Goodbye to the Republican wave?

[Randy Parker]

This year seemed poised to turn into another so-called wave election, like in 2006 or 2010, when a rising tide of dissatisfaction with the incumbent party swept the opposition into power. Given a favorable midterm map, with so many Democratic Senate seats in play, some analysts suggested that Republicans could win a dozen of them, perhaps even picking up seats in states like Virginia, New Hampshire and Oregon.

 

The anti-Democratic wave might still arrive. But with three and a half months to go until November’s elections, the promised Republican momentum has yet to materialize.

 

The race for the Senate, at least right now, is stable. There aren’t many polls asking whether voters would prefer Democrats or Republicans to control Congress, but the Democrats appear to maintain a slight edge among registered voters. Democratic incumbents in red Republican states, who would be all but doomed in a Republican wave, appear doggedly competitive in places where Mitt Romney won by as much as 24 points in 2012.

 

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/upshot/goodbye-to-the-republican-wave.html?_r=1

[Randy Parker]

I agree with the premise of this article--that 2014 is a year that would seem ripe for sweeping wins by the opposition. But the author presents a good question: is the GOP in position for such a victory?

[Jim Schue]

I agree with the premise of this article--that 2014 is a year that would seem ripe for sweeping wins by the opposition. But the author presents a good question: is the GOP in position for such a victory?

 

Nope. Too much factionalism right now, it seems.

[spindoc]

And a 20pt gender gap:scared:

[75center]

Never was going to be a wave but they'll hold both houses after the election. That's good enough for now.

[Twotoplace]

And a 20pt gender gap:scared:

If only the others were as perceptive as you.

[spindoc]

If only the others were as perceptive as you.

 

Yes. I am wearing my Hobby Lobby t-shirt as we speak.

[Getslow]

The problem the Republicans have now is a common one, no matter which party is in the powerful position: an anti-Democratic wave is NOT the same thing as a Republican wave. Despite the two-party system and the fact that it has happened before (1994 was legit), they simply don't equate.

 

Republicans have to give people a reason to want to vote for them that goes beyond hating the other guys. In recent years, the Democrats have been much more successful at that on a national level. Once they find a few guys that can pull that off, we'll see the real Republican wave.

[Bluegrasscard]

The problem the Republicans have now is a common one, no matter which party is in the powerful position: an anti-Democratic wave is NOT the same thing as a Republican wave. Despite the two-party system and the fact that it has happened before (1994 was legit), they simply don't equate.

 

Republicans have to give people a reason to want to vote for them that goes beyond hating the other guys. In recent years, the Democrats have been much more successful at that on a national level. Once they find a few guys that can pull that off, we'll see the real Republican wave.

 

Good observations.

 

Republicans seem to be hoping for a backlash wave. And some of that will come. But I have seen no vision, no 'Plan for America' type agenda, no 'here is what we are going to do if we hold both houses' message.

 

Close to home, if the Repubs can gain a simple majority and McConnell holds off Grimes then McConnell would have a very solid chance to get the coveted Senate Majority leader. But what will do in this position. He has not said. He paints no vision, no agenda. I have written into his office on various subjects, the latest on the governments 'loan sharking' of student loans. The responses are generic and blah and include some level of mud-slinging against Democratic initiatives or proposals that may or may not be related to the content of the communication. I have been unimpressed.

 

They seem to fail to understand that when the administration or Harry Reid calls out 'Congress' most do equivocate that to 'Republicans' - though the Senate is still Democratic controlled. Even if the Repubs gain the Senate and keep the House they will have only a simple majority. Obama can veto anything and everything and probably would veto any substantial bills that alter or update ACA or any other key initiatives from the 2009-2010 era. So maybe they understand that gaining both houses will not result in any new agenda items passing. But they still should paint some sort of vision and give people a reason to support them and not just rely on backlash.

[Randy Parker]

Republicans seem to be hoping for a backlash wave. And some of that will come. But I have seen no vision, no 'Plan for America' type agenda, no 'here is what we are going to do if we hold both houses' message.

 

:thumb:

[mcpapa]

Good observations.

 

Republicans seem to be hoping for a backlash wave. And some of that will come. But I have seen no vision, no 'Plan for America' type agenda, no 'here is what we are going to do if we hold both houses' message.

 

Close to home, if the Repubs can gain a simple majority and McConnell holds off Grimes then McConnell would have a very solid chance to get the coveted Senate Majority leader. But what will do in this position. He has not said. He paints no vision, no agenda. I have written into his office on various subjects, the latest on the governments 'loan sharking' of student loans. The responses are generic and blah and include some level of mud-slinging against Democratic initiatives or proposals that may or may not be related to the content of the communication. I have been unimpressed.

 

They seem to fail to understand that when the administration or Harry Reid calls out 'Congress' most do equivocate that to 'Republicans' - though the Senate is still Democratic controlled. Even if the Repubs gain the Senate and keep the House they will have only a simple majority. Obama can veto anything and everything and probably would veto any substantial bills that alter or update ACA or any other key initiatives from the 2009-2010 era. So maybe they understand that gaining both houses will not result in any new agenda items passing. But they still should paint some sort of vision and give people a reason to support them and not just rely on backlash.

 

A fair assessment, IMHO.

[Getslow]

That's exactly what the Contract with America did for them in 1994. That was a REMARKABLE political document. It outlined several things that just seemed so basic. Eight simple points. It was easy to understand and every candidate had -- at least -- those eight things as a concrete plan of action upon election.

 

Republicans could use a vision that goes beyond the generalities and vagaries of "small government" and "American values". It's easy to raise money and support from the base with a "this thing the Democrats did is awful" pitch. It's tougher to raise new votes that way.

[Twotoplace]

Good observations.

 

Republicans seem to be hoping for a backlash wave. And some of that will come. But I have seen no vision, no 'Plan for America' type agenda, no 'here is what we are going to do if we hold both houses' message.

 

Close to home, if the Repubs can gain a simple majority and McConnell holds off Grimes then McConnell would have a very solid chance to get the coveted Senate Majority leader. But what will do in this position. He has not said. He paints no vision, no agenda. I have written into his office on various subjects, the latest on the governments 'loan sharking' of student loans. The responses are generic and blah and include some level of mud-slinging against Democratic initiatives or proposals that may or may not be related to the content of the communication. I have been unimpressed.

 

They seem to fail to understand that when the administration or Harry Reid calls out 'Congress' most do equivocate that to 'Republicans' - though the Senate is still Democratic controlled. Even if the Repubs gain the Senate and keep the House they will have only a simple majority. Obama can veto anything and everything and probably would veto any substantial bills that alter or update ACA or any other key initiatives from the 2009-2010 era. So maybe they understand that gaining both houses will not result in any new agenda items passing. But they still should paint some sort of vision and give people a reason to support them and not just rely on backlash.

If the GOP holds the House and takes the Senate 51-47-2, that will only intensify the stalemate between the legislative and executive branches of government. The real battle will come in '16 when the GOP will have to defend the lion's share of Senate seats with Rick Perry or Rand Paul heading up the GOP ticket and being forced to defend Hobby Lobby in every debate vs. Hillary.

[Getslow]

If the GOP holds the House and takes the Senate 51-47-2, that will only intensify the stalemate between the legislative and executive branches of government. The real battle will come in '16 when the GOP will have to defend the lion's share of Senate seats with Rick Perry or Rand Paul heading up the GOP ticket and being forced to defend Hobby Lobby in every debate vs. Hillary.

 

If the 2016 election is about the Hobby Lobby decision then I am going to kill myself.

[Habib]

If the 2016 election is about the Hobby Lobby decision then I am going to kill myself.

 

:laugh: