Why it doesn’t much matter who the Democrats pick to lose in 2016.

These two graphs will hopefully help people understand why I’m not panicky about any of the potential Democratic candidates for 2016 actually running.  The first graph shows Bush/Obama’s polling average, as of Election Day 2004/2012:

…and the second shows Bush/Obama’s polling average today (June 6, 2014/2006):

As you can see… it turns out that Presidents with a 50% approval rating tend to get re-elected (as both Barack Obama and George W BUsh can tell you).  It also turns out that Barack Obama is following the same glide path in 2012 that his predecessor rather infamously did in 2006: and it’s at this point that I remind you that the 2006 midterms were littered with the corpses of incumbent-party political careers.  So were 2008’s, come to think of it.

Which is why I’m not all that worried about the next election.  In 2008 we ran John McCain, who is a guy who nobody – nobody – would ever mistake for George W Bush’s best buddy… and it did not help him or us in the slightest.  In 2016 it doesn’t really matter which John McCain the Democrats run; the voters aren’t what I’d call real precise when it comes to them letting one party or the other know that said voters are simply just tired of seeing certain politicians’ stupid faces on the television.

This is absolutely awful when you’re on the receiving end.  When it’s the other side? …Well, not so much.

Moe Lane

PS: If the media was perfect at destroying our candidates, Barack Obama would be running for re-election because John Kerry would have served two terms and Congress would still have Democratic super-majorities.  Do not assume that your opponents are seven feet tall and fart fire.