Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact is hard to ignore: Republicans are winning big in individual states. They're winning governorships, majorities in state legislatures, U.S. Congressional seats, etc. We saw this demonstrated last night with the election of Matt Bevin in Kentucky, the retention of the VA State Senate by Republicans (which was at risk), and a few other smaller races. In 2014, we saw Republicans take back control of the U.S. Senate, hold the U.S. House, and pick up a few VERY unexpected governorships; including Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Overall, the last two years have skewed heavily Republican.
My question is why is this happening? Is it is a shift in public opinion, or are Republicans just providing better candidates? The usual Democratic answer is that the districts are gerrymandered and that Republicans pump a lot of outside money into these races, but the opposite has been true in the past few years. Kentucky Governor-elect Bevin was heavily outspent by Democratic candidate Jack Conway. In order to flip the VA Senate, Democrats took a lot of outside money in order for Democratic Governor McAuliffe to pass gun control legislation. Even with big money interests, Democrats simply aren't winning these important state elections.
All of this also brings in the question of why polling is so inaccurate. Polls from just a few days ago had Jack Conway winning the Governor's race by 3%-9% of the vote. Bevin won by a total of 9%. A similar occurance took place in Maryland last year. Now-Governor Larry Hogan, who was expected to lose by a margin of around 9%, yet ended up winning by 4% in very heavily blue Maryland. Hogan's victory was especially impressive given his campaign was always considered a long-shot. Polling, as it seems, is starting to consistently skew toward Democrats.
One last thought. While Democrats like to take victory laps when their candidates are elected during presidential years, they're missing something big. Legislatures not only have a large amount of pull in a state, but they also prep candidates for higher office. The individual who was expected to challenge Rand Paul next year for U.S. Senate was defeated last night, which effectively ended his chances of challenging Paul. Governors have a chance, if popular, to sway their state in favor of their political party. I imagine that popular Republican Governor John Kasich of Ohio will have enough pull to encourage people to support the eventual Republican candidate. His approval rating of 60% is extremely high for a purple swing state. Even Senate candidates are good for prepping for higher office. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul were both elected in 2010, both of whom are running for a higher office. Democrats can take victory laps for the Presidency all they want, but pull back the curtains, and there are massive Republican majorities in governorships, state legislatures, and U.S. Congress.
Because a substantial portion of the Democrats' captive embarrassment is so simple-minded that it believes Presidential elections are the only ones that matter. And the dictatorial behavior of the current occupant of the White House is doing nothing to dispel that idea.
Reasonable requirements for education, literacy, and an understanding of the importance of Constitutional protection among the electorate would put the "progressives", who have turned this nation into a laughingstock, out of business in no time -- and good riddance!
Very good post, and you made some very interesting points (especially about state-level politics prepping candidates for eventual U.S. House / Senate runs).
I think it boils down to this: casual and un-informed voters tend to vote (D), and those voters don't care to vote in "off-year" elections nearly as much as those who traditionally vote (R) do.
Here's another scenario that Democrats aren't thinking about: What happens if/when Republicans get a large enough majority in the House and Senate to override Presidential vetos? When it comes to Congressional races, Democrats seem to take one step forward (Presidential years) and two steps back (mid-terms). If that trajectory continues, Republicans will continue to amass majorities that diminish Presidential powers. That is the downside of holding onto the White House for so long.
The Dems do a horrible job of getting out their voters. Really, when Obama's machine is not in the picture, they stay home. The Dems have to do improve on messaging, candidates, and especially turnout. If the apathy continues into the general next year, we could end up with a Republican in the White House.
Tocqueville predicted, nearly 200 years ago, that democracy would endure in America only so long as the masses were prevented from using the ballot box to loot the public treasury. Fortunately, by slow-and-careful moderation, we have managed to expand and diversify the electorate, which is how things are supposed to work.
But the current Administration is doing its best to undermine that discipline and stack the deck -- nowhere more so than via its poor selection of Supreme Court appointments. And I will readily concede that several previous Administrations, involving both parties, set the stage for turning the rule of law into a Roman Circus. But the conduct of the present Administration, apparently guided only by the belief that the end justifies the means, is probably the most brazen since Roosevelt's attempt to expand and "pack" the Supreme Court back in the Thirties.
The issue isn't so much one of partisan politics as with the emergence of a culture of "statecraft of expediency" -- which paves the way for the displacement of a mutual recognition of the need for foresight in favor of the tyranny of a simplistic and short-sighted "majority of the moment".
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,547 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dequindre
The fact is hard to ignore: Republicans are winning big in individual states. They're winning governorships, majorities in state legislatures, U.S. Congressional seats, etc. We saw this demonstrated last night with the election of Matt Bevin in Kentucky, the retention of the VA State Senate by Republicans (which was at risk), and a few other smaller races. In 2014, we saw Republicans take back control of the U.S. Senate, hold the U.S. House, and pick up a few VERY unexpected governorships; including Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Overall, the last two years have skewed heavily Republican.
Maryland was unexpected and do to low turnout, as I had previously stated in other threads to you.
Martha Coakley actually did better than the polls suggested while Pat Quinn did far worse, but neither lose was "very unexpected" as you claimed.
Quote:
My question is why is this happening? Is it is a shift in public opinion, or are Republicans just providing better candidates? The usual Democratic answer is that the districts are gerrymandered and that Republicans pump a lot of outside money into these races, but the opposite has been true in the past few years. Kentucky Governor-elect Bevin was heavily outspent by Democratic candidate Jack Conway. In order to flip the VA Senate, Democrats took a lot of outside money in order for Democratic Governor McAuliffe to pass gun control legislation. Even with big money interests, Democrats simply aren't winning these important state elections.
But Terry McAuliffe is Governor of Virginia so obviously democrats are winning some of these races, and by most measures, he is about as flawed a candidate as you can get.
As stated in the previous discussion. Conway was simply not a good candidate for what ever reason the poeple of Kentucky believed. He got less votes than 2 down ballot Democrats who were re-elected or elected for the first time.
Quote:
All of this also brings in the question of why polling is so inaccurate. Polls from just a few days ago had Jack Conway winning the Governor's race by 3%-9% of the vote. Bevin won by a total of 9%. A similar occurance took place in Maryland last year. Now-Governor Larry Hogan, who was expected to lose by a margin of around 9%, yet ended up winning by 4% in very heavily blue Maryland. Hogan's victory was especially impressive given his campaign was always considered a long-shot. Polling, as it seems, is starting to consistently skew toward Democrats.
Bad polling do to low turn out. No one can predict turnout, its just a lot of educated guesses and lately it has been wrong.
Quote:
One last thought. While Democrats like to take victory laps when their candidates are elected during presidential years, they're missing something big. Legislatures not only have a large amount of pull in a state, but they also prep candidates for higher office. The individual who was expected to challenge Rand Paul next year for U.S. Senate was defeated last night, which effectively ended his chances of challenging Paul. Governors have a chance, if popular, to sway their state in favor of their political party. I imagine that popular Republican Governor John Kasich of Ohio will have enough pull to encourage people to support the eventual Republican candidate. His approval rating of 60% is extremely high for a purple swing state. Even Senate candidates are good for prepping for higher office. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul were both elected in 2010, both of whom are running for a higher office. Democrats can take victory laps for the Presidency all they want, but pull back the curtains, and there are massive Republican majorities in governorships, state legislatures, and U.S. Congress.
We arent missing the point at all, we understand that which is why we do GOTV events. The point Democrats like to drive home is that when more people participate in our democracy, Democrats win.
As for your final point, I disagree. Kasich was governor in 2012 as well, Barack Obama still won Ohio.
They just matter the most. The Presidency is the big ring - nobody remembers what bloated pedophile was speaker of the House in 2003, but they absolutely live with the Excutive and Judicial consequences of a President. The Legislature is all fine and dandy, but it is akin to writing on a dry-erase board; the President and his stacked court etch in stone.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,547 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6030
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotAct41
Very good post, and you made some very interesting points (especially about state-level politics prepping candidates for eventual U.S. House / Senate runs).
I think it boils down to this: casual and un-informed voters tend to vote (D), and those voters don't care to vote in "off-year" elections nearly as much as those who traditionally vote (R) do.
We are for the most part talking about Kentucky, which in 2 off year elections before this, elected a Democrat as their governor.
And in 2012, gave their Electoral college to Mitt Romney by 500,000 more votes than their governor.
if anything, your logic is flipped, at least for this one state. More republians are "casual and uninformed" and outnumber democrats in this case.
Martha Coakley actually did better than the polls suggested while Pat Quinn did far worse, but neither lose was "very unexpected" as you claimed.
But Terry McAuliffe is Governor of Virginia so obviously democrats are winning some of these races, and by most measures, he is about as flawed a candidate as you can get.
As stated in the previous discussion. Conway was simply not a good candidate for what ever reason the poeple of Kentucky believed. He got less votes than 2 down ballot Democrats who were re-elected or elected for the first time.
Bad polling do to low turn out. No one can predict turnout, its just a lot of educated guesses and lately it has been wrong.
We arent missing the point at all, we understand that which is why we do GOTV events. The point Democrats like to drive home is that when more people participate in our democracy, Democrats win.
As for your final point, I disagree. Kasich was governor in 2012 as well, Barack Obama still won Ohio.
To explain the Republican victories, you're simply saying "low turnout"? If that theory applies, why was 2006 such a bloodbath for Republicans? I think you know why it was, but it has nothing to do with a Republican advantage stemming from low voter turnout.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
