Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Minus a cult of personality (D) candidate that turnout will not be there. Hilary is NOT that candidate. Lol
Yes Democrats were defiantly under the trance of cult of personality.
A cult of personality is when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized, heroic, and at times, worshipful image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.
2008 and 2012 had a different presidential turnout than 2004 and 2000. We can't assume 2016 is going to be the exact same. Obama attracted certain groups to turn out more, while McCain and Romney caused a lot of conservatives to stay home. This whole presidential election = good for Democrats has only happened under Obama/McCain/Romney. 2004 was a great year for Republicans and was a presidential year.
Ya, a former Democrat and an admitted Progressive Republican, are not going to pull the Conservative vote.
Those were BONEHEAD moves from the Progressive Establishment side of the GOP.
Ron Paul was the only one, that beat Obama in any polling.
B.S. There is noting about Ted Cruz that could cause "issues."
What makes you so sure of your predictions? Based on what?
Based on the number of both Rs and Ds who cannot overcome party ID in Presidential years.
Look at 2000 when Bush won plenty of swing states but the Rs actually lost a number of the 1994 wave Senate seats because the voters felt they were too conservative/out of line with the states. These were in Michigan, Washington, Minnesota, and Delaware. The Republicans defeated Robb in what was then a soidly R Virginia. That senate actually came down to a VP tie breaker.
In 2004 Daschle was the Senate minority leader and still lost SD- 50.5 to 49.4. Take away Presidential turnout & he would probably survive. The untold story in 2004 is the number of Dems in the South who 'retired.' Fritz Hollings who was past 80 makes sense but John Edwards was fleeing that seat before he even knew the results of the presidential primary. Those seats all went R.
Similarly 2008 saw conservative Rs in swing states and even moderate Rs in states that went more heavily Dem fall- Sununu who had both incumbency and a huge family name fell in NH, Dole lost NC, Gordon Smith lost Oregon. Coleman who was by all measures a moderate R lost in Minnesota to a former Saturday Night Live cast member- 41.99 to 41.98. You can't tell me he loses to the 'deep thoughts' guy in a non-Presidential year.
In 2012- Brown who had won the seat only 2 years earlier lost in Massachusetts to the gal the right lovingly refers to as Fauxcahontas, Nebraska went R even when the D candidate was a former multi term Senator for the state. The races that ran counter to the trend of electing according to Presidential preference were Missouri where McCaskill lucked into the campaign fiasco that was Todd Akin and Nevada where the R was already seated by appointment and Sheldon Addelstone poured money into the race. And even then the Nevada margin was 45.9-44.7. These really are the exceptions that prove the rule.
This is why I think the Ds have a strong shot in 2016 even though we are 2 years out. Presidential elections seem to draw in all the straight ticket, less regular voters. Except for '98 (impeachment backlash) and '06 (half a dozen R scandals and Bush collapse) the other big trend is that Rs have been taking mid-terms by a mile.
And there is obviously nothing I can do to explain why Cruz is seen as an agitator. But remember Bush & Co's big push to shove Lott aside in favor of Frist in the 00s and recent Republicans constant use of Pelosi as the standard for all House dems. Same principle.
Based on the number of both Rs and Ds who cannot overcome party ID in Presidential years.
Look at 2000 when Bush won plenty of swing states but the Rs actually lost a number of the 1994 wave Senate seats because the voters felt they were too conservative/out of line with the states. These were in Michigan, Washington, Minnesota, and Delaware. The Republicans defeated Robb in what was then a soidly R Virginia. That senate actually came down to a VP tie breaker.
In 2004 Daschle was the Senate minority leader and still lost SD- 50.5 to 49.4. Take away Presidential turnout & he would probably survive. The untold story in 2004 is the number of Dems in the South who 'retired.' Fritz Hollings who was past 80 makes sense but John Edwards was fleeing that seat before he even knew the results of the presidential primary. Those seats all went R.
Similarly 2008 saw conservative Rs in swing states and even moderate Rs in states that went more heavily Dem fall- Sununu who had both incumbency and a huge family name fell in NH, Dole lost NC, Gordon Smith lost Oregon. Coleman who was by all measures a moderate R lost in Minnesota to a former Saturday Night Live cast member- 41.99 to 41.98. You can't tell me he loses to the 'deep thoughts' guy in a non-Presidential year.
In 2012- Brown who had won the seat only 2 years earlier lost in Massachusetts to the gal the right lovingly refers to as Fauxcahontas, Nebraska went R even when the D candidate was a former multi term Senator for the state. The races that ran counter to the trend of electing according to Presidential preference were Missouri where McCaskill lucked into the campaign fiasco that was Todd Akin and Nevada where the R was already seated by appointment and Sheldon Addelstone poured money into the race. And even then the Nevada margin was 45.9-44.7. These really are the exceptions that prove the rule.
This is why I think the Ds have a strong shot in 2016 even though we are 2 years out. Presidential elections seem to draw in all the straight ticket, less regular voters. Except for '98 (impeachment backlash) and '06 (half a dozen R scandals and Bush collapse) the other big trend is that Rs have been taking mid-terms by a mile.
And there is obviously nothing I can do to explain why Cruz is seen as an agitator. But remember Bush & Co's big push to shove Lott aside in favor of Frist in the 00s and recent Republicans constant use of Pelosi as the standard for all House dems. Same principle.
2016 might be a tough year for Republicans just because of the math. don't expect it to be like 2008 or 2000. 2008 was an anti republican wave. Coleman should have survived, he was leading then suddenly Franken discovered enough ballots... I remember 2000 - Rod Grams, Spencer Abraham were awful candidates and basically were elected by accident in 94. . Bill Roth was like 100 years old and needed to be retired. Slade Gorton lost by a hair. I think Pat Toomey Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson are much cleaner and skilled campaigners. Not to say they won't be vulnerable but there is no Grams/Abraham/Roth there.
2016 might be a tough year for Republicans just because of the math. don't expect it to be like 2008 or 2000. 2008 was an anti republican wave. Coleman should have survived, he was leading then suddenly Franken discovered enough ballots... I remember 2000 - Rod Grams, Spencer Abraham were awful candidates and basically were elected by accident in 94. . Bill Roth was like 100 years old and needed to be retired. Slade Gorton lost by a hair. I think Pat Toomey Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson are much cleaner and skilled campaigners. Not to say they won't be vulnerable but there is no Grams/Abraham/Roth there.
I think its going to be bye bye Harry Reid in 2016.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
