Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 4
Despite the rising tide of demographics going against them, the Republicans will do well in the 2014 mid-term elections. They will probably pick up quite a few house seats and even a handful of senate seats. 2014 election results will then be used as evidence that the Republican party does not have a demographics problem which will lead to arrogance and overconfidence as they get slaughtered in 2016.

The reasons for all of this are the nature of the elections. Turnout is generally lower in mid-term elections and Republicans will do better with lower turnout (why do you think they work so hard to suppress voter turnout?). Also, in the senate the Democrats have far more incumbent seats up for election as well as a couple of retiring senators in generally conservative states (as well as Kerry's seat in Mass, which Scott Brown has to be heavily favored for).

In 2016 there will be a presidential contest which will increase turnout and the demographic tide will be that much higher.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
as well as Kerry's seat in Mass, which Scott Brown has to be heavily favored for

0 for 1 so far. Brown's not running.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
While I agree the GOP will do better in 2014, there are different reasons.

1 - Democrats are defending more Senate seats than Republicans. These are the Freshman who got elected in 2008 on Obama's coattails from Red States. Usually the party defending more seats loses some ground. (Oh and Brown isn't running in Mass)

2 - Mid-terms go against the White House 90%+ of the time.

3 - Anti-voting fraud laws taking effect across the country.

4 - ObamaKare in full force. We're already seeing the downside to it with hours being cut and the cost tripling. By 2014, more of it's failures will be known.

5 - No Obama at the top. Obama carried in some weak Democrats in 2008 and 2012. Don't expect them to win re-election.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yecch! Another full 4 years of Republican BS encouraging way too many posts from the greyed out (and some not) here! I don't know if I can take it.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The facor that might throw it the other way is if over the next two years more and more of the "red staters" BS meters finally go off as they realize the Party of No ain't the way to go.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was thinking about this the other day, but from a different angle.

Historically, how often does the same party control the WH for more than two terms in a row? It doesn't seem that common for as far back as I can remember, excluding FDR.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<3 - Anti-voting fraud laws taking effect across the country.>

War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Historically, how often does the same party control the WH for more than two terms in a row? It doesn't seem that common for as far back as I can remember, excluding FDR.

____________

Who was the last sitting VP to win the Presidency? Bush, Sr.

But Gore lost, Nixon lost, LBJ and Truman became President after the death of the President so you can't count them.

With FDR it's different because it's the same person. Chances are Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton would have won a third term if they ran. I'm pretty sure W. Bush would have lost.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Historically, how often does the same party control the WH for more than two terms in a row? It doesn't seem that common for as far back as I can remember, excluding FDR.

It used to be quite common. The GOP controlled the White House for sixteen years from 1869-1885 (Grant, Hayes, Garfield/Arthur), and another sixteen years from 1897-1913 (McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft). Then after Wislon, they had the Presidency for another twelve years from 1921-1933 - Harding/Coolidge, then Hoover. Then came FDR and Truman - 20 years for the Democrats. Since then, there's been more back and forth.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Despite the rising tide of demographics going against them, the Republicans will do well in the 2014 mid-term elections. ..

The reasons for all of this are the nature of the elections. Turnout is generally lower in mid-term elections and Republicans will do better with lower turnout (why do you think they work so hard to suppress voter turnout?).


I think this is the reason Democrats are looking for emotional "hot button" issues to increase turnout in 2014. Obama's SOTU "they deserve a vote" line about gun control puzzled me until I realized that the Democrats can lose a congressional vote on this issue and gain at the polls. A referendum on gun control should increase Dem turnout. The pro-gun demographic tends to turn out regardless.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Obama's SOTU "they deserve a vote" line about gun control puzzled me until I realized that the Democrats can lose a congressional vote on this issue and gain at the polls.

It surprised me for a different reason - I would think that Democrats would be more of an obstacle to gun control coming to a vote than Republicans. The GOP knows that there's no danger of gun control getting through the House, and they would love to force some red state Democratic Senators to cast a vote on a gun control bill. This is a bit of a wedge issue within the Democratic party - one of the very few left for the GOP, now that immigration and gay rights are slipping away from them.

So I'm curious why he would hammer on the need for a vote, when he's almost certain to get one?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So I'm curious why he would hammer on the need for a vote, when he's almost certain to get one?

Albaby


Because it's teflon ... win .. good ... lose .... good

Clean

Unlike addressing the dirty stuff

Budget
Afghanistan
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Education
Jobs
Unemployment
GDP of 2
National Debt
Housing


Bears
Print the post Back To Top