Skip to comments.Why I Think the GOP Will Have Control in 2017
Posted on 09/20/2013 8:19:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
My assertion that theres a 70% chance that the GOP controls White House, Senate, and House in 2017 has attracted a lot of pushback. And its certainly possible that Im wrong! Heres my thinking, for what its worth:
Since the Civil War, only two Democratic presidents have been succeeded by another Democrat. Both of themFDR and JFKaccomplished this by dying in office.
Since World War II, only four presidents have been succeeded by a member of their party. As I mentioned above, two of them accomplished this by dying in office. One of them accomplished this by resigning in disgrace ahead of his own impeachment. Only one of them, Ronald Reagan, left office at the end of his appointed term and was succeeded by a duly elected member of his own party. Mostly, the White House flips back and forth like a metronome.
At the beginning of Obamas term, people were talking about the kind of Democratic dominance that FDR enjoyed. Didnt happen. Isnt going to. So I think the GOP goes into the race with a big edge on the White House. Voters just get tired after eight years.
For example, when I pointed out how few presidents have been succeeded by members of their own party, you may have been tempted to argue that Al Gore really won. Im not going to have that argument right now, but even assuming youre correct, what does that tell you? That after the greatest economic boom in decades, the Democratic vice president fought hard to a statistical tie with the Republican governor of Texas. Sure, he wasnt the most charismatic candidate either, but neither was George Bush. Getting a third term in the White House just seems to be really difficult. And Barack Obama is not going to finish with a ground-shaking economic boom.
Add to that the Democratic bench. Hillary Clinton is a formidable politician, but she will be nearly 70 years old in 2016. No one else except Biden (who is older than she) has anything like the national name recognition that multiple people on the GOP bench enjoy. But if one or both of those two decide to run (and I think its nearly certain that they will), theyll probably get the nomination just because they will suck all the oxygen away from the other candidatesboth the money and the publicity will follow them. And though theyre both formidable challengers, I think their age is going to hurt them. I think it would have hurt Reagan if hed been running against more formidable opponents, but Carter was badly damaged, and Walter Mondale was a nice man who made a very good Senate candidate in Minnesota.
Democrats who think theyre a shoo-in seem to be unaccountably banking on the GOP nominating some tongue-tied wingnut who will spend the campaign discussing the scientific evidence that women cant get pregnant from rape. But as Joe Scarborough argued in 2012, this is wishful thinking . . . in his words, The GOP doesnt nominate crazy. In 2012, out of an incredibly weak field filled with tongue-tied wingnuts, they nominated the moderate with the best public policy chops and solid debating skills. In 2016, they will have a much more attractive bevy of candidates from which to choose someone electable.
So I think that the chances that the GOP takes the White House are probably pretty highmaybe around 75%. This is not a Nate-Silver-style I-ran-9,000-regressions-and-heres-what-I-got. Its just my gut estimate of the odds. When Nate starts running his projections, I will revise accordingly.
Now, if the GOP takes the White House, I think the chances that they also take the House approach 100%. They have a big structural advantage here, and the president will pull a bunch of Republicans in on his coattails. As far as I can tell, everyone agrees with this, so I wont belabor it.
The Senate is the biggest wildcard. 2016 is going to be a bit of a challenge for the GOP, since theyll be defending the wave class of 2010. But some of those folks generally cited as liabilities, like Pat Toomey, actually seem to be doing okay. (In large part because theyve tacked left on key issues, which should be a lesson to the Tea Party about the limits of primary challenges. But thats a blog post for another day.) Theyll be helped by the fact that the president will have coattails in the Senate as well.
Moreover, the 2014 election, as I understand it, actually looks pretty good for the GOPDemocrats are defending a lot more vulnerable seats than Republicans, and the presidents party tends to suffer during midterms. If the GOP can get to 48 or 49 seats, I think its quite likely that theyll get to 50 in 2016.
Note that I dont think theyll establish permanent control; I think the odds are for a fragile majority of 50 or 51 seats, which theyre vulnerable to losing if anyone dies or resigns. If they do get control, I expect theyll lose it in 2018 midterms . . . which is why I suspect they might not go nuclear.
Anyway, thats my reasoning. Entirely provisional, and Im open to corrections. But thats why I wouldnt get rid of the filibuster if I were Harry Reid. Even if you think the chances that you lose the Senate and the White House are 50% its not a good gamble. For that matter, even if you keep the Senate and lose the White House, its not a good bet. Eventually youll lose the Senate, because control of that august institution seems to be pretty unstable. And in the meantime, since you dont have the White House, you cant actually do much with your new, filibuster-less power.
I don’t think any of this really matters. The last time the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, we got Medicare prescription drugs and radical Islamic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You are right. I wonder who will be the next RINO to get the nomination? We are screwed again.
The Fed Reserve this week admit to the entire world that the US economy after 5+ years of QE is still weak. Problem is in the last six months the US Treasury had to buy most of the T Bills in the monthly auctions with money printed by the Fed Reserve. IAW all the food stamps, disabilities, pensions, Soc Sec, Medicare/Medicaid, etc etc was paid with money printed by the Fed Reserve. We have debt equal to the US annual GDP (using the old formula till it was conveniently changed two months ago by the Fed Gov). If the GDP formula was not changed it probably shows the US economy was contracting. After all this QE the US economy is facing possible deflation or stagflation. The Fed Reserve has no answer after spending nearly 1 trillion a year in an attempt to revive the economy and inflation. IAW all the classic economic theories taught by our ivy league schools are not working. It means there is a new financial dynamic occurring that negates all the traditional economic theories of the past or the paper currency and fractional financial system has reached the end of its expansion capacity and must shrink. Problem is the US gov and our society is not ready for it. Last three years I have been prepping. Guns, ammo, food, precious metals and picking my neighbors and candidates at work to band together when SHTF. Problem was over 3 years ago I never knew the US gov and bankers had many creative means to keep the system going and the MSM was willing to shield the public of the financial rot. Time may have run out and SHTF countdown may have started as the Fed Reserve can no longer control the price of bonds and its yield. There is still time to stock up but I think time has runned out. Keep an eye on the US T bond yields. If it starts to rise despite the Fed decision not to taper it means the private bond buyers are not relying or trusting gov and MSM reporting of improving economy and ability of gov to honor their debts. At this point it makes no difference who is in charge because gov will lose control as society breaks down.
The sorry excuse for leadership is the same in both parties so I cant see the difference.
So you imagine under a GOP president and GOP majorities in both house of Congress we would get:
1. The power plant regulations of today?
2. Tax increases in this economic environment?
3. The kinds of deficits we have had the last 5 years?
4. A stimulus bill that gave much of the money to unionize state and local workers?
5. A recovery this anemic?
6. School lunches being remade into things the kids would throw away and go hungry?
7. Obama care?
8. A muddle foreign policy like we have?
There GOP is far far from perfect. They are too timid and don’t roll enough things back. But they are far far better than the Dims. They actually pass budgets. The press actually holds them accountable. [Heck the failure of the press to do their job with Dims is on reason not to vote for any Dim.]
Nope. GOP is dead. It killed itself. You know how many Senate seats Dims get in 2016 without even trying? 7. With effort? 10. The titanic demographic change is something that has never before happened in our history. And these people don’t just not vote GOP, they vote Dim in HUGE numbers. Unlike in the past, young people are staying Liberal. And if the Dims run Hilary in 2016? It’s done. The WH is probably perpetually in Dim hands for a couple generations.
No, this is that same wishful thinking that predicted McCain, Romney, GOP takes Senate (twice) that wasn’t even close.
I will fight til I am dead, but I’m not going to lie to myself.
Not the it means anything; with some notable exemptions, the GOP is Juan McCain, the loony illegal alien enthusiast, Linda Graham, the first gay GOP senator, and Reince Pribus running the party. The abject terror of the MSM causes them to completely disregard their constituents, rendering any electoral victory tepid at best. And they are too stupid nominate Palin with Col West as a running mate..
First gay GOP senator since the one before him, maybe. The GOP-e is chock full of homosexuals.
As if it matters, not a dime’s worth of difference.
I frankly doubt there will be a 2017 the way this nation is degenerating!
And yes, I think we'd get most of those things. Some of them were defining characteristics of the Bush administration (#3, #4 and #8, for example). It would all be done in the name of "compassionate conservatism."
Heres my thinking, for what its worth: Since the Civil War, only two Democratic presidents have been succeeded by another Democrat. Both of them -- FDR and JFK -- accomplished this by dying in office. Since World War II, only four presidents have been succeeded by a member of their party. As I mentioned above, two of them accomplished this by dying in office. One of them accomplished this by resigning in disgrace ahead of his own impeachment. Only one of them, Ronald Reagan, left office at the end of his appointed term and was succeeded by a duly elected member of his own party. Mostly, the White House flips back and forth like a metronome.Eisenhower was the first Republican president elected to to consecutive terms in his own right, and able to complete them, since Ulysses Grant. The next one was Ronald Reagan.
Petition Asking Democrat Party to Apologize for Supporting Slavery and Jim Crow
9/21/2013 | me
Posted on 09/21/2013 2:31:20 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
Paul: We probably cant get rid of Obamacare
Associated Press | Sep. 21, 2013 5:15 PM EDT | Thomas Beaumont
Posted on 09/21/2013 2:28:46 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Putin: ‘Can’t Say 100 Percent’ Assad Will Give Up Chemical Weapons
NewsMax | September 19, 2013 | Staff
Posted on 09/19/2013 1:45:23 PM PDT by lbryce
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.