Have the Republicans learned theirs? Much like the Democrats before them, they can thank an unpopular President for their victory. America is displeased with everyone. 2016 could easily swing back in the Dems favor as most Senate seats available then will be incumbent Republicans.
Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who calls climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the gestapo, will "almost certainly" be the next chair of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. http://io9.com/the-worst-news-from-yesterdays-elections-1655150025
I assume that is the case. Don't really care as I will never live in your horrible state. I consider gun grabbers to be lower than Mav/Laker/Jazz fans. So while I see I am taking the low road, I also don't care.
The last mid term election of a two term President has ALWAYS been rough for the party in power. Nothing unusual about 2014. 2016 may become a Republican landslide or it may be a Democrat victory.... there is really nothing to read into 2014.
A lot of REPUBLICANS don't like Hillary, people that would not vote for her anyway. Benghazi does not matter. Republicans already have tried to push it twice and it didn't get them anywhere.
A lot of independents and Democrats don't like her too. Her numbers are not good to start with and would get worse in a presidential campaign. Anyway, maybe she will be the Democrat nominee but it won't end well for them if they go that route.
Who is it that has "better numbers" than her? You are being delusional. She's the most popular democrat in America and is probably the most liked candidate that is considered to be "in the race" right now. Of course that can change quickly if she struggles with the media again this time, campaigns poorly, says stupid things, etc. But she definitely goes in with a bigger advantage than anyone in the field.
You never know who will show up. In 2006 Obama was just a rook senator who made a key note speech and no one gave him a shot. Clinton is leading the polls but two years is a long time.
Bobby has big Hillary blind spot, a willful denial. Sort of shows you how ideological bias works, you choose to believe what fits your desire. there are links to most possible opponents: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html
I asked for an opinion regarding who is capable of beating Hilary in a general election. Though it did not contain a question mark, I think it still qualifies as at least question-like. You quoted me in your response, but specifically avoided giving the opinion that I asked for. Now you're quibbling over semantics on top of lying in your sig.
My statement shows your "question" is irrelevant. Obama wasn't even leading Clinton in polls among african americans until late in the game. I support Clinton, would have voted for her instead of nobody in 2008, but you can never tell what will happen or who will show up. Your question, like the statement you made in my sig, is dumb.
Great, so we are in agreement that the 2014 mid terms have no projectable impact on the 2016 election.
The last time a 2 term President led his party to a win in a "3rd term" was Ronald Reagan in 1988 when Vice President George Bush won the Presidency. In fact, that is the ONLY time a party won 3 straight terms since the days of Roosevelt/Truman. And to turn a famous phrase from politics: "President Obama, you're no Ronald Reagan"
