ADVERTISEMENT

Election Today

qazplm

All-American
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
32,720
3,308
113
No comments from anyone? Predictions?

If I had to guess, Dems win (Senate): NH, IA, NC. Reps win: AR, KY, GA, LA (both will go to runoffs which the Reps will win).

Toss-ups totally dependent on turn-out: CO, AK, and IA.

KS I dunno, might go independent, and what that means for control of the senate depends on who comes ahead elsewhere. Smart money would probably be on Reps getting say 51-52 seats, but I can see them only getting 50, in which case the Independent guy from KS has a whole lot of power.
 
My prediction is that there will be no fundamental change to how Washington "works" (and I use that word very loosely).

Republican or Democrat, elected officials will continue to vote their donors rather than their constituencies - and as a result, we'll continue to have gridlock.
 
In the Senate, I'm guessing the Republicans win AR, KY, GA (probably a runoff), LA, CO, AK, and IA
I think the Democrats will win in NC, NH, and KS (Independent caucusing with them)
All of which would tilt the Senate to the Republicans 52 - 47 (+1 'I')

I think a bunch of these will be pretty close (CO, IA, KS, GA).

On the positive side - it looks like neither party will be in total control (Exec, filibuster-proof Senate, House). On the downside, it will still be chock full of lawyers (sorry, no offense :D), and 100% filled with politicians.
 
the guy from KS has said

he'll caucus with whomever has control, so if your scenario happens, it would be 53 for the republicans. Of course, with a Dem President and less than 60 votes, that matters little.

I can't say your scenario is wrong, certainly possible. I think though that at least one of CO, AK, and IA floats to the Dems. This isn't a wave election so usually you don't see every single close race go one way in those kind of elections. But AK and IA are really hard to poll and hard to figure out. CO it boils down to whether or not the Hispanic population is being properly polled/reflected in the polling, if they are, the rep wins, if they are being under counted, then the dem wins.
 
Democaplypse!!!

I think NC will be closer, but the best Red hopes are: Montana, S. Dak., WV (already declared by CNN), Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana. I think they'll get the six without needing CO or IA. We'll see!

If KS doesn't stay Red, all bets are off for gaining control. As I see it, they need KY (got it), Georgia (looking good), and Kansas plus the six.

If they get 50, and Dems have 49 plus an Independent, Biden has a whole lot of power, IMO. I don't know which way the Indy leans, but...
 
Re: the guy from KS has said

The power the Republicans would have is to shift the burden of being the roadblock squarely on the President, and thus the Democratic party. Some of that's already been happening with Harry Reid in the Senate, where votes just don't happen. That said, the public perception - and a lot of it is true as well - is that the shutdown was all Republican/Tea Party, thus the Republicans are the obstructionists.

Forcing Obama to veto a bunch of stuff will help the party in 2016, but that effect will be muted because Obama's not terribly popular anyway, and the Dems are likely to abandon him even further the closer 2016 gets.

Either way, I hope we can get someone to bring the parties together a little bit more. It's been pretty awful since 2008 on both sides - Harry Reid politics for Dems, Tea Party for Conservatives. We'd be better off without both, IMO.
 
Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:
My prediction is that there will be no fundamental change to how Washington "works" (and I use that word very loosely).

Republican or Democrat, elected officials will continue to vote their donors rather than their constituencies - and as a result, we'll continue to have gridlock.
+1, except it'll be parties and donors both. With a Democratic exec and Republican legislature, nothing will change... which is good for the stock market, anyway!
 
Go Perdue!

Republican or Democrat, elected officials will continue to vote
their donors rather than their constituencies - and as a result, we'll
continue to have gridlock.


Yet another reason to drastically reduce the size and scope of the federal government so that gridlock has less and less of an impact on our lives.
 
Landslide? Hardly. And while I think something needs to change, this idea that the GOP will be any better than the halfwits who were already in power is ludicrous.

Btw, I'm thrilled that Harry Reid will be out of his leadership position . . . I hope the Democrats bump him down further, because that guy is a clown.
 
Landslide. Biggest number of Reps in house since 1928. Governorships in IL, MD and MA. First governor of president's home state to lose since 1892. Probably 54 Senate seats when all said and done.
 
Originally posted by beardownboiler:
Landslide?  Hardly.  And while I think something needs to change, this idea that the GOP will be any better than the halfwits who were already in power is ludicrous. 

Btw, I'm thrilled that Harry Reid will be out of his leadership position . . . I hope the Democrats bump him down further, because that guy is a clown.

Lol it's clearly a landslide. You obviously aren't paying attention. Look at how many blue states went to republicans for the governor race. Democrats got smoked tonight.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Shellacking, drubbing, however you want to put it. It is a repudiation of Obama's policies. He said his policies were on the ballot, and the people just voted Red in a big, big way.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Shellacking, drubbing, however you want to put it. It is a repudiation of Obama's policies. He said his policies were on the ballot, and the people just voted Red in a big, big way.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This. Beardown is in denial.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
In IL, Quinn lost because the guy is a horrible gov. Rauner will be equally terrible. There was no winning in that election.

As for many of the gains, they came in areas where Democrats traditionally lose, anyway. This could have been seen a mile away. We all heard what a thumping 2010 was . . and that turned out brilliantly. When choosing between two shit sandwiches, people will often choose one they haven't had before on the off chance that it might not be as bad as the shit sandwich they are currently eating.

And no, Obama has not been even remotely good. Regardless of how this turned out, the people of the US were going to lose. Think about it . . . the Senate majority leader would either be Harry Reid . . or Mitch McConnell . . think about that, and try to call this some kind of victory for anyone other than Mitch McConnell.
 
Originally posted by boiler1987:
Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Shellacking, drubbing, however you want to put it. It is a repudiation of Obama's policies. He said his policies were on the ballot, and the people just voted Red in a big, big way.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This. Beardown is in denial.
Posted from Rivalsd Mobile
Denial of what? That the Democrats were a MAJOR disappointment? That they sucked it up just as much as the GOP has in recent years (decades)? There's no denial, here. I just have to smack my forehead against the wall when people act like this is some kind of win because their team won (hint hint, if you think the GOP is your team, you're doing it wrong). The US lost today. Had every election gone in the opposite direction, it would have lost then, too. There was no winning in 2014, because it was garbage candidate fighting with garbage candidate.
 
Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Shellacking, drubbing, however you want to put it. It is a repudiation of Obama's policies. He said his policies were on the ballot, and the people just voted Red in a big, big way.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
While I certainly think that some of the results had to do with policies, I think much of this is about his approach to governing as his policies. By many economic metrics, his policies appear to be working. His divisiveness clearly is not.

My hope is that both parties will see this election as a mandate to change the way things (don't) get done. My fear, however, is that both sides will use this as an excuse to further entrench. If the Republicans choose to view their win as a validation of their do nothing obstructionism and "shut down the government" approach, the whole country loses. If, though, they view it as the people of America saying in large numbers that we are tired of gridlock and choose to try to actually operate within the bounds of reason (by which I mean pass bills that have bipartisan support and a realistic shot of being signed rather than what I fear will happen, which is attempt after attempt to get Obama to sign a full repeal of the ACA), the whole country wins.

The same could be said in a different way for Obama. If he gets defensive and views this as an "enemies at the gates" scenario and starts stubbornly vetoing everything just because he can, the whole country loses. If he chooses to reflect on the results and see in them the American people saying in large numbers that we are tired of gridlock and blind partisanship and opts to seek genuine compromise with Republican leadership, the whole country wins.

If we're honest, there's not much evidence the last couple of decades (going all the way back to Clinton) that the two parties can work together...but we need that more than anything. For me, who refuses to claim affiliation with one party or another, the party that does the most to end the gridlock is most likely to get my vote in 2016.
 
2 Drinks

Drink 1: a toast to the downfall of that miserable, obstructionist SOB, Harry Reid
Drink 2: to prepare us for the rise of that passive-aggressive, whining Nancy, Mitch McConnell

I don't know if this election is a "landslide" or a "wave", but it was certainly a larger than expected margin of victory for the Republicans. Of course, they've got an uphill battle to convince the country to keep them in the majority for more than 2 years - '16 is a Presidential election that increases Democratic turnout, and they now have more seats in typically Democratic controlled states to defend.

This election, to me, was more about repudiating Obama's governing methods, leadership, and some of his policies than it was about affirming some kind of Republican agenda. It was also the Republicans getting back some seats they traditionally held but lost when they were wiped out in the last few elections.
 
Snarkyism lost big time last night.

Something else of note - a prominant democrat noted last night that Harry Reid blocked everything in the Senate because he wanted to protect Obama - he didn't want to put any legislation on his desk and force him to sign or veto a bill.

We should now see a drastic uptick in bills heading to the white house.
 
Drastic uptick?

First off, have you heard of the filibuster? The Republicans don't have 60 votes.

Secondly, just like this year had a lot of Democrats running in more conservative/battleground states, 2016 features even more Republican Senate seats up for re-election. Of the 33 up in 2016, 23 are Republicans. And many are in more liberal/battleground states. Someone like Susan Collins from Maine isn't going to be going hardcore Republican over the next 2 years.
 
Originally posted by lbodel:
Drastic uptick? 

First off, have you heard of the filibuster? The Republicans don't have 60 votes.

Secondly, just like this year had a lot of Democrats running in more conservative/battleground states, 2016 features even more Republican Senate seats up for re-election. Of the 33 up in 2016, 23 are Republicans. And many are in more liberal/battleground states. Someone like Susan Collins from Maine isn't going to be going hardcore Republican over the next 2 years. 


Look at all of the gubernatorial races that were won by republicans in typically strong blue states like Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc. that speaks volumes to how bad of shape the democrats are in.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by lbodel:
Drastic uptick?

First off, have you heard of the filibuster? The Republicans don't have 60 votes.

Secondly, just like this year had a lot of Democrats running in more conservative/battleground states, 2016 features even more Republican Senate seats up for re-election. Of the 33 up in 2016, 23 are Republicans. And many are in more liberal/battleground states. Someone like Susan Collins from Maine isn't going to be going hardcore Republican over the next 2 years.
We can only hope that the Dems use filibusters and veto over the next two years. I pray that's the case!
 
Originally posted by beardownboiler:
Originally posted by boiler1987:
Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Shellacking, drubbing, however you want to put it. It is a repudiation of Obama's policies. He said his policies were on the ballot, and the people just voted Red in a big, big way.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This. Beardown is in denial.
Posted from Rivalsd Mobile
Denial of what? That the Democrats were a MAJOR disappointment? That they sucked it up just as much as the GOP has in recent years (decades)? There's no denial, here. I just have to smack my forehead against the wall when people act like this is some kind of win because their team won (hint hint, if you think the GOP is your team, you're doing it wrong). The US lost today. Had every election gone in the opposite direction, it would have lost then, too. There was no winning in 2014, because it was garbage candidate fighting with garbage candidate.
Agree to disagree. GO BIG RED!
wink.r191677.gif
 
2010

same thing happened. Was it a repudiation of his policies then? Why then did the reverse happen two years later?

This wasn't much more of anything than what always happens in year 6 of a two-term President, particularly given the fact that Dems don't usually come out for midterms in offcycle elections with a Dem President.

It happened to Bush in 06. It happened to Clinton. I believe it happened to Reagan in 86, but my memory is a little more fuzzy on that one.

According to the CNN exit polls, the electorate was more than 50% over the age of 50, it was more white than 2012, and it was more male than 2012, and it was more conservative than 2012, and the turnout, I believe, was something like 39% in some places (e.g. Cleveland was at 40%, hard for dems to win with cities turning out that low).

Credit goes to the republicans for getting their folks out, while shame goes to the dems for failing to get their folks out. When turnout is high, Dems win, but when turnout is low, Dems lose.

Two years from now, turnout will be high, Hillary will be on the ticket, and Reps will be defending 23 out 33 Senate seats, and a whole lot of blue as opposed to the red and purple they were competing on this time around. They'll lose the Presidency and the Senate, the House will tighten but likely (although not guaranteed) stays rep, and we'll be right back where we were in 2012.

Then, wait for it, in 2018, reps will gain slightly, then in 2022, Dems will rebound, then in 2024, reps will gain big...

The only time that pattern changes is when the Reps win the WH, then it simply reverses.
 
let's break that down

Michigan re-elected a Republican gov, it wasn't a pick-up. Massachusetts has a long history of electing republican gov's, and the dem candidate was quite frankly atrocious. Illinois has a history of electing rep govs, and given it's got a lot of red outside of Chicago, it's not an unexpected result in a off-cycle, lower turnout election.

Maryland was certainly surprising. don't know what happened there.

I think if you think the dems are in bad shape after this election, you'll share the same fate as any dems who thought the reps were in bad shape after 2012, or 2008, or the reps who thought the dems were in bad shape after 2010. There's a pretty clear and consistent pattern to all of this.
 
Originally posted by beardownboiler:
In IL, Quinn lost because the guy is a horrible gov. Rauner will be equally terrible. There was no winning in that election.

As for many of the gains, they came in areas where Democrats traditionally lose, anyway. This could have been seen a mile away. We all heard what a thumping 2010 was . . and that turned out brilliantly. When choosing between two shit sandwiches, people will often choose one they haven't had before on the off chance that it might not be as bad as the shit sandwich they are currently eating.

And no, Obama has not been even remotely good. Regardless of how this turned out, the people of the US were going to lose. Think about it . . . the Senate majority leader would either be Harry Reid . . or Mitch McConnell . . think about that, and try to call this some kind of victory for anyone other than Mitch McConnell.

If it was a choice between two shit sandwiches and people "choose the one they haven't had before", then how did Republican incumbents hold onto almost every office, including Governors Mansions in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by GABoilermakers:
Originally posted by beardownboiler:
In IL, Quinn lost because the guy is a horrible gov. Rauner will be equally terrible. There was no winning in that election.

As for many of the gains, they came in areas where Democrats traditionally lose, anyway. This could have been seen a mile away. We all heard what a thumping 2010 was . . and that turned out brilliantly. When choosing between two shit sandwiches, people will often choose one they haven't had before on the off chance that it might not be as bad as the shit sandwich they are currently eating.

And no, Obama has not been even remotely good. Regardless of how this turned out, the people of the US were going to lose. Think about it . . . the Senate majority leader would either be Harry Reid . . or Mitch McConnell . . think about that, and try to call this some kind of victory for anyone other than Mitch McConnell.

If it was a choice between two shit sandwiches and people "choose the one they haven't had before", then how did Republican incumbents hold onto almost every office, including Governors Mansions in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
How many words did you skip? It's obvious that one of them was "often." Of course, you also omitted it from your quote. This election is the same disaster we've had since 2010 (hell, 2008). The new candidates are horrible . . but so are the incumbents. All we are getting are people who are, for the most part, picked by the garbage party members already in power.
 
because it wasn't

it was about turnout, who turned out, who didn't. 39 percent national turnout, and an electorate that was 75% white, 12% black, and 8% hispanic, and a majority over 50.

That's a pretty conservative, pretty republican electorate.
 
Filibuster? Maybe they'll just vote to change that rule in the interest of "breaking gridlock" brought upon by "unreasonable partisans". :D (Note: I'm kidding).

I've heard the refrain about 7 Senators in Obama carried states up for re-election in 2014 from several places already (merely hours after the election has ended). When the Dems win, it's "the Republican Party is dying due to demographic changes" gleefully written in the headlines. When the Dems lose, it's merely "structural electoral realities". I don't necessarily disagree with the latter point, but it would have been nice if someone had pointed that out to the Dems after the last few cycles - maybe they would've tread more carefully (and in a more bipartisan manner).



Republicans are still doomed
 
last few cycles?

2012 was a fine cycle for Dems. 2008 was a great cycle. 2006 was a great cycle. 2010 was bad and 2014 was bad.

So, all in all, what pattern are you looking at? And yes, it's just the Dems being partisan, not the reps.
 
Re: let's break that down

Originally posted by qazplm:

I think if you think the dems are in bad shape after this election, you'll share the same fate as any dems who thought the reps were in bad shape after 2012, or 2008, or the reps who thought the dems were in bad shape after 2010. There's a pretty clear and consistent pattern to all of this.
Yep. The Republicans screwed up by not doing this in 2012 because they had too much in-fighting with the Tea Party. They probably could've won more seats, if not the majority, by simply uniting then. They were much smarter on a national scale, removing the "third" candidates in races like Colorado and Kansas, and letting it go in places like Louisiana where they'll win the runoff anyway.

I am interested to see how the next two years shake out.

Most likely? Republicans put a bunch of partisan bills (like a full Obamacare repeal) on the President's desk, and he vetoes them all. Republicans spin it as obstructionism and try to paint that as the Democrats' style of governance, hoping to prop up their Presidential candidate. Hillary is the Democratic candidate, and rides into the White House on the "cool" vote (much like Obama), and the Republicans narrowly keep their advantages in the House and Senate because the voter base will turn out trying to put Hillary down.

What would I like to see? Republicans make legitimate efforts to craft more bi-partisan bills rather than just overturning Obamacare; they put the Keystone XL pipeline, tax reform, and immigration reform at the top of the list - Presidential priorities - and put Obama on the spot to make tough calls. Obama allows some popular items, like Keystone XL, through but vetoes obvious stuff. Republicans trumpet how they were able to work with Obama, who is unpopular anyway so it doesn't hurt the Democrats, and how they should be the governing party. This boosts the strength of whomever is running against Hillary and we get a good election, rather than one based on "Hope and change."

Either way, I expect the Democratic party to further distance itself from the President over the course of the next two years. If nothing else - and Obama said himself that his policies were on the ballot prior to the election - last night's result was a demonstration of the public's frustration with Obama. Not sure if it's his policies or his divisiveness or what, but he is not in great shape right now. It's up to him and the Republicans to see if he drags the rest of the Democrats down.
 
Re: demographics. Last night showed that Club Obama is not necessarily Club Democrat. That said, Club obama is bound to become Club Hillary, which isn't a good thing for Republican candidates. They need to roll something better than McCain/Palin out there in 2016. Scott Walker, anyone?
 
You picked that phrase out of my whole comment to focus on?

Interesting, but not surprising, I guess. I'm sorry, the general trend of the last few cycles.

No, no, no, I've often stated, in response to you no less, that the Republicans and Democrats are equally partisan. *I* am the one who equates the two parties... stop selectively stealing *my* statements :D.

I digress... I was, more directly, pointing out the reactions to the results. I don't disagree that the Republicans face some "demographic" challenges or that the Democrats were battling uphill this time due to makeup of midterms and the states involved. However, the Republicans aren't going away because of minorities. The Democrats didn't lose *only* because of the geography of the seats up for re-election. I guess I would like for people to look at why they lost or won, but also take the results in stride. Nothing is ever permanent.
 
Re: 2010

Originally posted by qazplm:
same thing happened. Was it a repudiation of his policies then? Why then did the reverse happen two years later?

This wasn't much more of anything than what always happens in year 6 of a two-term President, particularly given the fact that Dems don't usually come out for midterms in offcycle elections with a Dem President.
I don't disagree, however you can't paint it any differently than a demonstration of frustration with Obama, even if the same thing happened to Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.

The President himself said "I am not on the ballot, but my policies are." OK, Mr. President, then your policies just got soundly beaten. Will you adapt like Clinton did and work across the party lines a little bit?

I had to laugh a little bit listening to the AA gentleman on CNN last night. When coverage started, he was saying, "it's not about Obama; it's about frustration with incumbents!" Then, once McConnell and Roberts won, and the FL governor won, and other Republican incumbents won, his tune changed quickly.
 
I can't shake the feeling that it doesn't matter - if Hillary runs, Hillary will win. Elections are popularity contests at their basest level and she's cooler than everyone else (except Obama, I guess :D).

If I can't have third and fourth options, then I just don't want any party to have total control. If the Republicans can at least hold the House and/or Senate (or at least maintain a filibuster strength membership), then I'm fine with it.
 
Originally posted by indyogb:
Filibuster? Maybe they'll just vote to change that rule in the interest of "breaking gridlock" brought upon by "unreasonable partisans". :D (Note: I'm kidding).

I've heard the refrain about 7 Senators in Obama carried states up for re-election in 2014 from several places already (merely hours after the election has ended). When the Dems win, it's "the Republican Party is dying due to demographic changes" gleefully written in the headlines. When the Dems lose, it's merely "structural electoral realities". I don't necessarily disagree with the latter point, but it would have been nice if someone had pointed that out to the Dems after the last few cycles - maybe they would've tread more carefully (and in a more bipartisan manner).
No, when the Democrats win, it's "election fraud . . ACORN!!!"
 
Re: because it wasn't

Originally posted by qazplm:
it was about turnout, who turned out, who didn't. 39 percent national turnout, and an electorate that was 75% white, 12% black, and 8% hispanic, and a majority over 50.

That's a pretty conservative, pretty republican electorate.
I was pretty surprised that Walker kept Wisconsin as easily as he did, given his unpopularity with the Unions up there. IMO, that's a good thing, same as in IL, where whatever electorate turned out shunned the unions.
 
Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Re: demographics. Last night showed that Club Obama is not necessarily Club Democrat. That said, Club obama is bound to become Club Hillary, which isn't a good thing for Republican candidates. They need to roll something better than McCain/Palin out there in 2016. Scott Walker, anyone?
I think if Hillary runs in 2016, that race is already over. She is a political behemoth that really can't be stopped by anyone the GOP puts forward. The only person who could beat her in an election can't run anymore (Bill Clinton). Anyway, that race is over. I expect the balance to swing back the other way in 2016. I expect nothing to happen until then (same as it has been for years, now).

Btw, this is interesting.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT