If Dems lose Senate in 2014, will GOP win Presidency in 2016?

[milhouse24]

If Dems lose Senate in 1994, will GOP win Presidency in 1996?

If GOP lose Senate in 1986, will Dems win Presidency in 1988?

If GOP lose Senate in 2006, will dems win presidency in 2008?

Correlation does not equal causation, for one thing. Secondly, the reasons why the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 were not identical (2006 had much more to do with the Iraq quagmire, 2008 was much more about the financial collapse and Bush's deep unpopularity).

Hahaha, that is the entire point of the debate.  Is Obama's unpopularity (40% in some polls) and Obamacare's unpopularity going to torpedo the midterms and possibly 2016? 

These are real political issues.  Obamacare is a real voter issue whether democrats want to admit it or not. 

[SWE]

If Obamacare is such an albatross, why do polls after polls have people want to keep it and improve on it? The anti-Obamacare sentiment is coming from people from the right, who will never vote for Democrats anyway.

Anyway barring any kind of scandal or massive screw up by Obama in the next two years, the Democrats are going to win the WH in 2016.

Just keep telling yourself Obamacare is popular.  
Besides, nothing is really being "fixed" in Obamacare - no Democrat has made suggestions on how to "actually fix Obamacare"

Here's a serious question: if Liberal voters and Democrat voters are so smart and so loyal to the Democrat Party, then how come the "Democrat voters" didn't show up in the special election in Florida ?

Sink is not as attractive as Obama, but wouldn't Democrat voters want to show their support for Obamacare and the Dem Party, instead of staying home and watching the Voice?  

Hillary is not going to win if stoners, hipsters, and minorities forget to vote.

I never said the law is popular, my point is if it is this huge albatross, why aren't people clamoring to repeal it? And Democrats always have issues in mid-term elections, their base(young, minorities, disenfranchised etc.) just don't show up for mid-term elections, while the GOP have an older, whiter base that is more likely to show up to the polls.

I mean how bad is your memory? We just saw this play out in 2010 and Obamacare proved to be a non-issue two years later. So why the hell would it be an issue in 2016, when the law has in place for well over 3 years now?

How can the Democrat Party claim they have the support of the People, when their own voters can't be bothered to show up to midterm elections?  Doesn't that strike you as non-committal to Congressional Democrats?  If I were a Democrat Senator I would be pissed that these young people and minorities aren't bothering to show up to vote. 

Obamacare is mandatory as of 2014, so citizens won't feel the pain of higher premiums until 2014.  If Obamacare is so popular, then why did Democrats lose so big in 2010

I think Obamacare contributed to Obama losing 4 million voters in 2010.  But also Romney ran a bad campaign, and Obama has a nicer smile and personality (he gets the young ladies and young men excited to vote for him).  Also, Black and Hispanic voters came out for Obama and not the other (white) democrats.  A drop in Black and Hispanic turnout would have hurt Obama significantly.

Obama lost votes in 2012 because he was an incumbent,  not because of Obamacare. If the GOP couldn't use Obamacare to win in 2012, then it isn't going to work in 2016. I mean we already have poll after poll showing that people are against repeal, and this just a few months after a terrible debut.

Hahaha, Obama is the ONLY incumbent to actually LOSE voters in a re-election victory.  (Not counting FDR's 3rd term).  You are admitting that Obama IS LESS POPULAR IN 2012 than in 2008. 

"Obama is the only incumbent to lose votes, as long as you don't count that other president who lost vote and proves my claim wrong."

Hahaha, you mean the "dictator" FDR's 3rd term -

The fact that you're an idiot and think that the fact that being Democratically elected more than twice makes you a dictator doesn't change the fact that you were dead wrong about Obama being the first incumbent to lose votes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was never "ruled unconstitutional". The law changed after FDR died.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had no idea man you just blew my mind

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, even if your idiotic claims were true, they mean nothing to this debate

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good. Term limits are worthless

[IceSpear]

If Dems lose Senate in 1994, will GOP win Presidency in 1996?

If GOP lose Senate in 1986, will Dems win Presidency in 1988?

If GOP lose Senate in 2006, will dems win presidency in 2008?

Correlation does not equal causation, for one thing. Secondly, the reasons why the GOP lost Congress in 2006 and the presidency in 2008 were not identical (2006 had much more to do with the Iraq quagmire, 2008 was much more about the financial collapse and Bush's deep unpopularity).

Hahaha, that is the entire point of the debate.  Is Obama's unpopularity (40% in some polls) and Obamacare's unpopularity going to torpedo the midterms and possibly 2016?  

These are real political issues.  Obamacare is a real voter issue whether democrats want to admit it or not.  

Obama's average approval at the moment is 43%. While not good, it's certainly much better than Bush's 25% throughout 2008.

Obamacare may very well hurt Democrats in 2014 just as it did in 2010. But I don't think it will hurt them much, if at all, in 2016.

[pbrower2a]

If Obamacare is such an albatross, why do polls after polls have people want to keep it and improve on it? The anti-Obamacare sentiment is coming from people from the right, who will never vote for Democrats anyway.

Anyway barring any kind of scandal or massive screw up by Obama in the next two years, the Democrats are going to win the WH in 2016.

Just keep telling yourself Obamacare is popular. 
Besides, nothing is really being "fixed" in Obamacare - no Democrat has made suggestions on how to "actually fix Obamacare"

Pose a GOP reform of medical insurance as 'raise the rates at leisure, and die when the money runs out', and people think differently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The seat had been Republican for a long time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Stoners?

[milhouse24]

If Obamacare is such an albatross, why do polls after polls have people want to keep it and improve on it? The anti-Obamacare sentiment is coming from people from the right, who will never vote for Democrats anyway.

Anyway barring any kind of scandal or massive screw up by Obama in the next two years, the Democrats are going to win the WH in 2016.

Just keep telling yourself Obamacare is popular.  
Besides, nothing is really being "fixed" in Obamacare - no Democrat has made suggestions on how to "actually fix Obamacare"

Here's a serious question: if Liberal voters and Democrat voters are so smart and so loyal to the Democrat Party, then how come the "Democrat voters" didn't show up in the special election in Florida ?

Sink is not as attractive as Obama, but wouldn't Democrat voters want to show their support for Obamacare and the Dem Party, instead of staying home and watching the Voice?  

Hillary is not going to win if stoners, hipsters, and minorities forget to vote.

I never said the law is popular, my point is if it is this huge albatross, why aren't people clamoring to repeal it? And Democrats always have issues in mid-term elections, their base(young, minorities, disenfranchised etc.) just don't show up for mid-term elections, while the GOP have an older, whiter base that is more likely to show up to the polls.

I mean how bad is your memory? We just saw this play out in 2010 and Obamacare proved to be a non-issue two years later. So why the hell would it be an issue in 2016, when the law has in place for well over 3 years now?

How can the Democrat Party claim they have the support of the People, when their own voters can't be bothered to show up to midterm elections?  Doesn't that strike you as non-committal to Congressional Democrats?  If I were a Democrat Senator I would be pissed that these young people and minorities aren't bothering to show up to vote. 

Obamacare is mandatory as of 2014, so citizens won't feel the pain of higher premiums until 2014.  If Obamacare is so popular, then why did Democrats lose so big in 2010

I think Obamacare contributed to Obama losing 4 million voters in 2010.  But also Romney ran a bad campaign, and Obama has a nicer smile and personality (he gets the young ladies and young men excited to vote for him).  Also, Black and Hispanic voters came out for Obama and not the other (white) democrats.  A drop in Black and Hispanic turnout would have hurt Obama significantly.

Obama lost votes in 2012 because he was an incumbent,  not because of Obamacare. If the GOP couldn't use Obamacare to win in 2012, then it isn't going to work in 2016. I mean we already have poll after poll showing that people are against repeal, and this just a few months after a terrible debut.

Hahaha, Obama is the ONLY incumbent to actually LOSE voters in a re-election victory.  (Not counting FDR's 3rd term).  You are admitting that Obama IS LESS POPULAR IN 2012 than in 2008. 

"Obama is the only incumbent to lose votes, as long as you don't count that other president who lost vote and proves my claim wrong."

Hahaha, you mean the "dictator" FDR's 3rd term -

The fact that you're an idiot and think that the fact that being Democratically elected more than twice makes you a dictator doesn't change the fact that you were dead wrong about Obama being the first incumbent to lose votes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was never "ruled unconstitutional". The law changed after FDR died.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had no idea man you just blew my mind

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, even if your idiotic claims were true, they mean nothing to this debate

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good. Term limits are worthless

Hahaha, at least you are proud to admit both Obama and FDR lost popularity in their re-elections.  But Obama was the first president to lose voters in his 2nd term re-election (something to be proud of).  I concede to you, Obama is less popular now than he was when elected in 2008.  Congratulations!!!  You must be so proud.

Hahaha, think about, FDR did something so wrong, that every American decided we needed to make a Constitutional Amendment against it. 

As for Obamacare, the next president can decide to extend the waivers past 2016.  I'm sure other HC regulations can be amended as well (medical device tax, etc.).  Even the HC penalty may be reduced or eliminated.  Laws change all the time.  It will depend on the makeup of the Congress.

[milhouse24]

The seat had been Republican for a long time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Stoners?

But Obama won the district easily.  So there is a disconnect between Obama's popularity, and the Democrat Party popularity.  Voters seem to like Obama, but don't seem to like or bother to vote for other (white) democrats.  I don't know what the answer is other than having more Non-white Democrats as candidates, which would theoretically drive up the democrat voters. 

"Stoners" are people who prefer marijuana-legalization, amongst other things.  Maybe they forgot to vote or had the wrong date - its always the 3rd thursday in november. 

[Mister Mets]

"Obama is the only incumbent to lose votes, as long as you don't count that other president who lost vote and proves my claim wrong."

There is a tendency for a political party to peak in their bid for a second term at the White House, and to lose votes in subsequent elections, even if those elections go well for the party.

The exceptions since FDR's election have been Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Barack Obama in 2012. Although you could make a plausible argument that both Presidents were elected to office in favorable political environments, which explained why they peaked as challengers rather than incumbents.

[SWE]

If Obamacare is such an albatross, why do polls after polls have people want to keep it and improve on it? The anti-Obamacare sentiment is coming from people from the right, who will never vote for Democrats anyway.

Anyway barring any kind of scandal or massive screw up by Obama in the next two years, the Democrats are going to win the WH in 2016.

Just keep telling yourself Obamacare is popular.  
Besides, nothing is really being "fixed" in Obamacare - no Democrat has made suggestions on how to "actually fix Obamacare"

Here's a serious question: if Liberal voters and Democrat voters are so smart and so loyal to the Democrat Party, then how come the "Democrat voters" didn't show up in the special election in Florida ?

Sink is not as attractive as Obama, but wouldn't Democrat voters want to show their support for Obamacare and the Dem Party, instead of staying home and watching the Voice?  

Hillary is not going to win if stoners, hipsters, and minorities forget to vote.

I never said the law is popular, my point is if it is this huge albatross, why aren't people clamoring to repeal it? And Democrats always have issues in mid-term elections, their base(young, minorities, disenfranchised etc.) just don't show up for mid-term elections, while the GOP have an older, whiter base that is more likely to show up to the polls.

I mean how bad is your memory? We just saw this play out in 2010 and Obamacare proved to be a non-issue two years later. So why the hell would it be an issue in 2016, when the law has in place for well over 3 years now?

How can the Democrat Party claim they have the support of the People, when their own voters can't be bothered to show up to midterm elections?  Doesn't that strike you as non-committal to Congressional Democrats?  If I were a Democrat Senator I would be pissed that these young people and minorities aren't bothering to show up to vote. 

Obamacare is mandatory as of 2014, so citizens won't feel the pain of higher premiums until 2014.  If Obamacare is so popular, then why did Democrats lose so big in 2010

I think Obamacare contributed to Obama losing 4 million voters in 2010.  But also Romney ran a bad campaign, and Obama has a nicer smile and personality (he gets the young ladies and young men excited to vote for him).  Also, Black and Hispanic voters came out for Obama and not the other (white) democrats.  A drop in Black and Hispanic turnout would have hurt Obama significantly.

Obama lost votes in 2012 because he was an incumbent,  not because of Obamacare. If the GOP couldn't use Obamacare to win in 2012, then it isn't going to work in 2016. I mean we already have poll after poll showing that people are against repeal, and this just a few months after a terrible debut.

Hahaha, Obama is the ONLY incumbent to actually LOSE voters in a re-election victory.  (Not counting FDR's 3rd term).  You are admitting that Obama IS LESS POPULAR IN 2012 than in 2008. 

"Obama is the only incumbent to lose votes, as long as you don't count that other president who lost vote and proves my claim wrong."

Hahaha, you mean the "dictator" FDR's 3rd term -

The fact that you're an idiot and think that the fact that being Democratically elected more than twice makes you a dictator doesn't change the fact that you were dead wrong about Obama being the first incumbent to lose votes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was never "ruled unconstitutional". The law changed after FDR died.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I had no idea man you just blew my mind

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, even if your idiotic claims were true, they mean nothing to this debate

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good. Term limits are worthless

Hahaha, at least you are proud to admit both Obama and FDR lost popularity in their re-elections.  But Obama was the first president to lose voters in his 2nd term re-election (something to be proud of).  I concede to you, Obama is less popular now than he was when elected in 2008.  Congratulations!!!  You must be so proud.

I'm willing to accept facts. I'm not sure what you're getting at here

The seat had been Republican for a long time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Stoners?

But Obama won the district easily.

1 point =/= easily

[milhouse24]

The fact that you're an idiot and think that the fact that being Democratically elected more than twice makes you a dictator doesn't change the fact that you were dead wrong about Obama being the first incumbent to lose votes

Good. Term limits are worthless

Hahaha, I don't know if its just sad that you think this.  You do realize that dictators like Putin , Saddam Hussein, and Chavez all have "democratic elections" that they all someone won easily. 

At least you are proud to admit you are "pro-dictator" 

Congratulations to closet fascism.

[SWE]

The fact that you're an idiot and think that the fact that being Democratically elected more than twice makes you a dictator doesn't change the fact that you were dead wrong about Obama being the first incumbent to lose votes

Good. Term limits are worthless

Hahaha, I don't know if its just sad that you think this.  You do realize that dictators like Putin , Saddam Hussein, and Chavez all have "democratic elections" that they all someone won easily. 

At least you are proud to admit you are "pro-dictator" 

Congratulations to closet fascism.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Not if 2014 is the new 1986.

The Democrats may well lose the Senate, but that's a feature of demographics.  The seats they have up are tough to defend, and 2 of them (WV and AR) are in the middle of major realignment that will, ultimately, put these states in the extreme GOP column.  2016 is a long way away.  The economy could still be on an upswing; even slow growth might point to the wisdom of a slow-but-steady growth policy.  The issues with Putin and Ukraine may well fade away to where they will only interest the talk show crowd.  Obamacare will go on, and the initial rollout problems may fade in memory as more people get signed up and benefit from it; problems with the WEBSITE are something much different than problems with the program itself.

If the bottom falls out of the economy, the GOP will win big, and expand the map in doing so.  If not, the GOP's main problem is its poor candidates.  The leading names are what leading Democratic Presidential hopefuls used to be; the latest rock star/flavor of the month, and not the most qualified candidate.  The problem that the GOP has is that their "best qualified" candidate may well be Jeb Bush.  This might be mitigated by Hillary Clinton being the Democratic candidate; it would obscure the "dynasty" issue; if Jeb were running against Biden or Schweitzer he'd have real problems.  But the guys seen as the likely GOP nominees are a combination of novices and quacks, with a few failed losers (Rick Perry) crashing the party. 

For the GOP to win in 2016, they need to airlift a candidate in and force that candidate on a party that is bent on the kind of purity that loses elections.  This is a party that finds Thad Cochran and Bob Bennett insufficiently conservative.  That's a problem.  The GOP can be a conservative party and elect a President, but there's a difference between being a responsible, yet flexible, conservative, and being a doctrinaire kook.

[Joshgreen]

No. In fact, I think if the Republicans capture the Senate, the Democrats have a better chance of holding the presidency. Certainly after the insanity the new Republican senate majority would send to Obama's desk.

[milhouse24]

Not if 2014 is the new 1986.

The Democrats may well lose the Senate, but that's a feature of demographics.  The seats they have up are tough to defend, and 2 of them (WV and AR) are in the middle of major realignment that will, ultimately, put these states in the extreme GOP column.  2016 is a long way away.  The economy could still be on an upswing; even slow growth might point to the wisdom of a slow-but-steady growth policy.  The issues with Putin and Ukraine may well fade away to where they will only interest the talk show crowd.  Obamacare will go on, and the initial rollout problems may fade in memory as more people get signed up and benefit from it; problems with the WEBSITE are something much different than problems with the program itself.

If the bottom falls out of the economy, the GOP will win big, and expand the map in doing so.  If not, the GOP's main problem is its poor candidates.  The leading names are what leading Democratic Presidential hopefuls used to be; the latest rock star/flavor of the month, and not the most qualified candidate.  The problem that the GOP has is that their "best qualified" candidate may well be Jeb Bush.  This might be mitigated by Hillary Clinton being the Democratic candidate; it would obscure the "dynasty" issue; if Jeb were running against Biden or Schweitzer he'd have real problems.  But the guys seen as the likely GOP nominees are a combination of novices and quacks, with a few failed losers (Rick Perry) crashing the party. 

For the GOP to win in 2016, they need to airlift a candidate in and force that candidate on a party that is bent on the kind of purity that loses elections.  This is a party that finds Thad Cochran and Bob Bennett insufficiently conservative.  That's a problem.  The GOP can be a conservative party and elect a President, but there's a difference between being a responsible, yet flexible, conservative, and being a doctrinaire kook.

I agree that it will come down to "the Economy" as things usually do.  There is still enough time for the economy to sour or improve.  Obamacare is still a drag on economic growth.  Americans just don't like paying taxes for anything. 

I think anti-Obamacare can still be a strong issue to help GOTV for Republicans in 2016.  Especially if the economy doesn't grow.  If the economy does grow, then that helps HIllary. 

I'm trying to think if Hillary has a "ceiling on voters" - she took the unpopular side on issues of Iraq and Hillarycare.  But she might have moved on after being SoS.  She's got a awkward and sometimes confrontational style of speaking.  I think Hillary can get at least 62 million voters. 

I think Jeb's problem is that he doesn't have much personality but is seen as more competent and moderate.  There will still be lingering anger from code pinkers and anti-military industrial complex.  But at the same time "Fiscal conservatives" would want to repeal Obamacare, instead of rehashing Iraq war spending.  Dubya had a gregarious and friendly personality.  Most voters will vote for the friendlier personality.  The liberal media will be out for blood if Jeb is the nominee, but having a Hispanic VP could satisfy the liberal rage. 

But in a Hillary vs. Jeb matchup, it will come down to Ohio, which is a tossup in myopinion.