Posted on 12/12/2014 5:11:14 AM PST by Kaslin
The defeat of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu by Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy in last weekend's Louisiana runoff ends an election year that has been very successful for Republicans -- and has implications for 2016. Some observations:
(1) Democrats relied heavily on legacy candidates -- and lost nevertheless. Mary Landrieu's father, Moon Landrieu, was elected to the Louisiana legislature in 1960 and as mayor of New Orleans in 1970 and 1974. Her father's anti-segregationist legacy helped Mary Landrieu appeal to black voters and win narrow victories in 1996, 2002 and 2008. It wasn't enough in 2014.
Other defeated Democratic candidates this year -- Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Michele Nunn and Jason Carter in Georgia, Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Udall in Colorado -- had forebears first elected to Congress or as governor between 1961 and 1972. But that wasn't enough to overcome opposition to the Obama Democratic party's liberal policies. Exception to the rule: Gwen Graham, daughter of a former governor and senator first elected statewide in 1978, beat a Republican House member 50.4 to 49.6 percent in a Florida district, which President Obama narrowly lost (52-47) in 2012.
The obvious implication for 2016 is that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, is something of a legacy candidate, too. Her own record as senator and secretary of state is perhaps less of an asset than the record of her husband, who first ran for office in 1974 and won his last election in 1996. That's starting to seem like a long time ago.
(2) Voters today increasingly vote straight party tickets. Begich ran 5 points ahead of Obama's 2012 percentage in his state, Landrieu 3.5 points ahead in hers. In the 1970s and 1980s, personal appeal, local issues and pork-barrel projects enabled similar candidates to run far ahead of their party's national leaders. Not so any more.
In 2012 only 26 of 435 congressional districts voted for a House member of one party and the presidential nominee of the other, the lowest number since 1920. In 2014, the number of "split districts" rose, but only to 31, mostly because Republicans picked up seats where Obama approval fell below 50 percent.
This makes for more rational politics: Voters can choose between reasonably coherent sets of public policies. The corollary: It produces Congresses -- and state governments -- that will push against the policies of an unpopular president, as in 2006, 2010 and 2014.
The implication for 2016 is that Democrats will be at a serious disadvantage if Obama's job approval stays at current levels or falls. Republicans will be if it rises up to 50 percent or above.
(3) Old political species -- Blue Dog Democrats, Rockefeller Republicans -- are pretty much extinct. Their constituencies have migrated into the other party. Affluent Californians are left-wing Democrats; the Jacksonian belt from Western Pennsylvania along the Appalachian chain and toward east Texas is increasingly conservative Republican.
Political scientist V.O. Key, author of the 1949 classic "Southern Politics," hoped that economic common interest would produce a liberal block of blacks and poor whites in the South. Instead, voters are divided by their views on cultural, moral and even religious views, inside and outside the South.
(4) Today's political map looks static, but may be a little more fluid than many think. The South is not quite solidly Republican. Obama carried Florida, Virginia and North Carolina, states which now have 57 electoral votes, in 2008 and the first two in 2012, and statewide Democrats were still competitive there in 2014. This, even though George W. Bush won between 52 and 56 percent in those states in 2004.
Similarly, Republicans may be competitive in 2016 in seven states with 71 electoral votes -- Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin -- where Obama got between 51 and 54 percent in 2012. This year Republicans won statewide races and/or the House popular vote in each.
(5) Republican strength is at historic highs. The party holds more House and state legislative seats than it has since the 1920s and only one less Senate seat than its post-1920s high. The 2008 Obama coalition which, some argued would dominate politics for decades, has been fraying: Blacks and gentry liberals remain faithful, but Hispanics and millennials are falling away, while Jacksonians grow increasingly opposed.
The 2014 results don't guarantee Republicans victory in 2016. But they show it's certainly possible.
Uh...no. Wrong.
Republicans were given a chance by an electorate that is fed up with amnesty appeasers, big spenders, ObamaCare, and a plethora of other ills.
So far in this lame duck Congress I personally do not see where Boehner and McConnell really understand the opportunity they were given to redeem themselves with conservatives in this country. They dropped their swords even before the hint of battle, IMO.
It doesn't look like to me that I, for one, will be in so forgiving a mood come 2016.
2014 means nothing. It is a hiccup. It will be rapidly reversed, 2016 will be dominated on every level (local to national) by Democrats from now on, due to the fact that there is a fast-track to the voting booth for illegals.
Oh, they understood it.
They made a willful and treasonous choice.
They had the choice to side with America, or the Chamber of Communism. They invested the fate of America to the Democrats, in perpetuity, because illegals are to be granted the vote in 2016 and beyond.
They knew damned well what they were doing. They don't care. They will be handsomely rewarded with their 30 pieces of silver.
Rep Cassidy, who defeated Miss Piggy voted for the CRomnibus bill last night, ergo he is a “Rockefeller Re-pubic-an”.
2014 means nothing. It is a hiccup. It will be rapidly reversed, 2016 will be dominated on every level (local to national) by Democrats from now on, due to the fact that there is a fast-track to the voting booth for illegals.
Yep, Boehner and the boys will get right on it!
Enjoy the last few years of America. The system cannot last.
Well, you’re probably right. I just still wanted to believe there was still some decency there. But I cannot argue with what you say.
No sense in believing things based on false premises.
In the dark of the night, two weeks before Christmas, the GOP consummated their betrayal of our trust. We voted them a majority for the next two years, and they thanked us by a backstabbing so heinous, that it moved the seismic needle on the Democratic party
Agreed. To which I'd add that the Free Stuff Army is getting larger by the day. Once the lib's figure out how to maximize that vote (internet "voting",etc.), it's pretty much all over.
This can be reversed. But the GOP leadership has no desire for such a fight. So yep, I'm also thinking 2014 was just a hiccup.
Not one tip o’ the hat to the tea party (small “t”). Maybe it’s best that way - keep it unmentioned and under the radar screen. The tea party movement is largely responsible for the huge shift to the GOP at the local and state levels. It just hasn’t percolated fully up to the national levels (2010 and 2014 were great starts), but it will in time.
There is no GOP leadership. There are only liberal Democrats that coopted the positions.
Changing tagline.
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
We did everything possible to put red in control in this election and boehner and company showed us yesterday was how he plans to reward us . The pub oe party is dead and so is our dear Republic.
STUPID!!!!!!!
Try the couple of weeks AFTER THE DAMN ELECTION, where the RINO GOPe is back to busily kicking its conservative supporters in the nuts.
What we have here is a great start at the total demoralization of the hated conservatives. The result? ANOTHER FOUR MILLION or so will sit ‘16 out just as they did when RINORomney “ran” (really?) for the office.
Please explain how the GOP wins ‘16 when that happens.
Hello, Hillary.
“Hello, Hillary!”
What an obnoxious thought.
IMHO
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.