Most of the talk regarding the state of American politics recently has been about how the results of the 2012 election indicate that future elections will be difficult for the Republicans if they don't change their policies. They're right, but not, I think, in the way the Democrats and the liberal press think.
Truth is Republicans have a bigger problem going into 2016 than they imagine. The problem isn't with winning the Presidency, it's with winning the Senate. Before 2012 Democrats held a 4-vote majority, and now they have a 6-vote majority. In normal election years, even when Presidents are elected, the opposition usually picks up 1 or usually 2 seats in the Senate. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Reagan. And it even happened with Clinton. If that had happened to Obama, the Democrats would now have a 2 vote majority. What does this matter? Republicans are well placed in a number of Red states to pick up Senate seats in 2014, but with the current 6-vote margin Republicans will really need to take six to eight seats to win control. That's the not so good news. The bad news comes in 2016.
Only 1/3rd of the Senate seats come up every two years, and the reason Republicans didn't take over the Senate in 2010 is because they already had a majority of those seats contested that year. Well these are the same seats that will be contested in 2016 and Republicans now hold 24 of those 34 seats, which means that even if Republicans win the Presidency in 2016 they're not only not likely to win any more of the Senate, they're actually likely to lose a couple seats. So unless they pick up 8 seats in '14 (which is really big for 1 election) the Democrats will almost certainly control the Senate after the 2016 election, EVEN if Republicans win the White House.
And this assumes Republicans win their 6 in 2014. If they fall short of 6 next year, Republicans will have to run in 2016 on the assumption that Democrats will still be in charge in 2017, fundamentally changing the dynamic of the next Presidential race. They won't be able to run a partisan campaign. If Republicans had gained 2 instead of losing 2 in 2012, the Democratic majority would have almost certainly been defeated in 2014, regardless of Republican weaknesses and they'd have been a good bet to hold the Senate in 2016 assuming they won the Presidency.
Now things look bleak. Republicans didn't lose to Barack Obama due to changing demographics as so many have assumed last year. The election was won in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire. In 3 of these states the minority vote is negligible. In Colorado the Hispanic vote is significant but not yet the swing vote, and in Florida that vote is even smaller. In Virginia, the Black vote is smaller than in most southern states and there is no guarantee they'll give just any Democrat the same support they've given President Obama. Republicans could easily have won the election last year.
But on top of this challenge they now face really long odds on being able to promise partisan solutions in the 2016 election.
And the reason for all this is that in 2012 Republicans lost 4 seats in states that Romney carried for President. Their real deficit is with Independent voters in these mostly Western and Midwestern Republican states. If Republicans do poorly there again in 2014 they'll almost have to forfeit the 2016 election to have any chance of governing in the near future. In fact, should she run, Hillary Clinton would be able to run on the assumption that Democrats are a better bet to retake the House than Republicans are to take the Senate.
The Deck is now stacked against them.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Rob Portman and the Arrogance of the GOP
Do We the People govern or do our politicians rule for us, supplanting our views
with their own? This is the question I am asking myself today as I read news that Ohio
Senator Rob Portman has decided to take it upon himself to overturn the will of those
who elected him by declaring (without an election) that HE supports legalizing Gay
Marriage. His decision only serves to underscore the degree to which Republicans
tend to govern according to the Leader principle, that is, allowing our, 'leaders,' to decide
what Republicans stand for instead of Republicans themselves. And allowing the Left
to govern by default rather than giving the American people a democratic choice.
More and more, as I start to see things in Mid-Life terms, I am coming to the conclusion
that the Baby Boom generation (as they have been termed) doesn't know how to lead, except
by reading polls. This, of course, is not leadership, but pandering.
The only polls that should really count are the ones on election day. You know, like the
one where Rob Portman was elected as a Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Republican. And the
opinions of the American people are pretty decisive on this question. This is not a
Republican vs Democrat issue. Millions of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters are also
quite traditional in their opinions on Marriage.
Before last years Presidential election, the question of whether marriage was between one
Man and one Woman had been placed before the voters directly as a ballot proposition
Thirty-Two times and every....Single.....TIME the decision was YES. Even in liberal-
leaning states like California a majority voted in favor of Marriage, with the votes of
Black and Asian Americans providing the margin of victory.
Given this decisive unanimity on the question of Marriage it should have been a given that
Republicans would make it a priority to place a Marriage amendment to the Constitution
before the voters to settle this question for the time being and prevent the courts from
misconstruing Civil Rights law contrary to the opinion of the American People.
Opponents of traditional Marriage will point to the Presidential election last year and
votes in Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington, overturning Marriage in favor
of a Gay Right to marry as an indication that this battle is over and their opinion is final.
In each of these genuinely Blue Democratic states, however, the vote was exceedingly
narrow (with votes between only 51 and 53 percent of the total) and really begs the
question of whether the outcome would have been the same if Barack Obama had not
been on the ballot, and therefore whether the question should not be revisited in 2014.
Which brings me back to the fecklessness of Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and the corruption
of the Republican Party. Why is it that with the overwhelming support for Marriage as
it has always been, EVEN in staunchly Democratic states that Republicans in Washington
feel they have the right to overturn over a decade of democratic votes with only one election?
Again, I sense the weak-knees of the Baby Boom generation deciding that their "cooler,
hipper, cohort,' are right and they still want to be cool and should just give in and go along.
Each of these elections should be revisited in 2014. Voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota
and Washington should be given the opportunity to decide if they they feel the same way
2 years on, and Senator Portman should have to face his Ohio voters immediately in a Recall
election so that the American People's authority is not supplanted by the whims of elitists like
him.
Opponents will say the Constitution does not provide for the immediate recall of U.S. Senators.
But given the arrogant elitism that dominates Washington, D.C. and BOTH major political
parties can We as Americans any longer afford not to have that choice? I think not.
The Constitution should be amended to provide for the Recall of U.S. Senators to ensure it
is THEIR views and not the changing views of ONE man alone that is the Law of this country.
On this and EVERY issue OUR government decides.
with their own? This is the question I am asking myself today as I read news that Ohio
Senator Rob Portman has decided to take it upon himself to overturn the will of those
who elected him by declaring (without an election) that HE supports legalizing Gay
Marriage. His decision only serves to underscore the degree to which Republicans
tend to govern according to the Leader principle, that is, allowing our, 'leaders,' to decide
what Republicans stand for instead of Republicans themselves. And allowing the Left
to govern by default rather than giving the American people a democratic choice.
More and more, as I start to see things in Mid-Life terms, I am coming to the conclusion
that the Baby Boom generation (as they have been termed) doesn't know how to lead, except
by reading polls. This, of course, is not leadership, but pandering.
The only polls that should really count are the ones on election day. You know, like the
one where Rob Portman was elected as a Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Republican. And the
opinions of the American people are pretty decisive on this question. This is not a
Republican vs Democrat issue. Millions of Black, Hispanic, and Asian voters are also
quite traditional in their opinions on Marriage.
Before last years Presidential election, the question of whether marriage was between one
Man and one Woman had been placed before the voters directly as a ballot proposition
Thirty-Two times and every....Single.....TIME the decision was YES. Even in liberal-
leaning states like California a majority voted in favor of Marriage, with the votes of
Black and Asian Americans providing the margin of victory.
Given this decisive unanimity on the question of Marriage it should have been a given that
Republicans would make it a priority to place a Marriage amendment to the Constitution
before the voters to settle this question for the time being and prevent the courts from
misconstruing Civil Rights law contrary to the opinion of the American People.
Opponents of traditional Marriage will point to the Presidential election last year and
votes in Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, and Washington, overturning Marriage in favor
of a Gay Right to marry as an indication that this battle is over and their opinion is final.
In each of these genuinely Blue Democratic states, however, the vote was exceedingly
narrow (with votes between only 51 and 53 percent of the total) and really begs the
question of whether the outcome would have been the same if Barack Obama had not
been on the ballot, and therefore whether the question should not be revisited in 2014.
Which brings me back to the fecklessness of Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and the corruption
of the Republican Party. Why is it that with the overwhelming support for Marriage as
it has always been, EVEN in staunchly Democratic states that Republicans in Washington
feel they have the right to overturn over a decade of democratic votes with only one election?
Again, I sense the weak-knees of the Baby Boom generation deciding that their "cooler,
hipper, cohort,' are right and they still want to be cool and should just give in and go along.
Each of these elections should be revisited in 2014. Voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota
and Washington should be given the opportunity to decide if they they feel the same way
2 years on, and Senator Portman should have to face his Ohio voters immediately in a Recall
election so that the American People's authority is not supplanted by the whims of elitists like
him.
Opponents will say the Constitution does not provide for the immediate recall of U.S. Senators.
But given the arrogant elitism that dominates Washington, D.C. and BOTH major political
parties can We as Americans any longer afford not to have that choice? I think not.
The Constitution should be amended to provide for the Recall of U.S. Senators to ensure it
is THEIR views and not the changing views of ONE man alone that is the Law of this country.
On this and EVERY issue OUR government decides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)