Aaron Strife
Banned
I'd argue this already happened in 2012. Kerry's performance in 2004 would have sent him to the White House if the electorate looked like it did eight years later, even with Bush doing relatively well with Hispanics. That was at the height of culture war, threat level orange bullshit too.By 2016, the electorate will dip below 70% white. That whole "the GOP is fucked!!1!" thing we've been talking about for years is finally happening, right before our eyes.
The only reason Republicans can still do well in midterm elections is because Democrats are relying more and more on the emerging electorate to win elections in presidential years, who don't turn out as often as older, wealthier conservative voters who can spend more time keeping up with politics.
And even then we might see Democrats' turnout operation save the Senate. I know I get clowned on here for being optimistic, but there are overwhelmingly positive reports coming from Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, South Dakota etc. on voter registration and early voting that suggest Democrats could beat the polls there (though Hagan is of course leading in NC according to everyone, perhaps she'll do even better).
I'm not saying like, "Yeah Democrats are gonna pick up seats in the Senate and win the House back!" I'd say breaking even in the Senate is the most realistically positive outcome we could hope for. But when you see pollsters and pundits making the same stupid mistakes in states like Colorado as they did in 2010 and 2012 while the Democrats are working hard (and apparently extremely effective) at making the electorate look like it did two years ago I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might exceed expectations.
It's not that they need to turn out every single Obama voter from 2012, they just need to achieve parity. I think of the Florida voters in 2012 who stayed and voted well past midnight, when there was no question who was going to win the presidential election which had been called hours beforehand. There are some Democratic base voters who don't care about voting in the midterms, but the same applies for some Republican base voters. We just need to make sure that proportionally these numbers stay about the same.
Yeah the GOP will probably hold down McConnell's seat and might pick off Arkansas and Louisiana. Who gives a fuck?
I'll have no problem voting for Clinton when the time comes but the more voices the better. My liberal fantasy is seeing a Clinton/Warren ticket winning the White House and Pelosi elected Speaker again. Next State of the Union has three women.neurosisxeno said:More than likely Warren will be on par for Sanders. If either or both run it will be explicitly to galvanize the middle class with talk of issues they actually care about, and drag Hillary back to the left a bit. Lets be frank, Hillary is basically a Moderate Democrat at this point, with Warren being an actual Liberal and Sanders being a Social Democrat\Progressive. If they can shift the focus of debates towards things like social programs, infrastructure investments, tackling income inequality, and focusing on America, they will have been successful.
I wish Elizabeth Warren stood a chance against Hillary, but she doesn't. She is however the Democrats ace-in-the-hole, in that she is phenomenal at fund raising, and cares about the issues facing a lot of people. She has an army of young voters behind her with her crusade against student loan debt, and appeals to the middle class by focusing on tackling Wall Street and the super wealthy. She manages to do all this with grace and enough charisma to avoid a Howard Dean 2000 moment.
The debates should be exciting for Democrats if either Sanders or Warren get up there and have some actual air time. Compare that to what is likely to be the most embarassingly bad debates in recent memory from the GOP, and 2016 looks really favorable to Democrats.