Democrats' Lost Generation

[Frodo]

The Democrats’ lost generation

By Alexander Burns
11/6/14 5:01 AM EST

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/the-democrats-lost-generation-112620.html#ixzz3ImcYfJXd

[hopper]

I think Gallego is right. The GOP candidates were younger and more optimistic this cycle than the Dem candidates were in my opinion. I just think the Dems are mostly stuck in terms of policy the way the GOP was after their 2006 mid-term defeat.

[Holmes]

Nah. Wave elections are all we have now, so it doesn't matter who a candidate is most of the time now, so long as they have a D or R next to their name and they're in the same party of the corresponding wave.

[Free Bird]

Nah. Wave elections are all we have now, so it doesn't matter who a candidate is most of the time now, so long as they have a D or R next to their name and they're in the same party of the corresponding wave.

2012?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Nah. Wave elections are all we have now, so it doesn't matter who a candidate is most of the time now, so long as they have a D or R next to their name and they're in the same party of the corresponding wave.

Indeed. If the voters give landslide victories to indicted (or even convicted) people just because they happen to have the same party affiliation as them, then recruitment and having a good bench become afterthoughts.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nah. Wave elections are all we have now, so it doesn't matter who a candidate is most of the time now, so long as they have a D or R next to their name and they're in the same party of the corresponding wave.

2012?

A wave.

2012 President: Obama wins almost every battleground state.

2012 Senate: The democrats didn't lose a single vulnerable incumbent that cared to run for reelection, held competitive open seats in WI, NM, and ND(!), (essentially) picked up three seats (IN, MA, ME), held Flake to just a 3 point victory in AZ, and only lost NV-SEN due to the NOTA vote.

2012 Governor: Held vulnerable governorships in WV, NH, MT, and WA, and made IN-GOV something the republicans actually had to fight for.

The last election I can think of that wasn't a wave would be 2004.

[Person Man]

Nah. Wave elections are all we have now, so it doesn't matter who a candidate is most of the time now, so long as they have a D or R next to their name and they're in the same party of the corresponding wave.

2012?

A wave.

2012 President: Obama wins almost every battleground state.

2012 Senate: The democrats didn't lose a single vulnerable incumbent that cared to run for reelection, held competitive open seats in WI, NM, and ND(!), (essentially) picked up three seats (IN, MA, ME), held Flake to just a 3 point victory in AZ, and only lost NV-SEN due to the NOTA vote.

2012 Governor: Held vulnerable governorships in WV, NH, MT, and WA, and made IN-GOV something the republicans actually had to fight for.

The last election I can think of that wasn't a wave would be 2004.

And even then Republicans gained 3 in the Senate despite being very controversial.

[Skill and Chance]

I also think this is a complete non-issue.  They will get the House (and most of the statehouses) back with outsider bussinessmen/activists the next time the GOP has full control.  Outsider status looks like if anything a net plus for a candidate these days.  The 20 year state legislature veterans have been chronically underperforming.

[IceSpear]

Nah. Wave elections are all we have now, so it doesn't matter who a candidate is most of the time now, so long as they have a D or R next to their name and they're in the same party of the corresponding wave.

Yup, criminals win re-election as long as they have the "correct" letter after their name in today's political climate. I blame the media for continually pushing biased narratives to encourage blowout elections. Notice nobody cares about Ebola anymore?

[Holmes]

It's kind of annoying, to be honest. I wanted this year to be a more neutral year, they're more interesting to go back and talk about. Like, why did Democrats do well here, but Republicans do better there? Now it's just basically one party wins everywhere depending on the year because of the letter beside their candidates' names.

[Reaganfan]

It's kind of annoying, to be honest. I wanted this year to be a more neutral year, they're more interesting to go back and talk about. Like, why did Democrats do well here, but Republicans do better there? Now it's just basically one party wins everywhere depending on the year because of the letter beside their candidates' names.

I saw a clip of Bill Maher's program where he said every election is a wave election now. Kristen Soltis Anderson made a good point though. She said, "It’s always been the case that midterm elections are frankly older, whiter people. The difference is that didn’t used to mean a more Republican electorate all the time."

Seriously speaking, without African Americans and Latinos...which Democrats in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

[Nichlemn]

It's kind of annoying, to be honest. I wanted this year to be a more neutral year, they're more interesting to go back and talk about. Like, why did Democrats do well here, but Republicans do better there? Now it's just basically one party wins everywhere depending on the year because of the letter beside their candidates' names.

I saw a clip of Bill Maher's program where he said every election is a wave election now. Kristen Soltis Anderson made a good point though. She said, "It’s always been the case that midterm elections are frankly older, whiter people. The difference is that didn’t used to mean a more Republican electorate all the time."

Seriously speaking, without African Americans and Latinos...which Democrats in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

Lots in the Pacific Northwest and New England.

[Sbane]

It's kind of annoying, to be honest. I wanted this year to be a more neutral year, they're more interesting to go back and talk about. Like, why did Democrats do well here, but Republicans do better there? Now it's just basically one party wins everywhere depending on the year because of the letter beside their candidates' names.

I saw a clip of Bill Maher's program where he said every election is a wave election now. Kristen Soltis Anderson made a good point though. She said, "It’s always been the case that midterm elections are frankly older, whiter people. The difference is that didn’t used to mean a more Republican electorate all the time."

Seriously speaking, without African Americans and Latinos...which Democrats in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

Jerry Brown, John Chiang, Dave Jones and possibly Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom.

And all of the representatives in the Bay Area, as well as multiple districts in Los Angeles County, at all levels of government.

[Skill and Chance]

It's kind of annoying, to be honest. I wanted this year to be a more neutral year, they're more interesting to go back and talk about. Like, why did Democrats do well here, but Republicans do better there? Now it's just basically one party wins everywhere depending on the year because of the letter beside their candidates' names.

I saw a clip of Bill Maher's program where he said every election is a wave election now. Kristen Soltis Anderson made a good point though. She said, "It’s always been the case that midterm elections are frankly older, whiter people. The difference is that didn’t used to mean a more Republican electorate all the time."

Seriously speaking, without African Americans and Latinos...which Democrats in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

Jerry Brown, John Chiang, Dave Jones and possibly Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom.

And all of the representatives in the Bay Area, as well as multiple districts in Los Angeles County, at all levels of government.

Also can't forget Shaheen, Hassan, Kuster, Shumlin, Raimondo and everyone else who won in New England, save for maybe Malloy due to the close margin.  This line of thinking is pretty ignorant.  Democrats have had the same 37-39/58-60 white vote result for 6 years now, and they have proven they can win handily in that world.  There hasn't been one bit of further erosion since 2010.  If you interpret the 38% as a hard Dem floor, presidential cycles look great for them going forward.

[Lief 🗽]

Seriously speaking, without whites...which Republican in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

[Maxwell]

Seriously speaking, without whites...which Republican in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

Steve Pearce, possibly David Valadao are the first two that come to mind.

[Nichlemn]

Nah. Wave elections are all we have now, so it doesn't matter who a candidate is most of the time now, so long as they have a D or R next to their name and they're in the same party of the corresponding wave.

2012?

A wave.

2012 President: Obama wins almost every battleground state.

2012 Senate: The democrats didn't lose a single vulnerable incumbent that cared to run for reelection, held competitive open seats in WI, NM, and ND(!), (essentially) picked up three seats (IN, MA, ME), held Flake to just a 3 point victory in AZ, and only lost NV-SEN due to the NOTA vote.

2012 Governor: Held vulnerable governorships in WV, NH, MT, and WA, and made IN-GOV something the republicans actually had to fight for.

The last election I can think of that wasn't a wave would be 2004.

If 2012 was a "wave", then the word has virtually no meaning. I mean, you're counting the gubernatorial elections as a "wave" despite the Democrats losing a seat, because they could have lost more. What you've described applies to basically any environment that mildly favours one party. That's more of a ripple than a wave.

[GaussLaw]

Seriously speaking, without whites...which Republican in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

Steve Pearce, possibly David Valadao are the first two that come to mind.

Are Southern New Mexico Hispanics really that conservative?

IMO, Diaz-Balart is an obvious answer.

[publicunofficial]

Seriously speaking, without whites...which Republican in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtinen, maybe Valadao, maybe Don Young, and a couple of the Oklahoma Republicans like Markwayne Mullin could get elected if only Native Americans were voting.

[Maxwell]

Seriously speaking, without whites...which Republican in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

Diaz-Balart, Ros-Lehtinen, maybe Valadao, maybe Don Young, and a couple of the Oklahoma Republicans like Markwayne Mullin could get elected if only Native Americans were voting.

If it were only Native Americans, Markwayne Mullin probably would've lost in 2012. But this time, yes, he clocked a high enough percentage to win them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's kind of annoying, to be honest. I wanted this year to be a more neutral year, they're more interesting to go back and talk about. Like, why did Democrats do well here, but Republicans do better there? Now it's just basically one party wins everywhere depending on the year because of the letter beside their candidates' names.

I saw a clip of Bill Maher's program where he said every election is a wave election now. Kristen Soltis Anderson made a good point though. She said, "It’s always been the case that midterm elections are frankly older, whiter people. The difference is that didn’t used to mean a more Republican electorate all the time."

Seriously speaking, without African Americans and Latinos...which Democrats in the entire country, at any office level, would have won last week?

Jerry Brown, John Chiang, Dave Jones and possibly Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom.

And all of the representatives in the Bay Area, as well as multiple districts in Los Angeles County, at all levels of government.

in addition to those, much of New England (particularly Vermont), Seattle, and certain areas of Maryland also are heavily Democratic whites. And DC would still be hilariously lopsidedly Democratic.

[publicunofficial]

I think if Democrats are facing a recruitment problem, then they shouldn't act as if losing Democrats are put to death upon leaving office. Losing in a wave does not a bad politician make. If a Democrat ran a flawless campaign, or a good campaign with learnable mistakes, then the Democratic Party should push them to run again or for another race.

To the average American voter, the difference between "Former State Sen." and "State Sen." is nothing.