AHC: Democrats do better in 2010 or 2014

Well for 2014, have the DNC stop throwing money into the black hole of Kentucky. Grimes had no realistic chance in that environment, and perhaps more money could have saved Kay Hagan, Mark Begich, or perhaps some of the closer Gubernatorial races like Florida or Georgia.
Problem is that if the Democrats put less money into Kentucky, the Republicans will put less money in and transfer their money wherever the Democrats do.

Anyways, having Udall and that guy in Iowa run better campaigns could give the Democrats two extra Senate seats. Maybe have that guy who challenged Senator Robert in Kansas win the nomination, and then have his creepy X-ray picture distribution practice get revealed could lead to the independent winning that race? Georgia, Nathan Deal could have a scandal explode in his face, he managed to keep them under wraps in OTL but everyone knows he has some shady deals.
 
Democrats manage to awaken their base. Obama's folk successfully spread the (in my view true) idea that the stimulous (greater than in otl) prevented a serious slump
 
Maybe the IRS targeting gets going sooner, and the targeting becomes even more widespread - say, the NRA starts facing audits after Sandy Hook.

It might be enough to mitigate Democratic losses.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Maybe the IRS targeting gets going sooner, and the targeting becomes even more widespread - say, the NRA starts facing audits after Sandy Hook.

It might be enough to mitigate Democratic losses.

Petty politically motivated bullshit like that really would not end up influencing the course of an election. Having people not enter groups like the NRA or Tea Party political groups in the first place would be a much better way of ensuring Democratic victories in midterm elections.

On the other hand, limiting the ability of special interests groups would hurt both parties in terms of their campaigns, but it might hit the Republicans harder. I don't have data on this, however.
 
I think for Iowa, we need a completely different Democratic candidate. Braley was a gaffe-machine that made Biden look like a diplomat. Calling Grassely a "backwards corn farmer from Iowa" is not a great way to win Iowan voters.
 
I think for Iowa, we need a completely different Democratic candidate. Braley was a gaffe-machine that made Biden look like a diplomat. Calling Grassely a "backwards corn farmer from Iowa" is not a great way to win Iowan voters.


Maybe Tom or Christie Vilsack decide to run for the senate seat. I think the reason they decided not to run is because the Iowa Democrats more than a year before the election united behind Braley and they truly thought the far-right Steve King would be the Republican nominee. Then they didn't take Joni Ernst seriously until Braley made that Grassely gaffe. The polls started to tighten after that and the Republican wave brought Ernst in. IMO if it had been a presidential election year, Braley, gaffes and all, would have won the senate seat.
 
I think for Iowa, we need a completely different Democratic candidate. Braley was a gaffe-machine that made Biden look like a diplomat. Calling Grassely a "backwards corn farmer from Iowa" is not a great way to win Iowan voters.

Last fall, a group of bloggers I belonged to came up with the idea of the "Coakley Cup." Named for Martha Coakley, who lost a Senate special election to Scott Brown in 2010, the Cup would be awarded to the candidate who ran the worst campaign for statewide office.

Amazingly, Coakley finished fourth in the 2014 standings behind Bruce Braley, Allison Lundergan Grimes, and Terri Lynn Land. Land was the only Republican to lose an open-seat Senate election last year.
 
2010: As someone else says, the economy improves faster or, you could also have Obama holds off on healthcare reform and put more focus on the economy and jobs.

In 2009-10, Obama and the Democrats spent their considerable supply of political capital on the Affordable Care Act. The ACA proved to be Rube Goldberg contraption that nobody understood, except for the requirement of buying insurance, which they hated. The Democrats made matters worse in 2010 by trying to run away from the ACA and running on a platform of "we're not Republicans", which proved to be a less than optimal strategy.
 
In 2009-10, Obama and the Democrats spent their considerable supply of political capital on the Affordable Care Act. The ACA proved to be Rube Goldberg contraption that nobody understood, except for the requirement of buying insurance, which they hated. The Democrats made matters worse in 2010 by trying to run away from the ACA and running on a platform of "we're not Republicans", which proved to be a less than optimal strategy.

I agree that a faster improvement to the economy would have helped the Democrats immeasurably in 2010. A bigger stimulus, which economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz were calling far, would probably have made a big difference. Another thing that would have helped a great deal is if there was a huge oil glut in Obama's first couple years and corresponding fall in gas prices. This happened with both Reagan and Clinton in their first terms and I'm certain played a large role in the economic booms during their presidencies. This is probably ASB though, as I see little that the American government can do that would effect oil prices in the short term.

I agree that the ACA combined with the slow recovery hurt the Democrats big time in 2010, but healthcare reform per se need not have hurt the Democrats. I believe that if the Democrats had initially pushed for Medicare for all and negotiate down from there, then healthcare reform would have turned out better. After all, the portion of the ACA that everyone hates-the insurance mandate-is a conservative innovation. Conservatives proposed this idea as a mean of controlling costs through private insurance and avoid a government insurance program. The Democrats failed to exploit this flip-flop on the GOP's part.

All that being said, the mid-term congressional elections almost go badly for the party in control of the presidency, so the Republicans were bound to gain seats in either 2010 or 2014, if not both. But while the Dems were likely to have their control of Congress reduced, they should not have lost control of the House so soon after regaining it in 2006.
 

ThePest179

Banned
So a bigger stimulus, leading to a better economy, would do it in 2010, and a better national campaign overall would help in 2014. Any other good suggestions? Any gaffes the Republicans could make?
 
Top