|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2020, 10:07:59 AM
News:

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: ON Progressive)
  Was 2012 the election Dems should have lost?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Was 2012 the election Dems should have lost?  (Read 374 times)
freepcrusher
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 17, 2020, 06:49:09 PM »

Kennedy and fat tony probably retire under a romney presidency but because Dems have the senate they either block the nominations or force him to pick a consensus nominee like peter hall from vermont. If they unseat him in 2016 they probably have 55 senate seats in  2017.

On the other hand. It's possible you have back to back senate massacres in 2018 and 2020
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,165


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2020, 06:58:55 PM »

Democrats probably would have lost the Senate had Romney won.  In an environment where Obama loses, Dems probably lose Senate races in ND, MT, IN, WI, VA, and maybe even Ohio.
Logged
dw93
DWL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2020, 07:24:22 PM »

50/50 chance the Democrats lose the Senate. Obamacare likely gets repealed with no replacement, as repeal AND replace didn't become a thing until Obama secured a 2nd term with Obamacare on the ballot. A Tax Cut for the wealthy as large or larger than Trump's is passed before November of 2014 and Scalia and Kennedy are replaced before then as well. A neoconservative foreign policy makes a comeback with Romney to. After that, Romney rides a recovering economy to a second term in 2016 and replaces RBG this year, though Romney replaces her with someone more qualified and less controversial than ACB.

An 8 year Romney Presidency, which is a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush with dashes of Trump's immigration and China polices, ends with millions of people not having health insurance, a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, a war in Iran and/or Syria, a recession and a pandemic (though one he handles better than Trump).
Logged
freepcrusher
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2020, 10:56:08 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.
Logged
freepcrusher
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,938
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2020, 11:14:24 PM »

50/50 chance the Democrats lose the Senate. Obamacare likely gets repealed with no replacement, as repeal AND replace didn't become a thing until Obama secured a 2nd term with Obamacare on the ballot. A Tax Cut for the wealthy as large or larger than Trump's is passed before November of 2014 and Scalia and Kennedy are replaced before then as well. A neoconservative foreign policy makes a comeback with Romney to. After that, Romney rides a recovering economy to a second term in 2016 and replaces RBG this year, though Romney replaces her with someone more qualified and less controversial than ACB.

An 8 year Romney Presidency, which is a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush with dashes of Trump's immigration and China polices, ends with millions of people not having health insurance, a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, a war in Iran and/or Syria, a recession and a pandemic (though one he handles better than Trump).

I have a hard time seeing them hold the senate with the six year itch. It hasn't happened since 1966.
Logged
dw93
DWL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2020, 11:39:47 PM »

50/50 chance the Democrats lose the Senate. Obamacare likely gets repealed with no replacement, as repeal AND replace didn't become a thing until Obama secured a 2nd term with Obamacare on the ballot. A Tax Cut for the wealthy as large or larger than Trump's is passed before November of 2014 and Scalia and Kennedy are replaced before then as well. A neoconservative foreign policy makes a comeback with Romney to. After that, Romney rides a recovering economy to a second term in 2016 and replaces RBG this year, though Romney replaces her with someone more qualified and less controversial than ACB.

An 8 year Romney Presidency, which is a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush with dashes of Trump's immigration and China polices, ends with millions of people not having health insurance, a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, a war in Iran and/or Syria, a recession and a pandemic (though one he handles better than Trump).

I have a hard time seeing them hold the senate with the six year itch. It hasn't happened since 1966.

The Dems would definitely win the Senate by then and would likely win back the house sometime between 2014 and 2018. That said, Romney could do a lot of damage in the 2013-14 time frame and peal off Manchin types from the Democratic party on certain pieces of legislation.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,665
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2020, 11:44:47 PM »

a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush
Considering what W’s “compassionate” policies were (No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D), Romney being less “compassionate” would be a good thing.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,165


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2020, 08:53:55 AM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

I agree.  2010 was where Obama did the almost irreversible damage to Dems.  God he and his people should have taken that election more seriously.
Logged
McGarnagle's End Times Cavalcade
SomethingPolitical
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,186


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2020, 12:24:16 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

I agree.  2010 was where Obama did the almost irreversible damage to Dems.  God he and his people should have taken that election more seriously.

I don't think all the blame should be placed on Obama. In the end, it was voters who didn't show up.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,165


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2020, 03:57:21 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

I agree.  2010 was where Obama did the almost irreversible damage to Dems.  God he and his people should have taken that election more seriously.

I don't think all the blame should be placed on Obama. In the end, it was voters who didn't show up.

Obama could have done more to get these voters to turn out, like attacking Republicans a lot more and effectively.
Logged
McGarnagle's End Times Cavalcade
SomethingPolitical
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,186


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2020, 04:03:47 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

I agree.  2010 was where Obama did the almost irreversible damage to Dems.  God he and his people should have taken that election more seriously.

I don't think all the blame should be placed on Obama. In the end, it was voters who didn't show up.

Obama could have done more to get these voters to turn out, like attacking Republicans a lot more and effectively.

Fair point - but I noticed at the time, in my life, that a lot of people who turned out in 2008 just didn't show up in 2010. Some of them may have thought simply by electing Obama, their work was done - others got suckered in by Glenn Beck and Fox News and bought into misinformation (though thankfully some realized later they'd taken the wrong course). While that is anecdotal and anecdotal evidence on its own is insufficient, surely I'm not the only one who noticed this happening.

Yes, Obama could have been more forceful in combating the Republicans, but I think at that point many voters underestimated how much midterms mattered.
Logged
President Pericles
Pericles
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,021



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2020, 05:58:31 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

2008 was practically unloseable for Democrats though. 2004 was the one Democrats should be glad they lost, otherwise they never get Obamacare and a big Republican trifecta after 2008 implements austerity so the Great Recession is much worse.
Logged
Does the title even matter?
tara gilesbie
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,211
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2020, 09:00:15 PM »

The election they were best off losing is the one they did - 2016.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,165


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: Today at 07:41:36 AM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

2008 was practically unloseable for Democrats though. 2004 was the one Democrats should be glad they lost, otherwise they never get Obamacare and a big Republican trifecta after 2008 implements austerity so the Great Recession is much worse.

It’s likely the Great Recession wouldn’t have been as bad if Kerry were President from 2004-2008.  He would have likely had more competent appointees who would have better understood the crisis and taken the appropriate actions to lessen its impact (i.e. setting up an orderly wind down for Lehman).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 12 queries.