2014's fake victory of republicans

[hopper]

(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.

[hopper]

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?

[hopper]

2014 was a big, smashing victory for the Republican Party, the sort that offers the prospect of GOP dominance for the next fifty years and a very new economic order -- the purest plutocracy since Chile under Pinochet. Citizens United [/i]has fundamentally changed the American political scene to the advantage of any well-heeled plutocrats who can flood the media with Orwellian propaganda.

Say what you want about the GOP win depending upon turnout -- but what if the turnout of 2014 becomes typical for the next two big elections? At such a point, the Republicans likely have Constitutional majorities in both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of all State Houses, and the Republican Party could have the role in American politics what Article 6 of the old Soviet Constitution allotted to the Communist Party -- a practical monopoly.

...  

Citizens United? The Dems won the Presidency in 2012 and you are blaming Citizens United for the Dems under performance in the mid-terms or  their shocking loss in the Maryland's Governors Race this year? Face it the Dems ran on "War on Women" in 2014 and it failed them big time. The "War On Women" campaign payed off big time in 2012 I know.

Flood the media with propaganda? The Liberals own the media except for Fox News and C-Span and maybe a couple more outlets.

The Presidents Party always takes a beating in the mid-term elections with exceptions being 1998 and 2002. Its almost a law  The Presidents Party has a penalty if you will in mid-terms that they are guaranteed to lose seats in Congress.

Election Turnout-Mid-term elections are always lower turnout are always lower than in Presidential Year Elections. Mid-Term Election turnout is usually 40% this year it was 37% so turnout for a mid-term was down slightly.