History is not on their side:
…any intelligent discussion of 2016 must begin with the fact that history is very strongly against the Democrats in 2016. In the modern two-party era (beginning with the first Republican Party presidential campaign in 1856), there have been 16 elections following the re-election of an incumbent president; in 11 of those races, there was no incumbent on the ballot. An analysis of those elections shows a startlingly uniform pattern over time: the incumbent party (i.e., the party that won the last election) consistently lost ground relative to the challenger party (the party out of power), especially when running without an incumbent on the ballot. And in nearly every such election, that loss of popular support was evident in closely-divided battleground states, rather than confined to uncompetitive states. The trend has persisted in winning and losing elections, in elections with and without third-party challengers, in times of war and peace, booms and depressions. It has become more, rather than less, pronounced in the years since World War II, and at all times has been more pronounced when the incumbent party is the Democrats.
Given the narrow margin for error enjoyed by President Obama in 2012, a swing of a little less than 3 points in the two-party vote would hand the White House to the Republicans—and swings of that size are far more the rule than the exception. In fact, looking at the two-party vote, no non-incumbent since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 has lost less than 3 points off the prior re-elected incumbent’s showing. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, it will be a historically unprecedented event in more ways than just her gender.
Let’s hope.
The entire country has been set up like Chicago with the DOJ’s voting rules combined with the 25 year illegal immigration bomb and the Soros organization funding as many Dem state election officials as possible (the guys who seem to find that last bag of votes that “got lost”). With a left wing SCOTUS pick upcoming I wouldn’t bet on GOP Senate control.
Ya, the IRS is still going after non-Democrat groups and Democrats are waging a country wide press with their militant activist groups, billionaires, and lawfare.
Is Biden considered an incumbent? ‘Cause that guy is already on the campaign trail with his, “follow them to the gates of Hell!” statements.
He also called for people to “take back America!” From whom?
As Fox News reported:
The problem is that no GOP candidate is Ronald Reagan. The fix is in and all bets are off.
Tell me how Obama got re-elected?
He was the incumbent, and the economy was moving in the right direction. Those factors matter more than the party or candidate.
Actually he won because of a good ground game, a terrible campaign by Romney (who, I’m not certain, knows who he really is), and the unbelievable help by Candy Crowley and the rest of the MSM
Just because you think the right direction is “circling the drain”…
The unemployment rate in November, 2012 was 7.8%. A year earlier it’d been 8.6%. A year before that it’d been 9.8%. If those numbers had been in the opposite order, Obama wouldn’t have been re-elected.
Those aren’t the real unemployment numbers. They don’t take into account how many have given up looking for work. They also don’t account for the drop in household income over that period.
All three numbers were calculated the same way. Feel free to substitute one of the other unemployment measures (U4, U5, U6, …). It’s the trend that matters, and they were all moving the same direction.
People think this economy sucks, because it does, despite your pathetic attempts at sophistry.
There are more Americans not working today than at any time in history. But you probably think that’s a good thing.
People in 2012 thought the economy was better than it had been in 2011, because it was. I don’t know why that’s such a hard thing to accept. Does your religion require you to believe that the economy gets worse every year that a Democrat is in the White House?
There are more Americans not working today than at any time in history.
There are also more Americans working today than at any time in history, and more Americans over 65 than at any time in history. None of this is relevant to my contention that Obama was re-elected in part because the economy in 2012 was better than it had been in 2011.
I agree with Jim, when the Republicans took back the House, the economy improved. It was further improved by the oil and gas boom that occurred on private lands, despite public lands being blocked by the Obama Administration sometimes in violation of the law. Of course, had Democrats retained control, we would probably have a carbon tax by now.
So people voted for gridlock and kept the House under Republican control and let Obama keep his tee times. This year, the people will move things along a bit by giving the Senate back to the GOP. Why? Because the GOP improved the economy by preventing passage of devastating bills like a carbon tax. The GOP even tried to delay the individual mandate, like Obama eventually did but the Democratic controlled Senate failed to act upon.
people voted for gridlock and kept the House under Republican control
Gridlock was the result, but there were actually more votes for Democratic House candidates than for Republican House candidates.
The GOP even tried to delay the individual mandate, like Obama eventually did but the Democratic controlled Senate failed to act upon.
Obama didn’t delay the individual mandate. He delayed the employer mandate, and he created an exception for some people whose non-compliant individual policies had been cancelled.
“but there were actually more votes for Democratic House candidates than for Republican House candidates.”
What is that supposed to mean? It doesn’t matter in the aggregate, it matters district to district. Are you trying to say that we shouldn’t have local elections anymore and that state representation should be decided by voters in other states?
“Obama didn’t delay the individual mandate. He delayed the employer mandate,”
He did both. Let me cite you some evidence,
“he created an exception for some people whose non-compliant individual policies had been cancelled.”
Dictating that any cancelled plan had to be continued is a delay of the individual mandate. BTW, my state refused to honor that dictate and cancelled plans were still considered illegal to sell despite there being nothing wrong with the plans other than they didn’t offer maternity care for males.
“None of this is relevant to my contention that Obama was re-elected in part because the economy in 2012 was better than it had been in 2011.”
Yes it is. You made it relevant. Because, in your response to McGehee as justification that the economy was getting better, *YOU* said:
“The unemployment rate in November, 2012 was 7.8%. A year earlier it’d been 8.6%. A year before that it’d been 9.8%. If those numbers had been in the opposite order, Obama wouldn’t have been re-elected.”
Just like you to try a defense and then when it’s demolished, say you never tried that defense.
“……and the economy was moving in the right direction.”
The people are experiencing a very different economy than your fantasy.
“……..and the economy was moving in the right direction. ”
Yeah right:
Record 92,269,000 Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Matches 36-Year Low
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/record-92269000-not-labor-force-participation-rate-matches-36-year-low
Be sure to look at the chart on this web page and note the trend since 2009.
And we all know who was president 36 years ago.
What an odd comment. Labor participation was in the middle of a steep upswing 36 years ago, a climb that started back in the early 1960s, and continued into the 90s. I don’t think the cause is any mystery: it was women entering the workforce. Labor participation has been falling since then, through Republican and Democratic administrations. One underlying factor is the aging population, but there are doubtless others.
Oas Zero Hedge notes:
Of the 142K jobs created, just under half came from the lowest paying jobs possible: education and health; leisure and hospitality; and temp-help. The best paying jobs, finance and information, added a whopping 4K jobs between them. Finally, about that much delayed US manufacturing renaissance: stick a fork in it – in August the number of manufacturing jobs created was exactly 0.
And, for black Americans it’s been especially wonderful:
From CNSNEWS:
“While unemployment nationwide is 6.1%, [a bogus number – way too low – Gregg] the unemployment rate for black Americans at 11.4% is more than double the rate for white Americans, who have an unemployment rate of 5.3%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Fewer Americans are now employed than when George W. Bush was in office. which puts paid to Jims bogus notions.
And in case you thought there was no illegal immigrant angle to this:
(CNSNews.com) – The number of foreign-born individuals holding jobs in the United States hit a recorded high of 24,639,000 in August, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS has been tracking the number of foreign-born workers annually since 2005 and monthly since 2007.
Surely many millions of those 24 million are illegals. Or if not, then there’s 11-20 million illegals on welfare, further depressing the economy. Which is even worse.
Obama didn’t run on the economy. He ran on gender, class, and race based attacks. Claims that Republicans were going to ban tampons and enslave black people worked well to motivate the Democrat base to vote because the Democrat base lives in ideologically homogeneous enclaves where people are especially susceptible to believing in stereotypes pushed by Democrats because they rarely encounter the “other” in the real world.
Then there was the shallow mocking in the style of the Daily Show, “The 80’s called and want their foreign policy back.” Jokes are a great way to dodge an issue while demeaning a person and people will often side with the cool kid bully because they want to be part of the in crowd.
Also,the persecution of political dissidents to prevent them from organizing like Democrat groups do. Keep in mind, it wasn’t just groups that were targeted but information gained through illegal targeting was used, just like the Obama campaign used big data to target potential voters, to map out the social networks and affiliations to persecute individuals who were not Democrats. The Obama administration went after non-Democrat groups but took it further and targeted donors and individuals who associated with those groups to several degrees removed.
While they persecuted non-Democrat groups, the Obama administration used government resources to help their own activist groups offering special training sessions conducted by government agencies and distributing money to activist groups through a variety of means including colluding with Democrat groups in lawfare settlements and court judgments.
At one point Obama and the Democrats even tried to get a communist coup off the ground through OWS. Non-Democrat groups got persecuted while militant Democrat activists were allowed to take over public and private land and terrorize businesses and civilians. Democrats at the federal, state, and local level did everything they could to see OWS was successful in their efforts to start the grand workers revolution until the groups imploded under their own corruption, mismanagement, and hypocritical ideology.
Agreed that a discussion of 2016 should start with the dynamic mentioned, but it must also include the Republican’s unparalleled ability to snatch defeat from the looming jaws of victory.
There’s also the matter of Republican primary shenanigans. I’ve written before about the weird vote tabulation shifts that always favor Romney, often at the expense of exactly one leading opponent by state.
The next election is the Republicans’ to lose. But they still might lose. Because the current Republican party insists on mooring itself to outdated and regressive social conservative policies that are just slightly less popular than the myriad ways the current administration is mishandling damned near everything.
Until the Republicans get their heads out of their asses, or a new party comes on the scene, it’s still going to be a close race.
fair or unfair, precise or not precise, you can not include everyone that is not working as unemployed. There are literally millions of stay at home mothers that are there by choice and no job offer will ever induce them to give up raising a child to enter the official employment ranks.
There are people who are actively NOT looking for work for whatever personal reasons. That has to be accounted for in someway to reflect the actual numbers of people who are ACTIVELY seeking employment. People that do want a job but have given up looking for one is a component that does get tracked.
It’s curious that people here insist that voters felt the economy was getting worse in 2012. If that’s true, why did they vote for the incumbent?
Promises made but not kept. Do you think Al Qaeda is still on the run? Is Gitmo closed down? I know Healthcare.gov is finally up and available to hackers, but was it really delivered to the standard sold to the American people? If so, why did Obama shutdown the government to block the GOP delay of the individual mandate only to then delay the individual mandate by Executive Order? I guess you can say he finally brought someone responsible for Benghazi to justice, if you ignore that the US embassy in Libya is now the hottest jihadist pool party in town.
Do you think Al Qaeda is still on the run?
It sure looks like it, they’re reduced to issuing press releases to try to recapture a little of the attention that’s going to ISIS.
Is Gitmo closed down?
Obama was not reelected in 2012 because of his unfulfilled 2008 promise to close Gitmo.
I know Healthcare.gov is finally up and available to hackers, but was it really delivered to the standard sold to the American people?
Obama wasn’t reelected in 2012 because voters loved the idea of Obamacare.
why did Obama shutdown the government to block the GOP delay of the individual mandate
Because paying ransom to keep the government open sets a bad precedent.
only to then delay the individual mandate by Executive Order?
The individual mandate was not delayed, it is in effect for 2014. We will be hearing complaints in April from all the people paying the penalty on their 2014 taxes.
I guess you can say he finally brought someone responsible for Benghazi to justice
Obama was not reelected because voters loved his handling of Benghazi.
“It sure looks like it, they’re reduced to issuing press releases to try to recapture a little of the attention that’s going to ISIS.”
Are you f’n serious? ISIS is AQ. AQ has a diffuse and decentralized command and control. They have many affiliates and these affiliates operate largely on their own but follow the same ideology. The differences between Ayman al-Zawahiri’s branch of AQ and the ISIS branch is like your local McDonald’s serving the McRib while others don’t.
“Obama wasn’t reelected in 2012 because voters loved the idea of Obamacare.”
The next Obamacare thread you will claim he was just as you have in the past.
“Because paying ransom to keep the government open sets a bad precedent.”
So, under your analogy, Obama paid the ransom after the hostages were released but instead of going to congress to get the money, ordered the fed to print it.
“The individual mandate was not delayed, it is in effect for 2014.’
Parts of it were delayed. The requirement that people have insurance wasn’t but all of the restrictions placed on what kind of insurance they had to buy was delayed.
“Obama was not reelected because voters loved his handling of Benghazi.’
In the past you have said the opposite, that people re-elected Obama because they did like the job he did on Benghazi.
ISIS is AQ
LOL. And we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.
Parts of it were delayed. The requirement that people have insurance wasn’t
The requirement that individuals have insurance is the individual mandate.
but all of the restrictions placed on what kind of insurance they had to buy was delayed.
Only for the tiny fraction of Americans who were on non-compliant individual policies, and wanted to keep them, and had insurers willing to keep selling them. That isn’t remotely same thing as what the House GOP attempted, which was to postpone the mandate for everyone, as a first step towards repealing Obamacare altogether.
In the past you have said the opposite, that people re-elected Obama because they did like the job he did on Benghazi.
I don’t think so. Feel free to post a link.
“ISIS is AQ
LOL. And we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.”
Do you know anything about ISIS or AQ? You come across as not knowing much, if anything. You, like Obama, probably think ISIS is an Iraqi faction looking for better political representation and job opportunities. How is it that after 20 or more years of war with AQ, that you know nothing about their ideology, organizational structure, affiliates, funding mechanisms, and their partner groups? How many countries are we fighting in right now, do you know?
“The requirement that individuals have insurance is the individual mandate.”
That is part of it. Another part is what types of insurance qualify. You know this stop being stupid about it. How can we talk about Obamacare when you are always dishonest about it?
“Only for the tiny fraction of Americans who were on non-compliant individual policies”
The dictated delay in the individual mandate covered millions and millions of people. I forget the exact number but it was close to ten million.
“and had insurers willing to keep selling them. ”
Ahh who would listen to Obama’s words dictating a delay when the law says something different? And it wasn’t up to the insurance companies but the state insurance commissioners. In Washington state, the insurance commissioner refused to go along with Obama’s dictate. I couldn’t get my plan back, no matter what Obama said.
“That isn’t remotely same thing as what the House GOP attempted”
You are right, the House GOP wanted to use legal mechanisms to accomplish what Obama did by dictate.
“I don’t think so. Feel free to post a link.”
Why don’t you go re-read your Benghazi posts? Pretty sure you made many comments about how Benghazi wasn’t a scandal and as evidence you would say something like, “Obama won! People obviously don’t think he did anything wrong in Benghazi.”
Do you know anything about ISIS or AQ?
Since you think they are the same thing, I appear to know at least one thing that you don’t.
I forget the exact number but it was close to ten million.
Even if that were true — and it’s a huge overestimate — we’re a nation of 310 million. Obama’s extension applies to a tiny fraction of citizens — apparently it doesn’t even apply to you, despite the fact that you (unlike the vast majority of Americans) had a noncompliant individual policy. And the people it applied to still have to buy insurance. The House GOP would have delayed the mandate for everyone, including you, and no one would have been required to have any kind of insurance. Even aside from the opposing motivations (the GOP was looking to mortally wound Obamacare, Obama was trying to save it), the two policies aren’t remotely alike.
Pretty sure you made many comments about how Benghazi wasn’t a scandal and as evidence you would say something like, “Obama won! People obviously don’t think he did anything wrong in Benghazi.”
Do you even listen to yourself? You accuse me of saying “that people re-elected Obama because they did like the job he did on Benghazi.” I call you on this fabrication, and you reply that you’re “pretty sure” that I wrote “something like” “Obama won! People obviously don’t think he did anything wrong in Benghazi.” Which isn’t the same thing at all!
Obama wasn’t reelected because of Benghazi. He was ahead in the polls before Benghazi, and he was ahead after Benghazi. He would have been reelected if Benghazi had never happened. This is all so obvious that it’s ridiculous that you choose to argue about it, by making up things I never wrote, and then admitting that you made them up.
Since you think they are the same thing, I appear to know at least one thing that you don’t.
There is little discernible difference in their goals. They are the same functional enemy. The distinction you’re attempting to make is trivial.
Because of all the lies about Romney and the “war on women.”
Obama must be a political genius if he can win in a deteriorating economy with such simple tricks. What a shame that the GOP never thought of lying about Obama or accusing him of waging a war on job creators.
A question for Rand: could you put the years from 2009 to 2013 in order, from best economy to worst economy? I’d love to see what color the sky is on your planet.
Obama must be a political genius if he can win in a deteriorating economy with such simple tricks.
He had a lot of help from the media.
The trend of the economy from 2009 to present is irrelevant. It sucks compared to what it was prior to the Democrats taking over Congress in 2006.
So your position is that Obama won, with help from the media, by lying and playing up the “war on women”, but that the Dems will lose in 2016. Do you think the media won’t favor the Democrat in 2016? That Hillary Clinton won’t lie about her opponent, or play up the war on women? Your analysis is incoherent.
I can’t predict who will win in 2016, because it’s mostly a question of how the economy is doing, and we don’t know that today. If the economy is like today’s — weak, but slowly growing — the GOP will need a foreign policy disaster or a black swan event to have better-than-even odds of overcoming their electoral college and demographic disadvantages.
The trend of the economy from 2009 to present is irrelevant.
The trend of the economy from 2011 to 2012 was very relevant to the 2012 election results, and the trend from 2015 to 2016 will be very relevant to the 2016 election results.
“the GOP will need a foreign policy disaster or a black swan event to have better-than-even odds of overcoming their electoral college and demographic disadvantages.”
Did you even read the link?
I guess we know why Democrats want amnesty but only for those from certain countries. It isn’t about human dignity but about importing voters.
“Obama must be a political genius if he can win in a deteriorating economy with such simple tricks. ‘
Obama is a great politician, he just sucks at the job he won. Turns out Chicago thug political theory isn’t any better at running a nation than it is running Chicago.
Obama did not campaign on the economy. The only time it was mentioned was to minimize or counter any efforts of Romney to campaign on it. The main thrust of the Obama campaign, and this was great politics, was to turn the contest into one of culture. Romney totally failed in countering the cultural attacks on race, class, and gender that were the main focus of the Obama campaign.
The two campaigns were focused on totally different issues and the voters were motivated by totally different issues. You saw the polls, you know this. The things Republican voters thought were important, debt, economy, national security, were not the things that were important to Democrat voters.
Republicans never made Obama’s race an issue and why would they? They are not racist against black people. His race doesn’t matter to Republicans, his policies do. But Obama flipped the script and made Romney’s race, and Republicans in general, an issue. They made racist attacks against Republicans while also saying Republicans were racist. Romney avoided race altogether but that meant he never responded to these attacks.
Obama is a great politician when it comes to campaign strategy but in order to get re-elected he took the low road and used to the worst, most derogatory, themes used throughout human history to appeal to the hatred and tribal affiliations of the Democrat base and people who typically do not vote. It was very shrewd and utilized the pinnacle of human technology to collect, analyze, and tailor data to target populations with either messages of how Obama will reward his friends and/or how people should hate Obama’s enemies.
It worked and he won but it really isn’t something to be proud of.
Republicans never made Obama’s race an issue
Never? Type “Republican racist Obama email” into Google, read the first twenty hits or so, and then try to tell me again with a straight face that Republicans have never made an issue of Obama’s race.
There were a couple examples of some disgusting insults/jokes via email. What those were not, is Republicans campaigning on Obama’s race, it certainly had nothing to do with McCain or Romney’s campaigns. These things were all widely condemned by Republicans, which shows the difference between republicans and Democrats. Democrats do not castigate their own for using racial jokes or insults, rather they formulate national campaigns around language and images like this.
Earlier this week, DWS said Walker has been beating women and dragging them around by their hair. Earlier this year, Obama said that he can tell who is an immigrant by how they look. Harry Reid was making jokes about Asian people. Hillary Clinton mocks Indians by saying that Gandhi works at 7/11. Where is the Democrat’s outrage for these acts? Notice they don’t come from low level state political staffers, they are main stream Democrat politicians who are the most powerful people in the party.
Some of the things on google’s page one are not even racist. Surely if you race was such an issue for McCain or Romney, you would see the entire front page with actual racism but no, what you see are a few incidents spread out over six years from people who were not running a national campaigns and had no party power.
Asked and asnwered above:
A good Democrat ground game; lies swallowed by ignorant voters (or willfully obtuse ones such as yourself); Lousy campaign run by Romney; unparalleled Candy Crowley/MSM help.
Obama didn’t delay the individual mandate.
What an odd comment. Then why is nobody going to be fined for not having any insurance? Not that Obama has the right to do any of this on his own, anyway.
Then why is nobody going to be fined for not having any insurance?
What makes you think nobody is going to pay a penalty?
It was supposed to be in effect, and it isn’t. I don’t see all those millennials signing up.
It was supposed to be in effect, and it isn’t.
You are misinformed.
Just because Obama has it written down somewhere makes it true? If our President actually followed the laws that were written, I might be “misinformed”.
Yeah, no one believes the tax information on the IRS website. It’s better to make up your own rules when you file your tax returns.
Just wait, in April the right wing media will be full of complaints about that mean Obama forcing people to pay the individual mandate penalty.
Jim likes to forget that 8 million signers were people who had insurance, loved it, and did not want to lose it but were forced from it.
Ruins the narrative you know.
“Just wait, in April the right wing media will be full of complaints about that mean Obama forcing people to pay the individual mandate penalty.”
IMO, most of the complaining will be from people who were poor enough to receive subsidies but through bureaucratic snafu or change in life circumstances will discover they owe thousands in over payments. There will probably be a lot from bureaucratic snafu but the Obama administration said they will not be enforcing eligibility requirements so who knows.
Never? Type “Republican racist Obama email” into Google, read the first twenty hits or so, and then try to tell me again with a straight face that Republicans have never made an issue of Obama’s race.
I will tell you that republicans never made Obama’s race an issue. You take a few bad eggs and make it look like it is true for all republicans. This is a cyncial tactic and a favorite of Chicago-styled thug politics. Obama is famous for it. “Republicans want dirty water!”
May I do the same for you? Democrats are racist because Obama went to Jeremiah Wright’s church. He is a known racist. MSLSD’s coverage of Ferguson was race-baiting at its worst.
Please don’t insult us with these pre-fabricated lies that you pull off of some forum. It’s lame.
I will tell you that republicans never made Obama’s race an issue./i>
You don’t seem to know what “never” means.
You take a few bad eggs…
You and Wodun assert that no Republican has ever made Obama’s race an issue. It only takes a single counter-example to disprove that nonsense.
“You and Wodun assert that no Republican has ever made Obama’s race an issue. ”
I said Republicans didn’t make Obama’s race an issue, as a party, and they didn’t. Democrats didn’t make Romney’s religion an issue either but we can find millions of posts of Democrats mocking his faith and Mormon’s in general.
It is interesting how you find some Republican street-sweeper’s assistant no one has ever heard of and say all Republicans are like that and try and say that is the same as the President of the United States of America and all of the top Democrat politicians and thought leaders running a race based campaign.
I said Republicans didn’t make Obama’s race an issue, as a party
No, you wrote “Republicans never made Obama’s race an issue”. You did not qualify it with “as a party”.
you find some Republican street-sweeper’s assistant no one has ever heard of and say all Republicans are like that
And I never wrote anything like that. You seem to be arguing with your own imagination.
You are being silly. I googled the words you told me to and they all point to ONE PERSON. I told you that there are a few bad eggs. Your counter-example implies that seething within the republican party is a racist core. That is wrong. And the republicans, as a party, are not racist.
I also pointed out the racism in the democrat party. You ignored that.
I told you that there are a few bad eggs.
And you also said that Republicans never made Obama’s race an issue. Don’t you see the contradiction? If you say that Republicans never do X, and I show you one example of a Republican doing X, your statement has been refuted.
Your counter-example implies that seething within the republican party is a racist core.
It implies no such thing. What it does prove is that your statement — that Republicans never made Obama’s race an issue — is simply false.
I also pointed out the racism in the democrat party.
There is no such party. But if you mean the Democratic party, then yes, there is racism in the Democratic party. I would never claim that Democrats never make an issue of someone’s race.
The requirement that individuals have insurance is the individual mandate.
He never said that.