Author Topic: Scenario For A Republican Nightmare In The 2016 Elections Michael Barone  (Read 409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 255,415
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2014/05/27/scenario-for-a-republican-nightmare-in-the-2016-elections-n1843859/print


Scenario For A Republican Nightmare In The 2016 Elections
Michael Barone
5/27/2014 11:00:00 AM - Michael Barone

The 2016 presidential election is shaping up as another close race, like the last four. From 2000 to 2012, both major parties' nominees received between 45 and 53 percent of the vote.

Historically, that's a narrow range, not seen since 1880-1892. It suggests something close to parity between two highly competitive parties.

Polls for the 2016 race, however, suggest strikingly different results. One would be a nightmare for Republicans. The other would be a nightmare for Democrats.

This column looks at the Republicans' nightmare (a later column will examine the Democrats' nightmare). In this scenario, the Democratic nominee is, as widely expected, Hillary Clinton.

The assumption is that she encounters no significant turbulence in winning the nomination -- a plausible extrapolation from current polling, which shows her miles ahead of any other Democrat.

Straight-line extrapolations from current general election polling also look very good for her.

Against various possible Republican opponents -- in alphabetical order, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan -- Clinton is averaging between 50 and 52 percent in the RealClearPolitics averages of recent polls, while the Republicans are averaging between 38 and 42 percent.

Due allowance should be made for the fact that none of these Republicans is well known nationally. It's reasonable to expect that a Republican nominee will run better if he puts on a competent campaign.

But Clinton is doing something in these polls that Democratic House candidates and, to a lesser extent, Democratic Senate candidates are having a hard time doing: running ahead of President Obama's job approval rating.

That rating currently stands at 44 percent, well below Clinton's 51 percent average in national polls.

Clinton runs ahead of Obama though she too must be considered a supporter of the unpopular Obamacare. His current negative ratings on foreign policy don't seem to hurt her, perhaps because he was getting positive ratings on that during his first term, when she was secretary of State.

It seems that Clinton's standing reflects less current judgments on Obama and more on rosy retrospective ratings of the presidency of Bill Clinton. Voters may not be eager for a third Obama term, but might like a third Clinton term.

When you look at the relatively small number of statewide 2016 polls, you find that Clinton runs ahead of Republicans by double digits in the three electoral-vote-rich states of Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18) and Pennsylvania (20), each of which voted only narrowly for Obama in 2012.

One reason for this might be that she is running stronger among older voters, since these states have relatively large elderly populations. These numbers suggest Clinton might carry these states by wider margins.

That would be a nightmare for Republicans if voters continue, as they have increasingly in recent elections, to vote straight tickets. That's because Republicans currently hold 17 House seats in Florida, 12 in Ohio and 13 in Pennsylvania.

Many of those Republicans might be in jeopardy if Clinton should turn out to lead down-ballot Democrats to victory. Democrats currently need to net only 17 seats for a House majority.

In addition, it seems likely that Clinton would run stronger than Obama in the Jacksonian belt stretching from West Virginia southwest to Bill Clinton's native Arkansas. That could also put in jeopardy some House seats that look pretty safe right now.

Then there are the Senate contests. The 2016 lineup, with many incumbents elected in the heavily Republican year of 2010, has many plausible targets for Democrats. Even if Republicans win a Senate majority this year, they could lose it in 2016.

You don't have to agree with Democratic analyst Brent Budowsky's suggestion that Hillary Clinton could win 45 states (Bill Clinton never won more than 32) to see the potential: a Democratic president, Democratic Senate and Democratic House.

Republicans' hopes of repealing and replacing Obamacare would be permanently dashed. The left wing of the Democratic Party could push farther than it has dared under Obama.

None of this is inevitable, of course. Hillary Clinton could get roughed up in the primaries and her record as secretary of state could be more a liability than an asset. The Republican nominee could easily run better than Republicans run now. Events could change attitudes.

I think this scenario is unlikely. But it's one plausible extrapolation from current polling.

Support the USO

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
One thing he does not mention here, and perhaps he will in the next column, is what happens to Democrats when all those black voters refuse to support some old cracker white lady??

Obama commanded the black vote but will those same voters support the Hildebeest??

Not a prayer.


Offline alicewonders

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,057
  • Live life-it's too short to butt heads w buttheads
One thing he does not mention here, and perhaps he will in the next column, is what happens to Democrats when all those black voters refuse to support some old cracker white lady??

Obama commanded the black vote but will those same voters support the Hildebeest??

Not a prayer.


But Chieftain, you forget that old white cracka lady is married to "the first black president". 

Don't tread on me.   8888madkitty

We told you Trump would win - bigly!

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
I think the author overstates Hillary's staying power as the election draws near.  Karl Rove, who is not particularly liked by many of us on this forum, planted a seed.  But after confirmation by Bill of her length of recovery, as time goes on, many voters may well start thinking about that whole "brain damage" thingy so callously referred to by Rove.  The left isn't sold on her and really wants Elizabeth as their nominee. 

I also believe that Obama is going to continue with his lackluster approach to every issue, and that will force Hillary to either ratify Obama's disastrous record...or challenge it, a record she's part of.

Republicans have a greater enemy than the Democrats, their own potential for an intra-party implosion.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,967
Republicans have a greater enemy than the Democrats, their own potential for an intra-party implosion.

Present!

Offline Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,577
  • How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Trump
One thing he does not mention here, and perhaps he will in the next column, is what happens to Democrats when all those black voters refuse to support some old cracker white lady??

Obama commanded the black vote but will those same voters support the Hildebeest??

Not a prayer.
Great point.
"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."  -  President Donald J Trump

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!.....
...They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security
       Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump 5:35 AM - Sep 14, 2017

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,657
Chieftan wrote above:
[[ Obama commanded the black vote but will those same voters support the Hildebeest?? ]]

Of course they will, and you know it.

I reckon that "the Obama phenomenon" amongst black voters -- in which blacks cast 94%+ of their vote for the democrats in two successive elections -- is going to have a long after-effect, for elections to come.

I doubt that any Republican anywhere is going to garner more than 10% of the black vote again, or at least for many, many election cycles. And that includes BLACK Republican candidates, as well.

Blacks will continue to vote for the candidate that has "d" next to the name.

Probably moreso than ever....

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,029
  • Dork
One thing he does not mention here, and perhaps he will in the next column, is what happens to Democrats when all those black voters refuse to support some old cracker white lady??

Obama commanded the black vote but will those same voters support the Hildebeest??

Not a prayer.




No, they won't support Hillary to the extent that they supported Obuttocks.  There was an interesting little op-ed in today's WSJ, apropos of Rockefeller's asinine statement that opposition to Obuttocks was due to racism, showing quite clearly that blacks voted for Obuttocks in significantly higher percentages than they voted for any other (white) democrat party candidate, including Bill "first black president" Clinton.  She'll still get substantially more than 50%, but will get significantly less than the support Obuttocks received.

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
If her "brain" damage is as whispered, she should be ineligible, as should Biden.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 13,011
  • There's no one out there quite like me.
    • Fullervision
Chieftan wrote above:
[[ Obama commanded the black vote but will those same voters support the Hildebeest?? ]]

Of course they will, and you know it.

I reckon that "the Obama phenomenon" amongst black voters -- in which blacks cast 94%+ of their vote for the democrats in two successive elections -- is going to have a long after-effect, for elections to come.

I doubt that any Republican anywhere is going to garner more than 10% of the black vote again, or at least for many, many election cycles. And that includes BLACK Republican candidates, as well.

Blacks will continue to vote for the candidate that has "d" next to the name.

Probably moreso than ever....
Perhaps, but also note that there is also another factor here: turnout. Yes, Obama got as high as 98% by some estimates his first time around of the black vote... including once-reliable Republicans such as Colin Powell and possibly even Condi Rice (she gushed over Obama's nomination of Hillary as SOS). Obama has a real, and dangerous, cult of personality around him.

The American black community may not vote Republican in 2016, but they might stay home without any real motivation to vote. The Obama cult of personality was enough motivation in 2008 and 2012.
"Just because people in positions of authority are stupid, it doesn’t mean you have to go along with it." —Arlo Guthrie

"In the excitement of great popular elections, deciding the policy of the country, and its vast patronage, frauds will be committed, if a chance is given for them." —Richard Henry Dana, Jr.

“No government program ever dies of its own accord.” ―unknown


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf