|           
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 01:32:30 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2014's fake victory of republicans
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2014's fake victory of republicans  (Read 7412 times)
Colbert
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 447
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 25, 2014, 06:07:21 am »

(i use "republican" because "GOP" annoying me. Dem are older than rep !)


some elements make me think than this numeral victory of the republicans will be a cause of deception for 2016

-number of votes : very behind the 2010 score. Conclusion : there is no wave for republicans but most simply, dem stay home. More : rep lost more vote than democrats (-5,4 M for rep, -4,9 for dem)

-local referendum : even in republicans states, people vote in a majority for traditionnal dem patterns, like minimal wage.



conclusion : except a world war or pandemic, the democrate candidate in 2016 WILL win the white house
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,347
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2014, 10:27:02 am »

It could just be that Democrats are running bad candidates and campaigns and that no matter how well they do or how poorly the  Republicans govern, Democrats will keep losing....of course until they don't and we say this about the Republicans again. Or maybe not. Maybe the Democrats will eventually be replaced by more competent opposition.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2014, 11:02:34 am »

Kindly switch your avatar to red
Logged
Kevin
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,401
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2014, 11:50:40 am »

It could just be that Democrats are running bad candidates and campaigns and that no matter how well they do or how poorly the  Republicans govern, Democrats will keep losing....of course until they don't and we say this about the Republicans again. Or maybe not. Maybe the Democrats will eventually be replaced by more competent opposition.

Not to mention that the President's popularity is in the toilet.
Logged
(CT) The Free North
CTRattlesnake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2014, 12:11:40 pm »


He is french, I believe they are the same thing anyway.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,347
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2014, 12:41:46 pm »
« Edited: November 25, 2014, 12:45:12 pm by I Can't Believe It's Not Murder! »

It could just be that Democrats are running bad candidates and campaigns and that no matter how well they do or how poorly the  Republicans govern, Democrats will keep losing....of course until they don't and we say this about the Republicans again. Or maybe not. Maybe the Democrats will eventually be replaced by more competent opposition.

Not to mention that the President's popularity is in the toilet.

Though Reagan was in the 40s through most of his seventh year and I think Clinton really did a get a boost from the impeachment. I think the question is where things will be in 2016,2017 and 2018. Do we run uncharismatic, tone deaf campaigns where we come off a center-right to the left and far-left to the middle? Or do we run a technological, charismatic and consistently center-left campaign?

If the notion of this threat was to show that Democrats can still win anytime soon, that notion is correct. If the notion is that we can do nothing and still expect to win in 2016, it probably is wrong. Though people might tune back into that message in 2018,2020 or 2022. Obama didn't have to run on  an unoriginal platform to win, but Clinton sure as hell did. 
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,518
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2014, 01:31:31 pm »

"fake victory"

But they won? I mean, turnout was bad, but it's really Dems fault for purposely going after voters that don't turnout in midterms.
Logged
Oh Jeremy Corbyn!
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,635


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2014, 01:53:23 pm »


I think I've seen you do this multiple times.  People will have whatever avatar they like.  You seem to be obsessed with what color everyone's avatar is.  Get over yourself, we don't all support a political party and asking a foreigner to have the avatar of a U.S. political party is stupid.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2014, 01:57:16 pm »


I think I've seen you do this multiple times.  People will have whatever avatar they like.  You seem to be obsessed with what color everyone's avatar is.  Get over yourself, we don't all support a political party and asking a foreigner to have the avatar of a U.S. political party is stupid.

While I agree, it is a little confusing when a green avatar is almost more partisan than a red or a blue one...
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2014, 02:24:12 pm »

(i use "republican" because "GOP" annoying me. Dem are older than rep !)


some elements make me think than this numeral victory of the republicans will be a cause of deception for 2016

-number of votes : very behind the 2010 score. Conclusion : there is no wave for republicans but most simply, dem stay home. More : rep lost more vote than democrats (-5,4 M for rep, -4,9 for dem)

-local referendum : even in republicans states, people vote in a majority for traditionnal dem patterns, like minimal wage.



conclusion : except a world war or pandemic, the democrate candidate in 2016 WILL win the white house

1.) True Demographics favor Dems in Presidential Elections. Udall would still be a US Senator by not by that of a margin victory wise despite running a horrible campaign.

2.) Dems stayed home-The problem is you don't win many elections win you lose Indies by 8 and the GOP managed to keep the Dem Victory with so-called "Moderates" to 9 points. I think as long as the Republicans can keep the Dems victory  margin with "Moderates" to 10-11 points they will have a good shot at winning. If the Republicans lose "Moderates" by 15 points like Mitt Romney the R's lose.

3.) True local referendums favored Dems but the GOP ran better candidates but The GOP candidates were younger and more optimistic than the Dem candidates in my opinion.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,347
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2014, 03:55:46 pm »

(i use "republican" because "GOP" annoying me. Dem are older than rep !)


some elements make me think than this numeral victory of the republicans will be a cause of deception for 2016

-number of votes : very behind the 2010 score. Conclusion : there is no wave for republicans but most simply, dem stay home. More : rep lost more vote than democrats (-5,4 M for rep, -4,9 for dem)

-local referendum : even in republicans states, people vote in a majority for traditionnal dem patterns, like minimal wage.



conclusion : except a world war or pandemic, the democrate candidate in 2016 WILL win the white house

1.) True Demographics favor Dems in Presidential Elections. Udall would still be a US Senator by not by that of a margin victory wise despite running a horrible campaign.

2.) Dems stayed home-The problem is you don't win many elections win you lose Indies by 8 and the GOP managed to keep the Dem Victory with so-called "Moderates" to 9 points. I think as long as the Republicans can keep the Dems victory  margin with "Moderates" to 10-11 points they will have a good shot at winning. If the Republicans lose "Moderates" by 15 points like Mitt Romney the R's lose.

3.) True local referendums favored Dems but the GOP ran better candidates but The GOP candidates were younger and more optimistic than the Dem candidates in my opinion.

With Udall, I would guess that since this election was R+5, 2010 was R+6 and 2012 was R+2, 2016, could have been R+1 and with an R+1 electorate, he would have won by 1-3 instead of losing by 1-2. Maybe the difference could have saved Hagan, Begich and put Orman over the edge. That would have turned R+9 to R+6...the Republicans would have still won if this was a general election because the other pick ups were by double-digits.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,498
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2014, 05:48:48 pm »

(i use "republican" because "GOP" annoying me. Dem are older than rep !)


some elements make me think than this numeral victory of the republicans will be a cause of deception for 2016

-number of votes : very behind the 2010 score. Conclusion : there is no wave for republicans but most simply, dem stay home. More : rep lost more vote than democrats (-5,4 M for rep, -4,9 for dem)

-local referendum : even in republicans states, people vote in a majority for traditionnal dem patterns, like minimal wage.



conclusion : except a world war or pandemic, the democrate candidate in 2016 WILL win the white house

You had good points up to the conclusion. Yes, 2014 was not as much of a quantitative wave, but it was a building process on 2010, which is pretty impressive. Even with very low turnout, R's stayed home too, just less of them. How this means the D's will win in 2016, I don't know. You could say they'll do better because of better turnout, but saying they will win in almost all circumstances is pretty delusional.
Logged
Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2014, 05:54:47 pm »

(i use "republican" because "GOP" annoying me. Dem are older than rep !)


some elements make me think than this numeral victory of the republicans will be a cause of deception for 2016

-number of votes : very behind the 2010 score. Conclusion : there is no wave for republicans but most simply, dem stay home. More : rep lost more vote than democrats (-5,4 M for rep, -4,9 for dem)

-local referendum : even in republicans states, people vote in a majority for traditionnal dem patterns, like minimal wage.



conclusion : except a world war or pandemic, the democrate candidate in 2016 WILL win the white house

1.) True Demographics favor Dems in Presidential Elections. Udall would still be a US Senator by not by that of a margin victory wise despite running a horrible campaign.

2.) Dems stayed home-The problem is you don't win many elections win you lose Indies by 8 and the GOP managed to keep the Dem Victory with so-called "Moderates" to 9 points. I think as long as the Republicans can keep the Dems victory  margin with "Moderates" to 10-11 points they will have a good shot at winning. If the Republicans lose "Moderates" by 15 points like Mitt Romney the R's lose.

3.) True local referendums favored Dems but the GOP ran better candidates but The GOP candidates were younger and more optimistic than the Dem candidates in my opinion.

With Udall, I would guess that since this election was R+5, 2010 was R+6 and 2012 was R+2, 2016, could have been R+1 and with an R+1 electorate, he would have won by 1-3 instead of losing by 1-2. Maybe the difference could have saved Hagan, Begich and put Orman over the edge. That would have turned R+9 to R+6...the Republicans would have still won if this was a general election because the other pick ups were by double-digits.
Orman lost by 11, a 3 point swing wouldn't have changed that.
Logged
Clarko95
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,939
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2014, 10:19:33 pm »

People staying home is a legitimate expression of voting. The right to vote is also the right not to vote.


It is true that this is not much of a mandate for Republicans, and they run big risks in overreaching the way they did after 2010, but this election is also an expression of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party and President Obama.


Just brushing it off with "Oh, who cares?? Demographics will hand us everything in a couple years and a few pet issues will ensure Democratic dominance for decades!!" is idiotic. The attitude of entitlement among many Democrats leading up to the 2014 elections and the arrogance and shock afterwards should be a major wake-up call to the Democrats that they're not entitled to the votes and turnout of Asians/Blacks/Hispanics/Native Americans/"Other"s/women/unmarried men/the poor/the working class/people who makes less than $75K/students/millenials/Generation X/Midwesterners/Westerners/moderates/religious minorites/LGBTs, etc.

Both parties have very high disapproval ratings; people are disappointed and frustrated with both Democrats and Republicans. "Fake victory" or no, the truth is the Democrats now have 8-9 additional GOP Senators and 13-15 additonal Representatives who will vote down their agenda.

That's not a "fake victory", that's a "real obstacle and defeat".
Logged
Colbert
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 447
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2014, 08:17:28 am »

i notice than no one democrat write on this thread. Help me, i'm surrounded by evil republicans Grin
Logged
Colbert
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 447
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2014, 08:20:58 am »


I think I've seen you do this multiple times.  People will have whatever avatar they like.  You seem to be obsessed with what color everyone's avatar is.  Get over yourself, we don't all support a political party and asking a foreigner to have the avatar of a U.S. political party is stupid.


in fact, i'm strongly right-wing, but not in american way. Gaullist, if you see, strongly statist, nationalist, protectionnist, no-interventionnist


so you can understand than, if I was american, it would be difficult to me to choice between economically liberals republicans and socially leftist democrats Wink

(but i think, honestly, that at the end of the day, i would have choice democrats, for the miniml wage)
Logged
Colbert
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 447
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2014, 08:22:24 am »

(i use "republican" because "GOP" annoying me. Dem are older than rep !)


some elements make me think than this numeral victory of the republicans will be a cause of deception for 2016

-number of votes : very behind the 2010 score. Conclusion : there is no wave for republicans but most simply, dem stay home. More : rep lost more vote than democrats (-5,4 M for rep, -4,9 for dem)

-local referendum : even in republicans states, people vote in a majority for traditionnal dem patterns, like minimal wage.



conclusion : except a world war or pandemic, the democrate candidate in 2016 WILL win the white house

1.) True Demographics favor Dems in Presidential Elections. Udall would still be a US Senator by not by that of a margin victory wise despite running a horrible campaign.

2.) Dems stayed home-The problem is you don't win many elections win you lose Indies by 8 and the GOP managed to keep the Dem Victory with so-called "Moderates" to 9 points. I think as long as the Republicans can keep the Dems victory  margin with "Moderates" to 10-11 points they will have a good shot at winning. If the Republicans lose "Moderates" by 15 points like Mitt Romney the R's lose.

3.) True local referendums favored Dems but the GOP ran better candidates but The GOP candidates were younger and more optimistic than the Dem candidates in my opinion.


your 2) point is interresting. But hillary is more moderate than obama, no ? So mayby she could bring back moderate ?
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,347
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2014, 11:47:18 am »


I think I've seen you do this multiple times.  People will have whatever avatar they like.  You seem to be obsessed with what color everyone's avatar is.  Get over yourself, we don't all support a political party and asking a foreigner to have the avatar of a U.S. political party is stupid.


in fact, i'm strongly right-wing, but not in american way. Gaullist, if you see, strongly statist, nationalist, protectionnist, no-interventionnist


so you can understand than, if I was american, it would be difficult to me to choice between economically liberals republicans and socially leftist democrats Wink

(but i think, honestly, that at the end of the day, i would have choice democrats, for the miniml wage)

You seem like someone who would be a Democrat when it was the most popular to be a Democrat...but you seem like you would be a pro-life Southern Democrat when they still had substantial representation. Now, you are probably a Paulite Republican who is anti-immigrant, anti-military, anti-traditional civil rights but are open to leveling the social-econ playing field by libertarian means (end corporate welfare, war on drugs et al...something that smart Democrats should be doing to do better to unite Obama and Clinton-Gore-Kerry voters)

...and that's my point. There are all kinds of people who are open to voting Democrat but people just need the proper reasons and circumstances. Obama was out of political capital and his followers just didn't show up.

By the way, I am a blue avatar for satirical purposes.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2014, 10:30:32 pm »

It is not fake. For one turnout was rather normal for a midterm in some states with close races like CO. It was a combination of Democrats having no motivation to vote, gerrymandering, and the map causing turnout to be so low. Some states, including most of the big states didn't have any competative statewide races, only Florida is the exception and that was for Governor not Senator. It was also pretty nasty, which depresses turnout. NC had no statewide race except a hostile Senate race, which depressed turnout. OH lacked any big competative races as well once Fitz imploded, and PA wasn't much better since Corbett was practically DOA.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,347
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2014, 12:00:44 pm »

It is not fake. For one turnout was rather normal for a midterm in some states with close races like CO. It was a combination of Democrats having no motivation to vote, gerrymandering, and the map causing turnout to be so low. Some states, including most of the big states didn't have any competative statewide races, only Florida is the exception and that was for Governor not Senator. It was also pretty nasty, which depresses turnout. NC had no statewide race except a hostile Senate race, which depressed turnout. OH lacked any big competative races as well once Fitz imploded, and PA wasn't much better since Corbett was practically DOA.
I don't think negative campaigning equates to low turnout. Some states had good turnout because it's easier to vote in them. The campaign in Colorado, for example, had very negative campaign save for Hick having outside groups attack Beauprez. Hickenlooper ran a bland but positive campaign. I personally think what caused the low turnout was because Democrats had overextended themselves and had too many candidates and not enough political capital to justify them.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2014, 07:47:19 pm »

It is not fake. For one turnout was rather normal for a midterm in some states with close races like CO. It was a combination of Democrats having no motivation to vote, gerrymandering, and the map causing turnout to be so low. Some states, including most of the big states didn't have any competative statewide races, only Florida is the exception and that was for Governor not Senator. It was also pretty nasty, which depresses turnout. NC had no statewide race except a hostile Senate race, which depressed turnout. OH lacked any big competative races as well once Fitz imploded, and PA wasn't much better since Corbett was practically DOA.
I don't think negative campaigning equates to low turnout. Some states had good turnout because it's easier to vote in them. The campaign in Colorado, for example, had very negative campaign save for Hick having outside groups attack Beauprez. Hickenlooper ran a bland but positive campaign. I personally think what caused the low turnout was because Democrats had overextended themselves and had too many candidates and not enough political capital to justify them.

I think there is a threshold level with negativity, but it has long been considered that negativity lowers turnout. That was the cynical view of Romney's primary strategy for instance.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2014, 07:57:19 pm »

(i use "republican" because "GOP" annoying me. Dem are older than rep !)

As someone who considers the GOP the linear heirs to the Federalists (I like to focus on the objective as opposed to the means to achieve such), and thus that isn't the case. That gives the GOP a three year advantage, maybe five.

Also, it should be noted that most modern day Democrats want nothing to do with the Democratic Party pre-1932 (in some cases pre-1992) and that is only emphasized by the fact that so many of them are actually wealthy Republicans who find it improper to be associated with the riff raft of bible thumping gun owners that the GOP has catered to these past thirty years. Many of the rest are children of Republicans (Hillary was a Goldwater girl in 1964 from a GOP family, Al Franken's family were Republican until the CRA).

It must be remembered that the three biggest determinants of Party prior the 20th century were income, ethnicity and geography and that is why you had splits in both parties in the first half of the 20th centry followed by ideological polarization in the second half and beginning of the next.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,347
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2014, 09:51:51 pm »

It is not fake. For one turnout was rather normal for a midterm in some states with close races like CO. It was a combination of Democrats having no motivation to vote, gerrymandering, and the map causing turnout to be so low. Some states, including most of the big states didn't have any competative statewide races, only Florida is the exception and that was for Governor not Senator. It was also pretty nasty, which depresses turnout. NC had no statewide race except a hostile Senate race, which depressed turnout. OH lacked any big competative races as well once Fitz imploded, and PA wasn't much better since Corbett was practically DOA.
I don't think negative campaigning equates to low turnout. Some states had good turnout because it's easier to vote in them. The campaign in Colorado, for example, had very negative campaign save for Hick having outside groups attack Beauprez. Hickenlooper ran a bland but positive campaign. I personally think what caused the low turnout was because Democrats had overextended themselves and had too many candidates and not enough political capital to justify them.

I think there is a threshold level with negativity, but it has long been considered that negativity lowers turnout. That was the cynical view of Romney's primary strategy for instance.

Though there wasn't much problem with Republican turnout. Evangelicals, for example,came out just as well for Romney as they did for Bush and better for McCain.

If there was a problem it was that Romney made it about Obama and Kerry never claimed ownership when Bush attacked him. Kerry could have taken Gardner's path to victory.

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2014, 11:39:54 pm »

It is not fake. For one turnout was rather normal for a midterm in some states with close races like CO. It was a combination of Democrats having no motivation to vote, gerrymandering, and the map causing turnout to be so low. Some states, including most of the big states didn't have any competative statewide races, only Florida is the exception and that was for Governor not Senator. It was also pretty nasty, which depresses turnout. NC had no statewide race except a hostile Senate race, which depressed turnout. OH lacked any big competative races as well once Fitz imploded, and PA wasn't much better since Corbett was practically DOA.
I don't think negative campaigning equates to low turnout. Some states had good turnout because it's easier to vote in them. The campaign in Colorado, for example, had very negative campaign save for Hick having outside groups attack Beauprez. Hickenlooper ran a bland but positive campaign. I personally think what caused the low turnout was because Democrats had overextended themselves and had too many candidates and not enough political capital to justify them.

I think there is a threshold level with negativity, but it has long been considered that negativity lowers turnout. That was the cynical view of Romney's primary strategy for instance.

Though there wasn't much problem with Republican turnout. Evangelicals, for example,came out just as well for Romney as they did for Bush and better for McCain.

If there was a problem it was that Romney made it about Obama and Kerry never claimed ownership when Bush attacked him. Kerry could have taken Gardner's path to victory.




"primary strategy" as opposed to "general election strategy". Tongue
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2014, 02:58:29 am »

It is not fake. For one turnout was rather normal for a midterm in some states with close races like CO. It was a combination of Democrats having no motivation to vote, gerrymandering, and the map causing turnout to be so low. Some states, including most of the big states didn't have any competative statewide races, only Florida is the exception and that was for Governor not Senator. It was also pretty nasty, which depresses turnout. NC had no statewide race except a hostile Senate race, which depressed turnout. OH lacked any big competative races as well once Fitz imploded, and PA wasn't much better since Corbett was practically DOA.
I don't think negative campaigning equates to low turnout. Some states had good turnout because it's easier to vote in them. The campaign in Colorado, for example, had very negative campaign save for Hick having outside groups attack Beauprez. Hickenlooper ran a bland but positive campaign. I personally think what caused the low turnout was because Democrats had overextended themselves and had too many candidates and not enough political capital to justify them.

I think there is a threshold level with negativity, but it has long been considered that negativity lowers turnout. That was the cynical view of Romney's primary strategy for instance.

. Kerry could have taken Gardner's path to victory.


Can you expand on that?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines