Renew Deal (60,578 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026431060
Are Democrats better off losing the presidency in 2016?
If we win in 2016, we likely can't hold it for 2020. If we lose in 2016, we're probably back in the game 2020. Of course, winning in 2016 probably gets us at least 1-2 more supreme court justices and cements some liberal policy. Thoughts?
They are already making excuses for losing 2016. It is going to be a bloodbath.
CaliforniaPeggy (114,551 posts)
2. Um, that would be NO. Losing it in 2016 would be awful. And for the reasons you stated, it would be much better to win then.
CALPEG didn't get in as number one reply. She/he/it is slipping.
Kalidurga (7,202 posts)
5. No and the country would be much worse off. Democrats can afford to lose in 2016, unfortunately a lot of people can't afford for Democrats to lose; women, lgbt, poor people, POC, and people who want to actually work for a living wage.
Major Hogwash (15,228 posts)
45. We, the people, cannot afford to lose in 2016!!!
And since we live in the short term, there is no sense in thinking about our goals from a long-term point of view.
May as well say, "well, in a 100 years, it won't matter".
But it does, people are dying and starving to death today because of Republican obstruction to improving the safety nets.
Did you know that some historians have begun referring to the years from 2001 to 2010 as the "lost decade" because of all of the shit that happened when Dubya was President? Psychologists and sociologists have said that the generation most affected by it were the kids coming out of college at the time, their lives were frozen in time.
That is one reason women are waiting longer to get married, and/or to have babies . . . fear of an uncertain future!
Then there is the Iraq War with all the kids between 28 and 18 joining the military . . . and for what?
One of the major reasons 22 veterans commit suicide each day!
The scars haven't even healed over yet for that generation.
They are the ones that paid the heaviest price.
Since the Republicans seem so gung ho on starting yet another war with Iran, we cannot afford to let some Tea Party-influenced asshole in to the White House.
We suffered 8 years of Dubya Bush, and there is no way this country can step back in time again.
No way!
Somehow a decade is lost to hope (two of those years under Barry... and what's gotten better since he took office? Nothing)... and of course they blame BUSH...
jmowreader (29,743 posts)
22. Not at all
If we lose the White House in 2016, the GOP is going to do everything in its power - which they would have a lot of, since a Republican president would probably come with a Republican Congress - to enrich the One Percent at the expense of the rest of us.
I really believe a GOP Congress with a GOP president would pass an Obamacare repeal bill quickly enough that the new president could sign it at the inauguration. Their next step would be a national Right to Work bill, and it would go downhill from there.
Somehow when a DUmpmonkie says the country would go downhill I think that it would really start to recover. Everything the DUmpmonkies say is ass-backwards anyway. Light is dark, good is bad, left is right....
TDale313 (2,907 posts)
30. No. We can't afford to lose in 2016. Imo, if we lose the White House, we probably also won't reclaim the Senate- it would take very low turnout or a major shift rightward in the political winds for them to win this time. I'm not willing to give them the presidency and both houses of Congress on the theory that more Supreme Court seats could open up later rather than sooner.
Barry, and Hillary, are giving us all the ammo we need to take the Senate, House and Presidency. No one trusts the US under Democrat leadership anymore- least of all our 'allies'. Time to let the adults run the show.
Binkie The Clown (174 posts)
39. A short-term Democratic loss...... might give the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves and guarantee a long-term victory. It could result in them completely destroying their credibility for then next 20 or 30 years.
Another factor is that the economic recovery is fairly delicate right now. Heavy-handed Republicans could send us spinning into a depression. Certainly that's a very bad thing, but the economy is overblown and needs to let of some steam in the form of a serious correction. When that happens, and I think it must happen sooner rather than later, regardless of who is in the White House, it would be best if the Republicans were at the helm so they could take all the flack for it.
On Edit: Chess players who say "it's never good to lose a rook" aren't ready for the big leagues. In the long game, sacrifice is sometimes the best offense.
bigtree (55,506 posts)
41. this is fantasy. Any republican term in the WH is dangerous and affects millions of individuals
...and there's absolutely no political benefit in that; just devastation, death, and destruction; possibly catastrophic.
There is NO rational argument about this. We've been there and done that and are STILL living with the worst effects of the Bush regime. Chess? This isn't a game, it's real people's lives and livelihoods.
MILLIONS of lives will be lost if Repuglikkkans win!!!! Please.
Willem (10 posts)
40. well That is such a ridiculous question that only a stealth republican or someone on mushrooms could be the author.
I know all six of my moles alerted on the OP.
