Pages

Jump to bottom

32 comments

1 Indy GOP Refugee  Nov 10, 2014 11:13:27am

Geez. Taking the article at face value for a minute-Good luck guys, way fail the check and balances test. Your own “base” fails to even show up, and practically nothing is offered up to entice independents. Even the oh so allegedly well supported TP GOP could not operate as freely as if you guys just stepped up to your A game. Count yourselves lucky you are not up against sharp competent competition… Yet.

OTOH this reads like someone forgot their anti depressants. For a month. Then went on a bender and wrote this with a headache. You guys practically own California, maybe take a few hints from how you win here and get to it. Put up the best candidates and I’ll happily vote your people.

Pick yourselves up. 2016 is coming. Indy’s await.

2 Lumberhead  Nov 10, 2014 11:43:48am
Now the party has had both wrists slashed as it awaits morosely and impotently for the coup de grace in 2016.

Juuust a little bit over the top, would you say? Let’s not overreact to a lost election.

Reads like an epic Chris Matthews meltdown. I had to stop watching him after Obama lost the 2012 election after the first debate

3 Skip Intro  Nov 10, 2014 3:07:56pm

Yeah, by all means let’s not over react to the GOP getting an 80 year high majority in the House, winning the Senate, and winning governorships and legislative seats across the country, all while running some of the craziest candidates we’ve ever seen.

After all, it’s the Republicans who are the crazy ones. Everything on the Dem front is just fine. It will all reverse in two years because …….. why, exactly?

4 jamesfirecat  Nov 10, 2014 3:26:13pm

re: #3 Skip Intro

Yeah, by all means let’s not over react to the GOP getting an 80 year high majority in the House, winning the Senate, and winning governorships and legislative seats across the country, all while running some of the craziest candidates we’ve ever seen.

After all, it’s the Republicans who are the crazy ones. Everything on the Dem front is just fine. It will all reverse in two years because …….. why, exactly?

Because the list of who is running for what seats in true senate will favor the democrats rather than the Republicans and the democratic base will bother to actually show up for Presidential elections.

Those aren’t wishful thinking’ they’re observable scientific facts.

Also it will not all reverse itself, republicans are likely to hold the house because gerrymander though like in 2012 more votes will be cast for Democrats…

In short, yes 2014 was a sucky election for Democrats, but it hardly unexpected and does not mean the party is facing the sort of slide towards irelivant the GOP is, given that their path to 270 gets more and more complicated every presidential election.

5 Skip Intro  Nov 10, 2014 3:42:51pm

So’s what’s the Dem message going to be in 2016?

I’m not Hillary

Because the shitstorm that’s going to come down on her head will make it look like Obama got the kid glove treatment.

6 jamesfirecat  Nov 10, 2014 4:08:27pm

re: #5 Skip Intro

So’s what’s the Dem message going to be in 2016?

I’m not Hillary

Because the shitstorm that’s going to come down on her head will make it look like Obama got the kid glove treatment.

Let them try, the more pointless hate they pile on Hillary the more it will backfire and reveal themselves to have a major hate on for women.

Or someone who isn’t Hiliary might run/win not sure who it is at the moment.

All I am saying is yes the Democrats need to step up their Get out the Vote efforts during midterm elections, yes they need to stop running as Republican light, double yes they need to stop running away from their own presidents, but don’t pack your bags for Canada and do not make assumptions about how presidential elections will go based on how Midterms went.

Did the Republican Wave in 2010 lead to Mitt Romney being elected?

7 EiMitch  Nov 10, 2014 4:53:32pm

I don’t think this mid-term is a problem by itself. I think its just another sign amongst many of how complacent the democratic party has been for the past several years. The republican party had likewise been complacent up until the tea-party took over.

Don’t believe me? Then explain why democrats just resorted to nearly 100% mud-slinging instead of sticking their guns. As if you can compete with the crazies at motivating your base by demonizing your opponents. The re-election of Mr “I’ll break you like a boy if you ask me about my 20 indictments” Grimm perfectly illustrates how well that works.

The post-teabagger GOP’s agenda may be nuts, and they might not win every single battle. But they know what they’re doing. They’re motivated, or at least feigning motivation, to a degree that older career politicians can’t plausibly fake. And they’re willing to take big risks. (with our lives, mind you. But still…) In other words, they’re serious.

We need to counter them with a party thats also serious. And if you think today’s democrats are that party, then I’d like to sell you a solid gold bridge. I believe there needs to be somewhat-equivalent liberal movement to the tea party. Not necessarily an astroturf “grass-roots” campaign. But there does need to be a new wave. An out-with-the-old moment. A fresh crop of liberal politicians who are willing to take big risks during election seasons. And who aren’t trained to cringe and whimper the moment they’re accused of “socialism” or “class-warfare” or other antiquated emotionally-loaded phrases that predate the effing cold war.

I also hope that if such a movement were to happen, that they at least don’t deify the Clintons the way the teabaggers have deified Regan. But thats just me.

8 Skip Intro  Nov 10, 2014 4:56:20pm

re: #6 jamesfirecat

Let them try, the more pointless hate they pile on Hillary the more it will backfire and reveal themselves to have a major hate on for women.

You can say that with a straight face after last Tuesday? Did you check how the GOP did with women? They got 45% of the female vote.

I find that both amazing and depressing.

9 Skip Intro  Nov 10, 2014 4:58:00pm

re: #6 jamesfirecat

Did the Republican Wave in 2010 lead to Mitt Romney being elected?

It might have if David Corn hadn’t released that “47%” tape of Romney.

10 jamesfirecat  Nov 10, 2014 5:15:40pm

re: #9 Skip Intro

It might have if David Corn hadn’t released that “47%” tape of Romney.

Mitt Romney made the 47% gaff in the first place because he was a horribly flawed candidate.

Guess what, whoever the GOP runs for 2016, they’ll be an even worse politician than Mitt Romney, there will be a great many gaffs on the GOP side, trust me.

11 jamesfirecat  Nov 10, 2014 5:17:22pm

re: #8 Skip Intro

You can say that with a straight face after last Tuesday? Did you check how the GOP did with women? They got 45% of the female vote.

I find that both amazing and depressing.

Once again it was a midterm election, I fail to see how they did during this election is any way predictable to how they will do in a presidential election. Did all their hatred for Barack Obama displayed in extremely tactless ways help them do better among black voters in 2008 or 2012?

12 jamesfirecat  Nov 10, 2014 5:24:41pm

re: #7 EiMitch

I don’t think this mid-term is a problem by itself. I think its just another sign amongst many of how complacent the democratic party has been for the past several years. The republican party had likewise been complacent up until the tea-party took over.

Don’t believe me? Then explain why democrats just resorted to nearly 100% mud-slinging instead of sticking their guns. As if you can compete with the crazies at motivating your base by demonizing your opponents. The re-election of Mr “I’ll break you like a boy if you ask me about my 20 indictments” Grimm perfectly illustrates how well that works.

The post-teabagger GOP’s agenda may be nuts, and they might not win every single battle. But they know what they’re doing. They’re motivated, or at least feigning motivation, to a degree that older career politicians can’t plausibly fake. And they’re willing to take big risks. (with our lives, mind you. But still…) In other words, they’re serious.

We need to counter them with a party thats also serious. And if you think today’s democrats are that party, then I’d like to sell you a solid gold bridge. I believe there needs to be somewhat-equivalent liberal movement to the tea party. Not necessarily an astroturf “grass-roots” campaign. But there does need to be a new wave. An out-with-the-old moment. A fresh crop of liberal politicians who are willing to take big risks during election seasons. And who aren’t trained to cringe and whimper the moment they’re accused of “socialism” or “class-warfare” or other antiquated emotionally-loaded phrases that predate the effing cold war.

I also hope that if such a movement were to happen, that they at least don’t deify the Clintons the way the teabaggers have deified Regan. But thats just me.

I agree with you that the Democrats could do better, but I think it’s less about needing an obvious revolution/a left wing version of the tea party, and more about needing to train the candidates we already have how to have a spine.

Also, I disagree with you that the Republican party is any less complacent after the tea party take over, if anything they’ve become more complacent devolving into level of gut based blind opposition that Grocho Marx summed up best…

Youtube Video

Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it
Or condensed it
I’m against it!

This is a political party on its way out thrashing blindly in hatred at a world it no longer is offering any sort of productive discourse or service.

Democrats need to stick to their guns, they need to get out their vote, they need to stop running away from the President, but I think this can be achieved gradually over time rather than needing a purging of the old guard so to speak.

13 Lumberhead  Nov 10, 2014 5:27:53pm

re: #3 Skip Intro

Yeah, by all means let’s not over react to the GOP getting an 80 year high majority in the House, winning the Senate, and winning governorships and legislative seats across the country, all while running some of the craziest candidates we’ve ever seen.

After all, it’s the Republicans who are the crazy ones. Everything on the Dem front is just fine. It will all reverse in two years because …….. why, exactly?

We really don’t have to overreact. That doesn’t mean that everything is fine or that there isn’t work to do. The Democrats got their asses kicked, no doubt, but it was one of the lowest turnouts in 60 years. The party needs to recruit better candidates that will articulate and stand up for core Democratic principles. They need to figure out a better way to motivate Democratic voters. It won’t necessarily be easy but if I felt the way the author of that articles does I’d curl up in a ball and give up.

14 jamesfirecat  Nov 10, 2014 5:37:36pm

re: #13 Lumberhead

We really don’t have to overreact. That doesn’t mean that everything is fine or that there isn’t work to do. The Democrats got their asses kicked, no doubt, but it was one of the lowest turnouts in 60 years. The party needs to recruit better candidates that will articulate and stand up for core Democratic principles. They need to figure out a better way to motivate Democratic voters. It won’t necessarily be easy but if I felt the way the author of that articles does I’d curl up in a ball and give up.

Well said 2014 was a shellacking but it is a learning experience not some sign that the Democratic Party has some kind of bone deep flaw that needs to be rectified right the fuck now or else it will go extinct the way this piece suggests it does,

15 Lumberhead  Nov 10, 2014 5:38:51pm

re: #10 jamesfirecat

Mitt Romney made the 47% gaff in the first place because he was a horribly flawed candidate.

Guess what, whoever the GOP runs for 2016, they’ll be an even worse politician than Mitt Romney, there will be a great many gaffs on the GOP side, trust me.

While we shouldn’t overreact, we also shouldn’t be overconfident about 2016 either. Hillary has been known to make a gaffe or two herself. And Rand Paul, for one, will be happy to hang her Iraq War vote around her neck. She also has a long history in public life with controversial statements and actions that will be brought up.

Hillary is a flawed candidate who ran for her party’s Presidential nomination before and lost - a little reminiscent of Mitt going into 2012.

16 jamesfirecat  Nov 10, 2014 5:47:06pm

re: #15 Lumberhead

While we shouldn’t overreact, we also shouldn’t be overconfident about 2016 either. Hillary has been known to make a gaffe or two herself. And Rand Paul, for one, will be happy to hang her Iraq War vote around her neck. She also has a long history in public life with controversial statements and actions that will be brought up.

Hillary is a flawed candidate who ran for her party’s Presidential nomination before and lost - a little reminiscent of Mitt going into 2012.

The thing is Mitt did one term as a governor and that was it, Hillary has been a career politician since the 90s holding various different public offices,

Yes we can’t get overconfident and not show up to vote again come 2016, but it’s very silly to say Hillary is as week a candidate as Mitt Romney.

Especially considering the differences between their SO, Mitt had a modern day Marie Antoinette and Hillary has a man who would have crushed W like a grape if he had been able to run in 2000.

Also if on general Principle if Hillary Clinton can’t beat Rand Paul then I am done with having anything to do with American Politics besides voting, I just won’t have the spirit to bother arguing it anymore.

17 EiMitch  Nov 10, 2014 5:52:54pm

re: #12 jamesfirecat

I agree with you that the Democrats could do better, but I think it’s less about needing an obvious revolution/a left wing version of the tea party, and more about needing to train the candidates we already have how to have a spine.

Yeah, sure. Good luck with that.

This is a political party on its way out thrashing blindly in hatred at a world it no loner is offering any sort of productive discourse or service.

But they are dead serious about it. Their choice of constituency may be unsustainable, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a calculated decision. Gerrymandering to empower a fanatical minority isn’t necessarily complacency.

Democrats need to stick to their guns, they need to get out their vote, they need to stop running away from the President, but I think this can be achieved gradually over time rather than needing a purging of the old guard so to speak.

I don’t agree, because election cowardice isn’t the Democrats’ only problem. Not by a longshot. Besides, what do you think motivated that cowardice? Here’s a hint: there is a reason politicians don’t want to leave office, and it has nothing to do with their supposed beliefs.

18 jamesfirecat  Nov 10, 2014 5:58:17pm

re: #17 EiMitch

Yeah, sure. Good luck with that.

But they are dead serious about it. Their choice of constituency may be unsustainable, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a calculated decision. Gerrymandering to empower a fanatical minority isn’t necessarily complacency.

I don’t agree, because election cowardice isn’t the Democrats’ only problem. Not by a longshot. Besides, what do you think motivated that cowardice? Here’s a hint: there is a reason politicians don’t want to leave office, and it has nothing to do with their supposed beliefs.

I find just linking to Holder to be unnecessarily obtuse, can you please just say what you feel is their biggest weakness?

The Democrats are a flawed party with lots of weaknesses that need to be corrected and we need to be more serious about it, it I feel like trying to majorly overhaul our party, at exactly the moment the GOP is on the cusp of imploding due to demographics and internal inconsistencies (the religious right wants a theocracy and the establishment types and oligarchy) is going against that old saying of how you don’t interrupt an opponent while he is committing a blunder.

Thus I am for ever gradual progressive change to make our candidates better representations of the Progressive ideal but trying to push all the old guard out at once is just going to end up throwing seats to a Republicans at exactly the wrong time.

19 Dark_Falcon  Nov 10, 2014 7:06:45pm

re: #14 jamesfirecat

Well said 2014 was a shellacking but it is a learning experience not some sign that the Democratic Party has some kind of bone deep flaw that needs to be rectified right the fuck now or else it will go extinct the way this piece suggests it does,

Here in Illinois it means the Dems have some serious fundamental flaws. Despite Obama coming home to campaign for him, Pat Quinn lost by about 10%. Moreover, GOP governor-elect Bruce Rauner won 53% of the women’s vote in the Land of Lincoln, about 38% of the Latino vote, and 20% of the black vote.

After years of Republicans having African-American vote shares in the single digits here, for a statewide Republican candidate to get 1 in 5 black voters to vote for him is a big deal. It is a sign that Pat Quinn abjectly failed as governor, and the Rauner campaign’s minority outreach was reasonably effective.

20 Lumberhead  Nov 10, 2014 7:20:03pm

re: #16 jamesfirecat

The thing is Mitt did one term as a governor and that was it, Hillary has been a career politician since the 90s holding various different public offices,

She’s been elected to one office in all these years of public life.

Yes we can’t get overconfident and not show up to vote again come 2016, but it’s very silly to say Hillary is as week a candidate as Mitt Romney.

I never said she was as weak a candidate as Romney, just pointing out that there are some similarities. I don’t see her as some unbeatable juggernaut. She will be the one out there answering questions in the spotlight not her husband and she isn’t perfect.

Especially considering the differences between their SO, Mitt had a modern day Marie Antoinette and Hillary has a man who would have crushed W like a grape if he had been able to run in 2000.

Again, she’ll be the one on the ticket not Bill. I honestly don’t think Ann Romney had all that much to do with Mitt losing.

Also if on general Principle if Hillary Clinton can’t beat Rand Paul then I am done with having anything to do with American Politics besides voting, I just won’t have the spirit to bother arguing it anymore.

It seems like most Democrats believe that there isn’t a Republican candidate that can beat her but I’m not so sure.

She needs to find a way to motivate the Democratic coalition. Will the 18 - 30 year olds get out there for her the same way they did for Obama? I’m not convinced. My two oldest kids are of voting age now and they really have no memory of the Clinton years. Someone that will be 18 in 2016 was born in 1998.

If she starts distancing herself from Obama, will African-Americans get out there in force for her?

Where does she stand on immigration reform? I certainly have heard anything much from her on that subject or anything else recently. If she starts triangulating, will Hispanics get out there?

If the electorate in 2016 looks like a midterm electorate she loses.

21 EiMitch  Nov 10, 2014 10:25:17pm

re: #18 jamesfirecat

I find just linking to Holder to be unnecessarily obtuse, can you please just say what you feel is their biggest weakness?

For all of the democrats fronting about looking out for us, they’re just as beholden to special interests as republicans. I linked to Holder as an example. He refused to prosecute a single person who crashed the economy, nor any exec in subsequent financial scandals.

The point is that plenty of democrat supporters feel betrayed, not just disappointed.

The Democrats are a flawed party with lots of weaknesses that need to be corrected and we need to be more serious about it, it I feel like trying to majorly overhaul our party, at exactly the moment the GOP is on the cusp of imploding due to demographics and internal inconsistencies (the religious right wants a theocracy and the establishment types and oligarchy) is going against that old saying of how you don’t interrupt an opponent while he is committing a blunder.

Emphasis added to your biggest assumption. Yes, the republican’s strategy is unsustainable. But its not going to fail them this soon. Not even close.

Not to mention, how exactly will a changing of the guard in the democrats stop the republicans from imploding if such an implosion is as imminent as you believe?

Thus I am for ever gradual progressive change to make our candidates better representations of the Progressive ideal but trying to push all the old guard out at once is just going to end up throwing seats to a Republicans at exactly the wrong time.

Throwing seats to the republicans? Like the old guard just did anyway? And in 2010? And they didn’t exactly regain lost ground in 2012.

The tea party’s takeover of the republican party in 2010 didn’t throw seats to the democrats. The teabaggers took control. And they’ve only gotten stronger since. On what grounds do you base your belief that opposite results will happen to democrats if they get a surge of fresh blood?

Your argument is based on alot of assumptions, chief among them being that the teabaggers are on their last legs. No they aren’t. Not yet. I’d like to believe otherwise, but thats not what the evidence is saying. And when it does happen much later, (assuming republicans don’t change their strategy in time) a boat rocking amongst democrats won’t save republicans from self-inflicted wounds.

22 jamesfirecat  Nov 11, 2014 3:41:27am

re: #19 Dark_Falcon

Here in Illinois it means the Dems have some serious fundamental flaws. Despite Obama coming home to campaign for him, Pat Quinn lost by about 10%. Moreover, GOP governor-elect Bruce Rauner won 53% of the women’s vote in the Land of Lincoln, about 38% of the Latino vote, and 20% of the black vote.

After years of Republicans having African-American vote shares in the single digits here, for a statewide Republican candidate to get 1 in 5 black voters to vote for him is a big deal. It is a sign that Pat Quinn abjectly failed as governor, and the Rauner campaign’s minority outreach was reasonably effective.

That I can’t speak to because I live several states over from Illinois but thank you for the information all the same DF!

23 jamesfirecat  Nov 11, 2014 3:47:17am

re: #20 Lumberhead

She’s been elected to one office in all these years of public life.

I never said she was as weak a candidate as Romney, just pointing out that there are some similarities. I don’t see her as some unbeatable juggernaut. She will be the one out there answering questions in the spotlight not her husband and she isn’t perfect.

Again, she’ll be the one on the ticket not Bill. I honestly don’t think Ann Romney had all that much to do with Mitt losing.

It seems like most Democrats believe that there isn’t a Republican candidate that can beat her but I’m not so sure.

She needs to find a way to motivate the Democratic coalition. Will the 18 - 30 year olds get out there for her the same way they did for Obama? I’m not convinced. My two oldest kids are of voting age now and they really have no memory of the Clinton years. Someone that will be 18 in 2016 was born in 1998.

If she starts distancing herself from Obama, will African-Americans get out there in force for her?

Where does she stand on immigration reform? I certainly have heard anything much from her on that subject or anything else recently. If she starts triangulating, will Hispanics get out there?

If the electorate in 2016 looks like a midterm electorate she loses.

“If the electorate in 2016 looks like a midterm electorate she loses.”

This is the key point.

When was the last time a Presidential election had turn out figures comparable to the midterm that came right before it?

In 2010 82.5 million people voted, in 2012 it was closer to 126 Million. Which is much more comparable to the 130 million votes cast in 2008.

In short midterms are zebras, presidential elections are horses, they may look similar but you can’t use one to accurately predict the behavior of the other.

That’s why I feel the democratic party is a flawed party that just got dealt a resounding defeat, but hardly on one the cusp of self implosion the way this piece talks about them.

If I am wrong I’ll buy you a round or two in the bar where I plan to take up drinking come November 2016…

24 jamesfirecat  Nov 11, 2014 3:59:21am

re: #21 EiMitch

For all of the democrats fronting about looking out for us, they’re just as beholden to special interests as republicans. I linked to Holder as an example. He refused to prosecute a single person who crashed the economy, nor any exec in subsequent financial scandals.

The point is that plenty of democrat supporters feel betrayed, not just disappointed.

Emphasis added to your biggest assumption. Yes, the republican’s strategy is unsustainable. But its not going to fail them this soon. Not even close.

Not to mention, how exactly will a changing of the guard in the democrats stop the republicans from imploding if such an implosion is as imminent as you believe?

Throwing seats to the republicans? Like the old guard just did anyway? And in 2010? And they didn’t exactly regain lost ground in 2012.

The tea party’s takeover of the republican party in 2010 didn’t throw seats to the democrats. The teabaggers took control. And they’ve only gotten stronger since. On what grounds do you base your belief that opposite results will happen to democrats if they get a surge of fresh blood?

Your argument is based on alot of assumptions, chief among them being that the teabaggers are on their last legs. No they aren’t. Not yet. I’d like to believe otherwise, but thats not what the evidence is saying. And when it does happen much later, (assuming republicans don’t change their strategy in time) a boat rocking amongst democrats won’t save republicans from self-inflicted wounds.

Thank you for the clarification. This is more a personal thing than one that I can directly address since for the moment I am lucky enough (White upper middle class Liberal Privilege) that I only feel upset by the Democrats failings rather than feeling wounded by them. If others feel actively wounded… yes I can understand why but I can’t speak for them only for myself.

Also you are wrong about one thing, there have been plenty of examples where ever if the Tea Party has been moving with the wind at their back, their zealous over reach has caught them seats they might have won otherwise.

Remember “Chickens for Checkups” remember “I am not a witch”? The Tea party has lost the Republicans seats at times by running overly extreme candidates, and we democrats should not feel the need to repeat that particular blunder.

Also as for why I feel the GOP is on the cusp of exploding, let me explain.

John McCain and Mitt Romney were both Republicans from the Business Oriented oligarchy favoring wing of the faction. If the Republicans hold true to their pattern for running the guy who came in second in the primaries that means the guy who will be running for President in 2016 is Rick Santorum.

It could not be of course, but I will be surprised if the winner of the primary isn’t from the Theocracy faction this time around. I believe that this faction is going to much worse trying to run on its beliefs on a nation wide Presidential election and will lead to a loss that will be of equal levels to the one that they suffered in 2008.

These are just my beliefs and people need to show up to vote, a ground game needs to be in place, adds need to be run, so on and so forth, to make them happen, but I don’t see why the results of a midterm are proof that they can’t still happen. See my post above midterms are zebras presidential elections are horses, one does not predict the outcome of the other. So there you have it that is why I am upset by this outcome but I don’t despair in the same way the writer of this piece does.

25 Flounder  Nov 11, 2014 4:52:07am

Great Post!

26 Lumberhead  Nov 11, 2014 9:51:15am

re: #23 jamesfirecat

“If the electorate in 2016 looks like a midterm electorate she loses.”

This is the key point.

When was the last time a Presidential election had turn out figures comparable to the midterm that came right before it?

In 2010 82.5 million people voted, in 2012 it was closer to 126 Million. Which is much more comparable to the 130 million votes cast in 2008.

In short midterms are zebras, presidential elections are horses, they may look similar but you can’t use one to accurately predict the behavior of the other.

That’s why I feel the democratic party is a flawed party that just got dealt a resounding defeat, but hardly on one the cusp of self implosion the way this piece talks about them.

If I am wrong I’ll buy you a round or two in the bar where I plan to take up drinking come November 2016…

I certainly hope you’re right. I just don’t want the Democrats to be complacent with Hillary as the candidate. It seems like it’s been assumed that she will replace Obama and I’m not convinced. We can’t afford to have the current crop of Republicans controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches.

27 EiMitch  Nov 11, 2014 1:03:44pm

re: #24 jamesfirecat

Remember “Chickens for Checkups” remember “I am not a witch”? The Tea party has lost the Republicans seats at times by running overly extreme candidates, and we democrats should not feel the need to repeat that particular blunder.

You’re looking at individuals and ignoring the bigger picture. So what if some inept candidates lost? The tea party as a whole won in 2010, held onto their gains in 2012, and just won more power. Meanwhile, they’ve been pushing extremist agendas. That hasn’t hurt their overall chances.

Not to mention, you assumed I was talking about bringing in extremists? Why I never! I thought I made it clear that I meant bringing in fresh blood who had the energy and motivation to effectively fight back against the tea party. Something that older democrat politicians are clearly unwilling/unable to do. What is it about that which made you think of a modern day weatherman idolizing Che Guevara?

If the Republicans hold true to their pattern for running the guy who came in second in the primaries that means the guy who will be running for President in 2016 is Rick Santorum.

Incumbent presidents aside, predictions of a party’s PotUS candidate made before the start of the primaries are pretty much always wrong. Also, most people hadn’t heard of Obama and Romney before their respective PotUS campaigns.

It could not be of course, but I will be surprised if the winner of the primary isn’t from the Theocracy faction this time around.

I wouldn’t. Its been the oligarch candidates who’ve won each primary, not the theocrats. It happens precisely because theocrat candidates wouldn’t stand a chance in the general election. More than enough teabaggers showed they understood this 2012. They’re not that kind of delusional. Despite their gripes with the oligarchs, they know they need each other. The theocrats know they need the oligarchs relatively respectable facade, and the oligarchs know they need the theocrats fanatical turnout. That much didn’t change with the teabaggers’ rise to power.

Which calls back to when I said that they know what they’re doing.

but I don’t see why the results of a midterm are proof that they can’t still happen.

Like I said in my first post on this topic, I see this mid-term as a symptom, not as a problem by itself. Don’t forget that 2012 was more of a stalemate than a victory. We merely maintained the status quo at the time. We didn’t turn the tide at all. If “same ol’ same ol’ but this time we mean it we promise pretty please give us another chance” gets the job done in 2016, I’ll be surprised.

28 jamesfirecat  Nov 11, 2014 1:58:16pm

re: #27 EiMitch

You’re looking at individuals and ignoring the bigger picture. So what if some inept candidates lost? The tea party as a whole won in 2010, held onto their gains in 2012, and just won more power. Meanwhile, they’ve been pushing extremist agendas. That hasn’t hurt their overall chances.

Not to mention, you assumed I was talking about bringing in extremists? Why I never! I thought I made it clear that I meant bringing in fresh blood who had the energy and motivation to effectively fight back against the tea party. Something that older democrat politicians are clearly unwilling/unable to do. What is it about that which made you think of a modern day weatherman idolizing Che Guevara?

Incumbent presidents aside, predictions of a party’s PotUS candidate made before the start of the primaries are pretty much always wrong. Also, most people hadn’t heard of Obama and Romney before their respective PotUS campaigns.

I wouldn’t. Its been the oligarch candidates who’ve won each primary, not the theocrats. It happens precisely because theocrat candidates wouldn’t stand a chance in the general election. More than enough teabaggers showed they understood this 2012. They’re not that kind of delusional. Despite their gripes with the oligarchs, they know they need each other. The theocrats know they need the oligarchs relatively respectable facade, and the oligarchs know they need the theocrats fanatical turnout. That much didn’t change with the teabaggers’ rise to power.

Which calls back to when I said that they know what they’re doing.

Like I said in my first post on this topic, I see this mid-term as a symptom, not as a problem by itself. Don’t forget that 2012 was more of a stalemate than a victory. We merely maintained the status quo at the time. We didn’t turn the tide at all. If “same ol’ same ol’ but this time we mean it we promise pretty please give us another chance” gets the job done in 2016, I’ll be surprised.

I’m sorry I have to object to

“Incumbent presidents aside, predictions of a party’s PotUS candidate made before the start of the primaries are pretty much always wrong. Also, most people hadn’t heard of Obama and Romney before their respective PotUS campaigns.”

The strategy I’m using here is “if there is no Republican incumbent, pick the person who came in second to the prior Republican candidate.”

Contrary to almost No one having heard of Mitt Romney before his PotUS bid in 2012, he came in second place to John McCain in the 2008 primary and he was who they ran they ran in 2012.

John McCain came in second to George W Bush in the Primaries in 2000, and he was who they ended up running in 2008.

Bob Dole came in second to George HW Bush in 1988, he was who they ran in 1996.

George HW Bush came in second to Reagan in 1980, he was who they ran in 1988.

In 1976 Reagan came in second to Gerald Ford, he was who they ran in 1982.

George W Bush is like the only exception to this pattern between today and Nixon’s win 1968, so maybe exceptions can be made for the son of a President.

In turn maybe that means Jeb Bush will win the primary and he’ll be the oligarchs candidate of choice in 2016, he’s about the only oligarch candidate who is currently planning on running (barring Mitt Romney again) but still, if my predicting pattern has been right with only one failure going back to the birth of the Modern Day GOP (Nixon) I don’t feel it can simply be dismissed with a “predictions of a party’s PotUS candidate made before the start of the primaries are pretty much always wrong.” this pattern is in point of fact “pretty much always right” if you apply it to the GOP for the last 30+ years a not inconsiderable portion of time.

29 ObserverArt  Nov 11, 2014 2:10:19pm

re: #19 Dark_Falcon

Here in Illinois it means the Dems have some serious fundamental flaws. Despite Obama coming home to campaign for him, Pat Quinn lost by about 10%. Moreover, GOP governor-elect Bruce Rauner won 53% of the women’s vote in the Land of Lincoln, about 38% of the Latino vote, and 20% of the black vote.

After years of Republicans having African-American vote shares in the single digits here, for a statewide Republican candidate to get 1 in 5 black voters to vote for him is a big deal. It is a sign that Pat Quinn abjectly failed as governor, and the Rauner campaign’s minority outreach was reasonably effective.

Dark, what was your states turnout to vote percentage wise? I think that number is important.

30 EiMitch  Nov 11, 2014 3:19:54pm

re: #28 jamesfirecat

Okay, I stand corrected on the “Romney unheard of’ part. And more importantly, I feel dumb for forgetting to point out the biggest flaw in your reasoning. Based on what you’ve said thus far, it seems your optimism for the old democrats is based on them winning by default after the tea party tears itself apart just because they don’t get the White House in 2016. Again, quit focusing on individuals and look at the bigger picture.

The teabaggers have taken over the legislative branch of the federal government. It helped them alot to have a single enemy face (Obama) to demonize and rally their base against. In this way, losing the race for PotUS in 2012 has been a blessing in disguise for republicans. I see no reason to expect the opposite to happen if the next PotUS is also a democrat.

We need to take back the HoR and Senate. Or at least one of them. Otherwise, keeping the oval office will prove to be a cold comfort at best. Thats the real task at hand, and current democrats don’t look up to it. The teabaggers have effectively moved the political “center” towards the right, and democrats have played along. That didn’t exactly inspire confidence, and neither did the last three elections.

31 jamesfirecat  Nov 11, 2014 3:40:14pm

re: #30 EiMitch

Okay, I stand corrected on the “Romney unheard of’ part. And more importantly, I feel dumb for forgetting to point out the biggest flaw in your reasoning. Based on what you’ve said thus far, it seems your optimism for the old democrats is based on them winning by default after the tea party tears itself apart just because they don’t get the White House in 2016. Again, quit focusing on individuals and look at the bigger picture.

The teabaggers have taken over the legislative branch of the federal government. It helped them alot to have a single enemy face (Obama) to demonize and rally their base against. In this way, losing the race for PotUS in 2012 has been a blessing in disguise for republicans. I see no reason to expect the opposite to happen if the next PotUS is also a democrat.

We need to take back the HoR and Senate. Or at least one of them. Otherwise, keeping the oval office will prove to be a cold comfort at best. Thats the real task at hand, and current democrats don’t look up to it. The teabaggers have effectively moved the political “center” towards the right, and democrats have played along. That didn’t exactly inspire confidence, and neither did the last three elections.

My long term strategy for how the democrats can win is based on the continued demographics shifts against the current GOP party, as well as the inconsistencies within its own base not to mention the Presidential shellacking that I believe would happen if someone from the theocratic wing of the party does manage to win the nod to run for president.

In the short term my plans for how we can win 2016 is based on the fact that it’s a presidential election so a lot of people will be voting, the Senators up for election will favor the democrats instead of the Republicans like they have for the last two cycles.

I agree we need to take back the Senate, and preferably the house also, I agree that the Overton Window has been dragged rightwords in a lot of painful ways, it reminds me of a saying that I can’t quite place who said at the moment.

“The job of the GOP is to loose loudly on social issues while the Democrats loose quietly on economic ones…” which there is sadly more truth to than I would like to admit.

I believe that the best way to take back the Senate is to figure out who is the best person to hold each seat and not primary out incumbents with the same zeal that the GOP currently does.

I feel that the current crop of Democrats can do the job for America with minor tweaks, you (as I understand your position correct me if I am wrong) feel we need to give them a serious overhauling, both of us probably want them to reach the same destination.

As noted before I’m a Upper Middleclass White Male Liberal from a deep blue state, no one in the world is going to be as prone to saying “we need some change, but not too terribly much” as I am, and if that privilege blinds me at times, I at least hope I am not blind to the that particular fact itself. I simply worry that a major shake up/massive primaries of the Democrats currently in office will do more harm by creating inter party warfare and emptying warchests before the general election which may get Republicans elected than if we had taken a more cautious approach, and that may be entirely the wrong approach but it is how I feel at the moment.

32 Dark_Falcon  Nov 11, 2014 4:49:16pm

re: #29 ObserverArt

Dark, what was your states turnout to vote percentage wise? I think that number is important.

About 39%. Which seems to have been right near the national average.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Rallying Cry: “Mr. President, It’s Too Much” CNN reports: "The city of Tulsa is experiencing a surge in coronavirus cases, a little over 2 weeks after President Donald Trump held a campaign rally in an indoor arena there." Biden puts it in perspective: “Mr. President, it's ...
yourefiredbefore2020
5 hours, 5 minutes ago
Views: 71 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall — Bryan Ferry (Live 1977)
Thanos
12 hours, 40 minutes ago
Views: 142 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Barry McGuire - Eve of Destruction Subscribe to The Best Of for more classic music history, videos and playlists: bit.ly "Eve of Destruction" is a protest song written by P. F. Sloan. Barry McGuire recorded the track in July 1965. It was released by Dunhill ...
Thanos
12 hours, 43 minutes ago
Views: 147 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200705It was a good, non exhausting day's work, even though it was 98 degrees when we started. The end of the first game in the series is in sight. We can see the finish line.So everything we do now is ...
Welcome to The Imbleachment (dangerman)
1 day, 11 hours ago
Views: 256 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 7
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - the Danish National Symphony Orchestra (Live) #TheMorriconeDuel #FilmMusicLive #DNSOWant to experience The Danish National Symphony Orchestra live? bit.ly The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Composed by Ennio MorriconeVarious flutes: Hans Ulrik, Russell ItaniVocals: Tuva Semmingsen & Christine Nonbo Andersen In January 2018, The Danish ...
Thanos
2 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 413 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Charlie Puth - Girlfriend [Official Audio] "Girlfriend" Out Now - charlieputh.lnk.to Text me:[no phone numbers allowed] Subscribe for more official content from Charlie Puth: charlieputh.lnk.to Follow Charliecharlieputh.com facebook.com@charlieputh instagram.comtiktok.comSoundCloud Lyrics: Yeah, tired of this conversationWe didn’t come all this wayTo touch a little, kiss a ...
Thanos
5 days, 9 hours ago
Views: 563 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Paul Weller - Village - Radio 2 BreakfastPaul Weller performs Village live from his Black Barn studio for the BBC Radio 2 Breakfast show
Thanos
5 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 639 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 • Share to Facebook
Crowded House - Fall at Your Feet (Live From Home, 2020) In the spirit of musical comradeship through isolation, us fellas in Crowded House have created a live version of Fall At Your Feet, captured here in the making at our respective home set ups. Some of the sentiment in ...
Thanos
5 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 641 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200628after the rototilling we tossed several bags of wild flower seeds. thousands and thousands. we'll see what happens with them. we also bought four trees for our anniversary.all natives, good for birds and butterflies. there's a slash pine, a beautyberry ...
Welcome to The Imbleachment (dangerman)
6 days, 13 hours ago
Views: 589 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 5
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Russian Bounties — Trump Threatens the American Experiment - PRESS RUN Not once has Trump angrily banged a lectern and promised to get to the bottom of the stunning and heartbreaking story that Russian intelligence was paying lucrative bounties for the lives of American troops murdered in Afghanistan. Not once ...
Thanos
6 days, 17 hours ago
Views: 737 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook