Potential Post-2010 Consequences

[Alexander Hamilton]

Yes, but keep in mind that Hispanics, Asians, and the young are not shoe-ins for the Democrats. Tone down the immigration rhetoric, you are competitive with Hispanics. Don't emphasize the social issues and instead focus on small government, fiscal restraint, and lower taxes, and you can win the youth as well as the Asians. I forget where, but I saw a poll where, in terms of economic issues, the young were divided about the same as the older voters. What cost the Republicans was the war in Iraq and social issues, which won't be on the forefront in the 2010 election. You and other Democrats should stop make assumptions about demographics, or it could cost your party.

Wrong.


Right.

[Alexander Hamilton]

First, I would like to welcome you to the forum. Now, on to your points.

1) They are likely to lose 4+ Senate seats again.

Perhaps, but this is wishful thinking on your part. Don't forget the Christ Dodd, Michael Bennett, Harry Reid, and Roland Burris are all vulnurable, and the political climate may be more favorable to Republicans.

2) The governor races will likely put Democrats in charge of big and growing states (CA, FL, AZ, NV) and the GOP in charge of less-populated ones (WY, KS, TN, OK).

I am not familiar with the specific candidates in these states, but I think the GOP stands a chance in the four you mentioned.

3) Redistricting is coming up immediately afterward.

Indeed.

4) Although red states are trending toward greater numbers of congressional seats, this trend is likely to be drowned by greater demographic changes-- increases in Hispanic and Asian populations as well as the continuing rise of younger (more liberal) generations into the voting ranks.

Yes, but keep in mind that Hispanics, Asians, and the young are not shoe-ins for the Democrats. Tone down the immigration rhetoric, you are competitive with Hispanics. Don't emphasize the social issues and instead focus on small government, fiscal restraint, and lower taxes, and you can win the youth as well as the Asians. I forget where, but I saw a poll where, in terms of economic issues, the young were divided about the same as the older voters. What cost the Republicans was the war in Iraq and social issues, which won't be on the forefront in the 2010 election. You and other Democrats should stop make assumptions about demographics, or it could cost your party.

Fiscal restraint is not something that is very appealing in tough economic times.  If we tried to cut the budget right now, the bottom would really fall out of the economy because demand would plummet.  Also, taxes cannot possibly go any lower than they are now.  Its not like the 1970's when the top tax rate was 70%. 

That's because Reaganomics was meant to use tax cuts as a stimulus for the economy, whereas these anti-tax hacks have taken that to mean destroy taxation altogether. The GOP has fumbled on this issue.

But the Democrats out of control spending is basically selling your soul to the devil. Even the CBO acknowledged the stimulus would harm GDP in the long-term. And for what? Short-term what? Not improvement. Obama went from creating 4 million jobs, to creating or saving 3.5 million, to saving 3 million, to having the chance of saving 600k. THIS IS PATHETIC.

[Alexander Hamilton]

First, I would like to welcome you to the forum. Now, on to your points.

1) They are likely to lose 4+ Senate seats again.

Perhaps, but this is wishful thinking on your part. Don't forget the Christ Dodd, Michael Bennett, Harry Reid, and Roland Burris are all vulnurable, and the political climate may be more favorable to Republicans.

2) The governor races will likely put Democrats in charge of big and growing states (CA, FL, AZ, NV) and the GOP in charge of less-populated ones (WY, KS, TN, OK).

I am not familiar with the specific candidates in these states, but I think the GOP stands a chance in the four you mentioned.

3) Redistricting is coming up immediately afterward.

Indeed.

4) Although red states are trending toward greater numbers of congressional seats, this trend is likely to be drowned by greater demographic changes-- increases in Hispanic and Asian populations as well as the continuing rise of younger (more liberal) generations into the voting ranks.

Yes, but keep in mind that Hispanics, Asians, and the young are not shoe-ins for the Democrats. Tone down the immigration rhetoric, you are competitive with Hispanics. Don't emphasize the social issues and instead focus on small government, fiscal restraint, and lower taxes, and you can win the youth as well as the Asians. I forget where, but I saw a poll where, in terms of economic issues, the young were divided about the same as the older voters. What cost the Republicans was the war in Iraq and social issues, which won't be on the forefront in the 2010 election. You and other Democrats should stop make assumptions about demographics, or it could cost your party.

Fiscal restraint is not something that is very appealing in tough economic times.  If we tried to cut the budget right now, the bottom would really fall out of the economy because demand would plummet.  Also, taxes cannot possibly go any lower than they are now.  Its not like the 1970's when the top tax rate was 70%. 

That's because Reaganomics was meant to use tax cuts as a stimulus for the economy, whereas these anti-tax hacks have taken that to mean destroy taxation altogether. The GOP has fumbled on this issue.

But the Democrats out of control spending is basically selling your soul to the devil. Even the CBO acknowledged the stimulus would harm GDP in the long-term. And for what? Short-term what? Not improvement. Obama went from creating 4 million jobs, to creating or saving 3.5 million, to saving 3 million, to having the chance of saving 600k. THIS IS PATHETIC.

Indeed the the GOP has got to stop with the NO Taxes ever policy. Hell that was the key to Reagon's success. He cut taxes yes in the beggining of his term when a necessary recession had started due to Volcker's Interest rate hikes(necessary to end stagflation). Reagon cut taxes and boosted spending on Defense and domestically as part of a deal with the Dems and thus put a bottom on the recession and allowed the Economy to come back quickly. After that though people forget that he raised taxes all throughout that boom and with the exception of a small bump in the road in 1987 there wasn't an real recession or downturn till 1991. However Reagan was smart enough to know that he needed to reduce the deficit and cutting domestic spending was not an option(The Dems in congress would also cut Defense spending if he tried) so he raised a few taxes here and there. Thats what pragmatists due. Finally Reagonomics only works in an Inflationary Recession not a deflationary one. I think the Republicans should instead work to simplify the tax code remove as many exemptions for certain corporations, etc.

I think Vepres has a very naive view about things and about our abililty to attract Hispanics. In my opinion we will only get the 33% who are strongly opposed to Illegal Immigration and maybe a few more. Finally it is very incorrect to say that  all of our problems among Hispanics are immigration related for instance there was talk of McCain winning the Hispanic vote, but the Economy destroyeed that particullarily in the hard hit states like NV, AZ, and FL, especially since so many work in the Construction industry. They are also concerned abour Education and Health Care and untill we have reasonable proposals for that you can go all out for instant citizenship for Illegals and it would reverse the GOP decline cause the Dems will still use the Economy/Education/Health Care issues to make gains among them. If anything such a strategy would hurt us cause that 33% that due vote for us likely wouldn't care for that. We have to address all four issues, Immigration/Economy/Education/Health Care to have at chance at 45% again like we had in 2004. The question is will Vepres support "An" economic stimulus(Doesn't have to be Obama's, could be McCains $485 Billion dollar one or one that Romney proposed last December that was $275 billion), spending more on education, and some kind of Heath care compromise.

Everything you said is on point. People underestimate Republican strengths with Hispanics. Republicans and Hispanics agree on more issues generally, while Democrats have more of a machine that allows them to get votes, i.e. sending out mailers saying simply "No on 8- Protect Equality" and nothing else. To an uninformed Hispanic voter (which most Hispanic voters are uninformed politically), it sounds like it is something related to their community, rather than gay marriage.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Brettsky, you got the general thrust of things right, but your specifics are off.

First of all, I believe Freudy over in Wyoming is running for a clear third term, right?

Secondly, a 4+ seat gain would be very impressive for Democrats.  Sure, current odds are that  they'll get New Hampshire and Missouri, but Portman in Ohio is no joke, and Florida and Kentucky are tilting away from the Democrats...and Connecticut and Nevada are increasingly putting us on the defensive.  If Coburn retires or if KBH in Texas retires at the perfect time, that could represent a seat or two, but it all takes a perfect storm which is relatively unlikely to occur.

I don't see why the Democrats are likely to take control of Arizona, who are we even running there?  Harry Reid's unpopularity has a 50/50 chance of sinking Rory Read's chances at the governor's slot, but it depends on whether or not Gibbons can defeat Joe Heck in the NV GOP primary.

Oklahoma could be competitive but Kansas and Tennessee are lost causes. 

Florida is a tossup at the moment between McCollum and Sink until we can see the race develop further. 

The Republicans, actually, are pushing the "big tent" theme far more than the Democrats this cycle.  While the Democrats were far better at it in the past, the Republicans are nationally sponsoring pro-life candidates like Simmons and Kirk, as well as pro-stimulus Crist in Florida.  Frazier over in Colorado represents exactly what the GOP platform needs to be in Colorado, but his profile is low enough that he may be replaced by an unelectable right-winger.  Whatever.  I don't know of any "big tent" candidates on the Democratic side unless Bob Menendez can get Blue Dog Schuler to reconsider running in North Carolina now that Cooper has dropped out

Mark Steven Kirk is pro-choice.

"Kirk is co-chair of the Moderate Republican "Tuesday Group," a coalition of 40 centrist Republican Member of Congress.  Kirk is a member of some moderate to liberal Republican groups such as the Republican Main Street Partnership, the Republican Majority for Choice, Republicans for Choice, the Republican Leadership Council, and Republicans for Environmental Protection." http://www.tgpac.com/docs/pages/about_us.aspx

So is Simmons. I think it's pretty obvious what he meant.

[Alexander Hamilton]

First, I would like to welcome you to the forum. Now, on to your points.

1) They are likely to lose 4+ Senate seats again.

Perhaps, but this is wishful thinking on your part. Don't forget the Christ Dodd, Michael Bennett, Harry Reid, and Roland Burris are all vulnurable, and the political climate may be more favorable to Republicans.

2) The governor races will likely put Democrats in charge of big and growing states (CA, FL, AZ, NV) and the GOP in charge of less-populated ones (WY, KS, TN, OK).

I am not familiar with the specific candidates in these states, but I think the GOP stands a chance in the four you mentioned.

3) Redistricting is coming up immediately afterward.

Indeed.

4) Although red states are trending toward greater numbers of congressional seats, this trend is likely to be drowned by greater demographic changes-- increases in Hispanic and Asian populations as well as the continuing rise of younger (more liberal) generations into the voting ranks.

Yes, but keep in mind that Hispanics, Asians, and the young are not shoe-ins for the Democrats. Tone down the immigration rhetoric, you are competitive with Hispanics. Don't emphasize the social issues and instead focus on small government, fiscal restraint, and lower taxes, and you can win the youth as well as the Asians. I forget where, but I saw a poll where, in terms of economic issues, the young were divided about the same as the older voters. What cost the Republicans was the war in Iraq and social issues, which won't be on the forefront in the 2010 election. You and other Democrats should stop make assumptions about demographics, or it could cost your party.

Fiscal restraint is not something that is very appealing in tough economic times.  If we tried to cut the budget right now, the bottom would really fall out of the economy because demand would plummet.  Also, taxes cannot possibly go any lower than they are now.  Its not like the 1970's when the top tax rate was 70%. 

That's because Reaganomics was meant to use tax cuts as a stimulus for the economy, whereas these anti-tax hacks have taken that to mean destroy taxation altogether. The GOP has fumbled on this issue.

But the Democrats out of control spending is basically selling your soul to the devil. Even the CBO acknowledged the stimulus would harm GDP in the long-term. And for what? Short-term what? Not improvement. Obama went from creating 4 million jobs, to creating or saving 3.5 million, to saving 3 million, to having the chance of saving 600k. THIS IS PATHETIC.

Indeed the the GOP has got to stop with the NO Taxes ever policy. Hell that was the key to Reagon's success. He cut taxes yes in the beggining of his term when a necessary recession had started due to Volcker's Interest rate hikes(necessary to end stagflation). Reagon cut taxes and boosted spending on Defense and domestically as part of a deal with the Dems and thus put a bottom on the recession and allowed the Economy to come back quickly. After that though people forget that he raised taxes all throughout that boom and with the exception of a small bump in the road in 1987 there wasn't an real recession or downturn till 1991. However Reagan was smart enough to know that he needed to reduce the deficit and cutting domestic spending was not an option(The Dems in congress would also cut Defense spending if he tried) so he raised a few taxes here and there. Thats what pragmatists due. Finally Reagonomics only works in an Inflationary Recession not a deflationary one. I think the Republicans should instead work to simplify the tax code remove as many exemptions for certain corporations, etc.

I think Vepres has a very naive view about things and about our abililty to attract Hispanics. In my opinion we will only get the 33% who are strongly opposed to Illegal Immigration and maybe a few more. Finally it is very incorrect to say that  all of our problems among Hispanics are immigration related for instance there was talk of McCain winning the Hispanic vote, but the Economy destroyeed that particullarily in the hard hit states like NV, AZ, and FL, especially since so many work in the Construction industry. They are also concerned abour Education and Health Care and untill we have reasonable proposals for that you can go all out for instant citizenship for Illegals and it would reverse the GOP decline cause the Dems will still use the Economy/Education/Health Care issues to make gains among them. If anything such a strategy would hurt us cause that 33% that due vote for us likely wouldn't care for that. We have to address all four issues, Immigration/Economy/Education/Health Care to have at chance at 45% again like we had in 2004. The question is will Vepres support "An" economic stimulus(Doesn't have to be Obama's, could be McCains $485 Billion dollar one or one that Romney proposed last December that was $275 billion), spending more on education, and some kind of Heath care compromise.

Everything you said is on point. People underestimate Republican strengths with Hispanics. Republicans and Hispanics agree on more issues generally, while Democrats have more of a machine that allows them to get votes, i.e. sending out mailers saying simply "No on 8- Protect Equality" and nothing else. To an uninformed Hispanic voter (which most Hispanic voters are uninformed politically), it sounds like it is something related to their community, rather than gay marriage.

Its more then that. The Dems have a natural advantage among every minority group simply by being the party of big Gov't and unless we come up with serious proposals on Education and Health Care we can forget about trying to do anything to win Hispanics. All that will happen is we will accept some Guest Worker McCain program and we end up with gains cancelling out the loses as the Dems continue to make Gains b/c of Education and Health Care among Hispanics. So in my mind these Libertarians thinging we can simply accept amnesty and we will magically get 45% of Hispanics again is nothing but a pipe dream. You are right about the uninformed part and some of that was a response to Bush's strong showing in 2004 and the Dems want to keep us below 40%. We should keep the Pro-Life plank definately and continue to fight against Gay Marriage because those are the only issues we can attract Hispanics on currently. That doesn't mean we can't shift our arguement on Abortion to be a more inclusive one or take a differenct tack entirely when it comes to measures short of Gay Marriage such as Civil Unions. We are going to have to get serious on Health Care and Education.

We need to push more pro-choice candidates and pro-gay marriage candidates in locations where social conservatives generally can't win, but we need to keep the pro-life and pro-family components in the national platform. This will help us expand the map back into the Northeast and the Pacific while attracting younger voters and more minorities without losing "the base."