Are Democrats in trouble if Hillary's campaign collapses?

[bobloblaw]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

[bobloblaw]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

[bobloblaw]

Which is why no outrage or level of corruption will dissuade them from supporting her. They may be able to drag her over the finish line in Nov 2016, but the result for the Dem party will be oblivion. By 2020, the Dem party will be so deep in the hole as to be almost nonexistent at the state and local level.

Fact is the Dems never recovered from the 1994 debacle that Hillary was partially responsible for. From 1994-2016, the Dems have controlled the House 4/22 years. Libs will scream "GERRYMANDERING" but you cant gerrymander if you dont control the Govs mansion and state legislatures, which is another gift to the GOP from 1994.

Which election do you think is worse for the Dems 1980 or 1994, I think 1980

The depth of 1994 was worse. 1980 the Dems held the House and didnt do that poorly at the state level. In 1980 there were lots of ticket splitting Dems. 1994 was broad and deep. After 1982 and 1986, the Dems were in strong shape.

1994 made Clinton more Conservative then Reagan so you can say that 1994 was worse for liberals

It's a bit unfair to blame Hillary for 1994.  The 1994 Democratic meltdown occurred for several reasons that were predictable.  

In the 1996 ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS, Michael Barone stated what should have been obvious; that for decades, the vast majority of Americans had casting their Congressional votes for either Republicans or for Democrats who claimed to be moderates or conservatives, yet in every Congress, liberal legislation would prevail by narrow margins.  This could be obscured somewhat by the presence of Republicans as President, but the Clinton Administration brought this out into the open.  It finally dawned on people that their moderate or conservative Democratic Representative or Senator would be casting key liberal votes to get a tough bill through.  Mike Huckabee wasn't entirely wrong when he said of the 1992 Dale Bumpers:  "He talks cornbread and catfish back in Arkansas, but he votes Kennedy and Cranston up in Washington!".  That realization, coupled with redistricting in the South to ensure that there were a maximum number of 65% black Congressional Districts left many white Democrats in positions too vulnerable to maintain.

I do agree there were many factors, but Hillary trying to ram Hillarycare down the people's throats

[bobloblaw]

The idea that Democrats were going to hold onto Congress forever in light of the Southern GOP realignment is just hilarious.

And they dont seem to be able to get it back and hold on to it.

[bobloblaw]

She wont collapse because her supporters have no integrity.

[bobloblaw]

All the things you say about Hillarycare are true and they are true due to Hillary's incompetence

[bobloblaw]

A lot is going to depend on how the second term incumbent fares in his last year--so we'll have to see how Obama fares in 2016. 

Using previous examples, if Obama turns out like Eisenhower in 1960, Reagan in 1988 and Clinton in 2000, the Democrat will be competitive and in a strong position.  On the other hand, if the bottom falls out (like Truman in 1952 and Bush in 2008), the Republicans will be strongly favored.

Ive said that 2016 is a lot like 1988. The stench of Jimmy Carter wasnt something that could be overcome in 8 years. Same is true with GW Bush. Running Jeb in 2016 is like running Billy Carter in 1988 (assuming he lived long enough).

[bobloblaw]

She wont collapse. Her supporter lack any integrity, shame or ethics. Why should what she does matter?

[bobloblaw]

NO!

The Republicans have nobody who can cut into the Blue Firewall which has shown itself willing to vote for just about any Democrat for President.  Such leaves the Republicans with several states that they absolutely must win and cannot guarantee.

The Republicans now basically need a new Ronald Reagan to win, someone capable of exploiting disappointment among Democrats. We are unlikely to have a failed Presidency because the President that we now have is just too cautious.   

There is no blue fire wall.

[bobloblaw]

1992 was not a realignment election.  The elections we have had since 2008, and continued white flight into the GOP have made most of the states in the South won by Bill Clinton off-limits to Democrats. 

1992 was the beginning of a realignment that was confirmed in 2000.  It was the removal of all of New England, all of the Middle Atlantic states, the industrial Midwestern states of IL and Mi, and the exodus of CA from the GOP ranks to the Democratic ranks.  

These are states that would have gone for Clinton even if Perot had not been on the ballot.  These regions were put off by the shift of the GOP toward the Evangelical Right, a movement away from the GOP that was exacerbated by Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" speech at the 1992 Democratic National Convention.  This movement had been going on since the late 1980s, but Buchanan's clarion call brought the issue out into the open.  This realignment was a counterpoint to the departure from the Democratic Party of Evangelicals and of couservative Catholics.  

After the election, Bush 41's Labor Secretary, Lynn Martin, a moderate, pro-choice Republican lashed back at the Religious Right, blaming them for Bush's loss.  "It's not enough that we're your political party; now we're going to be your church as well?" stated Martin during a moment of post-election recriminations.  What Martin couldn't see is that no Republican could be nominated for the Presidency anymore without first making a Faustian bargain with the Movement Conservatives that dominated the GOP nomination process, and Evangelicals were/are a HUGE part of this movement.  And given that America's religious mores were, as a whole, more conservative in 1988 than today, the pull of the Evangelical Right was that much stronger.  The "Culture War" speech was often cited as something that cost Bush 41 a number of states, but it may well have earned him NC, FL, VA, and almost earned him GA.  

Lynn Martin who got 33% of the vote in IL. And the only time I voted for a Dem in a general election