Posted on 11/13/2014 11:00:55 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Clinton?
Gradually it is sinking in to Official Washington that the 2014 election could very well do to Democrats what the 1930 election did to Republicans: make them irrelevant for at least a generation.
In 1930, the first election after the Stock Market Crash saw Republicans go from a 270-164 majority in the House to a minority, albeit by one seat. In the next three elections, Republicans would continue to lose until there were only 88 Republicans in the House after the 1936 election. The Depression wiped out two-thirds of the House Republicans in just eight years and it would be another decade -- and world war -- before Republicans got control once more. And then only for two years and then two years after Eisenhower's election. Democrats controlled the House for 60 of the 64 years from the 1930 election to the 1994 election.
Talk about your climate change. The effects on the nation were devastating but only in retrospective. Incremental socialism cam in the guise of helping people and solving problems, even as it grew the government into Godzilla proportion.
In 1930, state legislatures flipped Democratic overnight as well. The damage was long term. It would be 84 years until Republicans controlled the West Virginia House of Delegates again. West Virginia fared well in the 1920s -- far better than most of the 11 Southern states. Today it is the second-poorest state in the nation.
Now then, I am not saying that the 31 states where Republicans control the legislature will definitely go Republican in the 2016 presidential race. But if they do, that's 314 Electoral College votes. You need only 270 to win.
The good news for Republicans and the bad news for Democrats is that scenario seems plausible, because people may be looking for political stability.
So far in this century, we have seen political turmoil that began with a historically close presidential election in 2000 that in its aftermath saw the control of the Senate flip three times. Republicans fared slightly better in 2002 and, but Democrats slammed the door in the 2006 congressional election and in 2008. Republicans roared back in 2010, but the re-election of President Obama gave Democrats a temporary reprieve. This year's election was decisive. Republicans have not done this well in nearly a century.
The carnage this year should demoralize Democrats, particularly Hillary Clinton, who has the misfortune of being the Democratic front runner for 2016. George McGovern and Fritz Mondale feel her pain.
Hillary Clinton was about as effective as Pat Nixon on the campaign trail. Her candidates lost 12 of the 13 tight Senate races she campaigned in. Even the Jacksonville Jaguars have a better winning record this year. She's old and it shows. Her ideas have atrophied. She has been a fixture in Washington for 22 years, always caught in some controversy, always blaming others, always cackling. One reason Democratic Party bosses backed her opponent in the 2008 nomination process was that he was No Drama Obama.
She's 67 and has had only one executive position in her life. And she blew that gig in Benghazi.
Of course, she heads a bench of balsa wood. Behind her is "young Hillary" -- Elizabeth Warren, 65. Then there is the "conservative Democrat," Martin O'Malley, 51, governor of Maryland. He doesn't want the government's boot on your throat; he wants to put its ballet slipper there. He pushed for cheap college tuition for illegal aliens. Democrats are about to learn that "immigration reform" is as big a loser as gun control and global warming.
Andrew Cuomo, 56, may be the most intriguing in the Democratic bunch. He cut a deal with Republicans to get re-elected in exchange for Republicans taking control of the state Senate. After Obama, Democrats may go for a guy who cuts deals, no matter how far below the table they go. Oh and you political virgins out there need to understand, Republicans got the better end of the deal.
But like his father before him, Cuomo doesn't need the presidency. He has all he needs in Albany.
Besides, who needs the noise?
The bottom line is no matter who the Democrats nominate, he or she faces an Electoral College map that is stacked against Democrats. The Solid South now stretches to Wisconsin. If Pennsylvania is in play, Democrats are doomed because the last Democrat to win the presidency without Pennsylvania was Harry Truman in 1948. There's a reason they call it the Keystone State.
Democrats need a complete overhaul. Don't expect one. Nancy Pelosi, 74; Steny Hoyer, 75; and James Clyburn, 74, run House Democrats and see no reason to step aside for new leadership:
House Democrats ended Election Day controlling fewer seats than they have in nearly 80 years, but Nancy Pelosi isn’t conceding anything.
“I do not believe what happened the other night is a wave,” Pelosi said in her first sit-down interview since Democrats lost a dozen House seats to Republicans on Nov. 4.
“There was no wave of approval for the Republicans. I wish them congratulations, they won the election, but there was no wave of approval for anybody. There was an ebbing, an ebb tide, for us.”
As for whether she would consider stepping down as minority leader, Pelosi said she’s needed now more than ever.
“Quite frankly, if we would have won, I would have thought about leaving,” Pelosi declared, a remark that will likely surprise both admirers and detractors.
Pelosi’s take on the midterms is this: It wasn’t a Republican wave, her party’s message is fine and while President Barack Obama thinks Democrats need to play better politics, she believes Democrats just need to better engage voters. Maybe she wants to break Bob Michel's record for years as minority leader.
Everything is going fine for her. She has all the perks of being a congressional leader with none of the responsibilities. President Obama has to fight the Republicans, not her. Now be a darling and fetch the valet to bring her Escalade around.
As for Obama, he's president. Sure, he has nothing left in his legislative quiver but meaningless gestures. His pact with China on nocturnal emissions (or whatever they are) won't make it out of committee in the Senate. He will spend the next two years working on his golf game and shredding records. E-mail? What's e-mail? My dog, Bo, ate my e-mail.
But the rest of their party is on the brink of political oblivion for a long, long time. The biggest loser is Hillary Clinton, the feminist who rode her husband's coattails to power. Frankly, that's the best thing about the election: It likely killed her career.
Hey, now, they were awfully busy with that Medicare prescription drug entitlement give-away. You can't expect them to do everything.
The only challenges I would offer to the 2016 Map would be Michigan and Pennsylvania. Going Republican?????? Are you freakin’ kidding me? PA teases us every year and ends up going with the Marxist Party. And Michigan?..... bulls**t!
Maybe the Dem could run Malloy as president. I mean, if he can find votes in an abandoned building in Bridgeport, CT, think of what he could find in abandoned buildings in the South Bronx, Chicago, Philadelphia and other corrupt cities.
If you look closely, it is the state legislature and who controls it. Nothing about the electoral college in 2016.
Thanks for the input, but, I DID see that. But, MI and PA do that; they elect local Republicans but always go ‘Rat in the Presidential Election. I lived in MI for 10 years. It’s a weird political climate.
Nothing about the electoral college in 2016.
____________________________________________________________
Actually it did. If you read the fine print below the map, it says that the GOP controls the State Legislatures in 31 States that have a total of 314 Electoral Votes; assuming that the GOP could possibly end up with those EVs in 2016.
Bush won in 2004 with 286 electoral votes, while carrying Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia, none of which are "sure things" in 2016. Bush lost Wisconsin narrowly in 2004 so that is another possibility, but given the number of states which go Democrat almost every election, the Republican nominee will have to win most of the toss-up states.
Hillary’s uninspiring ... but against any white man she’s going to get almost all the female and black vote in primaries and caucuses, and won’t have any problem getting enough white and Hispanic men voting to top it off. Warren is the only plausible challenger, and that’s only because she can sweep Iowa and New Hampshire, and hopefully get so many white women and men behind that she can overcome the big advantage Hillary will have with blacks and hispanics in South Carolina, Nevada and Florida.
POTUS winners normally go from obscurity to prominence in a relatively short time. Hillary will have been a national figure for 24 years by 2016, which bodes ill for her chances. After six years of Obama, Republicans have a deep bench of credible presidential timber. The Democrats don’t.But we cannot get casual about the 2016 ticket; the stakes are too high. John McCain as Republican standard-bearer was a joke, ditto Mitt Romney as an ObamaCare slayer. The country desperately needs us to nominate someone who can, and should credibly be expected to, win.
To me that requires a clear-eyed look at what makes a strong resume for a presidential candidate. Should he be a senator, a governor, or what?
- Famous generals make good candidates, at least in not-so-recent history - but realistically, we have no generals who are renowned on an Eisenhower scale, so that option is out.
- Although Secretary of State was a major credential for presidential timber in the founding era, none has been elected since the Civil War, and Hoover was the only one without elected office on his resume when elected POTUS. So I think we can dismiss cabinet officers out of hand. And a MD, black or white.
- We don’t have a sitting president, so that is out.
- That leaves senators and governors. Which to choose? Basically, senators elected by the people, rather than by state legislators under the 17th Amendment, only go back about 100 years.
- The first senator to win a presidential election was Warren G. Harding in the wave election of 1920. Since then we elected
- Governor Coolige,
- Sec Interior Hoover,
- Governor Roosevelt,
- sitting POTUS Truman, General Eisenhower,
- Senator Kennedy,
- sitting POTUS Johnson,
- VP Nixon,
- Governor Carter,
- Governor Reagan,
- sitting VP Bush,
- Governor Clinton,
- Governor Bush, and
- Senator Obama.
- A glance at the list above reveals that the number of senators is only half the number of governors elected to POTUS .
- Scrutiny of the list shows that Harding’s victory in 1920 is the only example in history of a senator defeating a governor.
- Kennedy defeated Nixon, a VP - but VP is not an executive position any more than senator is.
- Obama defeated McCain, another senator - one of them had to win.
- On the losing side of the equation, a governor lost to Hoover, two governors lost to FDR, one governor lost to Truman, a governor lost twice to Eisenhower, a sitting VP lost to Kennedy, a senator lost to Johnson, a sitting VP lost to Nixon, a senator lost to Nixon, a VP lost to Reagan, a governor lost to Bush41, a senator lost to Clinton, a sitting VP and a senator lost to Bush43, a senator lost to Obama, and a governor lost to Obama.
- In summary, three senators have won the presidency, and five have lost it. Six governors have won the presidency, seven have lost it. Two VPs, one sitting and one not, have won the presidency, three sitting VPs have lost it. None of the VPs had been former governors; all but Bush41 were former senators.
By starting in 1920 I biased the results in favor of senators, including that wave election of a senator in the sample but excluding the preceding example of Governor Wilson defeating Taft in 1912.
My conclusions are that
The Republican Party should act in accordance with the seriousness of the situation. Obama is strangling the country, and has tow more years to do it. He is setting precedents which we dare not risk allowing another Democrat to extend. We should be desperate enough to nominate a famous - and good - governor as our standard bearer. That is probably Scot Walker. IMHO
- VP is a good way to get the nomination for, but - unless you serve under an outstanding president - not election to, the presidency.
- A nominated senator doesn’t beat a sitting president, and is only about 50% likely to beat another senator or VP.
- A nominated governor has almost a 50-50 chance of winning election even if the opponent is a sitting president. Yet the major parties don’t tend to nominate a governor unless they are facing a sitting president. It seems the only counterexample since 1920 was - 1920, when the Democrats were in bad odor following WWI, nominated the governor of Ohio, but got drubbed anyway.
I know the guy is more a RINO than not, yet Haley Barbour of MS, did get MS back up and running so darn more quickly than LA’s Blanco and Jindal combined, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and did WITHOUT any large monies from the feds.
The GOP-e is going to attempt to foist their choice by divine right upon us, and we need to drown them out.
I agree that a governor, not so much a newly elected one, but a governor of reknown, and with a voice that has barked back at the queer-in-charge, might be considered.
I would argue, rather, that he is famous exactly where we need him to be. States like Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio, which should be reachable, and he proves are reachable. Republicans don’t win without Ohio, but since Republicans do win sometimes, Ohio is reachable. You’d think Walker could turn the trick.
Would you objectively consider Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico? I know how people feel about "Identity Politics", but is IP bad if the candidate is qualified? She is female, which would offset the Dems poor attempts at dragging up the "War on Women" again and she would counter the female Dem nominee, which will probably be Hillary or Lie-a-watha Warren. Martinez is also Conservative and an Hispanic surname doesn't hurt. The FIRST Female AND Hispanic President in the History of the U.S.A. Hey, it might work.
If it comes to that, I adopted the tagline “DRAFT PALIN” in plenty of time, had I been agreed with, to have had things wired by summer of 2012. Nothing came of it. I think now that her time is past - and she had far more renown than Martinez. Palin got “Borked.” If you think there is anyone who can’t be “borked,” I would disagree. So you just have to pick the person you believe in, and trust them to fight through it. Like Romney and his long-ago dog story. Like Bush and his DWI.
I know the guy is more a RINO than not, yet Haley Barbour of MS, did get MS back up and running so darn more quickly than LA’s Blanco and Jindal combined, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and did WITHOUT any large monies from the feds.There was a time when I thought highly of Barbour, and his Katrina performance is undoubted. But then I found out about his RINO tendencies; it was a complete turnoff.31 posted on November 15, 2014 at 9:51:22 AM EST by Terry L Smith
NO SALE! I don’t even remember what it was, it was so egregious that I repressed it. No go.
The GOP-e is going to attempt to foist their choice by divine right upon us, and we need to drown them out.To me it is a question of keeping the nomination from Romney or Bush. Bush is presumably the more credible threat.
Calvin Coolidge was the sitting POTUS when he was elected in 1924. He was Governor of Massachusetts before becoming VP under Harding.
After what Haley Barbour did to Chris McDaniel and how he disenfranchised thousands of Conservative voters using paid Black liberals, I hope that he and Thad Cochran both rot in hell.
After this last election, I would submit to you that Gov. John Kasich of Ohio would be a formidable contender also.
Hillary didn’t get the nomination because the polls all showed that she would not win. The polls did show that Obama would beat all potential contenders.
The puppetmasters behind the scenes picked the candidate that could win.
GOPe first of all wants a candidate that is not conservative, even if that person is a loser, so I am not counting on getting a Republican President.
I am beginning to think that divided government is not so bad, if it results in gridlock, at least they don’t make the situation worse.
Hillary didn’t get the nomination because the polls all showed that she would not win. The polls did show that Obama would beat all potential contenders.
The puppetmasters behind the scenes picked the candidate that could win.
GOPe first of all wants a candidate that is not conservative, even if that person is a loser, so I am not counting on getting a Republican President.
I am beginning to think that divided government is not so bad, if it results in gridlock, at least they don’t make the situation worse.
I agree about naming Palin. Geaux Sarah!!
Right you are, I just learned of my mistake. That changes the statistics I had worked up noticeably.
Perhaps. And yet although he had an easy reelection, I sense that Walker is more substantial. A more rapidly rising star, in a field that rewards a fresh face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.