Will Repubs make the next election a referendum of Obama also??

[kentuck]

After all, he will still be the President in November, 2016.

I would not be surprised.

Perhaps by then, Democrats will have learned that we win elections on economic issues. "It's the economy, stupid!" Remember?

Is there any reason to believe that the President's "favorability" ratings will be any higher in 2016? The Republicans have spent a lot of time and effort tearing this President down and it might be a task to get his numbers back up?

We don't win elections trying to win NRA votes or on one-issue, such as "anti-woman". The reality is what it is. Call it what you want, but the Democrats were caught off-guard, with their pants down, in this election.

The Republicans were so effective at demonizing Obama that even his own Mama would deny him. And many of his fellow Democrats did indeed do just that.

This past election started with hatred for "Obamacare" and went to Benghazi, then to the IRS, then to Syria, then to his incompetence in pulling out the troops and permitting ISIS to come back into Iraq, and then, just before election, we had the Ebola scare. It was difficult to talk about anything else. But the mold had already been set.

What's the lessons we have learned? First of all, you have to defend whatever you have voted for, whether it be the ACA or the President or the attack upon Benghazi. You cannot let these attacks continue to fester until election day.

And the lies must be countered. For example, the IRS problems in Cincinnati. Democrats were silent as the Republicans portrayed it as a conspiracy to attack conservative groups only. You have to fight back on issues like that.

But, we should know by now that Republicans like to put their opponents on the defensive and keep them there. If you're not ready to handle that reality, then perhaps you don't deserve to be in Congress? You cannot bring a knife to a gunfight. We know the tactics of Republicans. Until they change, we have no choice but to use the same personal attack methods as they. We would prefer to discuss the issues and let the people decide who has the best ideas. But Democrats win when that happens. Republicans will not fight on those grounds. We have no choice.

[HereSince1628]

1. I suspect Obama will take the place of Jimmy Carter as the anti-Reagan

[yeoman6987]

19. Definitely. Plus they will run against the President in 2016

We ran against Bush's policies in 2008. Of course the President will be a factor in 2016. Does anyone think otherwise?

[Wounded Bear]

2. If (big if IMHO) there is continuing growth in the economy...

the Republicans will take credit for it.

In short, we're screwed now.

[kentuck]

6. Maybe it's time to get ahead of the curve?

Start talking about the President's accomplishments now, before the Republicans have a chance. After all, they don't take power until January. Remind people of the 5.8% unemployment rate and still going down. Remind them of the 9 straight months of job creation of 200,000 jobs or more. Remind them of the strong stock market the 401Ks that have been doing much better. Remind them of the automobile jobs. Don't wait for the Republicans to attack then react in a defensive way. Because they will.

[KingCharlemagne]

7. As a corollary, anthing bad that happens between now and Nov. 2016 must be

laid at the feet of Republicans. They've had the House since 2010 and now both chambers. When and if the next recession hits in 6-9 months, that is all on the Republicans who had a chance to pass additional stimulus bills and chose not to. That puts the recession ont hem and on them alone.

[kentuck]

9. Absolutely!

The economy is back on its feet again and if it falters, it is the fault of the Republicans. And it will be.

[Bandit]

25. Except the ONLY thing they know is TAX CUTS

Will Obama veto a Tax Cut Bill? I have my doubts. As soon as a Tax Cut is enacted the economy will begin to stumble and by the time Obama leaves Office we will be right back in Big recession area.

[kentuck]

28. Yep.

A likely scenario.

[meaculpa2011]

11. This economic recovery is shallow...

and fragile as glass.

I'm not optimistic.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Of course they will.

It worked this time around.

[KingCharlemagne]

5. It worked this time around with the 55% of the 36.6% of the

electorate (about 20% of eligible voters) who bothered to show up. Next time, it will work with those already convinced. I doubt it will change anyone else's mind about whom to vote for. 2016 is a whole new electorate and a whole new map.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. They will link every Dem candidate to his/her support of Obama

Bank on it.

[kentuck]

10. I think you're right.

Unfortunately.

[KingCharlemagne]

12. Right, the tactic will 'work' with those already predisposed to dislike or vote against Dems. So

it will help rally their base. I doubt it will convince any Dem to bail on the party or significantly affect any provebial 'Undecided' voter's electoral calculus.

[kentuck]

14. Unless, of course...

it demoralizes voters the next time the same way it did this time.

[KingCharlemagne]

15. My own personal feeling is that Republicans are going to run the country into

the ditch -- if not over the abyss, let us hope! -- in the next year and they are constitutionally unable to help themselves to right the ship of state with their incessant nihilist nattering. I think come Nov. 2016, the American electorate's 'decency gene' will have awoken from its 6-year slumbe and they will be mightily pissed off at Republicans. Maybe not pissed off enough to take the House back for Dems -- the electoral math there is very daunting -- but certainly to retain the WH, take back the Senate and make major gains in the House. (2016 will be what political scientists call a 'wave' election, as in Blue Tsunami.)

[kentuck]

17. I think they are so into power....

that they will self-destruct. They really have no urge to govern. Limbaugh was right.

[KingCharlemagne]

4. Who said Republicans get to 'make' the next election anything? The best

response by Dem candidates to any such effort is to say, "President Obama is no longer on the ballot and after January will not be serving as President. Here's what I (and our new Dem candidate for President) believe . . . "

[kentuck]

13. Also, the President really pissed off the Latino vote before the election.

He needs to let them know that he will do whatever he can do with executive orders but the bill is setting on John Boehner's desk. It is up to the Republicans to give us comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans hate this issue. And the President should sign an executive order with that explanation. (Republicans believe all those possible Latino voters may upset their power arrangement)

[TheKentuckian]

16. Of course they will, there is no question and further it is too late to try to rally to defend or

stand for any record of accomplishment because we've already ran against for three cycles now and it is a hard sell anyways because the fruits of "recovery" have gone to the top and everyone else is treading water at best, it rings hollow.

[kentuck]

18. You may be right but....

5.8% percent sounds pretty good right now compared to when Obama encountered when he came in. I think we need to reference back to the disaster we have attempted to recover from. The point is we cannot walk the poodle into a group of junkyard dogs. We need to fight.

[TheKentuckian]

23. We need to fight but what fight matters much more now, one for the future not trying to shine up

the last war in a vain effort to convince folks not to believe their lying eyes and that we came through when we didn't and spent the past 3 cycles saying either we didn't ourselves or trying to distance ourselves from what we clearly did while insisting that we will keep on keeping on the same course.

Nor can we effectively even run against the opposition because we cannot stop trying to nullify the differences during election seasons and "reaching out for bipartisanship" after it is over. The message is far to muddled and conflicting.

Maybe far fewer would think there is no difference if our idiotic pols would refrain from spending six, twelve, or eighteen months trying to tell anyone on Earth that there isn't one and worse when trusted with power governing to protect and expand the status quo the other fucks put into place.

What I think is we have shot ourselves in the privates about every which way we can and will continue to do so because we are as a whole risk adverse cowards so afraid of losing that we no longer seek to win nor even have any clear idea of what victory would be with a nonsense message and utterly irreconcilable aims, many of which are in real world application actually are either the same or close enough to the same as the opposition anyway.

You can't run on protecting Social Security when you are angling to cut it for 2/3 the population.

You can't run on ending two wars you are still in and will be in foreseeably.

You can't run on reining in Wall Street while giving them the store and covering their ass.

You can't run on protecting the environment while pushing fracking, pipelines, and expanding drilling.

You can't run on jobs when you are trying to outsource as many as possible and bringing in scabs when it isn't possible.

It is tough to run on universal health care when what you produce is a corporate mandate, a scheme to advance self denial, and a give away to the pharmaceutical industry.

You can't credibly run on wages when you are actually focused on actions that limit them and oversee an expansion of the wealth disparity and minimum wage only can get so much traction when all above it are being crushed save very cynically, essentially telling the people that the minimum is all most can expect so we better get it up.

Can't run on education by following the Duncan/Jeb Bush/Pat Robertson model.

Can't run on responsive and transparent government while protecting the Bush security apparatus and holding over his spooks.

So, now all we really have is abortion and overreach on gun control which is a net negative (folks want background checks not gun control which are not the same thing) but let's say I misread that, it is still all we affirmatively have really and not impacful to consistently move the needle.

Then we have candidates and leaders who not very subtly tell anyone who will listen that our values and aims are fucked up and shameful because they cannot put enough distance between themselves and them, all too often echoing the opposition making the net message as the Republicans are mostly correct so in all reality why should anyone bother voting for us? They can get the real deal or not even bother and come out largely the same. That isn't the voter's fault but ours, they are responding to our own words and deeds.

[kentuck]

29. But...

Republicans proved that you really don't need anything to run on. I think it is more the degree of the fight than what you are fighting over, at this time. Obviously the voters are not smart enough to know what is or is not in their interests. I know that is a cynical statement but if anything goes bad, we give it to the Republicans and sell it to the voting public.

[TheKentuckian]

31. I have agreed significantly to this point but now we can't really fight because we stand for nothing

we have place ourselves in a structural disadvantage that the Republicans never did with such consistency and vigor, they never abandoned their core ideology and always kept a fairly straight story, certainly true in the last two generations, if they lose they lose and go back to work the next morning on the same agenda no matter how temporarily unpopular or even toxic which builds the credibility that they believe their argument which is strongly reinforced by a great many on our side too as they run away and hedge on ours and come out seeming like shady weasels even more than the opposition.

The idiot Grimes stepped on her own credibility , I was talking to real people on the ground. Phony don't sell, brother. You can't get caught not meaning what you say is your rationale for running except with those you can't lose anyway.

[YarnAddict]

20. In 2008

Democrats made the referendum about Bush, so, yeah, why not?

[Savannahmann]

21. Hillary will be.

She will have no choice but to run against Obama. Especially since he is determined to offend 80% of the voters with executive action on Amnesty. No Democratic Candidate will run on the accomplishment of hamstringing the party.

[TheKentuckian]

24. He better or those often talked about "changing demographics" won't be worth a dry turd.

[Historic NY]

22. Of course....

and most likely the reliable 60-80 yr old crowd will come out and vote Repug again. Pretty soon the young people are going to realize they will be older every 4 yrs.

[liberal N proud]

26. Yes and they will tie Hllary to Obama

[Proud Public Servant]

27. Did we make 2008 about Bush?

Of course we did. We called out the failure of that administration at every turn, even though the GOP candidate wasn't nearly as tied to Bush as Clinton is to Obama. It was a winning strategy for us; why should we expect anything different from them?

Of course, it only works as a strategy if Obama is as unpopular in 2016 as Bush was in 2008. So we shall see.

[kentuck]

30. It's an obvious strategy...

if they can pull it off. They can usually pull it off it the President is unpopular. Democrats need to make the President more popular by November 2016 and run on his accomplishments, if possible.