January 5, 2015 at 12:28 am #5322Andy BrownParticipant
A GOP strategist, columnist at the Houston Chronicle who goes by the handle GOPLifer, Chris Ladd, has declared that the week of the Midterm Elections “was a dark week for Republicans, and for everyone who wants to see America remain the world’s most vibrant, most powerful nation.” What the HELL! Where was he?
In a careful analysis, Ladd builds a case: The Midterms of 2014 demonstrate the continuation of a 20 year old trend. Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level where the population is the largest utilizing a declining electoral base of waging, white, and rural voters. As a result no GOP candidate on the horizon has a chance at the White House in 2016 and the chance of holding the Senate beyond 2016 is vanishingly small.
Great article if you want to be informed and don’t mind being informed by a Republican strategist instead of reading the swill that F&B keeps posting on this board. Some of the points include (referring to the map in the article)
•Republican Senate candidates lost every single race in the Blue Wall.
•Good news for the Democrats: They have consolidated their power behind the sections of the country that generate the overwhelming bulk of America’s wealth outside the energy industry.
•Voter suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. They key is voter ID. Eventually Democrats will help people get the documentation they need to meet confusing new requirements and obstructions. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races, but the message to minority (but growing) groups is clear. The GOP doesn’t give a damn about you.
•Every major Democratic ballot initiative was successful, including every minimum wage increase, even in the red states. AND every personhood amendment failed.January 5, 2015 at 5:40 am #5327
I love that cartoon.January 5, 2015 at 9:47 am #5334
This may trump the GOP’s “dark week” when we get to 2016.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.htmlJanuary 5, 2015 at 9:55 am #5335
Wanna bet? In recent history, there’s been no one better at taking situations like this and minimizing damage, or even spinning it to his advantage. This will be a distant memory by the time we get into the heat of the 2016 race.January 5, 2015 at 10:12 am #5336
From Chris Ladd’s November 6, 2014 posting;
We’re about to get two years of intense, horrifying stupidity. If you thought Benghazi was a legitimate scandal that reveals Obama’s real plans for America then you’re an idiot, but these next two years will be a (briefly) happy period for you.January 5, 2015 at 11:55 am #5339jerry1949Spectator
Can we therefore presume it was a bright week for Democrats?
Republicans presently own 65% to 70% of all national and state governments, except for the Democratic lame duck presidency. Republicans are in “darkness” now? This is to the advantage of the Democrats? They didn’t really lose–it was a big win for the Democrats?
I”m not buying that there is an impenatrable “blue wall.” Nothing is permanent in politics.
I think we’ll elect a Republican president in 2016. Jeb Bush.January 5, 2015 at 12:15 pm #5341
Republicans are in “darkness” now? This is to the advantage of the Democrats? They didn’t really lose–it was a big win for the Democrats?
I liked this particular quote from the original post;
– Republicans in 2014 were the most popular girl at a party no one attended. Voter turnout was awful.January 5, 2015 at 1:18 pm #5342
Lots of wishful thinking here on the part of the liberals.
There is so much that will happen between now and 2016 that any speculation at this point is useless. Remember, people who write columns, whether paper or web, need material so they’ll concoct most anything to fill space.
Yes, the GOP does stupid things, just as many stupid things as the Democrats do.
And yes, the Clintons are geniuses as wiggling out of hot spots that would sink anyone else.January 5, 2015 at 1:18 pm #5343
This is all interesting.
The GOP strategy of voter suppression is working very well, as is locking in the selfish, bigots, dullards, racists, theocrats, and majority of asses.
The GOP policy vision isn’t very good for most people. And there is the rub right there.
When there are numbers, they lose and they know it.
Democrats policy vision is much better for most people, as the winning ballot initiatives show. When there are numbers, they win.
Democrats struggle with the same big doners as the GOP does.
Now, for the GOP, this isn’t generally a problem, because their policy vision aligns with the big doners most of the time. No worries. Take the money, load people like Newt up to hit all the TV shows and rock the house!
We don’t generally put real liberals on TV these days. They ask ugly questions, and they tend to break the “both sides” game the GOP currently uses to keep their policy vision misalignment and failure to actually govern off the table for the most part.
Democrats are roughly divided. We’ve got some who really do side with the GOP economically, and we’ve got a thin majority that sides with the people.
We saw the loss of many Democrats who ran away from the platform and what the accomplishments were too.
If the GOP actually governs, they are going to have to own their policy vision misalignment. Moderates will need to speak up, etc…
The bat shit nuts ones will stick out nice and ugly and they really don’t want that.
So they won’t.
That is what makes it bad for them.
Republicans have a “you broke it, you own it” problem. (h/t to Daily Kos for that realization)
They took the game into the gutter because what they want for policy isn’t really in the best interests of most Americans. They had to. And so here we are.
I suspect they will fling an ungodly amount of bull shit everywhere, hoping the stench distracts people and or turns them away from voting, because “both sides” suck.
That could work if the Democrats divide gets ugly.
Or, it could be fantastically bad for them GOP. People might actually see the ugly and vote ’em right back out too.
That’s what the strategist is worried about. Nice numbers now don’t mean too much without more popular support.
Because the policy vision isn’t under discussion, most of these people will suggest they work really hard to message “better” so the people swallow the line whole, without chewing on it too much.
Now that puts fucking the CBO with “new rules” for how we calculate economic risks and predict outcomes. A little change here and there and Ryan looks better kind of thing.January 5, 2015 at 1:21 pm #5344
Both sides and “but the liberals” is going on the Dodge list, and I’m putting Deane and F&B on there with full credit.
Yes, stupid things get done.
But, to deny the impact differences is completely foolish.
There are very material differences between the two parties, and the big one is the GOP doesn’t care about Democracy at all. They just want it how they want it, people be dammed.
And they don’t govern. Not anymore.
Democrats do things that work. Not the best things, but workable things and they do govern.
There is a lot more, but this “both sides” shit has got to go. It is a lie. Big.January 5, 2015 at 1:25 pm #5345Andy BrownParticipant
“I think we’ll elect a Republican president in 2016. Jeb Bush”
Not conservative enough to win the nomination. Like Christie, he is perceived as a moderate in the mold of the losing campaigns of Dole, McCain and Romney. The Democrats start with 246 electoral votes, ace. Your ignoring that in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost the election.There will be no compromising in the selection of the 2016 nominee, or you can expect a conservative third party to emerge with disastrous electoral consequences. The truth is that there is no Republican that can win 270 electoral votes in 2016. The GOP will remain locked out of the White House and leave our nation stuck in neutral with a gridlocked government. There is danger ahead for conservatives when core conservative principles are used as roadblocks to any progress.
“Look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.
Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain.
Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”
After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246. Here are the states and their votes:
CA (55), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), MI (16), NJ (14), WA (12), MA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), CT (7), OR (7), HI (4), ME (4), NH (4), RT (4), VT (3), DE (3), DC (3).
Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)”
The GOP leadership, well aware of this depressing math, is now making an attempt to change the rules of the game by supporting an effort whereby states would proportionally award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.
The states of Nebraska and Maine are already using this method. However, it is unlikely that more states will follow because this drastic change is politically “too hot to handle” for most governors, even Republican ones.January 5, 2015 at 1:39 pm #5346
“The GOP leadership, well aware of this depressing math, is now making an attempt to change the rules of the game by supporting an effort whereby states would proportionally award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district.”
Six-term Washington Democrat Congressman Brian Baird championed this idea during his entire tenure, prior to his retirement and Jaime Herrera Beutler taking over the seat. I spoke with him about it several times.January 5, 2015 at 2:07 pm #5347
Here’s an article from Bloomberg that claims this won’t happen and why;
Doing this in a bunch of Democratic-leaning states, while preserving winner-take-all in Republican-leaning ones, would strongly bias the system toward Republicans. If Ohio goes for Democrats, for example, and Georgia (16 votes) goes for Republicans, the Democrats win an 18-16 advantage, but if Ohio has a proportional system, then the same voting would produce a 24-10 Republican landslide.
The second thing to know is that such tactics would be despicable. A horrible thing to do. Winning elections and then changing the rules to prevent the other side from ever winning again is what destroys democratic government.
…what’s good for the national Republican Party as a whole — reducing the damage Michigan or Ohio would cause for their candidate in the Electoral College — is bad for those states, including the Republican Party in those states.
Their large Electoral College clout is what makes them valuable presidential prizes, which means candidates devote resources to them, both in electioneering efforts and in pandering to their interests. Why would presidential candidates promise Youngstown or Flint more federal largess if winning Ohio and Michigan no longer nets a large electoral vote prize?January 5, 2015 at 3:04 pm #5349
Reading that piece, I see a number of reasons why this is EXACTLY what should be done, rather than the archaic Electoral College that is now in place. However, it would have to be all or none. Every state would have to have exactly the same system for the situation to be fair. It would also serve to give every vote closer to equal value, rather than the “weighted” system we have now. If you carry eleven specific states, you win the presidency, no matter what happens in the other 39 states. That’s wrong from the get-go.January 5, 2015 at 3:43 pm #5350
I have to agree with duxrule (beat me, beat me), the only fair approach would be the popular vote.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.