But we should not be surprised. Obama's 2012 victory was a whimper not a bang. Compare 2012 to 2008:

2008: 69.5 million popular votes (52.9%) and 365 EVs (28 states + DC and a split in Nebraska)
2012: 65.9 million popular votes (51.1%) and 332 EVs (26 states + DC)

This was a historic result, no other modern president has won a second term while losing a share of the vote. All other presidents who won a second term (minus FDR's 3rd & 4th terms) going back to the mid-1800s...have increased vote share over their initial win. He did not win on a message of how good his policies were...but on painting his opponent as a rich white guy who was part of the problem to begin with (while ignoring Dem culpability including policies he endorsed).

Yah, that's how everyone campaigns these days. Now this isn't that big of a deal honestly, the reason for that is probably more that people are just losing interest in elections not just that Obama is becoming less popular. In the case of fewer voters Republicans tend to prosper because most of the people who don't vote would vote for the Democrats if the choice was between the Republicans and the Democrats. But the GOP tends to have more motivated voters so they have a stronger grip on their base.

It is entirely possible that history will not be as kind to BHO as WJC, GHWB, RWR, LBJ, HST, or even RMN. He will probably occupy a place in history next to Jimmy Carter in terms of presidents who held great promise coming in but in the end did not measure up to the job.

The Jimmy Carter comparison is popular amongst Conservatives, but I feel the President he's most similar to is Reagan. Reagan's policies were not as effective as his reputation has people believing they were, the rate of economic growth under his policies were roughly the same as under Obama; slow stagnant growth. At the same time they both faced affairs, Obama with Benghazi and Reagan with Iran-Contra and both lost popularity as their Presidencies went on, with Reagan's approval ratings diving after Iran-Contra. I mean convenient things happened during election years for both, like the economy showing signs of growth in 2012 and 1984 which helped them win but afterwards it was shown to have been a false start making them lose popularity.

The biggest difference I see here is that starting with Reagan the Republicans have been playing the media game better, they're able to confuse and inflame opinion much better than the Democrats who have no choice but to imitate them as well as the GOP gradually taking control of the Gerrymandering process.

At 11/13/14 10:36 PM, Warforger wrote:
The current max for 2014 is 9, this one is 8 in 1986 for the Democrats. So it doesn't sound like it's out of the ordinary.

So out of the last 20 Senate elections, there have been 5 Senate elections where 8 or more seats switched parties. This is only 25% of all Senate elections.

* 3 of the five were in conjunction with presidential elections (1980, 1984, and 2008). That's 30% of the elections where a president was being elected.
* 2 of the five were in midterms (1986 & 2014) That's 20% of the elections were a president was being elected.

If you look at what was going on during these years you'll see a pattern of presidential fatigue setting in:
1980: Jimmy Carter was very unpopular and suffered a crushing defeat in his re-election bid.
1986: This was the middle of the Iran-Contra Affair.
2008: The aftermath of W's presidency where the Republicans suffered historic losses.
2014: The current election being discusses.

1984 appears to be a bit of an outlier and not tied to the president's popularity since Reagan substantially increased his electoral leads:

EV: Went from 489 to 525.
States carried: From 44 to 49.
Popular vote went from 50.8% to 58.8%.

Looking at it, with Obama's popularity being at a near all-time low for him...I don't see where you can make a case 2014 is an outlier or anything but a repudiation of the party in the White House (as well as the Senate).

No this is a generic wave, it's just the culmination of decades of the removal of the Democrats from the South.?

Reach much?

Yes, part of it is a correction (not a culmination...that happened in 1994 but was lost during Bush). No doubt the Republicans were helped by Democratic retirements. But the losses by Democratic incumbents across the board is striking. Remember, this is not just about the Senate...but Republicans did better than expected in the House and Governor's races as well.

Yah, that's how everyone campaigns these days.

A trend of one is not a trend.

The Jimmy Carter comparison is popular amongst Conservatives, but I feel the President he's most similar to is Reagan.

I'll have to look into the economic data a little more...but there are significant differences.

1) Reagan's foreign policy was not as much of an abject failure as Obama's. America's power and place in the world was expanded under Reagan. Under Obama he has only shrunk it.
2) Reagan was able to expand his first electoral victory in 1984...in 2012 Obama lost ground (the first president to be reelected with less of a mandate since the middle of the 19th Century!)
3) Obama has suffered significant congressional losses in each election (midterm or not).
4) Reagan, despite a significant scandal, was able to not only see a Republican follow him...but his VP. We'll see if a Dem will be able to capture the White House in 2016.

At 11/11/14 11:44 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/11/14 02:26 AM, TheMason wrote: What you are missing is that the gains are usually made in vacancies.

Where are you getting this from? Between the 104 special elections held since 1990 there have only been 18 instances where the incumbent party flipped.

Irrelevent. We're not talking about special elections. We're talking about general elections here.

The point made was when a seat flips it is more common to be in open seats than ones held by incumbents.

edit:

At 11/11/14 02:26 AM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, going into this election many observers did not think the Repubs could make any gains in the House (myself included).

This is also confusing. Sabato, Cook, 538 et al all had the GOP gaining seats in the House.

Not really. Those were late projections...like August or September on. At the beginning of the election cycle, not many were thinking there would be major Republican pick-ups in the House. The consensus starting out (ie: fourth quarter of 2013 on) was that the House was fairly rigid and not many seats would change.

At 11/17/14 04:10 PM, TheMason wrote: So out of the last 20 Senate elections, there have been 5 Senate elections where 8 or more seats switched parties. This is only 25% of all Senate elections.

* 3 of the five were in conjunction with presidential elections (1980, 1984, and 2008). That's 30% of the elections where a president was being elected.
* 2 of the five were in midterms (1986 & 2014) That's 20% of the elections were a president was being elected.

If you look at what was going on during these years you'll see a pattern of presidential fatigue setting in:
1980: Jimmy Carter was very unpopular and suffered a crushing defeat in his re-election bid.
1986: This was the middle of the Iran-Contra Affair.
2008: The aftermath of W's presidency where the Republicans suffered historic losses.
2014: The current election being discusses.

1984 appears to be a bit of an outlier and not tied to the president's popularity since Reagan substantially increased his electoral leads:

EV: Went from 489 to 525.
States carried: From 44 to 49.
Popular vote went from 50.8% to 58.8%.

Looking at it, with Obama's popularity being at a near all-time low for him...I don't see where you can make a case 2014 is an outlier or anything but a repudiation of the party in the White House (as well as the Senate).

More the White House rather than Senate. The thing is that it's alot more complex than simply political parties, there was no massive migration or joining to the Republican party from the Democratic party, what it was was more of a disinterest in politics. All those people who had been interested in Obama were now not voting. Yes Obama has low approval ratings, but the reasoning behind it hasn't been established and I highly doubt it's due to his legislative agenda.

Reach much?

Yes, part of it is a correction (not a culmination...that happened in 1994 but was lost during Bush). No doubt the Republicans were helped by Democratic retirements. But the losses by Democratic incumbents across the board is striking. Remember, this is not just about the Senate...but Republicans did better than expected in the House and Governor's races as well.

My issue is that you seem to think that this is some permanent or major GOP victory, it's not like all the analyses from 2012 are now wrong or anything the people aren't turning more right wing. The issue is voter turnout. This election has had the lowest voter turnout since 1942. The American voters don't hate the Democratic party, they just don't care anymore. Lower voter turnout in turn helps Republicans because Democrats have a harder time getting their base to vote. If everyone in the United States voted the Democrats would have a super majority each election and the GOP understands this, it's why they try to limit voting as much as possible.

A trend of one is not a trend.

EVERYONE campaigns like that, just look to any politician. Let's use the example of Scott Brown "my opponent is a liar because she says she was Native American but she's not" which ended up being his main talking point or George Bush of "my opponents are not as patriotic as me". It's all smear campaigns for the most part, the only one which comes to mind which wasn't was the 2008 Obama campaign which actually presented merits and ideals rather than smears.

I'll have to look into the economic data a little more...but there are significant differences.

1) Reagan's foreign policy was not as much of an abject failure as Obama's. America's power and place in the world was expanded under Reagan. Under Obama he has only shrunk it.

I'd disagree that under Obama it shrunk. Under Bush it shrunk and that was a consequence of the huge budget deficit. Obama's foreign policy is like the later years of the Bush Administration, a gradual withdrawal from most conflicts. Alot of hot air was vented yes, but Bush's response to Georgia was no different from the Obama's response to Ukraine and in both cases no one was ever under the impression that they would go to war. Meanwhile Obama has expanded the drone program. War is a matter of public opinion as it is anything else, when Bush came about he managed to manipulate public opinion to support war whereas Obama got the aftermath of that and couldn't get support for many of the conflicts he wanted to participate in like Syria or now in Iraq.

Part of this has been the politics of war, people like short quick victories and are uninterested in constructing countries as Bush was trying to do. Reagan had only one that comes to mind, that being Grenada, but otherwise what he was doing in terms of foreign policy was all huff and puff. The USSR crumbled, but not because of him, but he managed to take the credit for it. It's one of those things, it's hard to give Reagan the same treatment as people give FDR or Abaraham Lincoln as people try to if you just look at his achievements. The economy didn't do that well under him and he wasn't too responsive to the impending issues of America at the time (and if he were around today he'd be too Liberal!).

2) Reagan was able to expand his first electoral victory in 1984...in 2012 Obama lost ground (the first president to be reelected with less of a mandate since the middle of the 19th Century!)

And?

3) Obama has suffered significant congressional losses in each election (midterm or not).

He didn't suffer any losses in non-mid term elections.

4) Reagan, despite a significant scandal, was able to not only see a Republican follow him...but his VP. We'll see if a Dem will be able to capture the White House in 2016.

Part of this had to do with the fact that Bush Sr. was seen as having little connection to Iran-Contra (although some speculate he had more to do with it than Reagan and that in fact Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's so Bush Sr. was President more often than he was). But again Reagan's approval ratings went down alot towards the end of his term, just like Obama.

But that's why I said that Reagan is the MOST like Obama, I'm not arguing that they're the exact same but if there was someone to compare Obama to Reagan would be the most similar.