Is it game over for Republicans in 2016?

[Yorktown]

With less than one year to go, the polls for the Republican contenders look problematic:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

No member of the pack emerges above a lackluster 10%, except:
• Carson, decreasing to 20%, and whose religious views will scare even sane believers
• Trump, up to 35%,
embroiled in countless lies http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/wow_seth_meyers_just_stripped_down_donald_trumps_lies_and_islamophobia_so_clearly_even_your_racist_uncle_will_get_it_now/
and whose idea to create a Muslim database highlights his authoritarianism http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wants-to-create-a-muslim-database-2015-11?IR=T&r=US&IR=T

Bar an October surprise, and unless Detective Frank Drebin comes to the rescue,
is it game over for Republicans in 2016?

[Autumn]

1. If only I had a nickle for every time some one foresaw a game over for the republicans.

No it's not game over in 2016.

[Yorktown]

3. I must assume you live in a 'green' state ;)

If only I had a nickle for every time some one foresaw a game over for the republicans.

The Urban Dictionary informs me a nickle is "a gram of weed"

As I assume you act within the confines of the Law, you must live somewhere in green on the map

[Blue_In_AK]

4. alaska is now a dark green state, by the way.

[jmowreader]

22. As is Oregon

[Autumn]

6. I live in a dark dark green state, the first dark dark green state

No but seriously if the republican party were dying and on life support the democratic party would pull out all stops to save them. They need them to help keep the status quo.

[Yorktown]

8. See? I was right in assuming you are a law-abiding citizen.

[Jim Beard]

7. As Yogi Berra Said......

[Yorktown]

9. Wisest of all yogis

[LiberalElite]

37. And -

It ain't over till it's over.

[840high]

12. Especially Trump. He appeals to many.

[madville]

24. Remember when it was game over for......

Remember when it was game over for:

Bush against Kerry

Republicans after their 2006 Congressional defeat

Mitch McConnel in Kentucy

Abbott vs. Davis in Texas

Rick Scott in Florida

Scott Walker in WI

Etc, etc, etc.

No, it's still a toss-up at this point. I still don't believe it will be Trump or Carson.

[joshcryer]

26. Erm, no. Bush was an stolen election "incumbent."

The Repulbicans gained in 2010 because politics are local and Democrats were trashed, demoralizing the vote (worst turnout and shift in voting in decades).

McConnell was a favorite against Grimes by a long shot (though the Democrats dumped a load of money in that campaign). And of course he won by the lowest voter turnout since the fucking 30s.

Davis had no shot.

Rick Scott was the only close race in your list and Crist had an uphill battle and anyone who paid even a modicum of attention to politics knew that. And the turnout in that election was the worst in 14 years.

Walker of course always enjoyed low turnout for years because he never went up against a Presidential election year.

What's the theme in almost all of these cases?

Low voter turnout.

And yet, again, we shit on Democrats, giving the people who would vote for them no reason to vote.

[madville]

30. Exactly

It doesn't matter if the race is tight or separated by 20 points, someone will say it's "game over" this time, they'll never win again and yet they seem to always make a comeback.

I agree, polling is valuable but it all really comes down to turnout. Hillary can win 2016 but the Republicans will likely make Congressional gains in 2018 especially if they can run against her.

[joshcryer]

32. In none of those examples did anyone credible say that, though.

In none of the examples that I can remotely think of. It has always been either very close or the Republicans winning in a landslide. Obama vs McCain was the last election where the Democrats, in a nationally contested or heated race, had a margin to win by. And it was only 7 points. In a historical voter turnout year. In 2012? Obama lost nearly half his margin. Nearly half. And it would've been far worse if AA and Latino's didn't come out in droves.

The next Democratic nominee will win with double digits over the current Republican field. The Republicans have no credible candidate.

Instead supposed "liberals" celebrated the losses in 2010 and 2014, blaming the candidates. I lost my Senator Mark Udall in 2014 to that piece of crap Gardner, and why, why you wonder? Because he took a principled liberal stance for gun control. Oh, no Colorado was the exception to the low voter turnout rule, believe that. Highest midterm turnout in years. (Colorado has spent millions on voter registration and I suspect like CA it will become automatic soon, has the highest registration rates and participation rates in the country.)

[madville]

33. You must tune out of DU and liberal news sites

Around election time. Every one of those examples I mentioned had threads and posted articles written about how they were finished, impossible for them to win, etc, etc. Honestly, you missed all that cheerleading around those elections?

[joshcryer]

36. Oh, sure, you can find silly threads on a forum.

Especially on DU Davis was supposedly going to win, I'm talking about credible outlets, not DU forum posts. If we're lowing the bar that low, sure, I can think of dozens of times I've heard people who aren't politically astute saying stuff like that. Doesn't mean I believe them.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Hey josh, Oregon and Minnesota both have higher turnouts than CA or CO, Oregon made voter

registration automatic before CA did, our 2010 midterms broke midterm turnout records and Democrats won like crazy, then 2014 turnout twice the national average, although low for us at 69.5, more victory for Democrats,legal cannabis, etc. Most liberal States voted at high rates and elected Democrats in both the years you say liberals lost and celebrated it. That is not being an honest broker, it is just not truthful at all, self indulgent crap strewn with half truths.

Colorado had decent turnout but it was not THE exception to the rule nor even the number one turnout State in the nation.

[joshcryer]

65. Huh? I was talking about the blue dogs.

And Colorado is more moderate than liberal. Maybe slightly center left.

If course blue states fare well, the democrats in charge bust their assess to resist voter suppression. Turnout is king and that was the narrative of my post.

But hey, I don't mind being called a dishonest broker when you didn't even get what I meant. It's very very easy to find posts celebrating Democrat loses here.

[joshcryer]

27. I refuse to believe a single Republican can win.

To say otherwise gives them too much credit, imo.

[Fumesucker]

2. At this point the Democrats desperately need the Republicans, they will have to save them

After all these liberal/progressive quacking noises Hillary has been making trying to roll over Sanders's threat from the left it will take a vigorous Republican party in Congress to make it impossible to pass any of that hippie dippy shit none of the Very Serious People take at all seriously.

[joshcryer]

35. That's absurd, there exist no credible 3rd party candidate.

The Greens or Libertarians (and I'm simply playing devils advocate for mentioning the Libertarians) need to produce a credible, nationally popular candidate for your theory to be true. So the Democrats have no necessity to "save" the Republican party, especially because the Republican party is doing extremely well locally and in state legislatures.

[Fumesucker]

38. Then the OP is absurd

We've seen "The End" for both Democratic and Republican parties predicted within the last decade or so, it's a co-dependent relationship between the parties, they both need the other to excuse why they don't get done what their base wants.

A lot of the turmoil you are seeing in both parties is due to the fact that the people who would be inclined to vote for them are starting to see them as ineffectual and some are realizing it's at least partly due to deliberate and willful sandbagging.

Issues that are solved aren't really useful in elections, at least not for long. What have you done for me lately?

It's no mistake that Trump sounds just like a right wing AM shock jock turned down a couple of notches, they say far worse than he has yet. No doubt in my mind he has people listening to RW radio and online thought and he's nutpicking the less insane portions.

[joshcryer]

39. National politics are a lot different.

Demographics are one way, if the Republicans don't evolve, and soon, and I mean go full on Hunstman, they won't appeal to the American people.

Of course the Southern States and a lot of local districts will still appeal, because, indeed, they'll use the inability to win the national seat as their fear mongering talking point, continually getting votes and suppressing the vote to keep getting elected.

The US is progressing, that is, going left, becoming more progressive, whether people on the left want to accept it or not. Even a decade ago if you said that gay marriage would be legal and that pot would be legal in a half dozen states, you'd be laughed out of the room. We've moving extremely quickly especially given the slow state of progress that is by design (the constitution was to make an inefficient, slow democratic process).

[Fumesucker]

41. Issues that big money couldn't care less about except as social wedges

Behold the legion of bridge dwellers dourly hammering away on wedges into every possible social issue here on DU, one finds a weak point and a dozen jump on it in order to maximize the divisions.

One social wedge issue gets somewhat healed, so what, there are always other social wedge issues that can be exploited.

A great many Americans are drowning economically and it's getting worse not better, neither party will seriously address it because big money does not want them to address it.

[joshcryer]

48. The economic issue is going to have to be addressed next.

Yes, one can argue that it sucks that wealth redistribution is taking the back seat and is likely the last thing we deal with (well except for climate change, which I argue is a social issue).

But I don't care one way or another.

Two things happen in the next twenty years or so.

1) 45% of the workforce goes kaput and we mandate basic income.

2) 45% of the workforce goes kaput and we don't mandate basic income.

The policy wonks see what's coming and are planning accordingly.

(BTW, things Fair Wage Act and Parental Leave Act are stepping stones to Basic Income.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Josh here is some material you shoudl read

from I know... crazy academics

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/anatomy-crisis-deadlock-and-dysfunction-american-government

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/dysfunction/371544/

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2014-08-18/america-decay

Tip of the fucking iceberg, but voting anymore is an exercise in futility. I do... but only because I want to maintain a fiction. It is not because it actually does anything. I noticed this YEARS AGO. What you are seeing at the base level on BOTH sides is a familiar dynamic, if you studied history.

And I personally am done pointing to what periods of both US and European history are relevant here.

[joshcryer]

57. I think it will be in response...

...not as a prevention, so I can't disagree with these articles.

I think we're going to have a great depression as literally 2 million taxi drivers are put out of work. And it's necessary that all cars become automated because they cause a Vietnam in deaths every couple of years. (As many futurologists say, it's astonishing how we put people behind 2 tonne vehicles and think it's reasonable.)

The gridlock exists but it can only last so long.

I don't think it's futile, but I do think it's going to be painful over the next couple of decades. We're going to hurt badly for it because no one is future thinking.

But basic income? If civilization as we know it is going to survive it's going to happen. There's simply no other way. We're talking mass revolution if it doesn't. 45% of the working population not working is a recipe for absolute disaster.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Study this carefully

?d0a597

And then go find a few more pieces from actual, yes EXPERTS... no, it is not going to last for so long, it is getting far worst

I spend my time reading the relevant material and talking to people who do this for a living. And with that, have a wonderful day. Yes, voting is a fantasy anymore.

[joshcryer]

66. Well aware of that.

In fact I have used that same data to show that in fact
Democrats and Republicans are not the same despite tired talking point rhetoric.

What is going to happen is the Democratic party will have full control, similar to the 40s. It's not going to rely on the Republicans at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Expanding Social Security to equally cover same sex spouses was the largest expansion of benefits

in Social Security in my lifetime. Quite a lot of money involved. Money which Straight America had stolen from us for years via bigoted laws which enriched straights at our expense.

Income inequality? Divisions? You are discounting a change in law that erased a systemic and legally mandated inequality of income between otherwise equal persons. Two spouses die, each leaving a spouse behind. In the past, the heterosexual survivor would get benefits the same sex survivor did not get, mandating income inequality and making very clear the divisions so beloved by many in your Heterosexual Orthodox Culture.

Your point of view is incorrect, inhuman and self serving.

[Xipe Totec]

5. The game ain't over till the Crispy Critter Sings. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

[Yorktown]

13. Get your historical facts right:

It's the Japanese who invaded Belgium and France

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Let me give this a try. If I had a nickel...

Get the point?

[TheFarseer]

11. no way

Never underestimate your opponent. Especially if they have more governorships and state legislatures.

[Yorktown]

14. Maybe, but it's about sending one guy on the ticket: who?

Trump?

[TheFarseer]

16. if it's Trump

It would be unprecedented to have a guy like that as a major candidate in a general election for president. Who knows what could happen. He has already been underestimated as a guy who would fade after a couple weeks. You never know if there could be an October surprise (Clinton foundation scandal anyone?). Maybe his outsider status could resonate with people. That said, I tend to think Hillary and even Bernie would beat him but don't be so sure. Also, it could be Rubio who I think would be a formidable candidate in a general. Kasich would also be formidable. The rest can't even sound normal for a few minutes - not that Trump can but he's a special case.

[Yorktown]

17. If it's Trump

I'm ready

Popcorn & beer.

[TheFarseer]

18. oh yeah. that's a damned interesting election.

Trump vs. Any Dem.

[MrBig]

19. Rubio is the one to fear

He's got establishment support, and charasmatic enough and right wing enough to get enough base support to win the Presidency.

[Tortmaster]

20. I agree with this.

However, I think the most likely Democratic ticket, Secretaries Clinton and Julian Castro, squash him like a bug.

I would fear Rubio and, say, Nikki Haley against a Senator Sanders team. In that event, the GOP would do better with Latinos, and they would be able to concentrate a billion dollars in advertising in Ohio and Florida. I would not want to be a TV in Florida if that were to occur. I would have to self-destruct.

[bvf]

21. They must have a secret weapon...

I'll leave it there.

[Yorktown]

23. Sarah Palin?

[randome]

42. "Release the Palin!"

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Yorktown]

47. Apparently, Sarah needs some Listerine today

[DrDan]

25. you forgot the sarcasm thingie

[randome]

28. It's been a pretty steady downfall for the GOP if you see things in perspective.

George Junior went to war unnecessarily, and is despised for it.
McCain/Palin.
Romney.
Donald Trump.

It has clearly gotten worse for the GOP, although Romney was a bit of an outlier in that he wasn't worse than Palin. Evolution works in fits and starts. So do societies and politics.

Overall, there is a steady progression toward irrelevancy. There is always a chance that a Trump or someone worse will rise to power but the signs are there that for that to occur, a large number of coincidences would first need to fall into place.

We can't let our guard down but yes, I think the GOP is spiraling into permanent irrelevancy. Like a zombie corpse, however, they can still inflict a hell of a lot of damage.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

40. The GOP Zombie will lose Nationally ... but it will still roam the red states, and even ...

... redder rural districts of the country for quite some time.

[MBS]

29. One can dream, but

I see a nail-bitingly-close, and nasty, election ahead.
Dems have to give this election everything they've got.

Just this morning there are articles noting that the RNC is raising money hand over fist, and the DNC is millions of dollars in the red. And that's not counting all the super-PAC and dark money, in which, again, the Republicans are ahead.

Plus the extra handicap of 2/3 of the states in the control of Republican governors and/or Republican legislators.

We have a very tough fight ahead, and we need to fight at local levels as well as national ones.

With or without ideal candidates, we've got to fight for the Democratic Party. The future of the Supreme Court, the environment, and many other issues, depend on our winning in 2016.

[madville]

31. We are just one terror attack away

From a Republican sweep in 2016. A major Muslim and/or refugee linked terror attack happens on US soil and the Republicans get an instant 10 point bump from Independent voters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. They can still compete in general election matchups

http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls/2016-general-election-matchups/

Ignore the Fox News one, and look at the Public Policy one. Rubio beats Clinton 45% to 43%. She beats Bush, Carson, Cruz and Trump (and Fiorina), but you can't guarantee that the Republicans won't end up nominating Rubio. And in that poll, Sanders loses to all of them.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Of the three sets of polling at that link, the PP results stand apart, the 'Rubio beats Clinton' is

48 to 43 with a 2.75 +/- margin of error. It shows not his victory but a close contest, too close to call using their data....

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. True, by that criterion, every matchup is too close to call except Sanders/Carson or Rubio

which Carson leads by 7%, and Rubio by 6%. So that shows the OP's "is it game over for the Republicans" is definitely answered by "no".

[JCMach1]

43. No, because they have all the quarters...

Win, or lose they will keep popping those into the machine.

[Gothmog]

44. The GOP field is really very very weak

None of the field has what it takes to be a good POTUS

[marmar]

45. I don't think they really want the White House.

I think their focus is on controlling Congress. And perhaps they know another economic bust is coming, since they've helped to deliver it, so they don't really want stewardship of the presidency during that period.

[randome]

46. Who is 'they'? Do you really think there is a GOP executive group calling the shots?

I see no evidence of that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Hmm no. Mind you, they are trying hard to lose

but it is theirs to lose. Since the end of WW II, every two terms Voters tend to vote for the OTHER PARTY.

Look at the pattern... very few exceptions, like Bush Sr, following Reagan, when the same party staid in office for a third term.

[Yorktown]

50. Yes, statistics originally favored Republicans

But if they had tried intentionally, it was difficult to imagine a worse R. line-up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. And you under estimate these two at your peril

We don't.

[Yorktown]

52. Who is 'we'?

Not underestimating Carson? The guy who insists he was a psycho when young?

Not underestimating Trump? The guy who burnt himself with US Muslims sheets?

Good luck to these two.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Alas... those who never learned history

I am not going to even say forget it, are condemned to repeat it.

And with that, good night... have a good one.

[Yorktown]

54. What piece of History are you referring to?

Not even the Reagan analogy would cover the Trump/Carson madness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Hmmm

Never learned it. You are correct. Much older than Reagan. Some American and some European



It is not my job to teach it anymore.

[Recursion]

61. No. They'll nominate Kasich or Rubio, and we'll have a hard time beating either of them

no matter whom we run.

This happens every 4 years when there's no GOP incumbent. The early primary selection is an absolute clown car, and then the party settles down and nominates one of the non-crazies.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

63. Yes..here's why. Trump is too crazy to win in a general. BUT

if the GOP PTB finagle some way to keep him out - he won't go quietly. His ego too mammoth to graciously concede.

He's not an ideologue - he's an egomaniac.

It will result in millions not voting or millions writing his name in.

My prediction.

[brooklynite]

67. The Primary polling is irrelevant...

...one of the top 4/5 WILL win the nomination (the Republican establishment is smart enough to know that a surprise candidate at a brokered convention will be the kiss of death), and WILL start with 40-45% of the Republican vote in the General Election.