2014's fake victory of republicans

[Person Man]

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.

[Person Man]

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. 

[Person Man]

(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.

[Person Man]

Kindly switch your avatar to red

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

(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.

[Person Man]

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.

[Person Man]

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.