How Will This Election Affect 2016?

[william the wie]

The Republicans seem to have forgot yesterday's lesson already.

Very few people vored for them but a boatload of people voted against the Ds 3rd party totals spiked for mid-term elections. Those votes may not have been the highest ever but in most cases the majors fell below 97%.

The Rs will need a huge number of D votes to override the vetoes coming down the road and that means compromise.

Having an opposition president in the single digits for approval is not going to make them invincible in 2016.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No real correlation between a mid-term and the next presidential election.

But I agree with some of your points.

 

[william the wie]

Declaring victory and genius when your opponent self destructs is the dreaded victory disease.

 

[pepperpot]

People are frustrated and cynical now. Turnout was low. Both sides need to be reinvigorated and a Bush or Clinton isn't going to do it. Question is, is there any other Senator Obama's out there for 2016 that can excite the electorate? I am hearing more and more people saying that if those end up being the candidates they will stay home.

 

[william the wie]

People are frustrated and cynical now. Turnout was low. Both sides need to be reinvigorated and a Bush or Clinton isn't going to do it. Question is, is there any other Senator Obama's out there for 2016 that can excite the electorate? I am hearing more and more people saying that if those end up being the candidates they will stay home.

I think it depends of the size of future sticker shocks from the rest of the Ocare rollouts and how rapidly black-hispanic and hispanic v. hispanic conflicts resolve.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Electoral history shows us that the results of of a mid-term election have very little effect on the next presidential election.

In 1946, Harry Truman got a massive pasting in the mid-terms, and yet, he was re-elected in 1948, by +4.48%.
In 1954, Ike got a massive pasting in the mid-terms, and yet, he was re-elected in 1956 in a massive landslide, over 57%.
In 1958, Ike got an even more humiliating pasting in the mid-terms, and yet, Nixon only lost the 1960 GE by -0.16%.
In 1966, LBJ took a hit at the mid-terms, but his vice-president, Humprey only lost the 1968 GE by -0.70%.
In 1970, Nixon took a moderate hit at the mid-terms and yet, he easily won re-election in 1972, with 60.80% of the NPV.
In 1974, with Nixon's resignation and Watergate and Ford's pardon, all hell broke loose and the DEMS had massive majorities in the Congress. And yet, Ford only lost to Carter in 1976 by -2.06%.
In 1978, Carter came out of the mid-terms relatively unscathed. His mid-term is an anomaly. And yet, he lost to Reagan in 1980 by -9.72%.
In 1982, Reagan took a major hit at the mid-terms, and yet, he was easily re-elected in 1986, by +18.22%.
In 1986, Reagan took an even worse hit at the mid-terms than in 1982, and yet, his Vice-President, George W. Bush, Sr. won in 1988 by +7.73%.
In 1994, Clinton took the second hardest hit of any Democrat since Truman and yet, in 1996, he won re-election by +8.52%.
In 1998, Clinton got through the mid-terms pretty much unscathed, but his Vice-President, Al Gore, although he won in the NPV by +0.52% in 2000, lost in the EC.

In 2002, George W. Bush Jr.'s party actually made gains in congress and yet, the 2004 election was a nailbiter and had John Kerry swung only 55,000 votes in Ohio, he would have been elected president. Bush won by +2.46%.

In 2006, Bush took a massive hit in the mid-terms and indeed, the "other side" won in 2008.

In 2010, Obama took the hardest hit of any Democrat since Truman, even harder than 1994, and yet, he was re-elected in 2012 by +3.86% and the DEMS actually made gains in the US Senate.

So, if history is our guide, the 2014 midterms tell us nothing at all about 2016.

 

[Big Black Dog]

This election was just a "warm up". Stand by. You ain't seen nothing yet!!! Democrats will be leaving Washington in droves.

 

[chikenwing]

The Republicans seem to have forgot yesterday's lesson already.

Very few people vored for them but a boatload of people voted against the Ds 3rd party totals spiked for mid-term elections. Those votes may not have been the highest ever but in most cases the majors fell below 97%.

The Rs will need a huge number of D votes to override the vetoes coming down the road and that means compromise.

Having an opposition president in the single digits for approval is not going to make them invincible in 2016.

Very few people vored for them but a boatload of people voted against the Ds 3rd party totals spiked for mid-term elections. Those votes may not have been the highest ever but in most cases the majors fell below 97%.

So those votes for repubs,were really not for them??! but they still some how won the elections??

 

[Nosmo King]

Give this Republican controlled congress enough rope...

2014 does not equal a bell weather for 2016

 

[william the wie]

Give this Republican controlled congress enough rope...

2014 does not equal a bell weather for 2016

True even though this may well be the biggest wave since 1920 or 1932 depending on how you weight the metrics R approval ratings are still in the toilet.

 

[candycorn]

No real correlation between a mid-term and the next presidential election.

But I agree with some of your points.

I disagree to an extent. Back in 2006, right wing nutjob Ann Coulter wrote the following.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.\
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

Her commentary is for morons but she used historical facts for this. In the 6th year of a presidency, the party that controls the oval loses.

I would agree with your "no correlation" if the GOP backers here were singing the chorus above. Have you ran into any? I haven't. They're proclaiming a sea change, a rejection of ideals, an embracement of the same policies Romney proclaimed 24 months prior and was trounced for...

I understand the party is to the point of near collapse so they need to cling to anything they can but a little honesty (not for my sake--theirs) would be welcome.

 

[Roadrunner]

No real correlation between a mid-term and the next presidential election.

But I agree with some of your points.

I disagree to an extent. Back in 2006, right wing nutjob Ann Coulter wrote the following.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.\
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

Her commentary is for morons but she used historical facts for this. In the 6th year of a presidency, the party that controls the oval loses.

I would agree with your "no correlation" if the GOP backers here were singing the chorus above. Have you ran into any? I haven't. They're proclaiming a sea change, a rejection of ideals, an embracement of the same policies Romney proclaimed 24 months prior and was trounced for...

I understand the party is to the point of near collapse so they need to cling to anything they can but a little honesty (not for my sake--theirs) would be welcome.

Yeah, Repbulicans are near collapse.

But Hillary, why, what a political genius, engineering all those R wins so Obama can make them look bad and she and Bill can waltz back into the White House.

What a strategery.

 

[candycorn]

No real correlation between a mid-term and the next presidential election.

But I agree with some of your points.

I disagree to an extent. Back in 2006, right wing nutjob Ann Coulter wrote the following.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.\
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

Her commentary is for morons but she used historical facts for this. In the 6th year of a presidency, the party that controls the oval loses.

I would agree with your "no correlation" if the GOP backers here were singing the chorus above. Have you ran into any? I haven't. They're proclaiming a sea change, a rejection of ideals, an embracement of the same policies Romney proclaimed 24 months prior and was trounced for...

I understand the party is to the point of near collapse so they need to cling to anything they can but a little honesty (not for my sake--theirs) would be welcome.

Yeah, Repbulicans are near collapse.

But Hillary, why, what a political genius, engineering all those R wins so Obama can make them look bad and she and Bill can waltz back into the White House.

What a strategery.

Wait until the Iowa straw poll (if not sooner).

 

[Interpol]

The only way I see these midterms affecting 2016 is if the Republican-controlled congress veers so far to one extreme that moderate voters turn up in hoards again during the presidential race to make a correction of what this electorate gave the country.

I think what Obama did on immigration is just as big an issue. It's brilliant politics what he did by signing the executive order and having it expire in 3 years. It will expire after the next President completes their first year in office. What that means is that in the presidential campaign debates within both parties, candidates will be asked point blank if they will renew it after their first year or not, and Democrats will unanimously say, "Of course I'll renew it, but I'd prefer the entire Congress send me a bill instead", while Republicans will say some variation of, "No, I wouldn't renew it because I don't believe in amnesty for illegals". And they'll lose the latino vote by huge margins just as they did in 2008 and 2012.

We're looking at a generational swing towards Democrats in many more elections to come if Republicans don't do anything to attract that block of voters. They're in the double digits now in terms of their share of the voting public, and to immediately give up 10 or 12 or 15% of the vote out of the gate makes it really hard to win a presidential election when you've already got another block the same size in the black vote.

If Republicans put immigration obstruction behind them or pass a bill and the President signs it, they'll set themselves up for doing better than the 27% of the latino vote they got in 2012. If they can get up to 40% they can win it, but if they drag their feet for two years and latino voters get turned off by GOP attacks against them, they'll go to the President's party in droves.

 

[Stephanie]

do you people such as the op, eat, sleep and breath politics?

We've hardly been over these elections and you're already off onto 2016

 

[guno]

The Republicans seem to have forgot yesterday's lesson already.

Very few people vored for them but a boatload of people voted against the Ds 3rd party totals spiked for mid-term elections. Those votes may not have been the highest ever but in most cases the majors fell below 97%.

The Rs will need a huge number of D votes to override the vetoes coming down the road and that means compromise.

Having an opposition president in the single digits for approval is not going to make them invincible in 2016.

the white christian party doesn't have enough slack jawed hill billy talking bible thumping slope skulls to win anthing but regional elections in jesusland

 

[william the wie]

The Republicans seem to have forgot yesterday's lesson already.

Very few people vored for them but a boatload of people voted against the Ds 3rd party totals spiked for mid-term elections. Those votes may not have been the highest ever but in most cases the majors fell below 97%.

The Rs will need a huge number of D votes to override the vetoes coming down the road and that means compromise.

Having an opposition president in the single digits for approval is not going to make them invincible in 2016.

the white christian party doesn't have enough slack jawed hill billy talking bible thumping slope skulls to win anthing but regional elections in jesusland

You do realize that even D operatives consider D voters the stupid ones and have said so on tape?

 

[pepperpot]

The only way I see these midterms affecting 2016 is if the Republican-controlled congress veers so far to one extreme that moderate voters turn up in hoards again during the presidential race to make a correction of what this electorate gave the country.

I think what Obama did on immigration is just as big an issue. It's brilliant politics what he did by signing the executive order and having it expire in 3 years. It will expire after the next President completes their first year in office. What that means is that in the presidential campaign debates within both parties, candidates will be asked point blank if they will renew it after their first year or not, and Democrats will unanimously say, "Of course I'll renew it, but I'd prefer the entire Congress send me a bill instead", while Republicans will say some variation of, "No, I wouldn't renew it because I don't believe in amnesty for illegals". And they'll lose the latino vote by huge margins just as they did in 2008 and 2012.

We're looking at a generational swing towards Democrats in many more elections to come if Republicans don't do anything to attract that block of voters. They're in the double digits now in terms of their share of the voting public, and to immediately give up 10 or 12 or 15% of the vote out of the gate makes it really hard to win a presidential election when you've already got another block the same size in the black vote.

If Republicans put immigration obstruction behind them or pass a bill and the President signs it, they'll set themselves up for doing better than the 27% of the latino vote they got in 2012. If they can get up to 40% they can win it, but if they drag their feet for two years and latino voters get turned off by GOP attacks against them, they'll go to the President's party in droves.

Does a Jeb Bush candidacy change things for the GOP? Will his views on immigration save the party if he runs?