The intensity gap favors Republicans in a big way. No matter what anyone sells, this seems to make more sense to me than almost anything else I've read on the subject. Republicans are more likely to go to the polls in November than Dems. And, even though the DNC will spend everything they can in their effort to rake voters to the polls, I don't think it'll be enough. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...post-poll-democrats-106158.html#ixzz30kmJua9K
The US election system is at a point where the advantage fluctuates every two years, the Republicans benefiting from the lower turnout of the off year election and the Democrats benefiting from the higher turnout of the Presidential year. But given the demographic trends, I see the results of 2014 not being as decisive as people imagine they might be. 1. The Republicans have already taken the leans right purple seats, and even some of the slightly left purple seats, leaving the Democrats with the solid blue seats, and the more bluish purple seats. 2. More minorities, fewer whites registering to vote, what ever that conventional wisdom was it's shifted, so while Romney had reason to believe he could win, when the votes were counted, he was trounced, and Obama was a weakened candidate in 2012. In 2016 The Democrat won't have that handicap, and if we get a Hispanic on the ticket, we could energize a voting bloc that could radically alter the political landscape for decades. So while 2014 looks a little rocky, it's just a bump in the road.
White liberals couldn't win with their socialist message so they had to fill the country with socialists.
Young Americans are hungry for leadership. They are starving for leadership. And there is precious little on display. What they DO witness is tired partisan politics, tired lies, and tired nonsensical excuses for failure. I agree with the original poster that young voters will be uninspired and unmotivated to go to the polls in 2014. And accordingly, a poor young voter turnout will be a disaster for the Democrats. (I'm not saying that each and every Republican candidate is any better, not by a long shot. But I have a feeling that they will fare much better than any candidate who tries to claim that Obamacare is working, that Benghazi doesn't matter, and that the Democrats will magically start paying-down the incredibly steep federal debt all of a sudden!)
Dude, It's conservatives, like Reagan and Bush who create the economic collapses that drive people to the Democratic Party...
What economic collapses, specifically? You're aware that the 1980's and 1990's, two periods of time where the economic policies of Reagan were in effect, were the 2 longest peacetime economic expansions in US history?
You're forgetting the Savings and Loan collapse, caused by Reagan, and the recession it brought on, that got Clinton elected....
I didn't forget anything. The 1980's and 1990's were the two longest peacetime economic expansions in US history, just like I claimed. You've done nothing to refute that. A massive amount of jobs and wealth were created during these two decades. You're just cheerleading for your party, as usual.
Really, you don't remember the misery of the 1990-1991 recession? The voters remembered it in 1992, and then after Clinton raised taxes on the wealth, we had the longest peacetime expansion in history.....with massive job growth, under Clinton....
The economy was 19 months into a recovery when Clinton was elected. The last quarter of Bush 41's Presidency had over a 4.0% growth rate. Voters "remembered" left-wing propaganda. http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/-honest-pbs-clinton-documentary-lies-about-the-economy.html Clinton slashed capital gains taxes which fueled investment and lead to the tech bubble. The "wealthy" became much richer during his Presidency, even after he increased their taxes to a level a full 11% lower than where they were during most of Reagan's Presidency. But I'm sure you're cool with the rich becoming much richer during the Clinton years. He's a Democrat.
Everyone got richer when Clinton was president, but the concentration of wealth did decline under Clinton.
