Discussion: GOP’s Near-Term Optimism Could Backfire — Hard — In 2016

Discussion for article #222181

So in the southern cockpit of the 2014 contest for control of the Senate, Democrats will be fighting not only a “referendum effect “ and perhaps a “six-year itch,” but also a very adverse turnout pattern in which rapidly GOP-trending older white voters are likely to have extra weight.

2014 comes down to individual Senate races mostly. David Axelrod said that Begich, Landrieu, and Kay Hagan are in strong positions, “going to win.” Not sure about Hagan, but I think Pryor will also hang on, polls show him up and probably improving. There’s hope for Grimes and Nunn at least. This is in reality, not theory. But if you like theory, I also expect continued positive effects from Obamacare good news and we see that just today with Scott and seniors, but really everyday. In conclusion,I think Dem’s hold the Senate, which is what really matters. No?

So Kilgore with your gloomy “very adverse,” don’t count enemy hand grenades flying in on you till they’ve detonated (or been tossed back).

1 Like

I just want to go before the young left leaning voters and scream at the top of my lungs:

Do you really want worse than we have seen since 2010? Do you really want to waste the next 2 years listening to the batshit teabagging repubs talk about destroying all we hold dear and care about? Do you really want to show how weak the left if all you want to do is take your marbles and go home?

The message has to be that we need to fight like hell like the RWNJs do. We do not need to let them win the Senate and inflict more damage than we can imagine.


I don’t believe 2014 will be 2010 again. Obamacare is not going to be the driver of this mid term election. It doesn’t mean that democrats still don’t have a turnout problem of their base. Also, senate races are individual races that is not based on who is POTUS during mid terms. In a general election this might matter. If democrats get their base to turnout democrats will win. I believe that democrats will keep the senate. Incumbents are hard to beat unless there is a wave election. This will not be a wave election because democrats in key states know if they don’t vote they will have to pay the consequences. Democrats should be reminded over and over what happened in 2010 when they didn’t show up at the polls.


It’s also possible it could backfire hard in 2014. You see, the problem is that the GOP’s donors have been working very, very hard to break the rules over the last three decades. With the recent SCOTUS rulings, the GOP could find itself in a situation where they are on a level playing field, and what we’ve seen in the past is the GOP’s smaller pool of donors giving a lot of money but the Dems having a much bigger pool of donors giving smaller amounts.

All the Dems really need to do is fire up the young voters and get them out to vote.


The RWNJs feed their base with highly unpopular positions for the sake of keeping them fired up and turning them out.

The Democrats ignore their base a whole lot of the time.


I am going to be saying this to everyone I know.

Democrats are going to have to use a trickle-down approach.

Let me tell you all what I mean…

I am 66 years old. Although I tend to get along well with younger people, under 30-year olds can tune me out just like they tune out most people my age. That’s just the way it is.

HOWEVER, my baby brother (now 56) and I are more or less on the same wave length regarding basic opinions, experiences and perspectives. I am also sure that my brother can say the same thing about his relationship to someone age 46. And the 46-year-old can say the same thing about someone in his 30s. Finally, someone in his 30s (like my son) can relate to 20-somethings (my son just married one).

Democrats are going to have to start with those of us who are older and KNOW what the stakes are and the damage the Republicans can do. We are going to have to tell our slightly younger fellow citizens on down the line–with adjacent age-cohorts impressing on younger cohorts just what is at stake, all with the idea that people respond better to those near their own age.

Maybe that can penetrate the kid/“I don’t give a flip” bubble


The MSM is really pumping the “Dems can’t win in 2014” meme aren’t they? They did the same thing in 2012 if you remember right. Like many of you I believe we will hold on to the Senate. The only thing Kilgore is truly right about is the disaster coming Republicans way in 2016.

1 Like

There is a stock market term for what is going to happen in 2014 to Republicans. When a stock falls from a great height sometimes it will recover briefly before becoming worthless. This is called a “dead cat bounce”. Do not mistake a dead cat bouncing after falling from a high point for life. Do not mistake Republicans winning some seats in 2014 for signs that it will not shrivel and die.


There is another aspect to this that may be lacking. People are forgetting that the people who voted in 2008 for Obama at age 18 are now, what, 24? They’re entering that next group up from the one usually labeled ‘young voters’. Those are people more apt to vote regularly. Meanwhile, the Republican’s attempts to hamper the election are actually hurting their base as well, the older voters. Furthermore, my mother use to work at a assisted living facility until earlier this year, and she was telling me how many older voters have been turned off by the GOP’s attempts to go after Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. In other words, this really could backfire on a message standpoint, and we could see a shift in demographics occur.

So, everything you’ve said and I’ve said taken into account means that no one should be trying to call the elections just yet.


The argument that Republicans have a strong wind at their backs both in 2014 and in 2016 is largely based on prior electoral history.

I haven’t seen anyone, at least anyone credible, claiming that Republicans have any sort of chance in 2016. They will be facing the same electorate and electoral college map as 2008 and 2012, with a field of similarly weak and/or crazy candidates against Hillary or, worse (for them), someone who defeats Hillary, and they’re defending twice as many Senate seats, including all of those in blue states that they won in 2010.


Of all the southern dems on the bubble Hagan’s probably in the strongest position. Her likely opponent is inextricably tied to a wildly unpopular state legislature and despite his ties to Karl Rove, the Koch Bros, et. al. he severely lags in fundraising.

Additionally AEI-affiliated groups have already spent millions on attack ads against Hagan months before primary voting even began, and polling numbers haven’t budged an inch.

I still think Republicans are going to get a shock in 2014.

I’ve noticed that they talk about electoral history. The problem is that electoral patterns can shift over time. So, right now, I would have to say that the conditions that they are dealing with are far more unstable than they want to admit and the likelihood of a GOP blowout is less likely than it would seem. I doubt that they are going to win the 6 seats they need to take over the Senate.

Dead cat bounce, now that is one for the books. Thank you.

That’s just false that second midterms are always worse than first midterms. Midterms are bad for the president’s party with just three exceptions since the Civil War, 1934, 1998, and 2002. Other than those, each multi-term presidency includes a bad midterm and a horrible midterm. I say multi-term because I’m counting FDR. However, horrible midterms have proven as likely to be first midterms as second. It makes sense that there would be only one horrible midterm since you can’t lose what you don’t hold. So let’s not talk ourselves into being defeated already. We’re going to lose House and Senate seats, but we might hang on to the Senate, and we’re likely to pick up governors. We’re down so far in legislative seats that we’ll probably pick up some there too.