The conservative movement is desperate, as they foresee disaster for their movement and for the Republican Party, and rightfully so, with the almost certain nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican Presidential nominee this summer at the GOP National Convention in Cleveland.
The likelihood is, more than ever, that the Democrats will win the Presidency, regain control of the US Senate, be able to transform the Supreme Court majority to the liberal-progressive side, and possibly win the House of Representatives majority.
The latter is hard to accomplish, but the effect of Trump could cause that disaster for the Republican Party.
So now, Bill Kristol of THE WEEKLY STANDARD and other conservatives are promoting the idea of a third party movement, with former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn or former Texas Governor Rick Perry as potential nominees!
That is so hilarious, as both are terrible choices and will NOT help the conservative cause.
This blogger has already listed Coburn as one of the absolutely worst members of the Senate historically in previous posts over the last number of years, and Perry is a true example of an
“empty suit”,who can never outlive the embarrassment of his inability to remember federal agencies he wished to eliminate, during debates in the Presidential Election campaign of 2012!
With such choices, it demonstrates just how clueless and bankrupt the conservative movement has become, as it reaches a nadir in its evolution!
Election 2016 is very much looking like a Democratic hold of the presidency.
This is not due to just Donald Trump, the perceived frontrunner on the Republican side, versus Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, still in primaries mode on the Democratic side.
At “The Hill†are a list of ten United States Senate seats which may very well flip.
@ http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/273631-ten-senate-seats-most-likely-to-flip-in-2016
From that list are eight seats which are currently in the Republican column.
A couple weeks ago, Public Policy Polling reported that there is the potential for eight Republican-held U.S. Senate to flip.
@ http://aufc.3cdn.net/a80240cb6b2d3e9830_2vm6bnjvl.pdf
If the Republicans are to win a pickup of the presidency, here in 2016, they have no business potentially losing majority control of the United States Senate. (They have a 54-to-46 advantage, as flipped to their side in the 2014 midterm elections, over the Democrats.)
The route for the Democrats to flip the United States Senate starts with, unlike that “The Hill†article, holding all Democratic-held seats—including in bellwether states Nevada (retiring Harry Reid) and Colorado (Michael Bennett, after his full-term election in the midterm of 2010)—and win Democratic pickups in five Republican-held seats.
This begins with Illinois (which hasn’t elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since Charles Percy won re-election while Richard Nixon was re-elected the 37th president to the tune of 23.15 percentage points margin in the U.S. Popular Vote, 49 states, and 521/520 electoral votes, and even managed to carry Cook County, with its county seat Chicago); Wisconsin (which has voted for the same party at both the presidential/senatorial levels since 1976); Pennsylvania (one of the most-populous “Blue Firewall†states which is overdue for two Democratic U.S. Senators; in 2012, Barack Obama and Bob Casey ran less than five points of each other); New Hampshire (similar reason as Pennsylvania; Gov. Maggie Hassen is the type of Democrat who can unseat incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte); and Ohio (the most reputable bellwether state which has carried for same-party outcomes, President/U.S. Senate, since 1992). Add this the next presidential bellwether state, North Carolina (same-party carriage, President/U.S. Senate, since 1972).
Those are the five which would do it. But if there’s enough momentum, that could bring in the likes of Arizona, Florida (Marco Rubio’s seat), Indiana (retiring Dan Coats), Iowa, Missouri, and Georgia. That would be like a domino effect. Remember: Since at least 2004, states’ voters have been carrying at a rate of about 80 percent for same-party carriage for President and U.S. Senate. With about 33/34 regularly scheduled United States Senate elections in a presidential election, approximately 25 to 27 states, over those three cycles [2004, 2008, 2012], have delivered same-party carriage at both levels.
The fact that that Public Policy Polling has both Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, who was part of “Reagan’s Coattails,†when first elected in 1980, and 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain of Arizona is disastrous for a party wanting to win back the presidency.
Since the 17th Amendment of the 1910s have allowed direct elections of United States Senators from the states’ electorates, every presidential election in which the U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate flipped party control ended up in the same party’s column which won the presidency.
This was applicable in 1932 (Democratic pickups for President Franklin Roosevelt and U.S. Senate); 1948 (Democratic hold for President Harry Truman and pickups with both houses of Congress); 1952 (Republican pickups on all three counts with Dwight Eisenhower as President); and 1980 (Republican pickups for President Ronald Reagan and the U.S. Senate).
If the Republicans pickup the presidency, here in 2016, both houses of Congress—already in the party’s column—will be retained. But, if that party fails to hold a majority with the U.S. Senate, the 2016 nominee of the Republican Party will not win election to the presidency of the United States. If President and U.S. Senate are going to be in separate party columns, realistically and historically it would be status quo: Democrats, for President; Republicans, for U.S. Senate. To have a situation where the Democrats win a majority-control pickup of the U.S. Senate means that the 2016 nominee from the Democratic Party will hold and win election to the presidency.
Desperate is definitely the perfect word for them.
Lawrence O’Donnell showed a new poll on his show last night. (One of the few shows left on MSNBC that I still enjoy.) In a match-up with Republicans, Hillary and Bernie both beat Trump. Hillary barely beats Ted Cruz. John Kasich beats Hillary.
Southern Liberal,
It depends on how many percentage point in margin those national polls say.
In 2008 and 2012, an average of about 130 million votes were cast. Winning the U.S. Popular Vote by 1.00 percentage points was winning by 1.3 million raw votes. Increments of that amount mean 2.6 million raw votes (2 percentage points), 3.9 million raw votes (3 percentage points), and so on. In 2008, Barack Obama’s Democratic pickup of the presidency was a result of around 9.5 million raw votes (a percentage-points margin of 7.26). His re-election, in 2012, was nearly 5 million raw votes (a percentage-points margin of 3.86).
Those hypothetical matchups of R [Donald Trump or Ted Cruz] and D [Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders] which make it sound like only one kind of R can beat a particular D, or one kind of D could beat a particular R, doesn’t jive with reality.
If only one type from this or that party can win…either that party won’t be winning or that party will definitely be winning.
All these hypotheticals, of a prevailing Democrat, have really said is that Bernie Sanders can beat a Republican by at least 1.3 million raw votes even more so that by how much Hillary Clinton can beat a given Republican.
I saw that poll as well. Bernie is 15 points ahead of Trump and Hillary is 10 points ahead Trump.
Trump’s theme song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukWRRNqMAZ4
We need to keep in mind that polls can change between now and Fall.
Rustbelt – Another perfect song would be Fool On The Hill.
A lot of Beatle songs could apply: “Nowhere Man”; “You Can’t DoThat”; “The Things we said Today”; I am hoping on election day that voters say, “Hello. Goodbye”