Election Today
- Thread starter qazplm
- Start date
well actually at the Presidential level
yes they are, so long as they struggle to win the Hispanic vote.
Texas will, sooner or later, turn purple as more and more Hispanics vote. Georgia is also expanding demographically in ways that favor Democrats (Obama only lost it by 8 pts in 2012 which was a BETTER showing than he had in 2008).
NC, VA are also expanding favorably (at least when turnout is high).
Once Texas turns purple, that's a REAL problem for reps at the presidential level. They simply can't be battling in Texas and Georgia and Florida while having no chance in NY and CA. That's just way too many EVs.
Now, at the congressional district level, redistricting has made things pretty favorable for reps. That's why they are now trying to change in several states to apportion EVs by congressional districts rather than winner take all.
I think the dems lost primarily because of the geography yes. Part of it was in several states they ran, quite frankly, really bad candidates. Illinois Gov, Mass Gov, I thought Grimes ran a poor race in KY. But in other states, NC, GA, the dem candidates ran outstanding races, but the timing and geography was against them. If those same races are held in 2012 or 2016, the dem candidates win.
Now, this demographic dem advantage won't last forever. Sooner, or later, reps will decide the latino vote is more important than a subset of the white vote, and they'll start looking away from immigration. That's when the worm could very well turn back. Of course, there could also be a particular rep candidate who has additional appeal to latinos (ala Bush) that helps mute demographic issues.
yes they are, so long as they struggle to win the Hispanic vote.
Texas will, sooner or later, turn purple as more and more Hispanics vote. Georgia is also expanding demographically in ways that favor Democrats (Obama only lost it by 8 pts in 2012 which was a BETTER showing than he had in 2008).
NC, VA are also expanding favorably (at least when turnout is high).
Once Texas turns purple, that's a REAL problem for reps at the presidential level. They simply can't be battling in Texas and Georgia and Florida while having no chance in NY and CA. That's just way too many EVs.
Now, at the congressional district level, redistricting has made things pretty favorable for reps. That's why they are now trying to change in several states to apportion EVs by congressional districts rather than winner take all.
I think the dems lost primarily because of the geography yes. Part of it was in several states they ran, quite frankly, really bad candidates. Illinois Gov, Mass Gov, I thought Grimes ran a poor race in KY. But in other states, NC, GA, the dem candidates ran outstanding races, but the timing and geography was against them. If those same races are held in 2012 or 2016, the dem candidates win.
Now, this demographic dem advantage won't last forever. Sooner, or later, reps will decide the latino vote is more important than a subset of the white vote, and they'll start looking away from immigration. That's when the worm could very well turn back. Of course, there could also be a particular rep candidate who has additional appeal to latinos (ala Bush) that helps mute demographic issues.
Yeah, the Dems probably ride a wave behind Hillary in 2016. For Republicans to have any chance at either the presidency or retaining the Senate, they need to tell the Ted Cruzes of the world to STFU, and try to govern at least a little bit across the aisle. They need to show less dysfunction than we've had for at least the last two years under Harry Reid.
Haha... I'd almost forgotten that.
Although, I don't recall Yahoo! News or MSNBC posting such headlines (other than as references for entertainment value). I will admit, it is possible Fox News had some stories on that and I'm sure the radio personalities had a field day with it. I don't really follow either of those much, so my complaint is more tied to my own news sources. I guess I should diversify
.
Didn't ACORN get shuttered for something else shortly thereafter? I smell a conspiracy (maybe they found Bams "mythical" birth certificate)!
Although, I don't recall Yahoo! News or MSNBC posting such headlines (other than as references for entertainment value). I will admit, it is possible Fox News had some stories on that and I'm sure the radio personalities had a field day with it. I don't really follow either of those much, so my complaint is more tied to my own news sources. I guess I should diversify
.Didn't ACORN get shuttered for something else shortly thereafter? I smell a conspiracy (maybe they found Bams "mythical" birth certificate)!
I just don't want to hear any excuses from anyone about why the elections were lost. Just get to work and get something done. I'm tired of the crap that has been spewing from politicians all over the country, and this 2x Obama voter is ready for some real change.
Btw, am I the only one that thinks it's ridiculous that housing is still not fixed? And yet, nobody in Washington seems to focus on that (that's also tied very closely with student loan reform). Instead of focusing on dumb shit, fix something that matters. The ACA is all well and good (it's not), but a major part of the issue with being uninsured is not having money to get some damned insurance. Yet, people are more concerned with this bill, which really is more of a safety net than a fix.
Re: well actually at the Presidential level
Still, I think Hillary wins if she runs.
While I loathe Ted Cruz's politics, you're right that he could be one candidate that could make things tougher on Hillary. It kind of cancels out the "cool" vote for putting a woman in office, like Obama won the "cool" vote in 2008 and somewhat in 2012. If the Republicans go for immigration reform with some kind of amnesty, they could endear themselves to Hispanics. The run Cruz in 2016 and they might carry that vote. Won't make a difference in the big picture because it won't flip California, but it could help them retain the Senate.
Still, I think Hillary wins if she runs.
Re: let's break that down
again, I don't think this has much to do with "republican's screwing up" in 2012 as it does with demographics. The dems would have to pitched a perfect game to keep the Senate with the makeup of this electorate. The reps would have had to do the same in 2012, and even then no guarantee in either case.
In 2016, the reps are going to be facing horrible terrain, and a likely dem candidate that is going to get a lot of AA's, latinos, youth, and single women to the polls. That's pretty much a death knell for reps.
Of course, sooner, or later, like every President, if Hillary is elected, the bloom will fade, all those folks who came out will sit out, particularly in her sixth year (because most Presidents get elected to two terms), and 2022 will look a lot like 2014.
What will we see? Uber-conservative legislation that has no chance of passing and has no popular mandates except for among conservatives and reps. Obama vetoes it, people blame both sides, then Hillary comes along and says, remember the Clinton years, I'll bring that back. Folks will buy in, and women will come out of the woodwork.
Parties always distance themselves from lame duck Presidents. Gore did it to Clinton (and probably lost because of it) and clinton had approval ratings in the 50s that last year. Reps did it to Bush in 06 and 08. And yes, dems will do it to Obama. Because that's how the game is played.
By the way, for not being at great shape, his approval rating is still in the mid-40s. What's the approval rating of every other part of DC? (it's lower than mid-40s).
again, I don't think this has much to do with "republican's screwing up" in 2012 as it does with demographics. The dems would have to pitched a perfect game to keep the Senate with the makeup of this electorate. The reps would have had to do the same in 2012, and even then no guarantee in either case.
In 2016, the reps are going to be facing horrible terrain, and a likely dem candidate that is going to get a lot of AA's, latinos, youth, and single women to the polls. That's pretty much a death knell for reps.
Of course, sooner, or later, like every President, if Hillary is elected, the bloom will fade, all those folks who came out will sit out, particularly in her sixth year (because most Presidents get elected to two terms), and 2022 will look a lot like 2014.
What will we see? Uber-conservative legislation that has no chance of passing and has no popular mandates except for among conservatives and reps. Obama vetoes it, people blame both sides, then Hillary comes along and says, remember the Clinton years, I'll bring that back. Folks will buy in, and women will come out of the woodwork.
Parties always distance themselves from lame duck Presidents. Gore did it to Clinton (and probably lost because of it) and clinton had approval ratings in the 50s that last year. Reps did it to Bush in 06 and 08. And yes, dems will do it to Obama. Because that's how the game is played.
By the way, for not being at great shape, his approval rating is still in the mid-40s. What's the approval rating of every other part of DC? (it's lower than mid-40s).
well
it's a frustration with whomever is in charge. Most voters pay little attention to issues. Thus we see this constant ping ponging back and forth between two fairly different parties. The lack of consistency, quite frankly, ends up leaving neither side with much time to show their ideas actually work (or don't) in a broad way.
Minimum wage increases were on the ballot in four states, won on all four, including in Arkansas and Nebraska. That's an Obama policy, clearly that one didn't lose. It's way too facile to say "Obama's policies were rejected" in large part because it matters who actually voted (i.e. the people who voted this time around were people who never liked his policies to begin with) and because most people couldn't tell you much at all about Obama's policies (or anyone else's) in anything other than one or two ways.
It was, you've had two years, stuff isn't fixed, so I'm voting the other guy (followed by a repeat the next two years in reverse).
Quite frankly, one side needs to win in dominant fashion for about ten years, and either prove their policies right, or wrong. This constant back and forth just leaves everything in limbo. It is about frustration with incumbents, part of that is Obama. Having said that, if you have a 2012 voting population then guess what, all of a sudden, it looks differently and now Obama's policies don't look so bad.
it's a frustration with whomever is in charge. Most voters pay little attention to issues. Thus we see this constant ping ponging back and forth between two fairly different parties. The lack of consistency, quite frankly, ends up leaving neither side with much time to show their ideas actually work (or don't) in a broad way.
Minimum wage increases were on the ballot in four states, won on all four, including in Arkansas and Nebraska. That's an Obama policy, clearly that one didn't lose. It's way too facile to say "Obama's policies were rejected" in large part because it matters who actually voted (i.e. the people who voted this time around were people who never liked his policies to begin with) and because most people couldn't tell you much at all about Obama's policies (or anyone else's) in anything other than one or two ways.
It was, you've had two years, stuff isn't fixed, so I'm voting the other guy (followed by a repeat the next two years in reverse).
Quite frankly, one side needs to win in dominant fashion for about ten years, and either prove their policies right, or wrong. This constant back and forth just leaves everything in limbo. It is about frustration with incumbents, part of that is Obama. Having said that, if you have a 2012 voting population then guess what, all of a sudden, it looks differently and now Obama's policies don't look so bad.
Re: well
But no, it's not about the incumbents. If it was solely about incumbents, McConnell, Roberts, etc. would've lost, or at least had close races.
It might be about the incumbent party but that's different than being about the incumbents. The incumbent party got trounced, as happens in midterms year six. Incumbents in general, did not get trounced.
Minimum wage increases should happen, if Republicans are smart, but not necessarily at the Obama-Dem level.
But no, it's not about the incumbents. If it was solely about incumbents, McConnell, Roberts, etc. would've lost, or at least had close races.
It might be about the incumbent party but that's different than being about the incumbents. The incumbent party got trounced, as happens in midterms year six. Incumbents in general, did not get trounced.
Re: let's break that down
Agree about distancing themselves - I agree about Gore. It's just that I think Obama will become even more marginalized than, say, Clinton or Bush unless he changes his tune. I don't think Obama wants that, but I wonder if pride/ego/partisanship/whatever drives him to be such a dick to Boehner and now probably McConnell will allow him to act in such a way that he actually does something in his last two years. The path of executive action is likely to alienate the party further heading into 2016. While Hillary will win if she runs, it's not a guarantee (though still a likelihood) that they'll flip the five seats they'll need in addition. As lbodel pointed out, 23 of the 33 Senate seats up in 2016 are Republican, and incumbents don't always lose as they did last night...
I don't disagree about approval overall, however I think the public's perception is that dysfunction is often blamed on the President and his party by proxy. It's easy to blame that single figurehead, and while you and I may understand that Obama can't make Harry Reid and John Boehner play ball, most Americans don't know or don't care. The Democrats key to victory will be showing that Hillary will work with both parties if Obama does not. The country is frustrated with partisanship, and that's likely to continue. The narrative into 2016 shouldn't be "hope and change" pushing a broad progressive agenda that's largely unpopular right now. Hillary will be smart to push something along the lines of "fixing Washington" even though we all know she'll still bring a progressive agenda with her...
Yeah, that's probably what will happen, unfortunately. Hopefully not, as a conservative, but the way things go in Washington, it's more about winning the next election, and I agree that Republicans are likely to try to paint Dems into the "obstructionist" label that they've worn so proudly for the last four or so years.
Agree about distancing themselves - I agree about Gore. It's just that I think Obama will become even more marginalized than, say, Clinton or Bush unless he changes his tune. I don't think Obama wants that, but I wonder if pride/ego/partisanship/whatever drives him to be such a dick to Boehner and now probably McConnell will allow him to act in such a way that he actually does something in his last two years. The path of executive action is likely to alienate the party further heading into 2016. While Hillary will win if she runs, it's not a guarantee (though still a likelihood) that they'll flip the five seats they'll need in addition. As lbodel pointed out, 23 of the 33 Senate seats up in 2016 are Republican, and incumbents don't always lose as they did last night...
I don't disagree about approval overall, however I think the public's perception is that dysfunction is often blamed on the President and his party by proxy. It's easy to blame that single figurehead, and while you and I may understand that Obama can't make Harry Reid and John Boehner play ball, most Americans don't know or don't care. The Democrats key to victory will be showing that Hillary will work with both parties if Obama does not. The country is frustrated with partisanship, and that's likely to continue. The narrative into 2016 shouldn't be "hope and change" pushing a broad progressive agenda that's largely unpopular right now. Hillary will be smart to push something along the lines of "fixing Washington" even though we all know she'll still bring a progressive agenda with her...
It is about incumbents
and its about other things too.
Just because it is about incumbents doesn't mean "all incumbents lose." The makeup of the electorate matters, turnout matters. Having said that, when one side doesn't get out it's base in an election, they better hope the independents make up for it. Since most of the time, independents don't do anything other than vote against whomever is in power (and by independents, I don't necessarily mean, people who are liberal or conservative but not dem or rep, I mean people who are independent because they haven't taken much time to actually look at one side or the other's policies)...since those independents vote against incumbents, then the side that gets their base out wins, and the side that doesn't loses.
Rove was right about one thing, most elections ARE more about getting your base out then they are appealing to moderates and independents. Numerically the dem base outnumbers the rep base. That's plain fact. However, what is also fact is that the rep base is more reliable as voters, and more likely to come out in every election, while the dem base only comes out in presidential elections (and not even all of those).
IF this were 2006, we would see, and did see, the opposite. It was about incumbents then too, but it was also about the base. That's why so many red states did anti-gay marriage initiatives during that timeframe, to motivate their bases.
and its about other things too.
Just because it is about incumbents doesn't mean "all incumbents lose." The makeup of the electorate matters, turnout matters. Having said that, when one side doesn't get out it's base in an election, they better hope the independents make up for it. Since most of the time, independents don't do anything other than vote against whomever is in power (and by independents, I don't necessarily mean, people who are liberal or conservative but not dem or rep, I mean people who are independent because they haven't taken much time to actually look at one side or the other's policies)...since those independents vote against incumbents, then the side that gets their base out wins, and the side that doesn't loses.
Rove was right about one thing, most elections ARE more about getting your base out then they are appealing to moderates and independents. Numerically the dem base outnumbers the rep base. That's plain fact. However, what is also fact is that the rep base is more reliable as voters, and more likely to come out in every election, while the dem base only comes out in presidential elections (and not even all of those).
IF this were 2006, we would see, and did see, the opposite. It was about incumbents then too, but it was also about the base. That's why so many red states did anti-gay marriage initiatives during that timeframe, to motivate their bases.
Re: It is about incumbents
According to Gallup, voter turnout in 2006 - a Democratic victory - was 40.4% and in 2010 - a Republican victory - it was 40.9%Last night's estimate is somewhere in the 38s. Raw voter turnout is a myth. A 1% difference in total voter turnout is not the difference between Democrats winning 10 seats and Republicans winning 10 seats. It depends on which base is motivated. Republicans were clearly motivated to turn the tide yesterday, and they did. Obama carried the Democrats to wins in 2008 following the wave of frustration about Bush and the Republicans in 2006. The reverse trend is true. Your cause and effect are screwed up.
Edited to correct stats and add link. The Gallup article talks about voter base motivation, and how 2014 was definitely more about Republicans getting out rather than raw total voter turnout numbers. Republicans were motivated to get out and vote because of frustration with the Reid Senate and probably Obama. So yes, I view it (as did CNN last night) as a referendum on Obama, if not the party itself.
This post was edited on 11/5 3:34 PM by gr8indoorsman
Gallup voter engagement midterm elections
I think you're confusing cause and effect. Incumbents caused the voting base that came out to come out, both in 2014 and 2006. So, just like the broad voter base that showed up in 2006 was Blue, the one that showed up last night was Red.
According to Gallup, voter turnout in 2006 - a Democratic victory - was 40.4% and in 2010 - a Republican victory - it was 40.9%Last night's estimate is somewhere in the 38s. Raw voter turnout is a myth. A 1% difference in total voter turnout is not the difference between Democrats winning 10 seats and Republicans winning 10 seats. It depends on which base is motivated. Republicans were clearly motivated to turn the tide yesterday, and they did. Obama carried the Democrats to wins in 2008 following the wave of frustration about Bush and the Republicans in 2006. The reverse trend is true. Your cause and effect are screwed up.
Edited to correct stats and add link. The Gallup article talks about voter base motivation, and how 2014 was definitely more about Republicans getting out rather than raw total voter turnout numbers. Republicans were motivated to get out and vote because of frustration with the Reid Senate and probably Obama. So yes, I view it (as did CNN last night) as a referendum on Obama, if not the party itself.
This post was edited on 11/5 3:34 PM by gr8indoorsman
Gallup voter engagement midterm elections
Obama almost never drops below 40
That tells me that no, he won't become more marginalized than Bush. I think he'll be like Clinton. Disliked for a few years but then slowly but surely rising back up in stature. Let's be honest, McConnell and Boehner have been as much "dicks" to Obama. I believe it was McConnell who said literally days after he was first elected that the mission was to make him a "one-term President."
Sure, I agree that Obama, and any President is a lot more at the mercy of events than in charge of them because our system is set up with the illusion of Presidential power, but that power is really nothing without a willing Congress (other than the veto pen and executive action).
Let's also be clear. EVERY President uses both. Obama has rarely used the veto, and his executive actions are lower than almost every single predecessor in the last 100 years, yet folks act like he's "out of control."
And no, Hillary is not a progressive. She's a centrist. Just like Bill. She needs progressives, so she'll talk some of that game, but she's just fine with "triangulation."
That tells me that no, he won't become more marginalized than Bush. I think he'll be like Clinton. Disliked for a few years but then slowly but surely rising back up in stature. Let's be honest, McConnell and Boehner have been as much "dicks" to Obama. I believe it was McConnell who said literally days after he was first elected that the mission was to make him a "one-term President."
Sure, I agree that Obama, and any President is a lot more at the mercy of events than in charge of them because our system is set up with the illusion of Presidential power, but that power is really nothing without a willing Congress (other than the veto pen and executive action).
Let's also be clear. EVERY President uses both. Obama has rarely used the veto, and his executive actions are lower than almost every single predecessor in the last 100 years, yet folks act like he's "out of control."
And no, Hillary is not a progressive. She's a centrist. Just like Bill. She needs progressives, so she'll talk some of that game, but she's just fine with "triangulation."
incumbents have little to do with the base
the base votes the same way every time, red for red, blue for blue, that's why they are the base. It doesn't matter who the incumbents are. If the incumbent matches, they vote for, if the incumbent is the opposite, they vote a'gint.
The non-base cares about who the incumbents are (either to "vote em out" or those that actually pay attention to the issues and vote based on them).
Yes, a couple of percentage points can make the difference. A couple of percentage points flips NC senate possibly. A couple of percentage points flips the FL gov, the MD gov. I haven't followed the exact numbers closely enough, but it probably flips a couple of other senate contests or at least makes them a lot closer.
The reps are more motivated most of the time. They vote in presidential elections AND they vote in off-cycle elections. The dems seem most motivated either during presidential years, or when the other party is in charge of the WH (see 2006, see 1986). There are more of the latter than the former.
The folks we are talking about, youth, minorities, young women/single women, pay more attention, for whatever reasons, to presidential contests, than more esoteric battles. ANY democrat would have brought them out in 08 and 12. Some will do better than others obviously, but the increase in voting happens regularly. It happened before Obama, it will happen after Obama, and Hillary because of the nature of the groups that currently make up each base. You think it's about popularity, I argue it's about depth of involvement.
the base votes the same way every time, red for red, blue for blue, that's why they are the base. It doesn't matter who the incumbents are. If the incumbent matches, they vote for, if the incumbent is the opposite, they vote a'gint.
The non-base cares about who the incumbents are (either to "vote em out" or those that actually pay attention to the issues and vote based on them).
Yes, a couple of percentage points can make the difference. A couple of percentage points flips NC senate possibly. A couple of percentage points flips the FL gov, the MD gov. I haven't followed the exact numbers closely enough, but it probably flips a couple of other senate contests or at least makes them a lot closer.
The reps are more motivated most of the time. They vote in presidential elections AND they vote in off-cycle elections. The dems seem most motivated either during presidential years, or when the other party is in charge of the WH (see 2006, see 1986). There are more of the latter than the former.
The folks we are talking about, youth, minorities, young women/single women, pay more attention, for whatever reasons, to presidential contests, than more esoteric battles. ANY democrat would have brought them out in 08 and 12. Some will do better than others obviously, but the increase in voting happens regularly. It happened before Obama, it will happen after Obama, and Hillary because of the nature of the groups that currently make up each base. You think it's about popularity, I argue it's about depth of involvement.
Re: Obama almost never drops below 40
Not sure about the veto comment. I said nothing to that effect.
Of course McConnell said he should be a one-term president. Democrats say the same about Republicans. Bush's approval ratings weren't in the 30s until his final two years. His approval ratings are consistently better than Obama's through the first six years of their terms. Now, that could all change and Obama could go the route of Clinton, but your first statement is disingenuous, if not patently false. You and I have no idea how Obama's numbers will go. You will say one thing because it suits your ideology. I'll admit that I don't know nor do I particularly care.
Centrist my ass. Bill wasn't when he was elected either. He became that way after his party fell out of favor. Maybe Hillary will start that way if she ends up in office.
Not sure about the veto comment. I said nothing to that effect.
Of course McConnell said he should be a one-term president. Democrats say the same about Republicans. Bush's approval ratings weren't in the 30s until his final two years. His approval ratings are consistently better than Obama's through the first six years of their terms. Now, that could all change and Obama could go the route of Clinton, but your first statement is disingenuous, if not patently false. You and I have no idea how Obama's numbers will go. You will say one thing because it suits your ideology. I'll admit that I don't know nor do I particularly care.
Re: incumbents have little to do with the base
My point is that the Democrats won in 2006 midterm with a low turnout (~40%) and Republicans won in 2010 with low turnout (~40%), so blaming low turnout is false. It matters who is in power (the incumbent party). Thus, this is a referendum on Democrats and specifically Obama, just like 2006 was a referendum on Republicans and especially Bush.
Further, a couple of overall percentage points probably doesn't flip those races because, statistically, those votes should shake out the same. I guess your assumption is that more voters = more Democrats. As I said, that might be the case if you're going from 40% turnout to 60% turnout, but certainly not the difference between 38% and 40% as was my point in a midterm year. That's just silly.
In NC, a turnout of 2% more voters is an increase in 50,000 voters. Tillis won by almost 50,000 votes, meaning Hagan would've had to have every single voter in that 2% vote for her.
In FL governor race, lets call it 6 million voters. 2% more gives 120,000 voters. Scott won by nearly 70,000 votes. That means Crist needed to win almost 80% of those votes to swing the election.
You might have a case in the VA senate race, where the margin of victory is likely higher and the election not still in question if Fairfax and Arlington roll out more voters. (Warner leads by 16,000 votes with 5% still outstanding - roughly 80,000 votes still out there.)
In summary, blaming NC and FL solely on low voter turnout is false. Turnout was just barely lower than a normal midterm year, thus this drubbing was about more than just 2% fewer voters than normal. It was about getting the Democrats out of the Senate as the incumbent party. Not sure why you can't acknowledge that. CNN does. Jon Stewart does. Only the few biggest shill talking heads I've seen are still clinging to this notion about voter turnout. Any election where you swing nine Senate seats (assuming Alaska goes Red and the LA runoff goes as it likely will) and establish the largest House majority in seventy years means something.
One last thing: CNN last night was showing maps of House seats from 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and now. I've linked today's. They pointed out that the map has gone strikingly red, particularly compared to 2006, and that key areas such as the Northeast have changed from 06. Essentially, the liberal base on the west coast, northern Midwest, and large eastern cities are still there, but pretty much everywhere else has gone red. Similar story for the Governorships, where the country is almost entirely Red except the west coast, Northeast, CO and MN. As Jon Stewart said last night, "it's a bloodbath out there, folks."
This post was edited on 11/5 6:57 PM by gr8indoorsman
This post was edited on 11/5 7:05 PM by gr8indoorsman
House map - awful lot of red
I think we've been in violent agreement here. My point is that the incumbent party being Democrat and the general frustration of the populace motivated the Republicans to get out and vote in greater numbers than the Democrats. Many of the key Obama Coalition demographics stayed home. I do agree that your Obama Coalition (minorities and young voters, specifically) is more likely to vote in presidential because they're more likely to be engaged in a big story, rather than the small stuff like Senate races, etc. In that instance, a change from 40% to 60% benefits Democrats.
My point is that the Democrats won in 2006 midterm with a low turnout (~40%) and Republicans won in 2010 with low turnout (~40%), so blaming low turnout is false. It matters who is in power (the incumbent party). Thus, this is a referendum on Democrats and specifically Obama, just like 2006 was a referendum on Republicans and especially Bush.
Further, a couple of overall percentage points probably doesn't flip those races because, statistically, those votes should shake out the same. I guess your assumption is that more voters = more Democrats. As I said, that might be the case if you're going from 40% turnout to 60% turnout, but certainly not the difference between 38% and 40% as was my point in a midterm year. That's just silly.
In NC, a turnout of 2% more voters is an increase in 50,000 voters. Tillis won by almost 50,000 votes, meaning Hagan would've had to have every single voter in that 2% vote for her.
In FL governor race, lets call it 6 million voters. 2% more gives 120,000 voters. Scott won by nearly 70,000 votes. That means Crist needed to win almost 80% of those votes to swing the election.
You might have a case in the VA senate race, where the margin of victory is likely higher and the election not still in question if Fairfax and Arlington roll out more voters. (Warner leads by 16,000 votes with 5% still outstanding - roughly 80,000 votes still out there.)
In summary, blaming NC and FL solely on low voter turnout is false. Turnout was just barely lower than a normal midterm year, thus this drubbing was about more than just 2% fewer voters than normal. It was about getting the Democrats out of the Senate as the incumbent party. Not sure why you can't acknowledge that. CNN does. Jon Stewart does. Only the few biggest shill talking heads I've seen are still clinging to this notion about voter turnout. Any election where you swing nine Senate seats (assuming Alaska goes Red and the LA runoff goes as it likely will) and establish the largest House majority in seventy years means something.
One last thing: CNN last night was showing maps of House seats from 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and now. I've linked today's. They pointed out that the map has gone strikingly red, particularly compared to 2006, and that key areas such as the Northeast have changed from 06. Essentially, the liberal base on the west coast, northern Midwest, and large eastern cities are still there, but pretty much everywhere else has gone red. Similar story for the Governorships, where the country is almost entirely Red except the west coast, Northeast, CO and MN. As Jon Stewart said last night, "it's a bloodbath out there, folks."
This post was edited on 11/5 6:57 PM by gr8indoorsman
This post was edited on 11/5 7:05 PM by gr8indoorsman
House map - awful lot of red
Re: incumbents have little to do with the base
I checked some more numbers, NC and FL governor were statistically the closest races won by Republicans. As noted below, 38-39% is normal for a midterm year. Even going up 2% from that doesn't flip either of those races.
You mentioned MD: MD was actually not a close race - 54% to 45%, with a margin of more than 150,000 votes. A 2% increase in voter turnout only increases that total number by less than 40,000 voters.
Other races where Democrats were hopeful of wins weren't close: (Kansas 53-42), Kentucky (56-41), Iowa (52-44, over 90,000 votes), Colorado (49-46, 70,000 votes). In every one of those races, assuming a 2% increase in voter turnout (again, to match 2006 and 2010), it is still mathematically impossible for the Democrat to win.
In the expected swing states, only New Hampshire went in favor of the Democrats, and Brown was arguably the weakest candidate the Republicans rolled out last night... in a blue state... and he still only lost by 4% and 16,000 votes. Virginia was expected to be a "gimme" for the Democrats, and they still haven't called that one; less than 1% difference, 15,000 votes separating the two candidates with mostly rural areas left to report.
The Republicans won by pretty good margins last night. Their base was motivated to get Democrats out, and Democrats stayed home. Referendum on the Democrats and Obama, just like '06 in reverse.
I checked some more numbers, NC and FL governor were statistically the closest races won by Republicans. As noted below, 38-39% is normal for a midterm year. Even going up 2% from that doesn't flip either of those races.
You mentioned MD: MD was actually not a close race - 54% to 45%, with a margin of more than 150,000 votes. A 2% increase in voter turnout only increases that total number by less than 40,000 voters.
Other races where Democrats were hopeful of wins weren't close: (Kansas 53-42), Kentucky (56-41), Iowa (52-44, over 90,000 votes), Colorado (49-46, 70,000 votes). In every one of those races, assuming a 2% increase in voter turnout (again, to match 2006 and 2010), it is still mathematically impossible for the Democrat to win.
In the expected swing states, only New Hampshire went in favor of the Democrats, and Brown was arguably the weakest candidate the Republicans rolled out last night... in a blue state... and he still only lost by 4% and 16,000 votes. Virginia was expected to be a "gimme" for the Democrats, and they still haven't called that one; less than 1% difference, 15,000 votes separating the two candidates with mostly rural areas left to report.
The Republicans won by pretty good margins last night. Their base was motivated to get Democrats out, and Democrats stayed home. Referendum on the Democrats and Obama, just like '06 in reverse.
Re: incumbents have little to do with the base
That's some nice research (more than I'd do for a message board conversation). Maybe if the Reps don't totally shoot themselves in the foot, they can hold this advantage and at least check a future Clinton Administration, as well. I'm a little concerned, however, as some of these buffoons are already throwing out phrases like "100 year majority", so it appears as though they're already getting cocky.
I also need to apologize to qaz - you were right, there IS a difference between Bush and Obama: In '06, the Reps got hammered, and Bush made some changes to his cabinet and altered some of his priorities (I admit, the stubborn mule didn't change the most egregious problem - Iraq). Eight years later, the Dems get slammed, and Bams doubles down and claims he's going to do more of the same (all while dismissing the election results as essentially an electoral perfect storm). Maybe he's just starting the negotiations high to give him some room to work with and will indeed be a little more conciliatory (or at least shelve some of the issues that are beyond compromise). Time will tell, I guess. Obama more stubborn than 'W'?!? I guess I don't really believe that, but ... wow.
Stop me before I say something stupid again
That's some nice research (more than I'd do for a message board conversation
). Maybe if the Reps don't totally shoot themselves in the foot, they can hold this advantage and at least check a future Clinton Administration, as well. I'm a little concerned, however, as some of these buffoons are already throwing out phrases like "100 year majority", so it appears as though they're already getting cocky.I also need to apologize to qaz - you were right, there IS a difference between Bush and Obama: In '06, the Reps got hammered, and Bush made some changes to his cabinet and altered some of his priorities (I admit, the stubborn mule didn't change the most egregious problem - Iraq). Eight years later, the Dems get slammed, and Bams doubles down and claims he's going to do more of the same (all while dismissing the election results as essentially an electoral perfect storm). Maybe he's just starting the negotiations high to give him some room to work with and will indeed be a little more conciliatory (or at least shelve some of the issues that are beyond compromise). Time will tell, I guess. Obama more stubborn than 'W'?!? I guess I don't really believe that, but ... wow.
Stop me before I say something stupid again
Beardown, your colors are showing. Rationalizing this beat down is valiant but it ain't going to change the facts that Obama and the Dems are in trouble. This isn't about 2014, it's about 2016. Now the Rebublicans will be able to put bill after bill in front of Obama and his only choice will be to veto them or accept the fact that by approving them his agenda was flawed. This will give the Republicams the opportunity to paint the Dems into a corner for 2016 as either being the "real" obstructionists or having to admit their agenda was wrong.
By the way, I live in Illinois. If you think the reason Rauner was elected was because Quinn was horrible you need to think again. Quinn is just another in a long list of bad Democratic Gov's for Illinois. I think Rauner has a real chance to start reform in the state if he plays his cards right. Time will tell.
By the way, I live in Illinois. If you think the reason Rauner was elected was because Quinn was horrible you need to think again. Quinn is just another in a long list of bad Democratic Gov's for Illinois. I think Rauner has a real chance to start reform in the state if he plays his cards right. Time will tell.
It wasn't about 2016. Obama is irrelevant in 2016, and the Republicans face an uphill battle for the White House and to retain the senate.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
except
the rights wasn't all that motivated EITHER, they were just more motivated than the left. We aren't talking about even average turnout numbers for an offcycle election as it now looks like the national turnout was even lower, sub 37%.
The populace is a loaded word. 1/3d of the populace NEVER votes. They don't care about politics, don't think about politics and probably couldn't tell you the difference btw liberal and conservative or republican and democrat. They like Obama for dumb reasons and hate Obama for dumb reasons (or any other President).
Another third is only marginally engaged. Unfortunately for my side, that's the pool that most helps us, but there are plenty of republican voters in that group as well. A lot of young people, single women and minorities in that group.
We are talking about half of a third here. that's not the populace. That's the downside of the fact that we do very little to encourage or entice voting (like say a national voting holiday).
2% nationwide does not mean 2% in each and every race. The point is that turnout was 2-3% lower than even normal offcycle elections when reps ALREADY have an advantage. This was absolutely about turnout because offcycle elections are always about turnout (and so are Presidential elections). It's why Dems won 08, 12 and Reps won 10 and 14. It's why Dems will win 16, and why Reps will win 18 (assuming a Dem (Hillary) in office).
The only time that cycle flips is when the Reps are in the WH, and even then, it only flips so much (02 probably an anomaly b/c of post-9/11 Bush ratings peak). No, those places aren't red because someone people have changed, those places are red because this election leads to that (and because the Reps are very good at re-districting). Come 16, just watch and see as some of those reds turn blue, not enough to over take the House, but enough to drop it significantly, and I'd be surprised if there isn't enough to flip the Senate back.
It was a bloodbath in 10. it was a bloodbath in 08. it was a bloodbath in 06. Plenty of blood to go around. This stuff is cyclical, predictable, and based on really simple things. Folks wanting it to turn into something more than turnout and voting patterns are going to watch that melt away come the next election (same for those who thought Obama's turnout efforts in 08 were going to create a permanent Dem majority, same for those who thought Rove's turnout efforts were going to create a permanent Rep majority).
Until youth and minorities either:
vote more
stop voting altogether
switch sides
This ping pong of "bloodbaths" will continue regardless of policies or personalities.
the rights wasn't all that motivated EITHER, they were just more motivated than the left. We aren't talking about even average turnout numbers for an offcycle election as it now looks like the national turnout was even lower, sub 37%.
The populace is a loaded word. 1/3d of the populace NEVER votes. They don't care about politics, don't think about politics and probably couldn't tell you the difference btw liberal and conservative or republican and democrat. They like Obama for dumb reasons and hate Obama for dumb reasons (or any other President).
Another third is only marginally engaged. Unfortunately for my side, that's the pool that most helps us, but there are plenty of republican voters in that group as well. A lot of young people, single women and minorities in that group.
We are talking about half of a third here. that's not the populace. That's the downside of the fact that we do very little to encourage or entice voting (like say a national voting holiday).
2% nationwide does not mean 2% in each and every race. The point is that turnout was 2-3% lower than even normal offcycle elections when reps ALREADY have an advantage. This was absolutely about turnout because offcycle elections are always about turnout (and so are Presidential elections). It's why Dems won 08, 12 and Reps won 10 and 14. It's why Dems will win 16, and why Reps will win 18 (assuming a Dem (Hillary) in office).
The only time that cycle flips is when the Reps are in the WH, and even then, it only flips so much (02 probably an anomaly b/c of post-9/11 Bush ratings peak). No, those places aren't red because someone people have changed, those places are red because this election leads to that (and because the Reps are very good at re-districting). Come 16, just watch and see as some of those reds turn blue, not enough to over take the House, but enough to drop it significantly, and I'd be surprised if there isn't enough to flip the Senate back.
It was a bloodbath in 10. it was a bloodbath in 08. it was a bloodbath in 06. Plenty of blood to go around. This stuff is cyclical, predictable, and based on really simple things. Folks wanting it to turn into something more than turnout and voting patterns are going to watch that melt away come the next election (same for those who thought Obama's turnout efforts in 08 were going to create a permanent Dem majority, same for those who thought Rove's turnout efforts were going to create a permanent Rep majority).
Until youth and minorities either:
vote more
stop voting altogether
switch sides
This ping pong of "bloodbaths" will continue regardless of policies or personalities.
please point me
to any speech by an elected Dem within oh let's be generous the first year (nevertheless right away like with Obama) where they said our mission is to make this guy a one-term President.
Obama doesn't have an economic collapse but the opposite. Obama isn't mired in two wars. It's unlikely there will be another banking collapse the next two years (or an economic one for that matter). So yes, I feel very confident that Obama is not going to sink down to Bush levels of disapproval.
to any speech by an elected Dem within oh let's be generous the first year (nevertheless right away like with Obama) where they said our mission is to make this guy a one-term President.
Obama doesn't have an economic collapse but the opposite. Obama isn't mired in two wars. It's unlikely there will be another banking collapse the next two years (or an economic one for that matter). So yes, I feel very confident that Obama is not going to sink down to Bush levels of disapproval.
What colors? My blue colors? I've been very open about being a Democrat on here. If you think that's just now coming through, you need to have your eyes checked.
Anyway, this wasn't about 2016. The GOP is very likely in trouble in 2016. This time, it was the Democrats with everything on the line. Most of the seats that were up were Democratic. Next time, it'll be the GOP with the majority of those seats, and a lot of them are vulnerable. And if Hillary runs, don't be surprised to see her momentum carries over to the other national races.
And the GOP won't fool anyone by presenting garbage bills that they know Obama will veto. The people have seen through that mess for years. If Obama is vetoing legitimate bills that have the the bi-partisan blessing of Congress, that's on him. But if the bills being vetoed are garbage bills like a bill repealing the ACA, the people will place that blame solely on the GOP, much like they did for the government shutdown. Your line of thinking is precisely what got the GOP the horrible reputation is currently has.
And Rauner was elected because Quinn is an asshat. Rauner is also an asshat. I also live in Illinois. And as horrible as Quinn is . . he's the first Illinois governor to leave office without going straight to prison this century . . so he has that going for him. But Rauner will be just as lousy as Quinn. We haven't had a good governor since Jim Edgar. Rauner isn't about to change that.
This post was edited on 11/6 1:14 PM by beardownboiler
Re: please point me
I agree it's unlikely that Obama sinks to Bush levels in his lame duck years. That said, he also never got up to Bush levels in his first four (post 9-11). Now, 9-11 was a powerful boon to Bush and won him reelection, but it is still a true statement that Bush's approval ratings have been consistently higher in the first six years than Obama's. Like you, I doubt that trend continues, but I also don't think Obama's going to rebound because I don't see anything changing in Washington.
I'm not going to waste my time looking, but if you think Democrats aren't thinking that and acting accordingly, you truly are the biggest shill ever. The all-Holy Democratic party would never do anything to undermine a Republican president, right?
I agree it's unlikely that Obama sinks to Bush levels in his lame duck years. That said, he also never got up to Bush levels in his first four (post 9-11). Now, 9-11 was a powerful boon to Bush and won him reelection, but it is still a true statement that Bush's approval ratings have been consistently higher in the first six years than Obama's. Like you, I doubt that trend continues, but I also don't think Obama's going to rebound because I don't see anything changing in Washington.
has nothing to do with being holy
it has to do with fundamentally different mindsets and approaches to how each party approaches being in and out of power. He l l, I'd love the Dems to be as ruthless and single-minded as the Reps are. It would be great.
it has to do with fundamentally different mindsets and approaches to how each party approaches being in and out of power. He l l, I'd love the Dems to be as ruthless and single-minded as the Reps are. It would be great.
Re: lol
That's just it: it's not me. It's literally every relevant political pundit in the country admitting it at this point, but no - not qaz!
Re: has nothing to do with being holy
Republicans and Democrats are both single-minded: win the next election, until you've got autonomy. Then once you have it, run your platform passing everything in sight. They both operate the same way. Both parties are of single mind. It's the nature of two-party politics.
Wait. Remind me which party forced the ACA down our throats and said, "we have to pass it to know what's in it?"
Republicans and Democrats are both single-minded: win the next election, until you've got autonomy. Then once you have it, run your platform passing everything in sight. They both operate the same way. Both parties are of single mind. It's the nature of two-party politics.
Bear, a couple of comments. First you are right, I know nothing about your prior political posts. as far as you being blue, I feel that is what is wrong with this country. I am not Red or Blue, I am an American, period. Anyone who votes a straight ticket in this country today is an asshat and lazy to boot.
i think Rauner has a chance to begin in Illinois what Scott in Florida, and Walker in Wisc have done and that is to begin true reform. it starts by taking on spending reform,, special interests, etc. time will tell.
By the way, I'm sure you know that Quinn is under federal investigation so the trend may continue.....time will tell .
i think Rauner has a chance to begin in Illinois what Scott in Florida, and Walker in Wisc have done and that is to begin true reform. it starts by taking on spending reform,, special interests, etc. time will tell.
By the way, I'm sure you know that Quinn is under federal investigation so the trend may continue.....time will tell .
I'm not voting straight ticket, nor will I ever. I just happen to lean to the left (which means I wind up voting Democrat more often than not). I would not want Rauner to gut Illinois like Walker in WI. That's not going to work here, ever. However, we do need a real change. I'm still not confident that Rauner will bring any meaningful change. I'd rather have a Democratic governor (not Quinn), and get rid of Madigan, because he's next to worthless.
And let's just hope, for the good of the state, that Quinn doesn't go to prison. It makes us look bad.
And let's just hope, for the good of the state, that Quinn doesn't go to prison. It makes us look bad.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Purdue Baseball 2024 Big Ten Baseball Tournament: Nebraska 6, Purdue 2- Latest: Travis Miller
-
The cost of interest on U.S. debt is soaring- Latest: Boilermaker03