A Democratic lock on the White House?

[Mr.Phips]

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?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Mr.Phips]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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 ?

[hcallega]

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.

[Bo]

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.

[Хahar 🤔]

No. Let's not be silly here.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

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.

[Psychic Octopus]

No. Let's not be silly here.

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

[Thomas D]

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?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

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

[Bo]

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.

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.

[Padfoot]

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.

[King]

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.

[Bo]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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

[Bo]

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.

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.

[Vepres]

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.

[Padfoot]

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.

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.

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.

[Vepres]

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.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

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.

[Derek]

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.