2014 Midterm Elections Results

[hippie_hunter]

Alaska's races have been settled. Senator Mark Begich and Governor Sean Parnell have conceded to their challengers Republican Dan Sullivan and independent Bill Walker.

 

[hippie_hunter]

In the final race of the midterms, polls show Republican Bill Cassidy up double digits over Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu in Louisiana's Senate runoff.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm sure the Republican is some extremist, but Landrieu was a pretty worthless Democrat.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm sure the Republican is some extremist, but Landrieu was a pretty worthless Democrat.

Actually Rob Maness was the Tea Party candidate while Bill Cassidy was the establishment preferred Republican. Throughout the election, Cassidy being rather dull and boring was considered to be an advantage due to Landrieu often facing more extremist candidates. Hell, even in the runoff, Landrieu isn't trying to portray Cassidy as an extremist because he really isn't. Instead she's trying to portray him as bumbling (he often does bumble a lot in his speeches) and incompetent (which doesn't exactly work very well when Landrieu just recently failed to show how much clout she has).

If Maness were the GOP candidate, you would be right. But Cassidy is just a typical, dull Republican.

 

[MaceB]

And Landreui was just another dem afraid of her own shadow. Someone ought to tell these people that Americans hate weaklings, and they'll gladly take a candidate with bad ideas over a candidate who's too afraid to defend their ideas.
This women shouldnt be called a progressive of any stripe. There's too few true progressives in government these days. Mostly because the dem party is too scared to actually stick up for progressive ideals. Say what you want about republicans, but at least they aren't ashamed of their positions.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yep. I think Patton said it best, Americans love to fight.

Pretending you don't know who Obama is, or what your party stands for is a pretty damn good way to lose an election.

She probably would have lost anyway, but better to go out with dignity than... this.

 

[hippie_hunter]

And Landreui was just another dem afraid of her own shadow. Someone ought to tell these people that Americans hate weaklings, and they'll gladly take a candidate with bad ideas over a candidate who's too afraid to defend their ideas.
This women shouldnt be called a progressive of any stripe. There's too few true progressives in government these days. Mostly because the dem party is too scared to actually stick up for progressive ideals. Say what you want about republicans, but at least they aren't ashamed of their positions.

I think the Democratic Party right now is at a crossroads of what direction progressivism should take and that is why we're seeing them look rather spineless.

 

[hippie_hunter]

And another thing to take into account in regards to Landrieu's is just how much both the Republican and Democratic Parties, along with politics, have changed in the Age of Obama.

Just like how the Republicans have some major demographic issues to deal with, so do the Democrats. While the GOP has problems with single women and minorities, the Democrats have major issues with whites and men. Just like how the GOP's demographic issues are problematic for them during Presidential elections, the Democrat's demographic issues are problematic for them during midterm elections, and if they keep up with their current strategy they will never get a Congressional majority ever again.

Being a party of single women and minorities is just as dumb as the GOP being a party of old white men.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I dunno, I suspect women and minorities will eventually outnumber old white men.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I dunno, I suspect women and minorities will eventually outnumber old white men.

It's a general expression. Just like how the GOP is (deservedly) gaining the reputation of being a party of nothing but old white men, the Democrats are (also deservedly) gaining the reputation of being a party of single women and minorities. Both are equally stupid to allow which for some reason both are perfectly capable of accepting for some dumb reason.

First of all, even though the white share of the vote is decreasing, it still doesn't change the fact that they still make up 70% of the electorate. And with the way the Democrats have been losing the white vote, it is really biting them in the ass when it comes to Congressional, gubernatorial, and statehouse elections. Mary Landrieu just lost in a landslide because her performance with whites is as embarrassing as the GOP's performance is among blacks. When whites still form the overwhelming majority of voters, it's a poor strategy to just brush them off.

Second, I say single women. Single women are clearly a Democratic bloc, but married women are a swing bloc. For some reason, Democrats like to lump all women together and think that they all share the same values when the reality is that the interests of single and married women diverge quite a bit. Married women aren't going to be as concerned about social issues like abortion the way single women are. The Democrats myopic focus on social issues in 2014 is a reason why the GOP won female voters in states like Kentucky or why the Democratic edge among women in states like Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina were unable to overcome the MASSIVE deficit among men.

And finally, by relying far too much on minorities, the Democrats will not have a Congressional majority for a long time. Minorities so far, are still a completely unreliable voting bloc as opposed to other demographics like older voters, whites, women, etc.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that both parties need to actually try to be parties that have wide appeal, not what their current strategies are doing. With Republicans, they're alienating minorities (a demographic that is showing rapid increases) and women (who make up half of the electorate). And Democrats are alienating whites (who still form a big majority of the vote) and men (who also make up half of the electorate). The GOP's alienation is costing them the White House while the Democrat's alienation is costing them Congress, governorships, and state legislatures.

 

[Victarion]

Yep. I think Patton said it best, Americans love to fight.

Pretending you don't know who Obama is, or what your party stands for is a pretty damn good way to lose an election.

She probably would have lost anyway, but better to go out with dignity than... this.

There was also her mistaking courage for stupidity. But that failure to get anything done with the Republicans' pet pipeline was the final nail, I think.

 

[hippie_hunter]

There was also her mistaking courage for stupidity. But that failure to get anything done with the Republicans' pet pipeline was the final nail, I think.

Landrieu was doomed from the get-go. All Keystone did was make her look pathetic, but she wasn't going to win regardless. Thanks to Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana has gotten whiter. Democrats have been performing quite poorly among whites since 2010 and are essentially brushing whites off the way Republicans have been brushing off Latinos. And President Obama was going to be a drag on everyone in places where he was never liked to begin with like Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia. And finally, the Democrats are just a dead brand in the Deep South, it's become nothing but a party of blacks and white uber-progressives, which isn't a winning formula in a region that is predominantly white and very conservative; Democrats in the South make the Republicans look alive and vibrant up in the New England by comparison.

 

[SV Fan]

And finally, by relying far too much on minorities, the Democrats will not have a Congressional majority for a long time. Minorities so far, are still a completely unreliable voting bloc as opposed to other demographics like older voters, whites, women, etc.

I am guessing the theory is the GOP strongest voting block are closer to death, so as they die off the Democrats are better off in the long run

 

[hippie_hunter]

I am guessing the theory is the GOP strongest voting block are closer to death, so as they die off the Democrats are better off in the long run

Ummmmm.....no. It's not just old people that the GOP has been appealing to. The Democrats have been losing their share of the white vote for the past couple of elections. Not all white people are old

 

[SV Fan]

Ummmmm.....no. It's not just old people that the GOP has been appealing to. The Democrats have been losing their share of the white vote for the past couple of elections. Not all white people are old

Look at the demographic breakdown the past 2 election(2012 + 2014), the GOP does the best with the 65+ crowd(ie the FOX News Demographic) by like 12-13 points. The 45-54 age group is roughly 4-6 point difference. Once you get under those ages it favors the Democrats.

So All I am basically saying is when people get older, some of those 65+ will die and while not all voters under 50 who currently vote Democrat will stay that way the Democrats will close that 65+ gap( as well as the 45-64 gap). Once people at a certain age get in their mind they prefer one party it's very hard to change their minds and the Democrats basically getting alot in the 30-50 age range to side with them(ie the future 45-64 and 65 plusers)

 

[summerteeth]

Look at the demographic breakdown the past 2 election(2012 + 2014), the GOP does the best with the 65+ crowd(ie the FOX News Demographic) by like 12-13 points. The 45-54 age group is roughly 4-6 point difference. Once you get under those ages it favors the Democrats.

So All I am basically saying is when people get older, some of those 65+ will die and while not all voters under 50 who currently vote Democrat will stay that way the Democrats will close that 65+ gap( as well as the 45-64 gap). Once people at a certain age get in their mind they prefer one party it's very hard to change their minds and the Democrats basically getting alot in the 30-50 age range to side with them(ie the future 45-64 and 65 plusers)

As you get older you get more conservative. Young people don't feel the sting or burden of taxation right now, as they make an income and buy a house have a family their priorities start to change. Not saying that everyone will, but as a group they'll start to splinter. Look at Romney's support, he won the majority of people who make over $50,000, I don't really see that changing for Republicans.

 

[Taarna]

Instead of going back and forth between multiple threads to talk about tonight's midterm results, we can conveniently talk about them here in this thread

Some observations from the election.

It was a historic beat down.

Republicans won majority of the senate 54-44 with 2 independents. With control of the senate and the financial purses Obama’s wanton spending ways are over. He’s also venerable to investigations. No bill will hit the president’s desk unless the Republicans sign off on it. Obama is now a lame duck that won't be able to get anything done without serious compromise. It's up to Obama. Clinton worked with Gingrich.


Republicans increased their lead in the house, gaining 13 seats. It's now 247-188.

Gubernatorial Elections: Republicans had to defended 24 seats. The Dem’s only 14! Yet the Republicans increased their share by +2 , including winning Obama’s home State of Illinois.

The polls in many starts were off. Gee I wonder why?

Republicans increased their vote in Latino's

Republicans elected the first black senator in the South, had a black congresswoman from Utah win, and elected the youngest woman in years. This shows Republicans will vote on Policy over Race and Gender. Liberal scare tactics and race cards aren’t going to work in 2016.

It really wasn’t anti incumbent. Republican incumbents did fine. It was anti Democrat. Anti Obama for sure. Anti Hillary Clinton maybe.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I really don't see it as anti-Democrat. I think at the time, people were getting fed up with the governmental ineptitude that just happened to occur during the Obama Administration. Things like the intelligence failure of Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the VA scandal, the CDC's initial weak response to Ebola, etc. all add up. Those instances weren't Obama's fault, but people are going to blame the executive branch on those issues.

You also have to take into account the races that happened. A lot of the Democrats that lost were either Democrats that shouldn't have won in the first place (like Alaska's Mark Begich) or were Democrats in states that are becoming more and more Republican (like Arkansas and Louisiana).

And for some surprise races. Republican's captured Illinois' governorship because the Democrats there have been plagued with ineptitude and scandal. Massachusetts has a tendency to elect Republicans like Charlie Baker and Martha Coakley again proved how horrible of a candidate she was. And Martin O'Malley's fiscal policies were unpopular in Maryland.

The Democrats also had an utterly terrible electoral strategy to begin with. They had no message whatsoever. They were far too willing to give up on a lot of candidates that could have performed well. And they ran bad candidate like Martha Coakley, Bruce Braley, and Mark Udall.

EDIT: Also, six year midterms are traditionally very tough on the party in power. It takes a lot of incompetence of the opposing party to survive a six year midterm like Bill Clinton's survival in 1998.

But add in all those factors, I certainly wouldn't say that 2014 was anti-Obama.

 

[SV Fan]

Republicans increased their vote in Latino's

I don't think Republicans increased their vote in Latinos it more a case less Latinos who showed up in 2012 and voted Obama showed up in 2014, thus the percentages make it look like the Republicans made some gains

You have to remember there was 35% turnout in 2014 compared to 2012 which had 58% turnout. If Republicans base there 2016 plan on 35% turnout, they will fail like they did in 2012.

I think a perfect example of 58% turnout compared to 35% turnout is Mitt Romney had more votes in Wisconsin in 2012 then Scott Walker did in 2014, yet Scott Walker keeps championing how he won a Blue State(not telling the full story that it will be much harder when more people vote)

The polls in many starts were off. Gee I wonder why?

Probably the same reason the polls in 2012 were off(and generally favored republicans more then the actual results did), it's hard to get an idea who will and won't turn out so many pollsters probably over compensated for the mistakes in 2012(much like they over compensated for their mistakes in 2010 in 2012 polls).

 

[Taarna]

SV,

Since I'm new on the board I might as well say I am a " RepubliCrat. " This means I tend to agree with the Republicans on the economy, defense, space, how to fight terrorism, and taxes. No amnesty unless cheap labor is badly needed.

I agree with the Democrats on the Environment, Social Security, and Gay marriage.

I think the Bill of Rights should be left at it is. Leave the 2nd amendment alone. Abortion? Not a fan, but in some cases like rape or severe illness, I understand why.

Center right if you will.

As far as Latino's the Republicans cut the deficit from 68% Democrat in 2012 to 62% Democrat in 2014. I think there are a lot of reasons why.

Which brings me to the factor. Jeb Bush speaks fluent Spanish, married a Latino, and would likely be the best draw the Republicans have. If he gets the nomination, I expect the Republicans to get a much greater share of the Latino vote in addition to perhaps winning the state of Florida.

The other shift I expect to see in 2016 is the Jews. Dem's won the group 69-30# in 2012. They are nearly 2 million of them in NY, and 650,000 in FLA. My best guess is some of them who voted for Obama will be staying home in 2016, or and others who have not voted Republican will be.

 

[SV Fan]

As far as Latino's the Republicans cut the deficit from 68% Democrat in 2012 to 62% Democrat in 2014. I think there are a lot of reasons why.

Democrats still gained 2% while Republicans lost 2% from the last mid term election(2010) in terms of Latinos. Turnout(or more importantly who was not turning out) has alot to do with the drop between 2012 -> 2014 then this idea that latinos all of a sudden are grabbing on to the Republican message

Which brings me to the factor. Jeb Bush speaks fluent Spanish, married a Latino, and would likely be the best draw the Republicans have. If he gets the nomination, I expect the Republicans to get a much greater share of the Latino vote in addition to perhaps winning the state of Florida

Jeb Bush might be an outlier in the Republican Party when it comes to latinos, but most of of the top challengers have alot of dirty laundry when it comes to how they feel about immigration that will be used on them relentlessly by Hillary.

The other shift I expect to see in 2016 is the Jews. Dem's won the group 69-30# in 2012. They are nearly 2 million of them in NY, and 650,000 in FLA. My best guess is some of them who voted for Obama will be staying home in 2016, or and others who have not voted Republican will be.

Good luck with that, this idea that every single Jewish person in the world has a hive mind and follows Netanyahu, and Netanyahu = Israel is a bunch of BS. I put over under of Jewish Vote at 70% and would bet on the over

 

[hippie_hunter]

Democrats still gained 2% while Republicans lost 2% from the last mid term election(2010) in terms of Latinos. Turnout(or more importantly who was not turning out) has alot to do with the drop between 2012 -> 2014 then this idea that latinos all of a sudden are grabbing on to the Republican message

Frankly I think the Latino results have a lot to do with disaffection with the Democratic Party than them suddenly grabbing onto the Republican message like Taarna is trying to make it out to be. The Democrats promised them a lot in 2008 and 2012 only for them to be completely underwhelming and failing on those promises. On top of that, I don't think that the Latino demographic wants to be like the black demographic in that we end up with a result where one party completely ignores and alienates them and the other party takes their support for granted.

I think Latinos did vote in 2014. They decided to vote by staying home. They are showing the Democrats that they are not to be taken for granted, they want action on ideals and platforms that they support and they are showing the Republicans that they need to stop being hostile to immigrants. And hopefully the Democrats learned their lesson not to take them for granted because Latinos willingly deciding to not go out and vote cost the Democrats key races like North Carolina.

Jeb Bush might be an outlier in the Republican Party when it comes to latinos, but most of of the top challengers have alot of dirty laundry when it comes to how they feel about immigration that will be used on them relentlessly by Hillary.

I think Jeb Bush being that outlier is a reason to be afraid of him. Jeb Bush courting the Latino support the way his brother did can cost the Democrats Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, and Virginia.

Good luck with that, this idea that every single Jewish person in the world has a hive mind and follows Netanyahu, and Netanyahu = Israel is a bunch of BS. I put over under of Jewish Vote at 70% and would bet on the over

I can't believe I'm saying this after all these times I've argued with you but.....I'm in total agreement with you. The Jewish bloc is one that solidly leans Democratic, not because of Israel, but because the Jewish demographic tends to support Democratic ideals. While there has been some siphoning of the Jewish demographic towards Republicans because of Israel, I think it's completely overblown and overall rather insignificant.

Jewish Americans are Americans first and foremost. Their loyalties lie with the United States, not Israel. They are not Israelis. And like most Americans they're primarily concentrated on issues that concern America like the economy, the environment, etc. And if you look at where Jews lie on these issues, they're primarily quite progressive. I would say for the next couple of decades to come, Democrats will still win at minimum 65% of the Jewish vote. And even that I think is rather generous to the Republicans on how much of the Jewish vote they can capture.

 

[SV Fan]

I can't believe I'm saying this after all these times I've argued with you but.....I'm in total agreement with you. The Jewish bloc is one that solidly leans Democratic, not because of Israel, but because the Jewish demographic tends to support Democratic ideals. While there has been some siphoning of the Jewish demographic towards Republicans because of Israel, I think it's completely overblown and overall rather insignificant.

Jewish Americans are Americans first and foremost. Their loyalties lie with the United States, not Israel. They are not Israelis. And like most Americans they're primarily concentrated on issues that concern America like the economy, the environment, etc. And if you look at where Jews lie on these issues, they're primarily quite progressive. I would say for the next couple of decades to come, Democrats will still win at minimum 65% of the Jewish vote. And even that I think is rather generous to the Republicans on how much of the Jewish vote they can capture.

Not that it makes much difference but I do think Hillary will be more appealing to the Jewish demographic then Obama was as well, so what little support Obama lost in 2012(I believe they went from like 72 -> 69) will most likely be gained back.

I think Jeb Bush being that outlier is a reason to be afraid of him. Jeb Bush courting the Latino support the way his brother did can cost the Democrats Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, and Virginia

I don't deny that, I can see Jeb pulling upper 30s which is much better then 27%. I will give him credit that he realizes pandering to the base saying stupid things like people should self deport will only cost you later. I truly believe that one statement cost Romney like 3-5%, all for a cheap applause line, it definitely made for a great soundbite to show Romney's opinion on immigrants

 

[hippie_hunter]

Not that it makes much difference but I do think Hillary will be more appealing to the Jewish demographic then Obama was as well, so what little support Obama lost in 2012(I believe they went from like 72 -> 69) will most likely be gained back.

Upon thinking what you're saying there, I absolutely totally agree with you. As a matter in fact, I can see her winning 75% of the Jewish vote. The Clintons are the perfect type of candidate for the Jewish demographic, the center-left progressive. She's far more pro-business than the Obama Administration has been and she's lurched herself to the left on social issues to make herself fit better with the modern Democratic Party. Clinton fits in the mold of the traditional progressive views of the Jewish demographic to a t.

I don't deny that, I can see Jeb pulling upper 30s which is much better then 27%. I will give him credit that he realizes pandering to the base saying stupid things like people should self deport will only cost you later. I truly believe that one statement cost Romney like 3-5%, all for a cheap applause line, it definitely made for a great soundbite to show Romney's opinion on immigrants

I think a lot of people are underestimating Jeb Bush simply because his brother was a mediocre President. While one cannot deny Bush fatigue due to Dubya, I think most people are willing to embrace a Republican President that is more like H.W. Bush. If Republicans can repeat the upper 30's/low 40's that Dubya did, the Democrats are in for a lot of hurt in 2016. A WHOLE LOT OF HURT.

The way the Democrats have built their coalition depends on them winning their target demographics by really large margins to make up for their losses in whites and males. They cannot afford to have a Republican like Jeb Bush to eat into Latinos and married women.

 

[SV Fan]

While one cannot deny Bush fatigue due to Dubya

Hard to run on Bush fatigue when the other candidate is a Clinton. Sort of funny if both of them make it one of the best striking points against the other is off the table. lol

I think most people are willing to embrace a Republican President that is more like H.W. Bush. If Republicans can repeat the upper 30's/low 40's that Dubya did, the Democrats are in for a lot of hurt in 2016. A WHOLE LOT OF HURT.

I can't see any Republicans breaking 40% of latino voters in the first term(second term is possible if they do well in the first term). I do think mid to late 30s is possible with Jeb, Very low 30s/high 20s for any other Republican

The way the Democrats have built their coalition depends on them winning their target demographics by really large margins to make up for their losses in whites and males. They cannot afford to have a Republican like Jeb Bush to eat into Latinos and married women

1. I think Hillary will increase the 65+ vote for the Dems

2. Republicans already are winning Married females(it's those single ones that flock to the Democrats)

Found this, looked pretty funny

This is one of those things that gets lost in the "War ON women", it's not really a "war on women" as it is on single ones.