First party to the middle wins...

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,222
11,046
113
I think looking towards 2024 it all comes down to if R's can separate themselves from Trump. Pretty much that simple in my mind....I don't think they can.

If they somehow do the D's probably need to make some adjustments as well (less woke) but they're going to look at this mid terms as a validation of what they've been doing.

The Red dribble :)

Absolutely. Election denialism and Trump lunacy lost up and down the ballot.

Meanwhile, Republican governors, from hard right to moderate, who have established their identities independent of Trump ROMPED, including over some incredibly well funded and buzzy candidates.

In the thread, I speculated over who could come of their extremes first, and it's clear the Democrats managed the first step in this cycle, after they lost Virginia and almost lost NJ, and the Dems were stumping with Randi Weingarten. They should look at what happened tonight as validation of that.

Huge, massive rejection of Trumpism tonight. If the Republicans can't move beyond Trump, they'll continue to take lumps, and rightly so.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
I would argue that Clinton was a successful Pres. and has been the best President since Ike.
He was successful at managing a massive bubble economy driven by dot coms and the tax increase he was able to pass. The point is, no matter how much we claim to want a president like Clinton, we didn't want a president like Clinton capable of governing so we never gave him A "D" House or Senate after his first two years - in his first mid-term, he was absolutely repudiated. He then spent the next 6 years reacting to and fighting off the GOP.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 83Hawk

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
He was successful at managing a massive bubble economy driven by dot coms and the tax increase he was able to pass. The point is, no matter how much we claim to want a president like Clinton, we didn't want a president like Clinton capable of governing so we never gave him A "D" House or Senate after his first two years - in his first mid-term, he was absolutely repudiated. He then spent the next 6 years reacting to and fighting off the GOP.
Clinton served 2 terms. That is successful.

The economy and markets both did very well. That is successful.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was at a post WWII low indicating a very strong job market. That is successful.

I look at peaceful prosperity as more important than what party controlled the two houses of Congress.
 

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,222
11,046
113
Clinton served 2 terms. That is successful.

The economy and markets both did very well. That is successful.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was at a post WWII low indicating a very strong job market. That is successful.

I look at peaceful prosperity as more important than what party controlled the two houses of Congress.

He also realigned Democrats nationally and made them competitive again at the national level. For 20 years until Clinton they got absolutely drubbed nationally at the presidential level, with the one exception when Nixon got impeached and resigned. Democrats haven't been boat raced for president since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminoleed

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
He was successful at managing a massive bubble economy driven by dot coms and the tax increase he was able to pass. The point is, no matter how much we claim to want a president like Clinton, we didn't want a president like Clinton capable of governing so we never gave him A "D" House or Senate after his first two years - in his first mid-term, he was absolutely repudiated. He then spent the next 6 years reacting to and fighting off the GOP.
Clinton served 2 terms. That is successful.

The economy and markets both did very well. That is successful.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was at a post WWII low indicating a very strong job market. That is successful.

I look at peaceful prosperity as more important than what party controlled the two houses of Congress.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
Clinton served 2 terms. That is successful.

The economy and markets both did very well. That is successful.

The Labor Force Participation Rate was at a post WWII low indicating a very strong job market. That is successful.

I look at peaceful prosperity as more important than what party controlled the two houses of Congress.
Your grandmother could have served those two terms "successfully". Once again - the point is that we had someone in the WH who is now claimed to be the moderate model to rally the nation and HE couldn't get his own party elected to back him. He was villified by the right and he was absolutely trounced in his first mid-term. His signature achievement was a huge tax increase that helpd balance the budget and it NEVER would have passed after the first two years. The claim that we need someone like Clinton now didn't even hold true THEN. As extreme as the GOP was under Gingrich - they shut down the govt to try and get their way - they still held BOTH chambers of the legislature for Clinton's final six years. All of the "success" you attribute to Clinton was rewarded by the American people with a GOP POTUS, a GOP Senate, and a GOP House in 2001. What in the world makes anyone think it would be different today when the GOP has gone completely off the f'n rails?

The majority of American voters do not really want moderates...they prove it with every election. What they do want? Not a clue. It appears to be chaos.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
Your grandmother could have served those two terms "successfully". Once again - the point is that we had someone in the WH who is now claimed to be the moderate model to rally the nation and HE couldn't get his own party elected to back him. He was villified by the right and he was absolutely trounced in his first mid-term. His signature achievement was a huge tax increase that helpd balance the budget and it NEVER would have passed after the first two years. The claim that we need someone like Clinton now didn't even hold true THEN. As extreme as the GOP was under Gingrich - they shut down the govt to try and get their way - they still held BOTH chambers of the legislature for Clinton's final six years. All of the "success" you attribute to Clinton was rewarded by the American people with a GOP POTUS, a GOP Senate, and a GOP House in 2001. What in the world makes anyone think it would be different today when the GOP has gone completely off the f'n rails?

The majority of American voters do not really want moderates...they prove it with every election. What they do want? Not a clue. It appears to be chaos.
Respectfully disagree.

You are calling for more extreme partisanship. I think after 4 years of Trump's insanity we need to come together not move further apart.

Clinton's Approval Rate in his last month of office was 66%. People thought that even though he may have had questionable morals, he got things done that were good for the country.

Clinton Approval Rating

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” — Abraham Lincoln.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
He also realigned Democrats nationally and made them competitive again at the national level. For 20 years until Clinton they got absolutely drubbed nationally at the presidential level, with the one exception when Nixon got impeached and resigned. Democrats haven't been boat raced for president since.
Made who competitive? The Dems lost 8 seats in the Senate and 54 seats in the House of Representatives in 1994 giving the GOP full control for the first time since the early 1950's. It was a bloodbath. The Dems never regained control of either under Clinton and with the exception of a few sporadic episodes didn't retake them until the war in Iraq became overwhelmingly unpopular. Heck, Clinton's VP got beat in the very next election. That it was by a razor-thin margin hardly matters. The 2006 election finally showed big wins for the Dems but they weren't due to any "Clinton effect" - people were tired of the war in Iraq. Obama's win had zero to do with Clinton and everything to do with an economy in freefall.

In 1994, Republicans flipped twelve governorships :eek: (Dems flipped...one) and flipped a number of state legislatures going from total control in seven states to fifteen. Most of those have never been retaken and the GOP currently has complete control in, I believe, 23 states, more than three times what they held pre-Clinton. The Dems control 14 with the rest split. Clinton's positive effect on any election is greatly overstated.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
Respectfully disagree.

You are calling for more extreme partisanship. I think after 4 years of Trump's insanity we need to come together not move further apart.

Clinton's Approval Rate in his last month of office was 66%. People thought that even though he may have had questionable morals, he got things done that were good for the country.

Clinton Approval Rating

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” — Abraham Lincoln.
I'm not "calling for" anything. I'm looking at the reality. Clinton's approval rating was 66%. Gore lost.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
I'm not "calling for" anything. I'm looking at the reality. Clinton's approval rating was 66%. Gore lost.
Democrats can either be Left or Middle. Left is not bipartisan. The Middle is.

Gore lost for two reasons. First he picked Lieberman to be his VP. He was worthless. He should have picked Sen. Graham the Senator from Florida.

Gore also got hurt by Ralph Nader running.
 

Gonolz

HR Legend
Aug 6, 2002
22,505
13,524
113
He was successful at managing a massive bubble economy driven by dot coms and the tax increase he was able to pass. The point is, no matter how much we claim to want a president like Clinton, we didn't want a president like Clinton capable of governing so we never gave him A "D" House or Senate after his first two years - in his first mid-term, he was absolutely repudiated. He then spent the next 6 years reacting to and fighting off the GOP.

I'm not sure what your point is. Clinton had a great Presidency. It seems that you are saying that a Presidency is only successful if he gets enough of his party elected to the House and Senate. If that is what you are arguing, I disagree. A good President is one who can get good things done no matter who controls Congress. Also, a good President should be focused on doing good things, not blindly getting anyone from his party elected.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
I'm not sure what your point is. Clinton had a great Presidency. It seems that you are saying that a Presidency is only successful if he gets enough of his party elected to the House and Senate. If that is what you are arguing, I disagree. A good President is one who can get good things done no matter who controls Congress. Also, a good President should be focused on doing good things, not blindly getting anyone from his party elected.
*sigh* OK...I'm going to try this one more time. This has not one thing to do with whether or not you think Clinton was "successful". The claim is that Clinton was this "moderate" president who would be a model TODAY to bring the country together. Clinton didn't do that THEN. He had zero effect on the mood of the country in terms of who else they elected. HE was popular but that meant zip in any wider sense when people went into the voting booth - he presided over record losses for his party both on a national AND a state level. Do you think the GOP - the party that impeached him - cooperated with a moderate Clinton??? People liked HIM...they voted AGAINST him. Over and over and over again.

Elect Clinton today and the GOP will rage against him for four years and chances are they will be rewarded for doing so JUST LIKE THEY WERE THEN.

Clinton didn't do anything his last six years but ride the wave of a huge dot com boom that fueled great growth. Anyone who thinks his policies created that boom would also have to acknowledge that those same policies led to the near collapse of the financial sector just a few years later. Successful? Sure.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
Gore also got hurt by Ralph Nader running.
LOL...EXACTLY. Nader cost Gore the election. A large percentage of people went for a more extreme candidate over the supposed "moderate". Even if Gore had been elected, he had no path to govern given that the GOP still controlled Congress. He would have been vilified and I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP didn't impeach him after 9/11. Tell me that wouldn't have happened.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FranCantCoach

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
LOL...EXACTLY. Nader cost Gore the election. A large percentage of people went for a more extreme candidate over the supposed "moderate". Even if Gore had been elected, he had no path to govern given that the GOP still controlled Congress. He would have been vilified and I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP didn't impeach him after 9/11. Tell me that wouldn't have happened.
Florida 2000 Vote Totals
Bush 2,912,790
Gore 2,912, 253
Nader 97,488

Electoral College
Bush 271
Gore 266

Florida had 25 electoral votes in the 2000 campaign.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
Florida 2000 Vote Totals
Bush 2,912,790
Gore 2,912, 253
Nader 97,488

Electoral College
Bush 271
Gore 266

Florida had 25 electoral votes in the 2000 campaign.
So...exactly what I said. ~100,000 voters in FL alone - and 2.8 million across the country - rejected the "moderate" continuation of the Clinton presidency that people are holding up as a model and handed the election to Bush. And you don't have to blame Nader. Half of the registered Democrats in FL never voted at all. As far as they were concerned, there was nothing remarkable about the Clinton presidency and they were fine with either Bush or Gore.

One more time - there is NO centrist candidate from either side who will be able to unite the country. No moderate can possibly win the GOP nomination and no Dem moderate will be given a governable Congress. The idea that a remarkable third-party candidate would be able to cajole cooperation from a Rep/Dem divided Congress is laughable. I'm a bit gobsmacked that people believe otherwise.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
So...exactly what I said. ~100,000 voters in FL alone - and 2.8 million across the country - rejected the "moderate" continuation of the Clinton presidency that people are holding up as a model and handed the election to Bush. And you don't have to blame Nader. Half of the registered Democrats in FL never voted at all. As far as they were concerned, there was nothing remarkable about the Clinton presidency and they were fine with either Bush or Gore.

One more time - there is NO centrist candidate from either side who will be able to unite the country. No moderate can possibly win the GOP nomination and no Dem moderate will be given a governable Congress. The idea that a remarkable third-party candidate would be able to cajole cooperation from a Rep/Dem divided Congress is laughable. I'm a bit gobsmacked that people believe otherwise.
So we get Trump vs. Sen. Warren? I don't buy that at all.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
So we get Trump vs. Sen. Warren? I don't buy that at all.
We could get another Clinton. So what? The point is that it would not change a thing. Obama won in a walkover - ten million vote margin, 365 EC votes.. A moderate technocrat by any measure. He was given a f'n supermajority in Congress. The GOP didn't concede to his 2008 mandate and work to cooperate...they demonized him at every turn. They promised to do everything they could to make him a one-term president.

AND THEY WERE REWARDED!!

Two years later he lost SIXTY-THREE seats and control in the House and six seats in the Senate. In 2014, he lost the Senate as well. Dems lost a net total of 13 Governorships and 816 state legislative seats during Obama's two terms. Then we got...Trump. So anyone saying that we need the major parties to nominate a centrist thinking it will fix anything is simply delusional.

Our electorate is dysfuntional. That makes our politics dysfunctional. It's not the parties...it's us.

And, btw, conflating Donald Trump with Elizabeth Warren makes you look dumb.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
We could get another Clinton. So what? The point is that it would not change a thing. Obama won in a walkover - ten million vote margin, 365 EC votes.. A moderate technocrat by any measure. He was given a f'n supermajority in Congress. The GOP didn't concede to his 2008 mandate and work to cooperate...they demonized him at every turn. They promised to do everything they could to make him a one-term president.

AND THEY WERE REWARDED!!

Two years later he lost SIXTY-THREE seats and control in the House and six seats in the Senate. In 2014, he lost the Senate as well. Dems lost a net total of 13 Governorships and 816 state legislative seats during Obama's two terms. Then we got...Trump. So anyone saying that we need the major parties to nominate a centrist thinking it will fix anything is simply delusional.

Our electorate is dysfuntional. That makes our politics dysfunctional. It's not the parties...it's us.

And, btw, conflating Donald Trump with Elizabeth Warren makes you look dumb.
You have your opinion and I have mine. Both Trump and Warren represent each extreme wing of their respective parties. If you don't see that then you are dumb.

Regarding Obama, he did not enjoy and was not good at reaching across the aisle. Reagan, Clinton and Biden were all better at reaching across the aisle then Obama.

Only the naïve think the other party wants to see them to so well they can win another term. That is the art of being good at negotiating. Many Dems hated Reagan and many Republicans hated Clinton but they still worked with them.

To think we need more hyper partisanship is beyond delusional.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
1. ou have your opinion and I have mine. Both Trump and Warren represent each extreme wing of their respective parties. If you don't see that then you are dumb.

2. To think we need more hyper partisanship is beyond delusional.
Damn...it's hard to find two more self-contradictory statements in a single post. Trump owns the GOP. He's NOT an extremist - he's the PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE. Warren is barely a footnote in the Democratic party. You obviously enjoy being hyperpartisan with idiotic claims like this, making your "opinion" completely invalid.
 
Last edited:

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
Damn...it's hard to find two more self-contradictory statements in a single post. Trump owns the GOP. He's NOT an extremist - he's the PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE. Warren is barely a footnote in the Democratic party. You obviously enjoy being hyperpartisan with idiotic claims like this, making your "opinion" completely invalid.
I did not say that Warren was the presumptive nominee. All I said was that she represented the Far Left.

I am not being hyperpartisan. Have you forgot what I was talking about? I was talking about how I like Bill Clinton and then you said he was a horrible Pres. for being moderate.

You are all over the place.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
I did not say that Warren was the presumptive nominee. All I said was that she represented the Far Left.

I am not being hyperpartisan. Have you forgot what I was talking about? I was talking about how I like Bill Clinton and then you said he was a horrible Pres. for being moderate.

You are all over the place.
Good god...your comprehension is about ten cents short of a dime. TRUMP DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FAR ANYTHING FOR THE GOP. He IS the mainstream. He doesn't compare to Elizabeth Warren in ANY way. Making that claim marks you as a hyperpartisan moran willing to say anything, no matter how stupid, to protect your party from the truth.

As for the rest, I'm just going to ask you to quote me saying Clinton was a "horrible Pres. for being moderate" or STFU.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,856
1,417
113
Good god...your comprehension is about ten cents short of a dime. TRUMP DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FAR ANYTHING FOR THE GOP. He IS the mainstream. He doesn't compare to Elizabeth Warren in ANY way. Making that claim marks you as a hyperpartisan moran willing to say anything, no matter how stupid, to protect your party from the truth.

As for the rest, I'm just going to ask you to quote me saying Clinton was a "horrible Pres. for being moderate" or STFU.
Pal you are so flipping stupid. Kinzinger is mainstream GOP. Trump is in bed with the Freedom Caucus. That is as Far Right as there is.

If you going to accuse someone of being a moron, how about learn how to spell it.

You slam and insult Clinton over and over again and then you act like you didn't do it. Are you on drugs?

Do you think that is Sen. Warren is not Far Left? Do you even follow politics?
 

LBoogie28

HR All-American
Feb 5, 2007
3,056
3,439
113
Sure. But,that’s a family dynamics issue. It’s not baked into work and school environments.
I’m sure this is your “truth,” but it isn’t that way here in Texas. I think you are being naïve (at best) with this.
 

littlez

HR Heisman
Jan 29, 2003
8,319
7,712
113
I think looking towards 2024 it all comes down to if R's can separate themselves from Trump. Pretty much that simple in my mind....I don't think they can.

If they somehow do the D's probably need to make some adjustments as well (less woke) but they're going to look at this mid terms as a validation of what they've been doing.

The Red dribble :)
Explain less woke please? How many Dems ran on woke policies? Living in KS we have now elected a democratic governor 2 times in a row in a very red state. She’s accomplished some great things in just a short amount of time. Meanwhile her opponent just rehashed the same old Republican talking points. Young people swung the election. The Republicans are getting old and tired. It’s easy to see through.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,862
53,986
113
Pal you are so flipping stupid. Kinzinger is mainstream GOP. Trump is in bed with the Freedom Caucus. That is as Far Right as there is.

If you going to accuse someone of being a moron, how about learn how to spell it.

You slam and insult Clinton over and over again and then you act like you didn't do it. Are you on drugs?

Do you think that is Sen. Warren is not Far Left? Do you even follow politics?
I'm not your "pal", dumbass. The GOP IS FAR RIGHT! They CHOSE Trump. They will choose him AGAIN. Given that you can't post a single quote where I insult Clinton....before you post again, you might want to brush up on HORT vernacular...moran.

36tm1r.png