Coattails
At every presidential election politicians are concerned about the coattails of their presidential candidate. It is a fact that if a president wins by a large plurality, in many of the districts the congressman running in that election will get extra votes from the fact that people will vote a straight ticket. Another way to look at it, a presidential election draws more voters to it. A strong presidential candidate will help to get more votes for a congressman or senator.
We recently had two elections (New York and Nevada) that went to Republicans. There were no presidential candidates on these ballots. The contests were decided on what those candidates stood for and how well they got their message out to the voters. Moreover, these districts had previously been won by a Democrat. This may be a bellwether on the next presidential election.
Obama has a declining approval rate, at present it is well under fifty percent. If it stays there, or goes any lower, the odds are that he will lose the election. If he loses the election the question becomes, how large are his coattails? If they are large, many Democrat congressmen and senators are in danger of losing their elections.
Democrat realists are already determining what what will happen in the upcoming presidential election. Some are quite worried that Obama is doing nothing to improve the economy, just making it worse. They are concerned that the Obama name on the ticket cannot help them. This is particularly true in swing districts and swing states.
The Obama machine just continues to put out more of the same and it is not enough to improve the economy. That is why Hillary is becoming more important to Democrats, and why we are hearing more about her at this time. Liberals want to win the next election and will do whatever it takes to win. They have made fantastic strides in their agenda under Obama. However, politics is politics, and liberals may decide that Obama cannot win (putting their control of the senate in jeopardy) then it is time to get a candidate that can win. We will be hearing more about Hillary as we get closer to the election.
We recently had two elections (New York and Nevada) that went to Republicans. There were no presidential candidates on these ballots. The contests were decided on what those candidates stood for and how well they got their message out to the voters. Moreover, these districts had previously been won by a Democrat. This may be a bellwether on the next presidential election.
Obama has a declining approval rate, at present it is well under fifty percent. If it stays there, or goes any lower, the odds are that he will lose the election. If he loses the election the question becomes, how large are his coattails? If they are large, many Democrat congressmen and senators are in danger of losing their elections.
Democrat realists are already determining what what will happen in the upcoming presidential election. Some are quite worried that Obama is doing nothing to improve the economy, just making it worse. They are concerned that the Obama name on the ticket cannot help them. This is particularly true in swing districts and swing states.
The Obama machine just continues to put out more of the same and it is not enough to improve the economy. That is why Hillary is becoming more important to Democrats, and why we are hearing more about her at this time. Liberals want to win the next election and will do whatever it takes to win. They have made fantastic strides in their agenda under Obama. However, politics is politics, and liberals may decide that Obama cannot win (putting their control of the senate in jeopardy) then it is time to get a candidate that can win. We will be hearing more about Hillary as we get closer to the election.
posted by Marcel at
12:57 PM
6 Comments:
If you are suggesting that the Democrats might not nominate Obama, forget it. I think Democrats are so committed to Obama they would follow him right over a cliff if necessary. I may be mistaken but I don't know of a single instance when a sitting president was not nominated for a second term by their party.
Also, the 2012 election process is still VERY early. I would not discount the possibility that Obama will be reelected. He still has the ability to incite large segments of the population in spite of his dismal record on the economy.
Finally, never underestimate Republicans ability to nominate the weakest possible candidate (remember McCain). Republicans are masters at plucking defeat from the jaws of victory.
By
John Beauregard, at 9:38 AM
Some voluntary
1844 - John Tyler was elected VP in 1840 to William Henry Harrison, when he died Tyler became President and ran a program favorable to the Democrats rather than the Whigs. The Whigs kicked him out of the party and in 1844 nominated Henry Clay. The Democrats didn't trust Tyler either, so they nominated James Polk.
1848 - James Polk was not renominated by the Democratic Party, instead they nominated Lewis Cass, who lost to Zachary Taylor.
1852 - Millard Fillmore became the President upon the death of Zachary Taylor and when he signed the Compromise of 1850 became so unpopular that he was not renominated in 1852 by the Whigs. Instead they went with Winfield Scott who lost to the Democrat Franklin Pierce.
1856 - Franklin Pierce was not renominated by the Democrats in 1856, instead they chose Democratic party hack James Buchanan. He was such a non-entity that he was not renominated in 1860 on any of the parties that the Democrats had broken up into over slavery.
1868 - Andrew Johnson was not renominated by the Republicans, he was passed over for US Grant.
1880 - James Garfield won the nomination over the sitting President Rutherford B Hayes.
1884 - Chester A Arthur became President after Garfield was killed and James Blaine was nominated in his place.
1928 - Calvin Coolidge became President upon the death of Warren Harding and was replaced on the Republican ticket in 1928 by Herbert Hoover.
1952 - Harry Truman was replaced on the Democratic Ticket by Adlai Stevenson who lost to Ike.
1968 - Lyndon Johnson was replaced on the Democratic ticket of 1968 by Hubert Humphrey who lost to Richard Nixon.
Za
By
Anonymous, at 12:33 PM
So I AM mistaken after all.
Although technically correct, the two examples you site during my lifetime (Truman, Johnson) both voluntarily chose not to run for a follow-on term which is why they were not nominated by their party.
By
John Beauregard, at 1:38 PM
Marty,
You raise a good point. If Obama's popularity continues to fall he might chose not to run to avoid wounding his ego and to propagate his ideology if he believes another liberal candidate has a better chance of winning.
By
John Beauregard, at 1:47 PM
The Socialists have finally achieved a long held dream, government sponsored health care. They know that if they lose the senate and the presidency Obamacare will be repealed. Now that they have actually got it in place they will be most reluctant to let it all slip away. This is why they may be looking for someone who can win and save that precious part of their agenda.
By
Marcel, at 1:22 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Fisher of men, at 11:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home