Democrats control fewest state legislatures since 1860. and that was when there were fewer to control:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/05/usa-elections-states-idUSL1N0SV1PH20141105
Running, as a Democrat, without supporting the president did not gain any of them one single vote, best I can tell, and left us wondering about their character in the run up to the election. It might have inspired a lot of ‘not voting this time’ votes…
All those senators who were up for reelection this year were part of the anti-Bush, anti-Gop, pro-Obama victory of 2008. then most of them decided they were the reason they won, not because the country wanted Obama vs. the GOP candidate and GOP philosophy, a philosophy that created sectarian slaughter in the mideast and an economic disaster at home. so, instead of saying, "you wanted us to go to Washington and to straighten out the economy while extracting us from wars we didn’t need to fight to begin with, and, guess what, we did it!, they said “don’t blame me for how poorly Obama has performed…we will go back to Washington and do what we can to save the country without involving the Executive”
Bunch of assholes.
The AP has called Alaska for Sullivan.
GOP +8
So, we won’t be hearing any dark mutterings about “voter fraud” from the Pubbies in Alaska?
If they do, they will probably claim Sullivan won despite it.
Not technically a 2014 election result, but probably a result of the 2014 election. Democrats fall below Republicans in favorability as Democrats hit an all-time low:
Footnote to the election: Mark Begich (D-AK) has finally conceded the race to Sullivan, after the weekend vote count clearly wasn’t going to give him the win.
IMHO, the general public is both brainwashed, but also responsive to the fact that they elected Obama by a wide margin in 2012, and are disgusted by the way the Dem. party refuses to run on their record, and Obama’s.
I’m with Limbaugh on this one, as he says, paraphrased,
:if you are a conservative, don’t pretend to be a moderate to get votes. Openly conservative and vocally partisan candidates will win, and if they don’t, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have. When you are right, you are right and you should stick to your guns.:
The same goes for Democrats, especially for moderate Democrats. Lay out the reason for you political beliefs, try to tie it to the hopes and dreams of the average voter and do a decent job when you get an office. Don’t treat the electorate as though they are incapable of understanding the issues.
Obamacare, ACA, whatever, is turning out to be one of the most successful efforts to make sure all Americans have basic services, since, perhaps, Medicare. Democrats, though, listen to pollsters who tell them that the Republicans have succeeded in demonizing the ACA and that taking credit for it will only doom your chances. The electorate isn’t stupid…when they see one party saying that a program is ji-ral, and the people who got it passed refusing to defend it, they will not reward the ACA people. It isn’t human nature.
You want to be a Democrat, it is time to take credit for your philosophy and stop trying to bury your progressive attitudes while waving signs saying, “Vote for US, we aren’t Them!”
I don’t think I cherry picked anything. I focused on issues that you raised, and I picked (at random, based on Google results) the Gallup poll which is a pretty mainsteam poll.
If you want an example of cherry picking polls, it’s a guy who picked some obscure pollster that was hired by an advocacy group which - surprise surprise - showed support for their cause.
My “nitpicking” of the stimulus poll was to note that it was consistently in the low 50s for a long time until it ticked up a bit in the wake of a major Obama speech on the subject. That’s not nitpicking. What you’ve done, by contrast, is to seize on selective support for specific aspects of the ACA and present these as support for the overall bill, even though the actual polls show exactly the opposite.
Nonsense indeed.
60% is your yardstick, not mine (and again, the 59% was a brief uptick, as above).
If you draw the line low enough, there’s probably not a president in history who is not “bipartisan” and the whole discussion is meaningless.
The first poll is out for the LA runoff and it is UGLY:
I have to wonder if Democratic voters have checked out even more now that the Senate isn’t at stake. Gravis is using a likely voter screen, so that might be what they are finding.
If I’m the DNC, I’d be pounding into voters’ heads about now that although 2014 is lost, holding LA means they have one less seat to win to get the majority back in 2016. Defeating three GOP incumbents will be hard enough. Defeating four is probably impossible absent a Democratic wave.
I don’t think anybody but the fringe is saying the Dems lost because they weren’t liberal enough. It’s more that they lost because they refused to stand on what they’d achieved.
There’s no contradiction, technically.
-
“2012 Republicans were too far to the right, and lost.”
-
“2014 Democrats were too far to the right, and lost.”
I don’t think the claims are true, but they’re logically consistent.
Given that ideology had nothing to do with the 2014 loss, I think either side of that fight would have an argument as to which direction to move in in 2016.
What 2014 was about was voter dissatisfaction with Democrats’ performance, mostly the President’s performance. People who hated his performance were motivated to express that opinion at the ballot box and people who would normally have been inclined to support him found no compelling reason to go to the trouble.
I think the main reason turnout was so much higher in 2010 is that those who supported the President still had a reason to go out and vote. Turnout was obviously way down from 2008, but not any worse than the usual midterm turnout. 2014 was just terrible and that has to be chalked up to a base that wasn’t just unmotivated, but also disillusioned.
FAllout from the election: Americans say by a 56-33 margin that Congress, not the President, should take the lead in making policy now:
And what do you the public will think when Congress fails to show leadership in governing?
That would be very bad.
And will the new Congress be more concerned with passing productive legislation, or will they continue to step on their own dicks by convening endless investigations of Obama’s unlawful actions (Benghazi, Fast & Furious, executive actions, czars ad infinitum)
Congress is supposed to provide oversight of the executive branch, so there’s nothing wrong with that. And they will at least pass a budget.
And you think that is what the public calls leadership?
My guess: all politicians are bums, and then refuse to vote in the next election.