Thread: Charles Krauthammer: 'This Is the End of an Era for Democrats'

Fox News

Charles Krauthammer called it "the end of an era for Democrats" after Republicans took control of the Senate and retained control of the House.



Krauthammer: 'This Is the End of an Era for Democrats'
Charles Krauthammer said the favorable demographics - among young people for instance - are now shrinking for Democrats.
insider.foxnews.com

Krauthammer: 'This Is the End of an Era for Democrats'



Nov 04, 2014 // 11:55pm
by Fox News Insider
Posted in:
// Charles Krauthammer
// 2014 Election

Video at the page link:

Charles Krauthammer reacted moments ago to the Republican Party winning control of the Senate, arguing that the effect of President Obama has now completely worn off.
He pointed out that many of the Democrats who lost tonight were swept into office on Obama's coattails, which he said have now become "toxic."
Krauthammer said the favorable demographics - among young people for instance - are now shrinking for Democrats and the playing field between the parties will be leveled for the next few years and into 2016.
He argued that tonight's results refute the assumption that the demographics of the country were trending toward Democrats being the "party of the future."
"In all of these, the effect of the charismatic leader - and that began slipping away from the beginning - it's now completely gone. ... I think this is the end of an era for Democrats," said Krauthammer.

Watch his full reaction above, plus see more reaction from tonight's election coverage on Fox News from Mitt Romney, Laura Ingraham, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/0...now-completely

Congressman Jim Bridenstine

http://www.alipac.us/f9/liberal-anal...-video-314011/

Obama Will Leave the Democrats in Shambles

By Michael Barone
19 hours ago

Before the election results are in, and keeping in mind that there may be some unpleasant surprises for one party or the other — or both — it’s possible to assess how the Democratic Party has fared under the leadership of President Obama. To summarize the verdict: not so well.
By one metric it has done very badly indeed. When Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, there were 257 Democrats in the House of Representatives. Going into this election there are 201 (including two vacant Democratic seats).
Psephologists universally agree Democrats will suffer a net loss of House seats, for reasons explained in an earlier column in this space. That will leave them with a number probably somewhere in the 190s.
That means a loss of something like 60 seats — far more than the parties of George W. Bush after six years (19 seats), and slightly more than Bill Clinton at this stage (47 seats).
House race results are particularly meaningful because in the past two decades, much more than in the 1970s and 1980s, Americans are voting straight tickets. Party performance in House elections is a pretty good indicator of support of a party and (when it has one) its president.
It’s true that Bill Clinton’s party lost 12 Senate seats in his first six years, as opposed to only four for President Obama’s — so far. But Democrats will come near to these losses if, as forecasters think likely, they lose their Senate majority, and even more if Republicans win almost all the close races.
Senate numbers in any case are a less reliable indicator of party strength, since there are fewer than three dozen races every cycle, compared to hundreds of House races.
Why has the Democratic Party fared so poorly under Obama’s leadership? I can see two reasons: one ideological, one demographic.
Start with demographics. The Obama coalition, even more than Bill Clinton’s, is based on overwhelming support from constituencies with some conflicting interests. It’s a top-and-bottom coalition: he carried the very lowest and highest income and education groups, while his support sagged among those in the middle.
His strongest groups are blacks and gentry liberals — the same two groups he gathered together when he got to design his own state Senate district in 2002. Majorities of both groups still support him, but perhaps with diminished enthusiasm. Black crowds unexpectedly started walking out before he finished talking at recent events in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and Milwaukee.
Moreover, the geographic clustering of blacks and gentry liberals in central cities, sympathetic suburbs and university towns puts the Obama Democrats at a disadvantage in equal-population districts where Republican voters are spread more evenly around.
Meanwhile, the thrill is clearly gone among two groups that backed him heavily in 2008 and 2012, and which will inevitably be larger parts of the electorate in the future: Hispanics and Millennials.
The latest Harvard Institute of Politics poll shows Obama approval among Millennials at 43 percent, not significantly higher than the national average. Those who said they were definitely voting favored Republicans over Democrats 51 to 47 percent. This among a group that voted 66 percent and 60 percent for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
The latest Pew Research Center poll showed Obama’s approval among Hispanics a bit higher, at 49 percent. But that’s far short of the 71 percent of Hispanic votes that Obama received in 2012.
Obama’s majorities depended on his party winning Hispanics and Millennials by something like 2-to-1 margins. Democrats don’t seem to be doing that this year.
That gets us to ideology. Bill Clinton was credited with competence and acceptable ideology, which made his party competitive in the early 2000s and well-positioned to take advantage of George W. Bush’s perceived incompetence (Iraq, Katrina) in 2006 and 2008.
President Obama’s ideology — expanded government, Obamacare — has been less widely acceptable, and his reputation for competence is currently in tatters. He was able to eke out re-election with a reduced percentage by good organization. But he leaves his party in trouble.
Yes, Hillary Clinton leads in polls for 2016. But her numbers have been sagging. And other Democrats poll worse against not-very-well-known Republican alternatives than I can remember any party’s potential candidates polling in the last half-century.
Predicting 2016 when 2014 isn’t over is risky. But it looks like President Obama has left his party in worse shape than any president since Woodrow Wilson nearly a century ago.

COPYRIGHT 2014 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER, DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

http://freedomsback.com/newsletter/o...s-in-shambles/

Obama under estimated the American public who is not ready for socialism/communism type agenda, a rich/poor society, this could take place in the future if we are not vigilant. The Democrat party over the past 6 years have shown there true agenda which is a socialist utopia.

The truth is neither party appears to understand or support the American worker this must change if we are to rebuild this country into what it once was. We can never rest, to retain freedom is a daily fight.