General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre Republicans sure to lose in 2016?
There are not many Democratic candidates, and none seems to carry an unsurmountable bagage.
Not so for Republicans. The choice seems to be between:
- Bush IIIrd, and I think the dynastic effect would be a bit to rich in a modern democracy, or
- one of the other candidates using too extreme religiousness (some Ted Cruz quotes already are weird)
Any views of the inherent dynastic/extreme religiosity GOP weakness?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
pscot
(21,024 posts)
FoxNewsSucks
(10,429 posts)since that word implies fairness and legitimacy.
But I wouldn't be surprised at all if a filthy republicon somehow weasels its way into the White House.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Voters love to change party of President all the time. If not for that we would win 100 percent.
pscot
(21,024 posts)that elected Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and W twice each. I think they'll nominate Walker. I wouldn't give better than even money if Hillary is our candidate.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)Look at what's happened in Wisconsin and Michigan and tell me we're not. Look at their success in state legislatures all over the country and tell me we're not. We can't afford to be dismissive. The questin asked was 'are they sure to lose?'. What should be asking is what do we have to do to win, because it's not a gimme. The GOP is led by smart, determined people. They have all the money in the world and a message that will resonate with a lot of Americans. They won't make it easy for us by nominating Cruz or Rand Paul; probably not Jeb either. My chances of outliving the next President are slim. I don't want to die with a Republican in the Whitehouse,
former9thward
(32,001 posts)A person offers an opinion on who might win and you immediately try and claim they are arguing in favor of that happening.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I wouldn't bet on it though.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Defeating the Republicans is the highest priority.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)2016 is a Presidential year ... Democrats typically turn-out.
Republicans have far more seats to defend.
Republicans are doing legislation that feeds their base; but, is pissing off the rest of the world.
I think the cycle favors the Democrats.
My only question is how hard we work against ourselves ... which will effect turn-out. But I'm betting not enough to give the republicans the Presidency, or to hold the Senate ... the House, well, that's a different gerrymandered story.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)2008-2012 +? Democrat
2000-2008 republican
1992-2000 Democrat
1980-1992 republican
1976-1980-Democrat
1968-1976 Republican
1960-1968 Democrat
1952-1960 Republican
Only been done once since WWII. Other than Carter in 1980 and Bush in 1992, the pattern has been president wins re-election, and then is replaced by a member of the other party
Clinton left office with peace and prosperity. And yet millions of people voted Republican because they wanted something different.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But we have the gop lunacy working in our favor!
Cruz?
Bush has a lot of baggage.
Walker won't stand up to scrutiny of his record.
If we do the doctor's creed and do no harm ... to ourselves, we will do fine.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Will PoC vote in the same numbers as they did in 2012?
Will voter ID work at keeping them home?
Have they grown fatigued over a messy political system where progress is only seen in the rear view mirror?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yes ... If for no other reason, to push back against the income equality over civil rights Left.
No.
LOL ... PoC are used to this mess.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...I always wondered why this peculiar pattern wasn't more widely discussed.
2008-2012 +? Democrat
2000-2008 republican
1992-2000 Democrat
1980-1992 republican
1976-1980-Democrat
1968-1976 Republican
1960-1968 Democrat
1952-1960 Republican
And, as a DU superstar pointed out a year or 2 ago, those republican victories(in the last 50 years) have all been tainted, if not outright stolen.
.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The conflict this year is between the Republican cyclical edge and the Democratic edge in demographics.
Biggest concern on our side is complacency and lower voter turnout.
The Republicans know this, and want to run someone as bland as possible--Scott Walker or Jeb Bush.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So 8 cycles, two one term Presidents, one VP following a two term President and also in that series is the murder of a President, causing a different sort of hitch in the process.
So while I basically agree with you, I also think that 'they alternate' theory is weak, a pattern not really indicated because that pattern is often interrupted.
I think it leans toward alternation but does not really manage to make that into a pattern. If that makes sense.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)they have the momentum to win at this point.
Only Democrats in denial would believe otherwise given the take over of the Senate and a stronger majority in the House by the GOP in 2014. Not to mention, they also took more governorships and state legislatures are now overwhelmingly in GOP control.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
TM99
(8,352 posts)That alone does not determine who the winning party is. Massive shifts from one party in power to another during a midterm has however proven to be fairly reliable in seeing which party will next take the White House. It at least shows momentum which is what I stated.
The GOP is anything but dead, crazy, stupid, etc. They have momentum and since 2010 have been decimating the Democratic party across the country from a local to a national level.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The blue wall is a powerful phalanx of 18 states and the District of Columbia that have voted for the Democrats in every single presidential election for 20 years -- six straight. Some states have been in the Democratic column even longer.
These states account for 242 electoral votes, twenty eight shy of the magical 270...
The Democrats have won the majority share of the two party vote in five of the last six presidential elections.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/03/opinion/gergen-blue-wall-republicans-2016/
Barack Obama was re-elected with a smaller share of the white than any Democratic presidential candidate since Walter "Lost Forty Nine States" Mondale, on the strength of African American, Latino, and Asian voters...
Anything can happen but the Republicans face a huge demographic hurdle.
TM99
(8,352 posts)is not a good one I think.
Traditionally Democrats have gotten the white working class vote with strong union support. That is all but gone now. Ethnic minorities have voted more Democratic in the past, but these minorities are fast becoming majorities. And like whites, they are split.
I am bi-racial. My family has been Republican for decades. That did not change just because Obama was elected and privilege theory escaped the halls of academia.
I just don't think that demographic hurdle is a big as once thought.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)In the 012 election Barack Obama received 93% of the African American Vote , 73% of the Latino Vote and 72% of the Asian vote and with every election the electorate becomes more black, brown, and Asian...
Unless the Republicans can start attracting those folks they have real problems. Their voters are dying off...
Oh, and they chase young people away with their social conservatism...
Again, anything can happen but I rather have our hand than theirs... We have an electorate that has consistently given us presidential pluralities or majorities. They have to put one together.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Obama's election was historic. But his presidency has not been. It hasn't been all bad but there hasn't been anything game changing either.
I just don't see those kinds of numbers again for the next Democratic nominee, especially if it is HRC.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)That's why she did so well in southwestern primaries like TX, NM, NV, and CA.
I don't see that changing in the general...
TM99
(8,352 posts)I definitely see it changing.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)In the 012 election Barack Obama received 93% of the African American Vote and the ACA which benefits those at the bottom of the economic ladder the most since they get Medicaid or the largest subsidies.
Bush has Latino children and though he is Canadian by birth Cruz has Latino heritage. Sometimes ethnic pride overrides economic realities. We have a Midwestern grandma.
Blacks overwhelming voted for Obama simply because he was a black candidate.
Nay
(12,051 posts)voters for someone like Warren.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Democrats have not done well with white working class voters for decades. Republicans have won the white vote in every election since 1964.
And the trend amongst ethnic minorities is that they have shifted towards Democrats and away from Republicans. Each Republican has been doing worse then the previous one amongst Latinos. Check out Romney's numbers.
If Obama had Dukakis's electorate he would have lost.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Obama's presidency has pushed more white working class men and women towards the GOP from teachers to police unions.
Ethnic minorities are gaining in population but they are still not the majority of voters in the US.
I have a foot in both worlds and I disagree on your assessment of a shift towards. I see a shift away.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Always have been, always will be. Not a shocker they didn't vote for the urbane, liberal black dude.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Some high profile cases in the media does not a reality make. Again we shall see.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Agents of the security state tend to be authoritarian and culturally conservative.
NYC cops love Giuliani, hate DeBlasio.
TM99
(8,352 posts)grew up with relatives who were cops.
Stop confusing conservatives with extreme right-wing reactionaries. It is a mistake that liberals make. The same is true of conservatives as well though.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)never been friendly to Democrats.
P.S.
Kerry lost white voters to Bush 58-41.
Obama lost white voters to Romney 59-39
So, no, Obama's policies have not caused a massive migration of white voters. White voters being rightwing is why they vote Republican.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)that you simply don't read posts written.
Read mine again, I am talking probabilities and momentum. Certainly anything can and does happen.
Who knew the Democrats would be so gullible as to buy the Hope & Change marketing of Obama who is a centrist and old school Republican hardly a liberal who followed through on those political promises made in his brilliant campaign. 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Democrats had a pretty good off-year in 1998 and still underperformed in 2000.
Reality is a non-trivial number of voters want a different party for the sake of having a different party in open elections. That causes the party out of power to over achieve and the party in power to underachieve.
"Momentum" is generally a bullshit term whether used in sports (it means last team to score), stock analysis (last quarterly earnings beat expectations), and politics (won the last election).
Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012)
Republicans have won majorities in the House in 5 of the last 6 off-year elections (1994, 1998, 2002, 2010, 2014)
That is the dynamic at play here, not 'momentum.'
TM99
(8,352 posts)Thus far, most on this site argued that last fall the Democratic party, even in an off year, would take back the House and hold the Senate. They argued that states were turning blue.
They. Were. Wrong.
Momentum is not a bullshit term except to those who don't understand it.
The body politic in America with its two party system is that of a pendulum swing. We go back and forth between two seemingly opposing political philosophies. When we hit high point of the swing, there is momentum in the opposite direction. That has been building for the GOP for the last four years.
They are not crazy. They are not delusional. They are actually quite smart. And this may be the game changer what I am about to predict.
The Supreme Court will make legal gay marriage. The GOP will not fight it. They will embrace it. That will remove a great deal of ummph from the Democratic strategy of the last decade. Few will buy the 'sexism, rape culture, misogny' spiel when HRC is the candidate. There won't be a social platform for Dems to run on strongly with their base. What will become important is the economy. The GOP right now can play that to their advantage, motivate their base, and appeal to enough independents to I believe be a game changer for the White House in 2016.
I could be wrong, so I put it out here, and we shall see.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)All the polling suggested 2010 and 2014 were going to be disastrous... It's the nature of their coalition and ours...Ours is bigger, their coalition is more likely to vote...
Elections aren't nearly as much about persuading folks to vote for you who aren't so inclined but turning out those who are actually inclined to vote for you to actually vote...
treestar
(82,383 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I found it interesting
TM99
(8,352 posts)mentality again. How old are you?
OMG Shelby high school beat us in the homecoming game last year. This year they have won most of their home and away games. We are playing them again and we lost most of our home & away games. Arguing that it won't be a cake-walk and to not be aware of this reality is not being a fan of Shelby fucking high school!
Shall I report myself to the proper ministry office to make sure my loyalty programming is still intact? 
I am an Independent. I would rather see Democrats keep the White House. I don't think they will.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But the Pugs are going to have to drive our candidate to Walter Mondale like support among white voters to win. I don't believe they can do it.
No, our candidate is not going to do worse than Dukakis, Kerry, or Gore among white voters...
Wrap your head around this... Barack Obama carried Florida while losing the white vote 70-30%.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)did for Obama.
Clinton will capture a similar percentage of them, but will she get enough of them out to vote?
Right now I see her having a better chance of doing that than O'Malley or Bernie Sanders.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)underperform him slightly among African Americans.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I think white women are her biggest area of opportunity, especially older white women.
It will be a base turnout election.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Take it for what it's worth but Kelly Ann Conway said HRC can peal off 20% of Republican women voters...That doesn't seem outlandish when you realize she would only be getting 10% of the total Republican vote.
Barack Obama actually lost the white women vote but when you are getting ten out of ten African American women, eight out of ten Latino women, and eight out of ten Asian women voters it's easy to make up for it...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He or she who wins Oregon has won the votes of white people. That's 88% of Oregon. Obama won 56.75% to McPalin's 40.40%
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Mississippi white voters are nothing like white voters in Oregon.
So, it does get a bit confusing to speak of them monolithically.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)For anything to happen 'across the country' it has to go from Coast to Coast and yet this momentum you imagine does not do that. 'Across the country, except for one huge region including the most populous State.' I guess 'across the country' sounds better than 'in the South and Midwest'. But it is not nearly as accurate.
TM99
(8,352 posts)And CA has a strong GOP presence - they always have.
Nevada will lose Reid and the next Senator from there will be a Republican.
The traditionally Blue state of Maryland just elected a Republican governor.
There are many more examples.
So yes, it is across the country.
Don't underestimate the GOP tide that is swelling.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I'd doubt it.
still_one
(92,187 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)disaster of a campaign.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Doesn't happen every time on party has held it for 8 years, but happens pretty often. So in 2016, a lot of people who don't pay too much attention to things will be thinking something along the lines of, "Oh, gosh, maybe we should have a Republican for a while."
And if Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are their respective party's nominees, I predict a remarkably low voter turnout. An awful lot of people are not crazy about the same family (families) occupying the White House for long periods of time, and so will feel remarkably unengaged in the general election.
napi21
(45,806 posts)Assuming Hillary runs, she would be the first WOMAN President of the USA. There are a lot of women who really want to see that happen. That coupled with the millions of women who have already turned on the Pubs for all the insane things they have been saying & doing to women for years.
Another thing I see in favor of Hillary is that lots of people still remember the reign of Shrub. They didn't like it then, and no matter what Jebbers says or does, he's STILL one of the Bushies!
TM99
(8,352 posts)The American public moves slowly with social change. Having the first black president, full legal support for marriage equality AND a woman president, I just don't see happening this time around.
Might, but Hillary has a ton of baggage, and does not appeal to women voters just because she is a woman.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)out in the larger world there is not such a deep yearning for one. At least not so deep a yearning as to guarantee that the first woman nominated will be the first one to be elected.
Keep in mind that just a few months ago, Wendy Davis lost for the governorship of Texas, and Alison Lundergan Grimes couldn't defeat Mitch McConnell, despite a popular sentiment here on DU that their womanhood all but guaranteed their wins. If Republican women had voted for the woman candidate, then both of them would have been swept into office on landslides. But that didn't happen.
The other thing is that people here vastly underestimate how widely despised Hillary Clinton is outside of the Democratic Party. There are women out there who honestly believe a woman has no business at all in any sort of public office, let alone the Presidency. There are plenty of fundamentalist churches who will denounce her from the pulpit every single day if she's the nominee.
Not that those two points should discourage her (or any other woman) from running. But Hillary Clinton also carries a lot of baggage with her, and lately I've been less and less enamored of Bill. And if we elect her, he's going to be right there, behaving as a co-President, be sure of that.
So it once again comes back to this: Aside from Hillary Clinton's suitability for the Presidency on her own merits, do we really want to keep the office in the hands of just two families?
For me the answer is no. We need new people running.
napi21
(45,806 posts)member who occupied to White House. HOWEVER, WHO? I would love Elizabeth Warren, but she repeatedly says she's NOT RUNNING! I'd love Bernie Sanders, but I think he eliminated himself from the contest by years of claiming that he's a Socialist. Of the other people I've heard rumblings about running, I don't think much of any of them.
We'll see who crawls out from under the woodwork. Maybe some new UNKNOWN will appear and take the world by storm. So far, I think Hill is the most qualified and I'd vote for her in a heart beat
CK_John
(10,005 posts)The voters need to get the government they deserve.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)welcomed Hitler's assumption of the Chancellery on the grounds it would prove the 'ice breaker' that heralded the proletarian revolution. We all know how that theory turned out.
Are you saying that blacks, Latinos, women, LGBT folk and the poor "deserve" Republican leadership? By what twist of cruel logic do you make that heartless assertion?
CK_John
(10,005 posts)
StevieM
(10,500 posts)will do such a bad job that Elizabeth Warren will win in 2020. Either way I can't see the Republicans controlling the White House from 2017-2025.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)It is hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job than bu$h did short of starting a world war or 1930s-style depression, yet we were stuck with him for 8 years.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)In 2004 I thought Bush would win re-election. The country had rallied around him after the shock of 9-11. Although his poll numbers were down by 2004, they had been very good in 2002 and 2003.
I don't disagree that the voters can often make terrible decisions, and might make another terrible decision in 2016, like electing Bush, Walker or Rubio. But I think that if they do a terrible job--which they undoubtedly would--then we would get rid of them in 2020. So if Hillary doesn't win--although I think she will--then I expect that Elizabeth Warren will win in 2020.
earthside
(6,960 posts)If the Democratic Party goes down the center-right road and nominates has-beens, well, there is a good chance the Democrats will lose in 2016.
Repuglicans are going to have oodles of money and every incentive to make the campaigns as nasty as possible to drive down turnout.
Liberals, progressives and Democrats ought not think that demographics are going to save the day. The Repuglican base is energized; the Democratic base has become unmotivated and will become more so if a boring, scandal-tainted nominee heads the ticket and if a bunch of establishment-type moderates are the candidates for U.S. Senate seats.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)the candidates. Since the Repuglies have the megaphone
and the money, they could pull it off.
The question is whether the candidate for the Dems has
enough appeal for popular policies. IMHO it depends on
the freshness and belligerance of the Dems. If they play
wishywashy, they will lose.
8 years of an unusual President may give the Repugs
the upper hand, since even in normal times that amount of
time gets voters restless.
A huge amount hinges on the issues discussed and put
out by the media. Foreign policy shows very little
interest of voters, unless the fear factor wins.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)we are a country of religious nut jobs and bigots. If a candidate yells about how much he loves jesus and how much he hates gays, liberals and Hispanics he will win.
extreme religiousness a negative?? You got to be kidding. That alone may be enough to get a nut job in the whitehouse
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If we are a nation of religious nut jobs and bigots how do you explain the majority support for same sex marriage?
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
And if somebody hates Latinos he or she prolly hates African Americans too and was never going to vote for us in the first place.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Someone extreme about anything is unlikely to be a reasonable and steady hand.
treestar
(82,383 posts)they know they are not numerous and that's why they are desperate.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Their base is excited to "undo" all the things Obama did. They will be voting. And their "hardcore" base is larger than ours.
If Clinton basically copies her 2008 campaign, and she wins the nomination, we're going to be in trouble. 2008 Clinton will not get high turnout.
If someone runs on a more liberal platform (including Clinton), then it is more likely that we'll get higher turnout, and thus win.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)The Affordable Care Act is already something liberal to defend.
Add more, and you break the Democratic camel's back.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The ACA is the Republican response to Bill Clinton's health care reform efforts. It's not liberal. It was created by the Heritage Foundation, and first implemented by Republican Mitt Romney in MA.
Also, if your theory was correct, Obama would have lost 2008. In both the primary and general election, he sounded a lot more liberal than other candidates, and got very impressive turnout among groups that do not normally turn out.
You seem to believe that "independent" voters are in the middle and regularly switch between parties. This is not true. "Independent" voters always vote for one party when they vote. The problem is getting them to bother voting. Republican versus Republican-lite is not going to get Democratic-leaning independents to the polls. And Republican-lite is not going to convince Republican-leaning independents to vote for the Democrat.
You propose we repeat our strategy in 2014, 2010, 2004, 2002 and 2000. We lost all of those.
I propose we repeat our strategy of 2012, 2008 and 2006. We won all of those.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Obama never went against Capitalism or the lowest possible taxes.
That's why he took Independents voters with him, me included.
Obama won because he was a very articulate, very composed Social Democrat.
ACA, yes, but he also pushed the free trade TPP. Two reasons I support him.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Social Democrats are to the left of Democrats.
You seem to have a very bizarre concept of where different political ideologies lie.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)The problem with the GOP is not just that they can shovel 8 digits worth of money, nor is it just that the media are whores and mercenaries. The problem is that we, as the left, have let our outside the beltway organization go to hell. The damage will be don on television, but the REAL damage will be done in the churches, diners, wal-marts, and other places that sadly, many of us do not know, and some of us do not want to know. All Polticis is localpoltics, from the school board on up, and we need to be vigilant at that levelif we want to win.
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)Ballot tampering, and Die bolt style machines that flip votes. This has been an on going problem in elections, where some people were caught, dumping votes into dumpsters and using intimidation tactics as well as other methods of preventing people from voting.
Republicans know they can't win, so they find ways to cheat.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Since 1838, the Democratic party managed to elect another Democrat only twice after a Democrats served two terms, Van Buren succeeded Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded himself.
For whatever reason the people seem reluctant to give parties a third term, and that amounts to an advantage to Republicans.
So, no, I do not think Republicans are sure to lose.
They will nominate a candidate that we will be told appeals to the center, whether this is Bush or Walker is irrelevant. Extremists like Cruz have no real chance. Republicans like them, but the nominee is almost always someone the Republicans think appeals to the center.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)In order for the Republicans to win they will likely have to drive our candidate to Walter Mondale like levels of support among white voters which I believe was around 32% .
It reminds me of the debate over the nuclear freeze in the 80s where its opponents argued they would lock American weakness in place. The inevitable question was would you rather have the Soviet's hand (nuclear capability) or ours. Analysts inevitably came up on the side of ours.
I rather have our hand.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)For some reason, the electorate, in most cases, does not give a party that holds the white house for two terms another term. This has happened more often with Republicans, but it is still rare.
This is similar to the historical trend in mid term elections where the party in power in the white house looses seats.
I don't know why this happens, but it does.
Of course, it Republicans nominates an open extremist like Cruz, all bets are off. But Republicans tend to nominate the candidate that is perceived by Repubicans as a candidate with appeal to the center.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Which is why POTUS candidates are "centrists."
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)it does follow in many elections.
I will say hat the percepton that a candidate has an appeal to centrist is not the same thing as a centrist.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)but every one of them polls above 40% against her. If you have a poll that shows her up by 68% against anyone but George W. I wish you'd share it.
Initech
(100,068 posts)That's one thing we can count on that is definitely a sure thing.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I think we are bound and determined to nominate Hillary in spite of all logic or consideration. We have so many people on our side who are looking at the early popularity polling which at this point is nothing more than name recognition and have already declared the race over. We are already making the exact same mistake we made in 2004, and 2010, and 2014. We are going in assuming we are going to win big.
The biggest mistake we make is assuming that our opponents are idiots and morons. They aren't. Let's take Cruz. He graduated from Princeton and Harvard. He Clerked for Rehnquist. This is not a stupid man. This is an educated and experienced man who is very smart. Because he disagrees with us, and IMO is wrong on any number of issues does not make him stupid. Instead of learning about our opponents, and learning as much as we can, and figuring out how tough the fight is going to be, we instead belittle them, and come up with the idea that they are mouth breathing window licking morons, and we underestimate them. We grow overconfident from our own prejudices and propaganda, and we lose because of that failure to take our opponent seriously.
Let's say you are a boxer. You have a big match coming up in a month. You could spend the next month in intensive training. Building muscle, training reflexes, studying fight films of your opponent until you are as familiar with that persons tendencies as you are a long term significant other/lover. Instead you go on vacation. The fighter is a joke, a real joke you don't have to worry about. You could beat him with your eyes closed and one arm tied behind your back.
On fight night you find to your horror that the joke has been working hard every minute of the day preparing for this fight. To you, it was a joke, for him it was the fight of a lifetime. You lose, and you wonder how that could happen? It's impossible, a fluke, because that's not the way things are supposed to work.
That is how we are reacting to 2014. It was a fluke, low turnout, and all the other excuses. The one thing we refuse to consider is that we did not try very hard to win. We gave it a half assed pro forma effort. We were utterly shocked, outraged, and furious that the people elected them. We refuse to even consider it was because we were lazy and unworthy of the victory.
We may be right on the issues, but we have to run on those issues.
Musicians spend ten or twelve hours in a recording studio working on a song. They will play the song over, and over again all day. Rehearsing, practicing, striving to make it just a little better. They'll spend months working on one album, weeks on a single song. Playing it over, and over again until it is as close to perfect as they can get it.
Professional Athletes think about their sport constantly. Professional race car drivers think about driving and their cars all the time. They spend months preparing for the first race of the season. I watched a documentary about street racers. They were interviewing one racer. He spends every minute he has free working on his car. Every waking minute is spent turning wrenches and making the car a little better. He talked about the girls who think that street racers are cool, and desirable, but quickly dump the guys because the guys don't spend time with their girlfriends. They spend it with their cars.
A politician running for office needs that kind of focus, and single minded attention. They have to wake every morning thinking about the race, and what they can do for the public they want to hire them for the job by casting a ballot. When they win the election, it's all about the people who elected you. It has to be.
We've forgotten that. We're going to enter this race lazy and relaxed, and find out that the other side is not only serious, but determined to win. Just because I disagree with them on issues doesn't mean I make the mistake of underestimating them, or thinking them to be stupid. Sarah Palin never said anything about seeing Russia from her house, but everyone credits that Tina Fey line from Saturday Night Live to Palin. I'm not saying she's a genius or right about anything. I'm saying she is not the idiot we portray her to be.
If we want to win, we have to start to realize that the Republicans are not going to lay down and die because we hate them. They are going to bust their asses to win the election. They won in 2014 because we underestimated them. Will we make the same mistake again? I'm betting yes, even thought it pains me indescribably to even consider that.
