General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm becoming increasingly convinced that talk of 2016 is designed to distract from 2014
Very likely to be a coordinated GOP/Tea Party/Libertarian effort.
They saw what happened in 2010 when Dems didn't go to the polls with nearly as much enthusiasm as 2008 and 2012. They were able to win 2010 in a land slide from the state houses to the US Congress. They were then able to redraw Congressional districts because of the 2010 census and the results were disastrous for Dems:
<...>
In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidates took 51 percent of the vote across the state's 18 districts, but only five of the seats.
<...>
And Pennsylvania was not alone. According to the Election Consortium analysis, gerrymandering helped Republicans secure 13 seats in just six states – including Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina – that, under normal rules of engagement, Democrats would have won.
<...>
As Rove wrote in a Wall Street Journal column in early 2010: "He who controls redistricting can control Congress."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-republicans-rig-the-game-20131111
I suggest you read the entire article. It will blow your mind.
The GOP/Tea Party/Libertarians would like nothing more than to turn 2014 into another 2010. What better way than to get Dems to look past 2014 to 2016?
Don't let them distract you.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)The focused side will win. That is one think the Repukes are good at so the Dems had better stay on the ball.
pscot
(21,024 posts)And they control corporations which are long-lived and operate by their own rules. They're the ones driving this. And they aren't much better than gangsters.
StopTheNeoCons
(892 posts)In TX, we are focused ONLY on 2014, getting Wendy elected Governor!
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)But it isn't a tea part RW or Libertarian plot. It is an abundance of ego on our part. We refuse to believe that the voters would view things differently than we do, with silly statements like voting against their own interests. In most minds here and across the Party, we have already won both houses in Congress because of the shutdown. We as a party might wake up to the reality, that we are in danger of handing the Repugs both houses, but it will probably be too late to change the outcome.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
riqster
(13,986 posts)
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Obamacare, as it is known, and will always be known, and that is just fine with Obama btw, will be the defining issue of 2014 unless something bigger comes up between now and the election. Some huge event like a war or a hurricane or some disaster. Barring something like that, Obamacare will be the issue of the election.
I'm not sure that's good for us.
Gothmog
(145,176 posts)The GOP can not win a fair election and so is using a large number of tactics to try to fix future elections.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't personally - while I can understand the argument in favor of setting aside 2016 for now - and support it somewhat, I think it's a natural thing to be interested in 2016.
Bryant
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)arguments over Snowden and free press, it's not that it isn't a subject of debate among Democrats and liberals, it was the frequency and never ending original posts about it. I feel the same here. When the frequency of posts and comments about a subject are wholly out of line with other Democratic websites I know there is an attempt to artificially inflate the argument.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)My sentiments exactly. And they get to start us at each others throats extra early.
It's all intended to divide, distract, and conquer.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)off of a very important election.
polichick
(37,152 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)So many threads about two women (and a Senator who's not a Democrat). One has not said she would run; one has done everything to indicate that she's not the least bit interested. But that won't stop the uncountable threads about an election that's three years off and about people who are not running for the office, one of them explicitly so.
It's dreamland politics. Meanwhile, there is an election one year from now which is very much gearing up -- RIGHT NOW. But some people prefer the dream world, I suppose.
And to those people I'll admit that I too am interested in 2016, and keeping the White House in Dem hands. But the last two years shows what exactly happens when Democrats drop the ball during the midterm elections. Many of us have seen this enough times that we see any premature focus on 2016 as a distraction. Of course, there's nothing the media would like better than to start putting up their "2016 Presidential Battleground" graphics up now.
It seems that there are more than a few DUers who would also have us in a perpetual presidential race. Often I'd prefer that they'd join the media so they can assuage their needs rather than doing it here.
Sorry if I offend.
polichick
(37,152 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Unless we turn Congress around, there may be no Democratic presidential win in 2016. Midterm elections can have huge consequences, much more than winning the White House. Of course we want both, but the last three years will tell you what losing a midterm election can do. It is not pretty unless you actually want gridlock, or you like being able to scream about the evil Republican majority in Congress.
I cannot buy into either of those goals.
And the Republican Party is seriously crazy, and seriously well funded. We ignore 2014 at our peril. We distract from it at our peril.
2016 will come when it arrives. Two years from now we will all have those discussions with great passion, probably a few months prior. But until then, it is just like fantasy football.
polichick
(37,152 posts)about 2016.
The direction this party has gone in the last 30 years is a huge issue - we don't need two right-wing, corporate parties. With the middle class disappearing the stage is set for a populist candidate. Of course people are going to talk about it. (btw, I'll bet HRC tries to run as a populist.)
longship
(40,416 posts)That doesn't stop people here from putting one person on their fantasy 2016 ticket and posting uncountable posts about her prospects, in spite of the fact that she has made quite clear that she is not interested! Another prominent fantasy 2016 candidate has not said that she won't run but has not decided nevertheless people here have her as the front runner, in spite of the fact that there are no front runners because nobodyis running yet.
All of these 2016 posts are fantasy football right now.
polichick
(37,152 posts)and forget the rest.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We need to start now to unseat HRC.
longship
(40,416 posts)There are nevertheless people who ignore that fact and put her at the top of their fantasy football 2016 presidential candidate list. Oh, but she might change her mind?
Well, there are some democrats who think she is going to be an important US Senator and are happy that she is not inclined to throw that away to run for president. After all, we need good people in congress, too. And Elizabeth Warren is going to be a Cracker Jack US Senator.
I am happy that she's not going to run in 2016.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why set herself up for the distraction ahead of time?
As far as dreaming, yes I am dreaming of a solid progressive candidate to knock HRC off the throne. We, as a country, cant survive 8 more years of status quo.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There's still Congress, which they ignore for 2016 too, which could still be full of Republicans. We're lucky to get blue dogs in there. Yet they think through sheer force of personality the right President can overcome all that and get Republicans singing kumbaya and agreeing to single payer.
polichick
(37,152 posts)doesn't mean we're not voting in 2014.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
... you and I are of like mind. Move to the left in 2014! 2014! 2014! 2014! 
G_j
(40,367 posts)I suppose you could see any one of them as a distraction.
That said, I do think people in states like NC where I live, who have passed obstructive voting laws, need to be organizing ways to get people the proper IDs etc., and the help they need to get to the polls!
cali
(114,904 posts)you need to post this in creative speculation.
It's a scatter brained conspiracy theory and nothing but.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)When the same folks so determined to move the conversation to 2016 are the same folks who constantly bash Dems in office.
One has to wonder indeed.
cali
(114,904 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)my dear.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Yeah, the fantasy ballot line-ups can get tiresome at times, but underneath the premature advocacy of specific candidates, an interesting discussion is going on. It's clear that some Dems don't feel the Party represents them or their views, so we have opposing camps: those who feel supporting a Democrat is more important than supporting a democrat, and those who feel just the opposite. And guess what? That discussion applies to 2014 as well as 2016.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)As all 2016 talk is a distraction and as you speculate, only right wing and libertarian trolls are engaging in it.
Good luck with that. 
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)And there is nothing the Democrats can do until it is their turn to redistrict, which might happen in 2020. However, with the so many state governments firmly under GOP control, it will be difficult.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)StopTheNeoCons
(892 posts)In TX, we are focused ONLY on 2014, getting Wendy elected Governor!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)and if 2014 is fubared, then whoever is in 2016 can suck their thumb and say "those mean ole tea party folks won't let me do nuttin'" while collecting a big fat paycheck, and yes, I expect both CC and HRC to play that violin.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Hekate
(90,674 posts)Focus, people, focus.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I assure you there are some Democrats that can walk and chew gum at the same time. I just got done voting here in Washington and we actually got Kshama Sawant, a socialist on the Seattle City Council.
She's a firebrand, she's proactive and dedicated. We feel so lucky but really it's because everyone here voted.
Lo and behold I can also say with certainty that I welcome any challenger to Hillary in 2016.
-p
INdemo
(6,994 posts)We should not have to remind our party leaders to get their act together so we wont have a repeat of 2010.
We have not had a real leader of our party since Howard Dean.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I address this mainly to those DUers who, like me, are disappointed in President Obama's performance.
If you are contemplating not voting, please disregard your bitterness and join me in going to the polls. President Obana is not on the ballot and, unless he wants his old Senate seat back, he won't ever be on the ballot again. Love him or hate, trut him or not, he is not part of our future.
There will be some progressive candidates and we have to send a message to the corporate wing of the party that this is what we want, not somebody who's wasting a lifetime nodding when Robert Rubin or Larry Summers opens his mouth only to have Phil Gramm's voice come out of it. We want democracy, not "free trade." We want freedom, not domestic spying. We want peace, not the constant threat of resource wars disguised as "spreading freedom." We're tired of civilians being bombed in our name in order to protect them from tyrants. We want Wall Street bankers prosecuted for fraud, not bailed out so they can defraud us again. We want leaders who listen to us, not assholes who tell us they know what's for us before fucking up the world more than ever.
We send a message to the corporate Democrats by making sure progressives and populists win primaries and go on to defeat the party of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin in the general election.
That is why 2014 is important. If we succeed, 2016 will take care of itself.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)why some of the supposed liberal personalities in the media have been pushing 2016 like nobody's business, though. Whenever there is a slow news cycle, they always go straight to speculating who will run in 2016.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)If we can't stop the focus on 2016 here, it sure won't happen in the wilds. I know people are excited for Elizabeth Warren but she won't be able to do anymore than Obama has if she has to work with yet another bunch of lowlife republicans in Congress.
2014 is way more critical than the next presidential election.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)We must not let ourselves be distracted. 2014 does come first.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)I totally agree with you and here's to GOTV and local candidate support! We have 2 open seats in Arkansas. Tim Griffin and Tom Cotton are both giving up their seats. Here's to the hope we put some candidate up for either or both of these seats.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Right now, there just isn't a great, compelling national narrative for the 2014 midterms. Bachmann is bowing out, and no one on her side with a good chance of being ousted has replaced her as a lightning rod.
DU is a national website, and it's natural that the members discuss national issues. Also, CNN, MSNBC, FAUX, et. al. basically started discussing 2016 about 5 seconds after Barack took his hand off the Bible at the second inaugural.
I think posters should discuss what they want without being hassled by midterm nannies. If anyone wants to discuss the midterms, they are free to start a thread. Other than my giving money to Al Franken, the midterm is a non-issue here in Nebraska. The Senate race comes down to which Republican will be the nominee, and the House members will all get re-elected. The only chance we might have is in the unlikely event that a Teabagger unseats Lee Terry in NE-2. Otherwise, I'd just as soon discuss 2016.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2013, 01:13 AM - Edit history (1)
"Very likely that talk of 16 is a gop/tp/libertarian effort?"
As if politically inclined people aren't going to talk about the next presidential election? Are polling companies also part of this grand conspiracy? Check Real Clear Politics - they've been reporting polling on 2016 scenarios for some time now. Are the gop/tp/libertarians behind that too?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Forbes media owns 51% of RCP. It's a Republican outfit.
Also, I want YOU to read this article:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024046287
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)RCP isn't conducting the polls, they're reporting the results of the polls polling firms are conducting. Polls are being taken about 2016 scenarios by various polling firms. That is the point. It doesn't matter if RCP reports them or not. Speculation about 2016 is rampant. And natural for anyone interested in politics. It isn't a right wing conspiracy.
on edit: I reread my earlier post and the wording did imply RCP was conducting the polls. I doubt that has any bearing on this discussion, as surely, if you know enough about RCP to know who owns them, you know they only report polls, not actually conduct them.
brooklynite
(94,531 posts)Martin O'Malley, Brian Schwietzer and Joe Biden are making plans to run for President. Well-respected Democrats are organizing support for Hillary Clinton. Are they part of the Tea Party movement? Or are you saying the media shouldn't report on something newsworthy?
Not everything in life is a conspiracy theory.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)That's the big show.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)not low, Democrats won everything there was to win, Brown won over Megabucks Whitman without breaking a sweat, the State House went Super Blue, etc. Here in Oregon, our 2010 turn out was even better. We set a record! We also re-elected a former but not incumbent Democratic governor as CA did with Brown, we got majority in the State House, no 'Tea Party' type Republicans elected, not one new Republican was sent to DC.
Washington. They did well too! What can we learn from this? First the 2010 apathy that you decry was not national, it was regional and did not touch the West Coast at all. The regional nature of the low turn out races makes it very easy to look for the reasons the low turn out areas were apathetic. Unlike the West Coast, the candidates in the Apathy Zone were 'Moderate Centrists' whom voters thought were too much like the Republican. In some States and districts, the youth vote declined as well as the votes from some minority groups. This was not really the case in CA or Oregon, nor in WA. Also not in NY, VT, and many other places that did just fine in 2010.
I suggest to you that misunderstanding the nature of the 2010 election, including the nature of the election in your own State, might do more harm to correcting that apathy than any amount of discussion could do. Much of 2010 was simply that there are conservative and Republican areas and they elect Republicans and conservatives. If you are going to freak out because Alabama elected Republicans while your entire Blue region brought home big victory, then I'd say you just want to freak out.
On the other hand, those folks who are calling unannounced candidates 'the presumptive nominee' and demanding protections for that potential candidate are utterly full of shit.