# 2014 US General Election Results **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 4, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684 "2014-11-04T23:38:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/441 "2014-11-06T23:33:27Z")
An even better example would be Republicans passing a bill to use chained CPI to calculate SS cost of living benefits and then complaining that it was Democrats’ idea yet they opposed it. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/442 "2014-11-07T02:24:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Are you serious? Forgive me if you’re whooshing me, but if you’re serious, that’s among the most absurd arguments I’ve ever seen. > > **adaher** , what is the actual cost for the progressive wish-list, and how does that cost differ from the cost for the conservative wish-list–with cited numbers? > > IOW your claim is ridiculous, although not as ridiculous as Flyer’s, but at least Flyer is probably making the claim satirically in order to mock people who see Communists behind the toilet. You haven’t paid attention to my posts, have you? I’m deadly serious. But apparently you think that the fact that our government follows Communist doctrine is good for a chuckle. A progressive income tax is one of the most unethical and immoral things that any government can do. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/443 "2014-11-07T03:03:34Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > You haven’t paid attention to my posts, have you? not remotely. > [@](#): > > But apparently you think that the fact that our government follows Communist doctrine is good for a chuckle. I think the fact that **you think that** our government follows Communist doctrine is good for a chuckle, sure. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/444 "2014-11-07T06:52:48Z")
Look at it this way: The Ten Commandments say, “Thou shalt not kill.” Murder is illegal in the United States. Does it follow that the United States is a theocracy? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/445 "2014-11-07T07:09:53Z")
> [@](#): > > …the fact that you think that our government follows Communist doctrine Its just not very sophisticated. Clearly, Obama has distinct anarcho-syndicalist sympathies, while Biden presses for a Trotskyist program of permanent revolution. Hillary, I think, is more aligned with Marcuse. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/446 "2014-11-07T14:34:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW, on NPR they interviewed a typical Republican voter and among the reasons he was going to vote for all Republicans was that ‘Democrats were looking to turn the USA into a Third World country’. > > The cliche of the progresives and liberals Democrats that believe that most conservatives are ignorantly voting against their own interests is supported by evidence. Are you saying that the current huge wealth inequality doesn’t exist or what? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/447 "2014-11-07T14:39:16Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > What did you think of the conservative pundits that argued the last couple of ( failed, by Republican standards ) elections that Republican candidates failed because they ran too moderate of campaigns, basically Democrat-lite? If only they had embraced true conservative values they would have energized the base and handily won? I don’t know what specific policies the conservatives were talking about. The policies I was talking about in my post were not all progressive policies, but progressive policies that have been polling very well among the public at large. You know, popular policies, the kind people like and which encourage them to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/448 "2014-11-07T16:38:17Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The acid test is that politicians who opposed it trumpeted their opposition from the rooftops, while those who supported it tended to avoid mention. This suggests a pretty broad consensus that the law was not a popular one, despite an enormous of energy spent “explaining it” (including the Obama administration compelling insurance companies and employers to promote its benefits). No, politician messaging is not a better measure of popular opinion than polling. Candidates don’t run in national races, nor do they compete for popular opinion of adults as distinct from registered voters who turn out to vote. Moreover, in crafting a message, they often oppose policies that are popular because it helps them with a certain sub-group they want to appeal to, or because their particular reason for opposition is also popular (because most voters are not especially rational and are low-information). Good proof that candidate rhetoric is not a good measure of national approval is that different candidates tout or don’t tout the same policy. Notwithstanding the media narrative, plenty of Democrats stood up for Obamacare in every election since then. Conversely, even though DADT repeal was wildly popular, lots of Democrats did not campaign on it. And my original point should not have focused on the top-level support number anyway. A policy that gets to 60% support but it’s because it has 100% Democratic support and half of independents but very few Republicans is not bipartisan. Conversely, a policy that achieves only a majority but does so by getting half of the Republicans and half of the Democrats would rightly be called bipartisan on this measure. > [@jtgain](#): > > Question for Dems: > > Let’s say the new Republican Congress passed a bill to eliminate social security and medicare. Obama opposes this. The GOP then says, “Okay we will only eliminate medicare but keep social security at a 50% reduction of benefits.” Obama says no. > > Is Obama now being obstructionist and simply engaging the politics of “no”? If not, why? > > When you explain that you will realize why the word “no” is sometimes the best answer. I have seen a lot of conservative people repeat this trope, but it fundamentally misunderstands Democratic complaints about obstruction. See post #422. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/449 "2014-11-07T16:39:13Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I don’t know what specific policies the conservatives were talking about. The policies I was talking about in my post were not all progressive policies, but progressive policies that have been polling very well among the public at large. You know, popular policies, the kind people like and which encourage them to vote. So based on **this** election’s results, we can conclude that the Republican Party had the more popular policies, the kind people like and which encourage them to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/450 "2014-11-07T17:24:34Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > So based on **this** election’s results, we can conclude that the Republican Party had the more popular policies, the kind people like and which encourage them to vote. “More” being the key word here: according to the theory in question (one that I’m ambivalent about), the problem isn’t that progressive policies are unpopular, it’s that Democrats are so milquetoast about advocating for them. Instead of coming out and saying, “yeah, single payer health care would be the best system, bring it on,” they say, “Let’s come up with a plan that’s basically a Republican plan, make some compromises to the insurance industry, and make it trickier to balance than a cageful of methed-up ferrets.” Their ferret-meth plan was STILL better than the status quo, but it didn’t exactly inspire voters or encourage them to vote; according to the theory, if they’d pushed a truly progressive plan, things would have rolled out differently. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/451 "2014-11-07T17:25:22Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No, politician messaging is not a better measure of popular opinion than polling. I didn’t imply that it was better than polls. What it is better than is discarding the polls in favor breaking down a particular law or policy into components and focusing on each one individually, or explaining away the polls as asking questions the wrong way or not explaining enough. That’s what you were doing and what I was responding to. > [@](#): > > Candidates don’t run in national races, nor do they compete for popular opinion of adults as distinct from registered voters who turn out to vote. Moreover, in crafting a message, they often oppose policies that are popular because it helps them with a certain sub-group they want to appeal to, or because their particular reason for opposition is also popular (because most voters are not especially rational and are low-information). I agree with all this and nothing is perfect, but if you look at the big picture it’s generally a pretty good indicator , especially when backed by polls as in this case. > [@](#): > > Good proof that candidate rhetoric is not a good measure of national approval is that different candidates tout or don’t tout the same policy. Notwithstanding the media narrative, plenty of Democrats stood up for Obamacare in every election since then. Conversely, even though DADT repeal was wildly popular, lots of Democrats did not campaign on it. When you get down to local races you have different constituencies, which is where you get the variation. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/452 "2014-11-07T17:41:14Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I agree with all this and nothing is perfect, but if you look at the big picture it’s generally a pretty good indicator ,especially when backed by polls as in this case. What case? Were you only talking about PPACA? I concede that it’s special pleading to say that we shouldn’t take the PPACA polls too seriously without digging into them a bit more. I happen to think that there’s pretty good evidence that the generic “do you like PPACA” polling is not a good indicator of whether people support what PPACA actually did, as distinct from false information, misunderstandings, or general mood affiliation. But I get that you don’t find that stuff persuasive, and don’t really care. The relevant point is, or was, that one component of bipartisanship is that most of your major reforms aren’t narrowly supported by your party. This was a side tangent to a side tangent, so I haven’t pulled up the polling for you. So I shouldn’t be shocked by your continued skepticism. But I continue to believe that most of Obama’s major legislation beats the 60% mark and gets at least a quarter of Republicans. I’m not saying that’s the be-all end-all of bipartisanship, it was one of five factors I listed. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/453 "2014-11-07T18:00:30Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > What case? Were you only talking about PPACA? Uh, yeah. This particular exchange began at the end of post #439, with me responding to the final paragraphs of your post #438, and is all about PPACA specifically. > [@](#): > > I concede that it’s special pleading to say that we shouldn’t take the PPACA polls too seriously without digging into them a bit more. I happen to think that there’s pretty good evidence that the generic “do you like PPACA” polling is not a good indicator of whether people support what PPACA actually did, as distinct from false information, misunderstandings, or general mood affiliation. But I get that you don’t find that stuff persuasive, and don’t really care. The relevant point is, or was, that one component of bipartisanship is that most of your major reforms aren’t narrowly supported by your party. I agree that this is the relevant point. And, as applied to PPACA, which is Obama’s most major reform, it was and is very narrowly supported by his own party, and - to the extent that this is a criteria for bipartisanship - weighs on the other side of the scale. > [@](#): > > This was a side tangent to a side tangent, so I haven’t pulled up the polling for you. So I shouldn’t be shocked by your continued skepticism. But I continue to believe that most of Obama’s major legislation beats the 60% mark and gets at least a quarter of Republicans. I’m not saying that’s the be-all end-all of bipartisanship, it was one of five factors I listed. OK. But it should be noted that you’ve made these claims about the support for Obama’s legislation that appear to be at odds with the facts, so it might be worth checking up on your claims before making them. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/454 "2014-11-07T18:48:30Z")
> [@dba\_Fred](#): > > So based on **this** election’s results, we can conclude that the Republican Party had the more popular policies, the kind people like and which encourage them to vote. No, Fred, the problem was that Democrats ran as Republican-lites, hence they did not fire up their base, or give people in the middle much cause to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. If the race is between Republicans and Republican-lites, the Republicans will tend to win. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/455 "2014-11-07T18:55:29Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > No, Fred, the problem was that Democrats ran as Republican-lites, hence they did not fire up their base, or give people in the middle much cause to distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. If the race is between Republicans and Republican-lites, the Republicans will tend to win. Interesting. I distinctly remember that after the 2012 election the prevailing thought was that Republicans lost because they were too conservative. Now, in 2014, the prevailing thought is that Democrats lost because they weren’t liberal enough. Not sure how that works, to be honest. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/456 "2014-11-07T19:09:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > “More” being the key word here: according to the theory in question (one that I’m ambivalent about), the problem isn’t that progressive policies are unpopular, it’s that Democrats are so milquetoast about advocating for them. Instead of coming out and saying, “yeah, single payer health care would be the best system, bring it on,” they say, “Let’s come up with a plan that’s basically a Republican plan, make some compromises to the insurance industry, and make it trickier to balance than a cageful of methed-up ferrets.” > > Their ferret-meth plan was STILL better than the status quo, but it didn’t exactly inspire voters or encourage them to vote; according to the theory, if they’d pushed a truly progressive plan, things would have rolled out differently. I’m not sure that’s a valid comparison because the ACA was the product of already-elected Democrats negotiating with already-elected Republicans. As I recall there was a Democratic majority but some Blue-dog Republicans (DINOs in short) gummed up the works until it was watered down into its present form. (Fuck Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson for that!). It was not about winning voters’ hearts and minds, but that of legislators. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/457 "2014-11-07T19:11:00Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Interesting. I distinctly remember that after the 2012 election the prevailing thought was that Republicans lost because they were too conservative. Now, in 2014, the prevailing thought is that Democrats lost because they weren’t liberal enough. Not sure how that works, to be honest. Well a lot of the Republicans lost because they were TOO FUCKING CRAZY!!! Not too conservative. Don’t you remember all the RAPE TALK? I remember it VIVIDLY. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/458 "2014-11-07T19:17:06Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Interesting. I distinctly remember that after the 2012 election the prevailing thought was that Republicans lost because they were too conservative. Now, in 2014, the prevailing thought is that Democrats lost because they weren’t liberal enough. Not sure how that works, to be honest. Taking one aspirin can cure a headache. Taking five pounds of it will make you fart out your stomach lining. There is a limit. Some of the GOP candidates from 2012 weren’t just conservative. There were crazy. We had guys talking about how women had to enjoy rape to get pregnant, so abortions in cases of rape was unwarranted. We had guys talking about Obama’s birth certificate and how he should be sent back to Kenya. We had people advocating the barter system for health care reform. Doing away with child labor laws. All sorts of stuff that isn’t conservative, but is so conservative that it’s indicative of mental disease. Contrast this with Dems refusing to say if they voted for Obama, and what they thought of the ACA. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/459 "2014-11-07T19:34:59Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > …the prevailing thought is that Democrats lost because they weren’t liberal enough. Not sure how that works, to be honest. Prevailing thoughts are like prevailing winds, they both blow. Midterms are the playground of the Apathy Party, the center cannot hold because the center shrugs and watches TV. Pitching to the center doesn’t work because the center will simply stare as the ball whizzes past. That we have so many comfortable people is perhaps one of the greatest successes of our nation, and therefore, also, our greatest weakness. People who never watch football watch the Superbowl, people who really don’t vote much will vote for President, and just sort of fill in those circles next to names they barely recognize. Which one is it, now, that carries a gun in her purse and which one wants to make day-care centers serve Ebola cookies? We, the people, are the weakness of democracy. Left to contentedly graze, we will, frightened, we turn into a stampeding herd of bewilderbeest. Democracy. Gotta love it. No, really, we gotta. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/460 "2014-11-07T19:50:54Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK. But it should be noted that you’ve made these claims about the support for Obama’s legislation that appear to be at odds with the facts, so it might be worth checking up on your claims before making them. Nonsense. You incorrectly interpreted my claim to mean that every major bill he proposed got massive public support, and that was never my claim. You then selectively nitpicked the Stimulus poll while claiming that nitpicking polls to prove support for parts of Obamacare is an illegitimate way to assess public support for individual policy changes. Oh, and I guess you also cherry-picked some sub-60 Dream Act poll, but I could cherry-pick more showing it [60+](http://www.texastribune.org/2010/06/30/majority-support-the-dream-act-poll-finds/). So none of that is very persuasive. I think you probably also have unreasonable expectations about what strong public support looks like. Few contemporary policy proposals get to 70% (although Obama did sign legislation in that category, like DADT). So tut-tutting at legislation getting 59% is not very compelling in proving that Obama was narrowly focused on partisan wins. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684.md?page=24)