2014 Midterm Elections Results

[hippie_hunter]

The only people who make money off of elections are newspapers, tv and radio stations. Well that and those people who create PACs and pocket 90% of the cash for themselves

And political consultants, and tech firms, and advertising agencies, and so on. Elections have actually turned into a massive industry.

 

[terry78]

Basically what I've seen is that conservatives turn out in droves to vote and liberals are more cynical and apathetic about the system and don't bother to, hence why they have control more often than not.

 

[SV Fan]

Basically what I've seen is that conservatives turn out in droves to vote and liberals are more cynical and apathetic about the system

I think their is a variety of reason Republicans do better when there is lower turnout.

1. Older People are more likely to vote, older people generally favor Republicans

2. The Apathetic criticism holds true. How many people for instance who got benefits from Obamacare voted in 2014? Liberals also seem to get discouraged when something doesn't move much, in general to get from point A to point Z, you have to first get through B,C,D, etc. Seems like alot don't realize that we may have only got from point E to F in 6 years on some issues, but that doesn't mean nothing has been done and by not voting you risk going back to point E

In terms of a 6th year election it doesn't help being the party that has the President in power, much easier to campaign against him being the sole person who is at fault for everything and if you somehow vote in the other side everything will be fixed easily.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Basically what I've seen is that conservatives turn out in droves to vote and liberals are more cynical and apathetic about the system and don't bother to, hence why they have control more often than not.

That's over simplifying things here. It's not that we have a more conservative electorate. Honestly, even though the electorate was whiter and older, politically they're still about the same as 2012: rational, centrist people.

1. A lot of states that had Senate elections were in states that are trending more and more Republican like Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia. Even if this were a good Democratic year, those states would have fallen Republican anyways due to the changing demographics of those states. If there were more Democratic states on the map, the outcome wouldn't have been as harsh.

2. People don't care about social issues anymore. The social wars are over and the left has won. The only way social issues are going to influence an election is if a candidate makes a bad mistake like Todd Akin talking about what counts as legitimate rape or Mark Udall trying to make it look like he will make birth control pills rain down from the sky like they're Skittles. A candidate who focuses far too much on the social issues in today's age, left or right, is going to lose.

3. The Democrats were the ones with bad candidates this time around. The GOP learned their lessons from 2010 and 2012 on how bad candidates will sink a ship. The Democrats on the other hand decided to run candidates like Charlie Crist, a person who changes political affiliations constantly for his own purposes; Martha Coakley, the lady who lost Massachusetts' Senate seat and thought that Kurt Shilling was a Yankees fan; Bruce Braley, a guy who looks down upon farmers while running in a state dominated by farmers; and Mark Udall, who took a guaranteed win and squandered it by trying to make his opponent look like a pro-life extremist and focusing almost exclusively on that.

4. The Democrats got cocky and complacent this time around. They put far too much faith on their GOTV efforts while thinking that the GOP did not learn their lessons from 2012. When the Democrats looked at the North Carolina early vote, they assumed their lead was very good while ignoring the demographics of the early vote and forgetting that many North Carolina Democrats are legacy Democrats (or DINOs). They even took Virginia for granted, a state that is solidly purple, not a state that is trending blue. It also didn't help that the Democrats ran on some VERY BAD data in their calculations.

5. Because of their focus on building a coalition of minorities, youths, and single women, the Democrats now have some major demographic issues of their own. Just like how the GOP has issues with women and Latinos, the Democrats have issues with whites, men, and married women could be a problem for Democrats in the near future. By focusing on the Obama Coalition (a coalition that has been left behind in the Obama Recovery), Democrats have alienated important demographics. And unlike Republicans who can survive without the black vote, Democrats cannot survive double digit losses with men without double digit wins with women. They cannot survive massive losses with whites when minorities historically have poor turnout.

6. This comes down to the issue of governance. While the economy has improved a lot since Obama has taken office, the Democrats really did not do a good job in messaging that. Not only that but there are a lot of people who feel left behind in the Obama Recovery which hurts the Democrats. When the government bungled the initial responses to ebola, ISIS, Russia, the IRS scandal, the Obamacare website, the VA scandal, etc. it makes the government look incompetent. And when the government looks incompetent, voters are going to take it out on the party in power, in this case, the Democrats. This isn't about Obama's policies or ideology, but more along the lines that the Democrats did not look like they were good at governing and making things run smoothly. This transcends things like a more "conservative" electorate.

7. The GOP learned their lessons from 2010 and 2012. The GOP and their allies such as the Chamber of Commerce worked to ensure that no stupid Tea Party candidate was going to sink them this time around, even in extremely conservative states like Mississippi and Alabama. They ensured that their candidates would run tight and disciplined campaigns. They vastly improved their data management, GOTV efforts, outreach towards women and Millennials, etc. The fact that the Democrats acted as if the GOP didn't learn their lessons from the past two election cycles is absolutely mind-boggling.

8. Midterms are just naturally difficult for the party in power. Simple as that.

 

[terry78]

Yeah, it's an oversimplification but it's just what I've observed at home.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think their is a variety of reason Republicans do better when there is lower turnout.

I think that even with higher turnout, we would have still gotten similar results. Look at the exit polling, Republicans made some rather good advances towards women and Millennials. While lower turnout did help Republicans, it assumes that the GOP did not learn their lessons from 2010 and 2012. This stupid assumption is what bit Democrats in the ass the most in 2014.

And I can't stress this out enough, but bad candidates do make the difference. If a real Democrat were the nominee in Florida's race, I believe that Rick Scott would no longer be governor of Florida. If Martha Coakley, "the most single most incompetent candidate ever to seek public office in this nation's history," SNL Obama's words, not mine, weren't the nominee, the Democrat would have most likely won. If Mark Udall ran a campaign dealing with the issues instead of coming off as a pro-choice extremist, he would have kept his seat.

Low turnout cannot explain the gains the GOP made in certain demographics, bad candidates, and improved campaign efforts.

1. Older People are more likely to vote, older people generally favor Republicans

That really should have been a warning sign for Kay Hagan.

2. The Apathetic criticism holds true. How many people for instance who got benefits from Obamacare voted in 2014? Liberals also seem to get discouraged when something doesn't move much, in general to get from point A to point Z, you have to first get through B,C,D, etc. Seems like alot don't realize that we may have only got from point E to F in 6 years on some issues, but that doesn't mean nothing has been done and by not voting you risk going back to point E

The biggest problem for the Obama Coalition is that not only are they historically unreliable, but they're also the ones who have been left behind in the Obama Recovery. What incentive do blacks or youths have to vote Democrat when they haven't benefited much?

In terms of a 6th year election it doesn't help being the party that has the President in power, much easier to campaign against him being the sole person who is at fault for everything and if you somehow vote in the other side everything will be fixed easily.

The President is a blessing and a curse in terms of messaging. On one hand, it's easier for the President to give his message than Congress and the opposition because he is just a single man who can deliver a coherent message. On the other hand, because he is just a single man, most of the blame is going to fall on him.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah, it's an oversimplification but it's just what I've observed at home.

The media almost always does a terrible job in analyzing things. That said, CNN did a rather decent job this time around.

 

[SV Fan]

Low turnout cannot explain the gains the GOP made in certain demographics

The other 2 things you mention I can agree, but I disagree here. I am guessing in 2016 when 50-55% of the people vote(as opposed to 35%) we will go back to 2012 style demographics more then 2014 style(ie you might get higher minority vote for Republicans in terms of percentage in 2014 compared to 2102 but I am guessing a large part of that is due to voter turnout and it more likely the Democrats staying home, while the ones that vote Republican still shows up, same deal with young Republicans)

In other words let's say 1M of one demographic voted Republic in 2012, and 1.5M of the same demographic voted Democrat. If in 2014 800k of the 1M Republicans voted and 900k of 1.5M Democrats voted, even though the percentage is cut down by a considerable margin, it mainly fell due to democrats not voting(not some message from the Republican resonating among the people, well other then Government is useless). Now the Republican can claim we gained 7% in this particular demographic(from 40% to 47%) but simple fact is they didn't gain any new voters the Dems just lost a whole bunch. Now you might say well 50K people who voted Democrat in 2012 voted republican in 2014 you could lay claim to those voters but I am guessing most demographic groups besides the independents you gain on is more a case of people not voting then actual gains.

I see people for instance take pride that Scott Walker won a "blue state" and see that as some forecast for future politics in that state, well looking at the results Mitt Romney had 150k more votes in 2012 then Walker did in 2014. While there might have been a few voters who voted for both Walker and Obama, I still see Wisconsin as a hard state for the Republicans to lay any claim on in 2016 and they foolishly will try for it again and fail(much like how I laugh at the Republicans quest to try win Pennsylvania every presidential election). I am guessing the media will ignore this as well because Wisconsin being a swing state makes things more interesting. By the way i am not saying Republicans won't win Wisconsin, I basically am saying I don't see any scenario were Republicans win the election with under 300 electoral points and the win Wisconsin(in which case anything over 282 electoral points makes winning Wisconsin nothing more then something to gloat about, much like North Carolina and Indiana was in 2008, infact I would refer to North Carolina as the Democrat's Pennslvania(ie they aren't winning it unless it's a huge wave election))

 

[hippie_hunter]

The other 2 things you mention I can agree, but I disagree here. I am guessing in 2016 when 50-55% of the people vote(as opposed to 35%) we will go back to 2012 style demographics more then 2014 style(ie you might get higher minority vote for Republicans in terms of percentage in 2014 compared to 2102 but I am guessing a large part of that is due to voter turnout and it more likely the Democrats staying home, while the ones that vote Republican still shows up, same deal with young Republicans)

In other words let's say 1M of one demographic voted Republic in 2012, and 1.5M of the same demographic voted Democrat. If in 2014 800k of the 1M Republicans voted and 900k of 1.5M Democrats voted, even though the percentage is cut down by a considerable margin, it mainly fell due to democrats not voting(not some message from the Republican resonating among the people, well other then Government is useless). Now the Republican can claim we gained 7% in this particular demographic(from 40% to 47%) but simple fact is they didn't gain any new voters the Dems just lost a whole bunch. Now you might say well 50K people who voted Democrat in 2012 voted republican in 2014 you could lay claim to those voters but I am guessing most demographic groups besides the independents you gain on is more a case of people not voting then actual gains.

But here's the thing though, Republicans made gains with women and Latinos this year. In some of the races, Republicans actually won with women.

My point is that Democrats just cannot take these demographics for granted like they have with blacks. And they cannot just assume that the Republicans did not learn their lessons from 2010 and 2012. Those stupid assumptions bit them in the ass in 2014 and if they do the same again, it will bite them in the ass in 2016. They actually have to work for those voters and not just think that if they turn up, they will automatically vote Democrat.

I see people for instance take pride that Scott Walker won a "blue state" and see that as some forecast for future politics in that state, well looking at the results Mitt Romney had 150k more votes in 2012 then Walker did in 2014. While there might have been a few voters who voted for both Walker and Obama, I still see Wisconsin as a hard state for the Republicans to lay any claim on in 2016 and they foolishly will try for it again and fail(much like how I laugh at the Republicans quest to try win Pennsylvania every presidential election). I am guessing the media will ignore this as well because Wisconsin being a swing state makes things more interesting. By the way i am not saying Republicans won't win Wisconsin, I basically am saying I don't see any scenario were Republicans win the election with under 300 electoral points and the win Wisconsin(in which case anything over 282 electoral points makes winning Wisconsin nothing more then something to gloat about, much like North Carolina and Indiana was in 2008, infact I would refer to North Carolina as the Democrat's Pennslvania(ie they aren't winning it unless it's a huge wave election))

Agreed completely.

 

[Slushy]

 

[summerteeth]

Military contracts as well(that's a huge money eater), Military contractors generally don't pop up in the Northeast, West or Mid Western States(they mainly in the South East and South West)

Right and military spending isn't welfare spending...that's why when people say that about red states it's rather false.

 

[Schlosser85]

Corporations are the biggest welfare moochers around.

 

[The Overlord]

Right and military spending isn't welfare spending...that's why when people say that about red states it's rather false.

Edit: Never mind.

 

[SV Fan]

Right and military spending isn't welfare spending...that's why when people say that about red states it's rather false.

But why can't they spend that money in factories in California. I keep hearing how Liberal California shows how terrible liberal policies are, well liberal California gives the US government 75B+ more in taxes then it gets back, maybe the government should tell military contractors if you want to build tanks do it in California since they are indirectly paying for it(not "we hate big government spending" South Carolina who costs the country 22B)

I am pretty sure California wouldn't mind the extra jobs coming to it's state

I think this map is using older statistics but you get the idea

You can't tell me Michigan who has the right infrastructure couldn't use those government contracts(it basically can put Flint, MI back on the map as an industrial town). How about Nevada who has terrible unemployment numbers compared to the rest of the country?

My point is that Democrats just cannot take these demographics for granted like they have with blacks.

I would argue Obamacare's Medicare expansion was put in their as a thank you to some of it's demogrophics, same deal fighting for welfare and food stamps. Now most minorities or even single females might not be in the category that they can reap benefits from stuff like this but it does show that the Democrats are making some effort to fight for what is considered it's base. Personally I think 2 sad things that come from this is 1) there is probably a decent amount of people who vote Republican that benefit from these programs, 2) Many people who benefit from these programs don't make any effort to vote in these mid term elections. How many states for instance haven't excepted the Medicare expansion because of Republican governors? Not showing up to vote in a State like Kansas or Wisconsin or Maine or Florida is only screwing yourself in some cases.

Beyond that the Democrats can only do so much to move any issue. It's not like they have a magic wand and create policies out of thin air chances are that any policies they try push will be filibustered by the Senate, and in rare case something isn't filibustered by the Senate and they actually pass something with some Republican support, the House will reject it(see the immigration Bill that wasn't even put up for a vote)

 

[summerteeth]

But why can't they spend that money in factories in California. I keep hearing how Liberal California shows how terrible liberal policies are, well liberal California gives the US government 75B+ more in taxes then it gets back, maybe the government should tell military contractors if you want to build tanks do it in California since they are indirectly paying for it(not "we hate big government spending" South Carolina who costs the country 22B)

I am pretty sure California wouldn't mind the extra jobs coming to it's state

I think this map is using older statistics but you get the idea

You can't tell me Michigan who has the right infrastructure couldn't use those government contracts(it basically can put Flint, MI back on the map as an industrial town). How about Nevada who has terrible unemployment numbers compared to the rest of the country?



I would argue Obamacare's Medicare expansion was put in their as a thank you to some of it's demogrophics, same deal fighting for welfare and food stamps. Now most minorities or even single females might not be in the category that they can reap benefits from stuff like this but it does show that the Democrats are making some effort to fight for what is considered it's base. Personally I think 2 sad things that come from this is 1) there is probably a decent amount of people who vote Republican that benefit from these programs, 2) Many people who benefit from these programs don't make any effort to vote in these mid term elections. How many states for instance haven't excepted the Medicare expansion because of Republican governors? Not showing up to vote in a State like Kansas or Wisconsin or Maine or Florida is only screwing yourself in some cases.

Beyond that the Democrats can only do so much to move any issue. It's not like they have a magic wand and create policies out of thin air chances are that any policies they try push will be filibustered by the Senate, and in rare case something isn't filibustered by the Senate and they actually pass something with some Republican support, the House will reject it(see the immigration Bill that wasn't even put up for a vote)

Government spending does not equal welfare there is a distinction. I think a lot of people misunderstand Republicans, just because we are for small government and fiscal responsibility doesn't mean we are against all government spending. We recognize that the federal government has a purpose we just believe in limiting it to the things that are necessary and that government does well. I think debating whether or not we need to spend as much as we do on the military is a discussion worth having, but I see no reason to criticize the red states for getting military funding. Part of the reason is because that's where most of the military bases are located.

 

[SV Fan]

Government spending does not equal welfare there is a distinction. I think a lot of people misunderstand Republicans, just because we are for small government and fiscal responsibility doesn't mean we are against all government spending. We recognize that the federal government has a purpose we just believe in limiting it to the things that are necessary and that government does well. I think debating whether or not we need to spend as much as we do on the military is a discussion worth having, but I see no reason to criticize the red states for getting military funding. Part of the reason is because that's where most of the military bases are located.

But why do those states deserves the jobs, they don't pay for it. They basically get a nice jobs program(which helps their economy) on the backs of other states. As I said I am guessing states that conservatives love to kick like Michigan and California would love the extra boost those jobs could bring to their economy and looking at the amount they give to the Federal Government compared to how much they get, don't they deserve a bit more of the government handouts?

In terms of "welfare" any money the government pumps into the state is some form of handout that helps the economy of the states, so states that get more money then they give to the system are definitely benefiting from government handouts. I always find the ironic thing about people who believe in States rights, that if they want to cut off the money supply to the Federal Government and let states take care of their own business, it would actually benefit many states who are against states rights, while hurting states that are for states rights.

 

[summerteeth]

But why do those states deserves the jobs, they don't pay for it. They basically get a nice jobs program(which helps their economy) on the backs of other states. As I said I am guessing states that conservatives love to kick like Michigan and California would love the extra boost those jobs could bring to their economy and looking at the amount they give to the Federal Government compared to how much they get, don't they deserve a bit more of the government handouts?

In terms of "welfare" any money the government pumps into the state is some form of handout that helps the economy of the states, so states that get more money then they give to the system are definitely benefiting from government handouts. I always find the ironic thing about people who believe in States rights, that if they want to cut off the money supply to the Federal Government and let states take care of their own business, it would actually benefit many states who are against states rights, while hurting states that are for states rights.

You seem to be creating a very broad definition of welfare so it is difficult to counter your argument. Welfare is defined as : a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.

Military spending doesn't fall under those categories nor is it a government program like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP etc.

People who believe in states rights aren't usually railing against military spending, again that's a role that conservatives believe the federal government needs to lead. They believe in a strong national defense and standing army. There are logistical and historical reasons why the south gets more money in military spending.

California is third in per capita welfare spending and New York is number one. Idaho is at the bottom.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/

 

[SV Fan]

You seem to be creating a very broad definition of welfare so it is difficult to counter your argument. Welfare is defined as : a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.

I am using welfare in the Republicans derogatory sense of tax payer money the government just throws at people(or in many cases businesses) that one could argue is not worth spending.

You can't tell me that defense spending/contractors don't help the economy of the state they are built in and it's indirectly an investment by the Federal Government into that state. As I said they just as easily could build a tank in South Carolina or California or North Dakota, and by the Federal Government giving contracts to certain companies who are in certain states they are picking winners and losers when it comes to who benefits off of Federal Government Spending.

Do you think it's fair California gives 75B+ more in Federal Taxes then it receives? Don't you think given the state of California's economic troubles that maybe the Government should find ways to reimburse them some of that cash back?

 

[hippie_hunter]

That's what happens when you have a progressive tax code. The majority of America's wealthy people are going to live in states like California, New York, and Florida as opposed to states like Mississippi or Kansas. The explanation for that discrepancy is pretty simple to describe and it's pretty dumb to try and make it into a red state vs. blue state comparison.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Alaska's Senate race has been called in favor of Republican Dan Sullivan defeating Senator Mark Begich, giving the GOP another Senate seat.

 

[summerteeth]

I am using welfare in the Republicans derogatory sense of tax payer money the government just throws at people(or in many cases businesses) that one could argue is not worth spending.

You can't tell me that defense spending/contractors don't help the economy of the state they are built in and it's indirectly an investment by the Federal Government into that state. As I said they just as easily could build a tank in South Carolina or California or North Dakota, and by the Federal Government giving contracts to certain companies who are in certain states they are picking winners and losers when it comes to who benefits off of Federal Government Spending.

Do you think it's fair California gives 75B+ more in Federal Taxes then it receives? Don't you think given the state of California's economic troubles that maybe the Government should find ways to reimburse them some of that cash back?

I've never heard it used in that way nor have I ever heard a Republican call military spending welfare spending. Anyways, you want California to keep more of its money there's a simple solution you lower the federal income tax.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that most of the military bases are located in the South and that's a huge reason why military spending goes there. I know living in San Diego (a military town) that there are a lot of military contractors around here. I'm sure one of the reasons they are located here is because of the close proximity to the bases. So if the military bases are in the south and military contractors locate themselves near the bases why wouldn't the money go to southern states? It's not a matter of fairness it is a matter of efficiency and pragmatism.

 

[SV Fan]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that most of the military bases are located in the South

I am not talking about military bases, I am talking about where they give the defense contracts to build stuff(tanks, jets, etc). Those deals are huge booms to any states economy where the company builds the product.

 

[summerteeth]

I am not talking about military bases, I am talking about where they give the defense contracts to build stuff(tanks, jets, etc). Those deals are huge booms to any states economy where the company builds the product.

... did you read what I wrote after that? Because I was talking about them as well and how they are located near bases. The government doesn't decide where contractors set up shop.

 

[SV Fan]

The government doesn't decide where contractors set up shop.

it's the governments money, they should have a right to call where stuff is being built.

 

[hippie_hunter]

it's the governments money, they should have a right to call where stuff is being built.

If the facilities were government owned, but these are private contractors, they're companies that already exist and have fully established facilities that you can't just uproot for petty politics. You're being quite unreasonable here.