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?

[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.

[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.

[Mr.Phips]

     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.

     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.

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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

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.

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.