I’ve been given to understand this is a bad sign for democrats. How bad is it and why?
You’ve been given to understand that its a bad sign for democrats because “meh, it was expected” is not news.
Democrats will lose the Senate in the mid-terms.
55-45 and WV, SD, AR, LA, NC, NH, MT, are all underdog Dem incumbent states. Obama should avoid interns at any cost.
It’s a bad sign for Democrats because President Obama had won the district in both elections and those are the sort of seats (seats held by Republicans in districts that voted for the President) where the Republicans are most vulnerable, and the sort of seats that Democrats have to do well in in the 2014 midterms if they want to have a chance of doing well that night. So, this race was seen as a sort of bellwether for November.
We should all run in circles, scream and shout. All is lost! Everybody hates Obamacare! Or not. Democrats don’t turn out for midterms and they sure as hell don’t turn out for special elections. A heavily gerrymandered seat is held by the Pubs. Sure, it’s disappointing. It would have been great to cut the loony caucus’ majority.
I haven’t given up on the Senate. Don’t forget how the Republicans have tossed away easy wins in the past two elections by nominating the loony tune candidates. And really, what difference does it make? Either you have 60 Democrats in the Senate and a Democratic Speaker or you don’t. That may come in 2016 when the 2010 aberration is erased. But until then, there will be gridlock in the Capitol regardless if one side or the other is in the majority in the Senate.
Of course, the standard rule in these type of elections is that if your party wins, it’s a game changer, and if he or she loses it was a strictly local aberration that has no deeper significance. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
It is surely bad news for the Democrats that they lost a race in a district that had the same Republican representative for 42 years.
Clearly a sign that things in general have no chance of going the Dems way.
The whole party will prolly implode within 5 years now, as the nation realizes how utterly correct the GOP is on every single issue.
It would have been more of a bellwether if an actual Democrat had run. Sink is GOP-Lite at best.
Sink’s a lifelong Democrat and her husband was a lifelong Democrat. It’s not like she’s new to the party or a “fake Democrat.” She was a Chiles appointee on some state committees and then first ran for office in 2006, as a Democrat. If you mean by “GOP-lite” that she’s conservative, she’s not really. She supports the health care law, she supports gay marriage, etc.
According to the news, the big problem is that both candidates ran on their position on the health care law. If this district is typical in regards to those beliefs among battleground states, that means the health care law is not popular and may significantly hurt Democrats in the midterms.
Like it or not, a lot of people are having problems with it. Pretty much everyone I know in my income bracket (lower middle class) are complaining about higher costs and loss of coverage. We don’t qualify for subsidies, but now what insurance we did have is not as good as before. My sister went from no deductible on doctor’s visits to a $3000 one, and everything but medicine doubled in price for my mom. (One medicine quintupled in price, even though it was supposedly still covered, but the rest have had only modest increases. And we were luckily able to find a mail-order pharmacy with a better rate on the bad one–and that’s without taking insurance into account.)
If my family’s results are typical, this can really mean problems for Democrats this midterm–and that’s not even taking all the scare tactics into account. Hit workers in their pocket books, and they tend to get upset. Do so after promising that costs would not increase (“You can keep your old plan”), and that upsets elections.
It is when lose against a virtual unknown despite the fact that you outspent your opponent and actually won the district when you ran for governor four years ago.
I agree that it’s not a bad sign for Democrats, but the Republican was not actually favored to win. Sometimes one can overspin.
What BigT said about the health care law is apt though. I’d also add that neither candidate ran as a supporter of the health care law. Jolly was opposed, and Sink was testing out the Democratic strategy for swing and red districts: “I’m going to fix this broken law!”
When both agree that the law is in bad need of fixing, that kinda puts things in perspective about the effect of ACA on the coming election. Some whistling past the graveyard types here think that 2012 proved that ACA is no longer a winning issue for the GOP, but in 2012 the law hadn’t caused disruptions in the insurance market yet.
Yahoo News currently has as its top story that the special election is an indicator of what kinds of messages are likely to work and not work.
I think the Democrats’ plan to condemn the failures of the health care law while pledging to fix it is a political loser. They should either support the law or oppose the law. A message that they will fix the law only works if they explain how they’ll fix it. Otherwise, it’s just blowing smoke.
No true [del]Scotsman[/del] Democrat ever loses an election on the SDMB.
They will be swearing up and down that this means nothing up until November, after which it will all be due to dirty tricks by the GOP, voter intimidation, and whatever fantasies a fertile imagination can devise. Fortunately, in the meantime the grown-ups can start cleaning up the mess.
Or “structural” reasons, like the fact that Democrats were defending more seats and the six-year itch.
After the barrage of emails I was getting for money telling me how important this race was, its a bit jarring how they can just brush off thsi loss as inconsequential.
I don’t think it was just healthcare, I think there are a lot of things that have happened since november 2012 that made marginal differences. Everything from the Assault Weapons Ban to Russia/Ukraine.
I agree with all of that except the part about GOP dirty tricks and the notion that Reopublicans clean anything up (see Afghanistan, iraq, financial meltdown). Rick Scott is a scumbag.
LOL at the idea that the party of Bachmann, Steve King, Allen West, and company, are the “grown-ups”.
Certainly, with the amount of money spent on the race, both parties saw it as in play. I like to think that it was Bob Barker’s endorsement that put Jolly over the top.
Sink’s campaign outspent the Jolly campaign, but Jolly’s campaign had more spent on it when you take into account third party ads. Sure, Sink won the district as a gubernatorial candidate, but it’s also been a Republican seat for 40 years and Democrats are never very good at off year elections. Having said all that, I do think this is a Big Deal even though I’ve never found the “bellweather election” idea to be logical.