The GOP always runs based on the past. Every Presidential election for them is 1980 all over again-so they run on exactly the same themes every 4 years. Every Congressional election is 1994 and now 2010.
The case for a 'wave election' this year is slight indeed. At this point the GOP does have an edge in likely voters but only 2 percent: 46-44. That's hardly a GOP wave. It does seem that expectations are that the GOP will retake the Senate though this not because of any wave but just because unfortunately, there are a lot more Democratic seats up for election than Republican seats.
I don't even want to think about a GOP Senate the last few years. However, 2016 should be a lot better as that will be when all those 2010 Tea Party candidates come up for re-election. Still the GOP taking the Senate is not a done deal. It's not a wave-this is 2012 not 2014. Americans polled give the GOP a slight advantage in retaking the Senate and that's probably about right.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/178271/slim-majority-expect-republicans-win-senate.aspx
Everything points to the idea that the Dems-and the independent candidate that will likely canvas with the Dems-will end up with 48 to 51 seats in the Senate. So there are four likely numbers-48,49,50,51-and 2 out of 4 will allow the Dems to keep the Senate.
Even the National Review knows there's no wave election.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388403/no-wave-gop-maggie-gallagher
As NR points out, the GOP is using the Romney strategy this year: run against Obamacare run against Obama-the public will vote for the GOP as they want anyone but Obama. That they learned nothing from their 2012 loss but are still doing exactly the same thing again-and are even thinking of having Romney run again in 2016 shows a party that has learned nothing.
They have even convinced themselves now that they don't need immigration reform and are simply ignoring the coming demographic problems because right now thanks to gerrymandering they have a lock on the House. At some point reality will come to the GOP. That this party takes pride in never learning anything and running every campaign as if it's a GOP wave election means that the reality check will be particularly cruel when it does hit.
By the way, one Republican who impressed me this morning was Glen Hubbard on CNBC's Morning Squawk with Joe Kiernan-Mr. Strident Conservative, himself. Hubbard through some mud in Scott Sumner's eyes by arguing that there's nothing much more the Fed can do now but that what we do need is some fiscal stimulus .
Kiernan did point out accurately that the GOP and Dems differ sharply on what they call fiscal stimulus. The GOP wants cut regulations and cut the corporate tax rate, the Dems want infrastructure projects. Hubbard seems to think that if there is worry about the economy, both sides would come to the table-remember that Hubbard was one of Romney's major economic advisers in 2012.
So maybe his optimism is hopeful-I'm basing on this on the premise that he obviously knows lots of Republicans and maybe he knows that at least some of them can be reasonable-he certainly sounded reasonable this morning though less so in 2012 when he and Greg Mankiw blessed the Romney campaigns strange budget plan that would cut taxes and cut the deficit at the same time.
Hubbard argued that they could agree to some kind of infrastructure projects while doing tax cuts for the poor. I've never thought you can make much money assuming the GOP will be reasonable but maybe he knows better than I would.
The case for a 'wave election' this year is slight indeed. At this point the GOP does have an edge in likely voters but only 2 percent: 46-44. That's hardly a GOP wave. It does seem that expectations are that the GOP will retake the Senate though this not because of any wave but just because unfortunately, there are a lot more Democratic seats up for election than Republican seats.
I don't even want to think about a GOP Senate the last few years. However, 2016 should be a lot better as that will be when all those 2010 Tea Party candidates come up for re-election. Still the GOP taking the Senate is not a done deal. It's not a wave-this is 2012 not 2014. Americans polled give the GOP a slight advantage in retaking the Senate and that's probably about right.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/178271/slim-majority-expect-republicans-win-senate.aspx
Everything points to the idea that the Dems-and the independent candidate that will likely canvas with the Dems-will end up with 48 to 51 seats in the Senate. So there are four likely numbers-48,49,50,51-and 2 out of 4 will allow the Dems to keep the Senate.
Even the National Review knows there's no wave election.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388403/no-wave-gop-maggie-gallagher
As NR points out, the GOP is using the Romney strategy this year: run against Obamacare run against Obama-the public will vote for the GOP as they want anyone but Obama. That they learned nothing from their 2012 loss but are still doing exactly the same thing again-and are even thinking of having Romney run again in 2016 shows a party that has learned nothing.
They have even convinced themselves now that they don't need immigration reform and are simply ignoring the coming demographic problems because right now thanks to gerrymandering they have a lock on the House. At some point reality will come to the GOP. That this party takes pride in never learning anything and running every campaign as if it's a GOP wave election means that the reality check will be particularly cruel when it does hit.
By the way, one Republican who impressed me this morning was Glen Hubbard on CNBC's Morning Squawk with Joe Kiernan-Mr. Strident Conservative, himself. Hubbard through some mud in Scott Sumner's eyes by arguing that there's nothing much more the Fed can do now but that what we do need is some fiscal stimulus .
Kiernan did point out accurately that the GOP and Dems differ sharply on what they call fiscal stimulus. The GOP wants cut regulations and cut the corporate tax rate, the Dems want infrastructure projects. Hubbard seems to think that if there is worry about the economy, both sides would come to the table-remember that Hubbard was one of Romney's major economic advisers in 2012.
So maybe his optimism is hopeful-I'm basing on this on the premise that he obviously knows lots of Republicans and maybe he knows that at least some of them can be reasonable-he certainly sounded reasonable this morning though less so in 2012 when he and Greg Mankiw blessed the Romney campaigns strange budget plan that would cut taxes and cut the deficit at the same time.
Hubbard argued that they could agree to some kind of infrastructure projects while doing tax cuts for the poor. I've never thought you can make much money assuming the GOP will be reasonable but maybe he knows better than I would.
No comments:
Post a Comment