2014's fake victory of republicans (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:56:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  2014's fake victory of republicans (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2014's fake victory of republicans  (Read 7906 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


« 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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


« Reply #1 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 Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


« Reply #2 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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


« Reply #3 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
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.