Sometimes I am just not sure what party is in charge.

It just occurred to me: I wonder if more Democrats stay home midterms because no one is yelling "Supreme Court nominations" at them?

In the summer and fall of 2007-2008, I stressed that myself, complete with a list of justices and their respective ages. Maybe during midterms, we should yell about confirmations and government shutdowns?

A lot of Democrats are running away from Obama this year, which I think is a huge mistake, especially if they voted for Obamacare.

I guess it depends on the state. When you have Ginsburg yelling that she is staying on the court. It takes away a talking point for the Democratic Party. Why she decided to say that. I don't know. It would have been more adventageous for her to say. Yes I am thinking about retiring soon. That would have made a difference. And then she could just keep being in the court. I think she took a lot out of the potential excitement when she made those comments. A lot of liberals were gleeful. I was more politically confused.

court vs. retiring. If you look at all of them and can figure out exactly what she meant, you're a better mind reader than I am. Not to mention that is frail and a survivor (so far) of cancer. Besides, she is not the only Justice on the Court who might have to be replaced. For all we know, Scalia, and perhaps more importantly, Kennedy, will go before she does. And all those points can also be made (artfully, one hopes), if Democrats make the point that the SCOTUS matters at midterms, too.

will be completely problematic.

It looks like taking back the Senate in 2016 may be a decent possibility based on which Senators are up then, but electing a Dem president could be a real slog. It seems that so often the US electorate wants to change parties after 8 years. Of course, the demographic makeup of the country increasingly favors Dems, but still, it worries me a little.

Last edited Mon Sep 29, 2014, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Dem's. Look at Roberts and Alito, both smart, maybe freakishly so, in Roberts case, but wretchedly partisan.



I don't know about the 8R, 8D thing, though.

Roosevelt-Truman was a lot more than 8 years Democratic and may have been more, but for Truman's decision not to run again, thanks, supposedly, to Bess's distaste for D.C. Eisenhower was a major WWII hero, if not the biggest WWII hero, once MacArthur got into trouble. *

JFK-LBJ is not a fair example, given the assassination and LBJ's decision not to run a second time. Nixon-Ford could be viewed as Nixon's second term, but the fact that a Democrat was elected after the first Presidential resignation in all US history may not tell us much. Carter had only one term before the US went Republican for 12 years. That was followed by 8 years of Clinton then 8 years of Bush, but I would submit that election of a Republican with a well known name after Monicagate/impeachment may also not show a trend.

However, Obama's approval ratings are low and have been for a while, many members of his own party are running away from him this election and people seem generally dispirited and, despite what I have been hearing for two years now from the "professional" Democrats, I still don't think Hillary would be a shoo-in in a general by any stretch of the imagination.

ETA And Stevenson was a giant intellectually, but I don't know if he connected with a lot of voters. But, I think Ike's role in WWII, esp. D-Day could have won him the election, no matter what. And they say TV did Nixon in when he ran against JFK, not to mention the contributions of the Kennedys to JFK's campaign, esp. Joe, Robert and Jackie and, to a lesser extent, Rose.

at all levels.

You've laid out the history of presidential party affiliation very nicely. There is a back and forth, although it isn't as nicely 8 and 8 as I'd remembered.

It's a long way from now to November, 2016, and much can happen. Just look at what happened from Oct. 2006 to Nov. 2008. For most of that era, the economy was not a major issue for most people. The, BOOM!, the economy collapsed starting in late 2007, really, and by September 2008, it was totally "the economy, stupid." A good portion of Obama's appeal was his statements against the Iraq War and his promise to get some sort of health care reform passed. It seemed to me that he was somewhat taken by surprise at the economic problems that he faced, and in my opinion, he didn't have the right team to deal with the situation effectively.

Today, the economy is still an issue to a very large number of Americans, immigration policy is important to many and now another Middle East war may be starting. Presidential candidates in both parties are tip-toeing around those issues, but it's hard to tell what will be the salient issue two years from now.

Perhaps you feel it, but I'm thinking that 2016 may be a year in which one or more third party or independent candidates make a run to muddle things up. Again, it's early, but I think that there are a lot of alienated folks across the political spectrum, and that usually means more activity outside Dems and Reps.

As to Clinton, I also forgot to mention that Perot's runs, especially the first, probably drew more votes from the two Republican candidates than they did from Bubba. And Bush is already being considered one of the worst Presidents in US history, so maybe it's not a huge surprise that the nation did not follow up with another Republican, esp. given McCain's nutty performance after the 2008 crash hit the fan. And Palin.

I think every election has its own quirks, so you generalizations are not necessarily predictors. But, I don't think we can say there was an 8-8 pattern, anyway. So 2016 is not foreordained.

Perhaps you feel it, but I'm thinking that 2016 may be a year in which one or more third party or independent candidates make a run to muddle things up.

About four or five parties usually run someone for President, but most of them are to the right of Republicans, with Greens being the exception--and Greens get few votes without Nader. At this point, they don't even seem to be trying to win. I can't take their Shadow Cabinet stuff as a sign of a serious threat at the National level. Maybe, if they get some hugely popular person to run, but I don't think that's happening either.

Last time was unusual, what with the new Justice Party (running the third Mormon or former Mormon in that race, no less).

As I have been seeing posts here about various states, I have been googling and seeing that more and more voters are registering unaffiliated (or "unenrolled" in my state). I think that alone could tempt someone to run Indy.

However, I've also been seeing that, when it comes time to actually vote, most of the allegedly Indy voters go Republican or Democrat, not third party. So, I am not discouraged.

I'm running into more people who used to be interested in the world and who were regular voters say that they no longer follow the news and don't care anything about politics anymore. They focus on whatever impacts their lives directly right now, and ignore everything else. Some, but not all, of them have taken a hit economically since the Great Recession. If things don't change, I'm expecting a lower than normal turnout in 2016.

You mention the various smaller parties that can affect elections--Nader of course, but the libertarians, etc. There was a good piece on the effect of those parties in Nov's senatorial elections recently in the NYT. But I was thinking along the lines of Perot and Anderson, as well as late 19th and early 20th century efforts, like the Populist Party and the Bull Moose Party, both of which generally revolved around certain charismatic individuals who often end up pulling more votes than, say, the Socialists or Greens.

19th and 20th centuries. Democrats and Republicans each have done a pretty good job of drawing dividing lines in the sand and there was no political talk radio then, as we now know it, nor any 24/7 news. It's not even like when Perot ran. Much more demonizing now.

I think many now simply vote as they have always voted, no matter what. And those who pay closer attention do think of things like the Supreme Court and "lesser evil" and so also end up voting as they have always voted.

Presidential elections come down to, not to purple states, but purple counties. I googled after I heard Brian Williams say that to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show a while back. I looked at only about five articles, but they did seem to bear him out.

One article put the number of determinative counties to 8 (as did Williams) and another at, IIRC, 12. One article put the number much higher, near or above 100, but that seemed to be an outlier, at least among the few articles I read.

Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Billions of dollars, all that time and energy and effort, for maybe as few as 8 counties?

However, as I said in my prior post, if some party runs someone who is already very popular, that could make trouble. Not win, but possibly alter the result. I don't know who that might be, though. I don't see it happening.

I wish we had a more open system. Then, we would not have to view anyone who runs against Democrats and Republicans as only a threat. We might actually be able to listen to him or her with an open mind.

Yay go team D!!!

an ambassador--but someone who was never elected, holds no appointed office, or was never confirmed by the Senate? Why is he even IN Afghanistan? Nobody else finds this weird?

That he's there I don't find as odd. Presidents have sometimes used special envoys, and it seems like Podesta has that position here. Still, I'd think that the US ambassador would do the signing as the top person there in the absence of Biden, Kerry or Hagel. I'm not sure if National Security Advisor would outrank an ambassador for signing an official document in the country to which the ambassador is credentialed.

When your puppet starts resisting, you get another puppet.

One Division of soldiers.

The president has just about check-mated the Repukes!

Afghanistan swore in Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai as its second elected president on Monday, embarking on a new era with a national unity government poised to confront a resilient Taliban insurgency by signing an agreement with the United States that would guarantee a continuing American military presence.

,,,

The new Afghan government was expected Tuesday to sign a security agreement that provides a legal framework for the United States to keep about 9,800 troops in the country to train, advise and assist Afghan national security forces after the current international combat mission ends Dec. 31. That number of troops is expected to be cut in half by the end of 2015, and the U.S. would leave only about 1,000 in a security office after the end of 2016.

Karzai, the outgoing president, had refused to approve the deal, which is intended to help Afghan security forces combat the resilient Taliban insurgency.

The Afghan government also is expected to sign an agreement this week with NATO that would outline the parameters of 4,000 to 5,000 additional international troops — mostly from Britain, Germany, Italy and Turkey — to stay in Afghanistan in a noncombat role after the end of this year.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/violence-ahead-inauguration-afghanistan-25828057