Talk Elections

It appears to me that Democrats have a lock on the White House.  In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won major landslides, getting around 380 electoral votes each time.  In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush could only manage narrow victories of 271 and 286 electoral votes and had to pretty much run the table to win.  In 2008, Barack Obama pretty much began the election with a lock on 273 electoral votes and then padded that margin to get to 365 electoral votes and looks poised to do even better in two years as the economy explodes back with growth. 

The question is, are we looking at a long period like there was between 1968 and 1992 where Democrats only held the White House for four years, but this time, Democrats are the ones holding it?

That's possible, and I personally hope so. That said, only future will tell us if you are right.

The downside to this is that Democrats would likely become a permanent deep minority in Congress.

What makes you think so ?
They just got an unseen majority in the Senate, and depite this being a very bad cycle they are anything but sure to lose it.

They might be able to keep the Senate(although they would probably lose it for a term from 2014-2016), but the House would be on lock for Republicans forever.  I dont think Democrats can afford to have two very bad House elections within four years of each other(as would happen in 2010 and 2014). When this happened to Republicans in 1954 and 1958, it shut them out of a majority for two generations.

So, what does it mean ? There is no particular reason to think democrats will lose the House in 2010, let alone 2014. And even if it was the case, how can two House year give us a prediction for several decades ?

I actually agree that we might dominate the White House and be out of the congressional majority. That tends to be the way Americans vote. It's far easier to run against the President then to run for an agenda.

Demographics will help the Democrats. There simply won't be enough white men to keep the GOP in charge.

It's possible, but keep in mind that 2000 and 2004 (to a lesser extent) were supposed to be Democratic years if you look at the cirumstances. In 2000, there was a good economy, no foreign wars, and a popular incumbent President, and the GOP still managed to win that election. In 2004, we had Iraq, huge deficits, high fuel prices, the economy was just coming out of a recession/jobless recovery, and the Democrats lost that election as well. Thus, even if it appears cirumstances will be beneficial for the Democrats in the upcoming decades, Democrats could just blow several elections that they are supposed to win by nominating poor, uncharismatic candidates who run bad campaigns. Also, IMO, if the GOP nominated McCain in 2000 (and 2004), he would have won about as many EVs as Clinton did in both 2000 and 2004.

No. Let's not be silly here.

And people don't know why I find this place amusing!

Don't get too cocky now. Its not as though the electorate actually like Obama, but he's much preferable than any viable alternative the Republicans are putting forth for 2012.

Yeah, I really hate to empty quote, but this.

No one has a lock on anything. In the 1980's the GOP thought they had a lock on the White House. and in the 1970's Democrats thought they had a lock on Congress. And remember after 2004, when everyone said the Democratic party was dead?

actually, much of the demographic growth is in Republican states, which could help the GOP in the EV count.

Yeah, but most of the growth in the GOP states comes from minorities, who typically and historically have voted Democratic. Thus, many of those fast-growing GOP states will likely become more Democratic in the long run.

Its very difficult to project future presidential trends but very easy to observe them once they've already happened.  Many people try to compare Obama to previous presidents in an effort to back up their own projections for the future but its nearly impossible to make any sound projections.  Although each party has enjoyed periods of White House dominance I think that we tend to undervalue the unique sets of people and events leading up to each individual election in an effort to manufacture easy to understand patterns.  I think it has more to do with finding the right candidate for the right moment in time and less to do with any perceived eras of dominance.

Well, if you listen to the GOP excuse for the deficits, a Democratic President and a Republican Congress is the way it should be.  Although that didn't really help with Truman... or Reconstruction.

I thought the GOP excuse for deficits was that they don't matter and that they are so big they can take care of themselves.

Serious articles were written in the 1980s claiming that there was a Republican 'lock' on the White House. Such claims were nonsense then and are nonsense now.

Serious articles were also written about a Democratic 'lock' on the House, but they shouldn't be mocked in the same way as there was one for decades. Such things are worth investigating, but ought not be made into predictions.

Well, from 1968 to 1992 there was a kind of republican lock. Of course it was more contextual than structural.

Exactly. The Democrats could have won in 1968 with a more charismatic candidate (and no Vietnam War). And if Carter didn't screw up so badly or was never elected in the first place, I seriously doubt the GOP would have won all 3 Presidential elections held in the 1980s.

They have an inherent advantage right now, but a lock? No.

Much can change. Something could happen (don't ask me what, I don't know) that could drive Hispanics to the GOP in high numbers for whatever reason. Imagine, California being competitive, and the rest of the southwest being strong GOP. Or, what if young voters suddenly vote like Gen Xers for whatever reason? Then Republicans have the inherent advantage.

I can easily seeing a Republican being relatively strong in New England. I can't see any current high profile Republicans being so, but that would change the whole game. Very similarly to Clinton being strong in the "border South" changed the whole dynamics of the '92 election as opposed to '84 and '88.

Which goes back to was I was saying about how each election has more to do with the individual candidates and preceding events than any sort of perceived partisan lock on the Oval Office.

I should add that reapportionment should give the GOP a little help in the short term at least. For example, under the estimated EV apportionment, Kerry could have won Ohio and still lost.

True, but those same demographic changes have already started to flip states away from the GOP. Virginia was more Democratic than Ohio in 2008, and New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and Colorado were all more Democratic than the national average.

There are hundreds of reasons for our deficits. At least when it's spent on weapons and missiles, our country is helping the private sector out being that they are bought from the market. I've heard stories where we blow up rocks and buildings that have already been blown up because we have such an abundance. If we keep buying and benefiting the private sector like this, then the unemployed can work making nuclear weapons and missiles.

I remember a guy who continuously repeated that deficits were always bad. ::)

They are if they're repeated. Look our debt is about to be greater than the entire net worth of our country soon.

We can thnak Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. for that.

No surprise you only blame Republicans and not democrats. As for a lock on the white house? I think Obama needs to get rid of his tough angry man who talks street before he has a chance at winning in 2012. Everyone sees it in him.

I think the only thing that is a "lock on the White House" are: the lobbyists, corporations, special interests, and big-industry (like BP and its ilk).

Haha well said... clap clap clap. You couldn't be more right. As for democrats; how bout a lock out of the white house is more like it.

     Presidential contests have so much to do with personal popularity that reading into a lock for either party just seems silly.

Only if you're talking about the MTV crowd.

     The more charismatic Presidential candidate has been the winner in each election going back to at least 1980. Remembering back to 2004, Kerry definitely suffered from loss from being perceived as a blueblooded New Englander as opposed to Bush, who was perceived as down-to-earth & in touch with the common man.

There have been charismatic candidates who have lost too though. I don't view Obama as charismatic as much as I do mean and cult like.

So you agree … but it's okay for Republicans to beholden to "the lobbyists, corporations, special interests, and big-industry (like BP and its ilk)"?

Nope and the lobbyists would've been done had McCain been elected. If you read my government reform in individual politics I advocate a ban for soft money from corporations and unions as well.

     Yes, but the more charismatic candidate has typically won general election matchups. For that matter, I don't really view Clinton or either Bush as being charismatic either. It has to do with how the bulk of the electorate views them in comparison to their opponent.

Oh I view them as charismatic but not Obama. Actually I think McCain was underrated but wasn't going to win after the financial meltdown.

     McCain was already going to have an uphill battle, but I agree that the financial meltdown sealed the deal. Had it not occurred, I think Obama would have probably won by a margin comparable to Bush's margin in 2004.

Hard to say. McCain led both Obama and Hillary until the primary was over for the dems. After that Obama took the lead for the most part until McCain picked Palin. At that point McCain had 2-3 weeks where he led in about every battleground state. Once the financial meltdown happened, McCain had nowhere to go but up.

Neither party has a lock.  If the country improves the incumbent party can retain the WH, if the economy falters they're gone.
If unemployment is still above 8%, GDP growth below 3%, Debt exploding, its not unreasonable to think a Daniels or Thune could beat Obama in 2012.

Also, post the census about 8-10 EVs will shift from the Democratic NE states to the Rep southern states, giving the GOP a small advantage in close elections.

Excuse me and it's not just you, but alot of people here think that 7.5 and 8% are the levels for unemployment. I seem to remember unemployment being at 5.4% and our GDP rate being 7.2% in 2003 and 2004 and Bush being blamed for a bad economy. Since when did 8% unemployment become ok?

If McCain was going to win without the market meltdown, Democrats should be hunting for Hank Paulsen's head for not bailing out Lehman.  Obama's election was a disaster for Democrats and they should want the head of anyone who made it possible by the flip of a switch.

It's about expectations and change. Unemployment was still high in 1936, but FDR won 48 states.

Hoover didn't.  Neither did Carter (and I think his peak was a fractional point lower that Ford's).

Hoover and Carter lost because the perception was that things were getting worse. My point is that you can't just look at the unemployment number in a vacuum and make a prediction. You have to look at the period immediately preceding it and considering how people are going to judge a president.

they have as much a lock on it as they have on the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.

Haha clap clap clap clap. Amen brother. It's ok anyone can buy a truck.

Not in this economy haha.

Especially not those who will lose unemployment benefits thanks to Scott Brown.

or those who are unemployed because obama's economic farting clears the room and everyone leaves for china.

Moderate Republicans like me rather vote in Liberal Democrats than Conservative Republicans. So the Democrats will start to have a lock on the White House similar to what the Republicans had from Nixon to Bush Jr.

Then... why... are you a Republican? And how can you call yourself "moderate" if all you ever do is vote liberal democrat?

I think it depends on who the GOP nominee will be in 2012 and 2016

The GOP didn't really have a lock on the White House between 1968 and 2004. Sure, they won 7 out of 10 Presidential elections, but Democrats let 1968, 2004, and especially 2000 slip from their grasp.

And when Franklin Roosevelt had that massive landslide of a re-election, the Republicans were still being rejected thanks to their disastrous predecessor, Herbert Hoover. And that's been a lesson around here, with George W. Bush this period's Herbert Hoover, with a desperate insistence by the GOPs here who think the party can win back the White House as soon as 2012. It's bizarre and delusional.

It goes a little like:

Liberal republicans>Moderate Republicans>Moderate Democrats>Liberal Democrats>Conservative Democrats>Conservative Republicans

i voted for Jim Douglas and Barack Obama in 2008.

We'll see how the 2010 elections go. If Republicans were that much in disfavor and Bush still remembered, Democrats would be picking up seats this year. 

I hope you're not serious. Even Obama and Pelosi are preparing to lose the House by asking for money from people to fight off Republican ads. That's a sign of retreat. I'm looking forward to seeing Pelosi handing over the gavel. Plus Bush will soon be more popular than Obama.