The massive problems with the roll out of ObamaCare could hurt the Democrats in midterm elections coming up in November 2014.
The Republicans, by their shutting down of the government, were on the defensive, but now the unbelievable troubles with ObamaCare seem to be wiping out the edge that the Democrats had just two months ago.
It is clear that the American population is changing its views on government and major issues, based on each new controversy which arises, and that anything could happen eleven months from now.
It is also evident that IF the American people could defeat all incumbents, they would do so, and that many, at least in theory, would like a new political party.
But the American system of government is such that the reality of defeating incumbents is very difficult, and only a small percentage will be defeated next year. At the same time, having new political parties that can compete for power and influence is nearly impossible, as our party system, with its ups and its downs, has not changed in 160 years when 2014 arrives next month.
We are in a very difficult period politically, and trying to predict the outcome of the midterm elections, and even the Presidential race of 2016, has become ever more something one would not wish to bet on!
As this piece says, we Progressives need to spread the word about the Obamacare successes.
http://www.winningprogressive.org/celebrating-obamacare-success-stories
Yes, Princess Leia, I well recognize the reality, but the attack by much of the media and the Republican Party makes it difficult to keep up the spirit that this will all work out in the end, which I do believe will occur!
Ronald writes, “We are in a very difficult period politically, and trying to predict the outcome of the midterm elections, and even the Presidential race of 2016, has become ever more something one would not wish to bet on!â€
Compare House elections in the presidential and midterm years. For one to compare 2004 to 2006; 2006 to 2008; 2008 to 2010; 2010 to 2012; with eventually 2012 to 2014 and 2014 to 2016.… It turns out typically between 26 to 30 percent less participate in voting for the U.S. House in a midterm- than a presidential-election year. (It’s the best way to compare because all of the House has regularly scheduled elections held in even-numbered years.)
The individual party turnout will win the day more notably in a midterm year. The exit polls, from midterms, usually show one party conspicuously with better turnout nationally. The self-identified Republican numbers were high for 2010. At the time there were numerous Republicans who made the mistake in assuming party identification from that year’s midterm elections would beget the presidential election of 2012; and, aside from assuming they would unseat Barack Obama—no matter their party’s nominee—they also mistakenly assumed that far in advance that their party would flip majority control of the U.S. Senate.
As for party-flipping majority control of the House and/or Senate, past performances show this will usually go against the party of the presidency not in presidential but in midterm years. In presidential years resulting in a party-flip of majority control of the House and/or Senate, the prevailing party will end up being the same one as the party which won the presidency.
Here is a list of the congressional party flips, for majoity control of the House and/or Senate, over the last 100 years.
• 1918 Midterm: House and Senate flipped to Republican. (Democratic president Woodrow Wilson.)
• 1930 Midterm: House flipped to Democratic. (Republican president Herbert Hoover.)
• 1932 Presidential: Senate flipped to Democratic. (Republican president Hoover was unseated by Democratic challenger Franklin Roosevelt.)
• 1946 Midterm: House and Senate flipped to Republican. (Democratic president Harry Truman.)
• 1948 Presidential: House and Senate flipped to Democratic. (A first, full-term election for incumbent Democrat Truman.)
• 1952 Presidential: House and Senate flipped to Republican. (Presidency, in an open race, flipped to Republican for Dwight Eisenhower.)
• 1954 Midterm: House and Senate flipped to Democratic. (Republican president Eisenhower.)
• 1980 Presidential: Senate flipped to Republican. (Democratic president Jimmy Carter was unseated by Republican challenger Ronald Reagan.)
• 1986 Midterm: Senate flipped to Democratic. (Republican president Reagan.)
• 1994 Midterm: House and Senate flipped to Republican. (Democratic president Bill Clinton.)
• 2001 Off-Year Non-Election: Senate flipped to Democratic as, with what was a 50/50 caucus status, Vermont U.S. Sen. Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Democrat and opted to caucus with the Democrats. (Republican president George W. Bush.)
• 2002 Midterm: Senate flipped to Republican. (Republican president Bush.)
• 2006 Midterm: House and Senate flipped to Democratic. (Republican president Bush.)
• 2010 Midterm: House flipped to Republican. (Democratic president Barack Obama.)
This calls into question why incumbent presidents typically lose in the midterms.
Lip service is paid to the usual, “too much to the rightâ€/“too much to the left†theories.
Yes, I think enough of them get lazy. That it has to do a president’s first election of supporters going to sleep and assuming all is well; and then after the midterms comes their shock.
Those aren’t bad theories.
But there isn’t just one answer.
I consider that this may have to do with a voting electorate at large not actually caring who reps them in congress—not just locally and/or nationally—and that enough of them don’t routinely follow through following Congress let alone get engaged with participation going well beyond voting for the presidency.
If turns out President Barack Obama’s Democratic party loses majority control of the U.S. Senate with the congressional midterms of 2014, his supporters need to look to his policies just as the 2006 Republicans had to look to their majority-control losses of both houses of Congress due to President George W. Bush’s policies.
It’s been said that The People historically like divided government. Checks and balances. I think it’s actually an ongoing tug-of-rope pissing match, to various degrees of intenstity, that still results in choosing sides. Preferred party.
Over the last 100 years, since the 17th Amendment of the 1910s, no president serving more than one term (or elected beyond one full term) held off with not seeing his party suffer net losses from applicable congressional midterm elections. This includes Franklin Roosevelt who, during this period, was the only president who never lost same-party majority control of either house of Congress. (His Democratic party felt plenty of pain in, most memorably, 1938.) He was the only one during this period with same-party control throughout his presidency. And Richard Nixon was the only president, elected beyond one term, who never had same-party control of either house of Congress at any point during his presidency. (His Republican party lost seats in 1970 and, more conspicuously, after he resigned the presidency in 1974.)
So the beat goes on. It will, once again, no matter the outcomes with the congressional midterm elections of 2014. And it won’t surprise me, no matter how they play, should political pundits once against use those [2014] results to explain what we are supposedly supposed to expect with the coming presidential election of 2016.
Again, D, thanks for your perceptive and detailed analysis of the issue I have brought up in this entry! Much appreciated!
The site is now running at full capacity.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/12/obamacare-naysayers-get-big-lump-of-coal.html
That is great news, Rustbelt Democrat! We all need patience, but it is sometimes difficult to have!
Here is an excellent Facebook page for those of us in this country who recognize the dishonesty of Republicans and their handlers at Faux News. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Americans-Against-Fox-News-and-Republican-Lies/103523196350872
Thanks for this, Princess Leia!