What 2014 Means for 2016

Townhall.com ^ | December 12, 2014 | Michael Barone

[Obadiah]

Well said.

[Lazamataz]

STUPID!!!!!!! Try the couple of weeks AFTER THE DAMN ELECTION, where the RINO GOPe is back to busily kicking its conservative supporters in the nuts. What we have here is a great start at the total demoralization of the hated conservatives. The result? ANOTHER FOUR MILLION or so will sit ‘16 out just as they did when RINORomney “ran” (really?) for the office. Please explain how the GOP wins ‘16 when that happens. Hello, Hillary.

They don't care. Either party-label that gets elected, it's the same damned party.

[SunkenCiv]

Other defeated Democratic candidates this year -- Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Michele Nunn and Jason Carter in Georgia, Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Udall in Colorado -- had forebears first elected to Congress or as governor between 1961 and 1972. But that wasn't enough to overcome opposition to the Obama Democratic party's liberal policies. Exception to the rule: Gwen Graham, daughter of a former governor and senator first elected statewide in 1978, beat a Republican House member 50.4 to 49.6 percent in a Florida district, which President Obama narrowly lost (52-47) in 2012. The obvious implication for 2016 is that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, is something of a legacy candidate, too.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Last night teaches me that two years of the Boehner-McConnell act will leave Republican voters thoroughly demoralized. And that Lizzie Warren is the only one out there willing to lead a charge against obvious and brazen corruption.

Which tells me the Fake White Indian will be your next POTUS.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Won’t be Hillary. The Democrats have drifted too far to the left since her husband led the party. She is now actually too conservative for them. Plus she has health issues, and she looks like an albino Jabba the Hutt in HD.

[MrB]

Both parties,

governing AGAINST the will of the people,
not with the consent of the governed.

[Impy]

In 2012 only 26 of 435 congressional districts voted for a House member of one party and the presidential nominee of the other, the lowest number since 1920. In 2014, the number of "split districts" rose, but only to 31, mostly because Republicans picked up seats where Obama approval fell below 50 percent.

1920, eh. Interesting, didn't know what. I wonder when the opposite record was. Probably 1972 and 1984, which if my math is right were both a whopping 190, according to the info DJ gave me a few weeks ago. Republicans won less than half the seats Reagan took in '84.

[ripley]

“Won’t be Hillary!”

Warren? (Or some surprise extreme leftist?)