# Republican Analyst Says 2014 Was Disaster for Republicans, Long Term **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 21, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289 "2014-11-21T20:35:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/41 "2014-11-22T15:19:55Z")
> [@zoo](#): > > Now you are wrong again. If Democrats were drawing the districts to their advantage as aggressively as Republicans we would see examples of states with Republican majority votes giving more seats to Democrats. I used the impeachment example above to point out another example of where you were wrong, not to belittle you but to help you to correct your position. The purpose of this board is to fight ignorance. You can do a better job of checking your facts before you post. Since we’re fighting ignorance, when Democrats engage in racial gerrymandering, they can’t actually gerrymander to their advantage. It’s mathematically impossible. They can only do one or the other. ---
**Author:** ![zoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/71c47a/32.png) [@zoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoo)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/42 "2014-11-22T15:45:29Z")
So you concede to both of the examples I gave? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/43 "2014-11-22T16:36:20Z")
Republicans, old and white. Can’t gerrymander a graveyard. Tick tock, tick tock. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/44 "2014-11-22T17:19:39Z")
People have been predicting doom for either of the two political parties for a while. Not happened. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/45 "2014-11-22T17:22:21Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > No, the logic in the argument is that the same kind of numerical superiority that made the 2014 election a crushing victory for the Republicans in the midterms will accrue to the Democrats in the national elections. Basically, the Democrats have a solid wall of 249 electoral votes based in states that have voted Democrat in recent elections, and if Virginia goes Democratic, it would have a solid wall of 270 electoral votes … the exact number needed to win the Presidency. > > Furthermore, all the progressive Democratic ballot initiatives won in the midterms, while all the personhood initiatives offered by Republicans lost, meaning the Democrats have a better grasp on the public in the area of policy than the Republicans do. > > It may be good to be a Republican for the next two years, but things are going to suck, and suck hard, for the Republicans thereafter, just because of the numbers. There are maybe 5 important swing states for the presidency. FL, OH, NC, VA, CO. In order for the GOP to win they need to win all of them. The democrats only need to win 1 assuming they keep their hold on the northeast, west coast, northern midwest, NM and NV. In 2008 the dems won all 5, in 2012 they won 4. Also Georgia and Texas could become swing states by 2020. If you had said in 2004 that Virginia, North Carolina and the southwest would be swing states in 2008 people wouldn’t believe it. But the same should happen to several southern states (possibly south carolina too) in the next decade. The only time the republicans do well is when turnout is low. When only 80-90 million people turn out like in 2010 or 2014 the GOP wins. When 120 million turn out the democrats win. I can’t figure out why dems don’t make it easier to vote. The GOP is making it hard to vote for a reason, because it keeps them in power. The dems need to start making it easier to vote. Make election day a national paid holiday, expand absentee and early voting, automatic registration, same day registration, funding for GOTV efforts like the now defunct ACORN, etc. However people may tire of democratic rule, who knows. But 2016 looks like it is leaning democrat, and the dems will likely take the senate back since all the 2010 candidates are up. My hope is that the GOP takes their victory in 2014 as a sign that the public want crazy, inept leadership and they go full ass into it. It won’t drive away too many voters, but it may drive away a few in the middle. If 5 million voters change their minds that is enough to turn the tide in elections with high turnout. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/46 "2014-11-22T17:25:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Republicans, old and white. Can’t gerrymander a graveyard. Tick tock, tick tock. 2020 is supposed to be the ‘big’ election for seeing the results of demographic change in national politics. In that election all millennials (1978-2000) will be eligible to vote, and will make up almost 40% of the electorate. Many of the fox news audience will have passed on, and several southern states that were solidly red will be purple states. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/47 "2014-11-22T17:27:59Z")
You people never disappoint me. The Dems get their butts kicked nine ways from Sunday, and it is a cheery sign of ultimate triumph. Let’s hope you have more of the same encouragement in 2016. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/48 "2014-11-22T18:09:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Nope. It’s Democrats who create 90% Democratic districts so that there will be minorities in Congress. In a 50-50 country, that means they are almost guaranteed to lose. “sensible” districting would involve an end to racial gerrymandering. What? Where did you get this. Republicans are the ones that shove all the democrats into a single district so the other districts end up as 60% Republican. Democrats do the opposite, trading a single solidly Republican district for a bunch of marginally Democratic ones. This is the whole point of gerrymandering. Regarding the OP, I am not convinced. I do think that the Democrats will retake the senate in 2016 and they have a good chance and taking the presidency also. I think the Presidency would be a lock if they found another candidate besides Hillary, something that is doubtful. They will take the senate because of the nature of the seats being up for grabs and they will take the presidency because of demographics. With the last election it is important to look at the demographics before crowing about a complete Republican shellacking of the Democrats and making predictions about future elections. 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942 when the country was at war. Voters under 30 turned out at the rate of 13%. With voter turnout this low and with the demographics of the people that did turn out, it is no wonder the Republicans won.; the question is can the trend continue? Presidential election years typically have twice the turnout of midterms and if more younger people vote, the Republicans will most likely have a hard time in 2016. I don’t think Hillary has quite the cache with younger voters as she could, so this gives the Republicans a chance. Regarding the theory of the OP, I think it is misguided for this election, but I do think **the party that takes the presidency in 2016 is screwed**. The reason the being is that the 2020 census and the redistricting that follows will most likely be done by the party that does not hold the presidency. When the voters expressed their disapproval with Obama in 2010, the result was an overwhelming majority of Republican controlled state houses that used the 2010 census and reapportionment to give themselves an overwhelming majority in the house of representatives through gerrymandering. The democratic party has done the same in the past and will do so again if given the opportunity. Unless a miracle happens and the current state of politics changes, it is likely that voters will punish the party that holds the presidency in 2020 and the control of the house will go to the opposition party for the following decade. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/49 "2014-11-22T18:19:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You people never disappoint me. The Dems get their butts kicked nine ways from Sunday, and it is a cheery sign of ultimate triumph. > > Let’s hope you have more of the same encouragement in 2016. > > Regards, > Shodan I don’t share this belief, but the Democrats still have demographics on their side and it this is a hard thing for the Republicans to overcome. That said (as a staunch Democratic supporter), I think the Republicans have a good chance at the Presidency as they have much stronger candidates. Will they be able to get through the primaries without damaging each other to the point they are no longer viable is questionable. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/50 "2014-11-22T18:41:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > At the very least, they’ve shown that they have learned from shutting down the government, as well as the last attempt at impeachment. “Do no harm” is the first principle. > [@zoo](#): > > When did the Republicans attempt to impeach Obama? And how have they learned from the shutdown? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/51 "2014-11-22T18:58:54Z")
> [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](#): > > What? Where did you get this. Republicans are the ones that shove all the democrats into a single district so the other districts end up as 60% Republican. Democrats do the opposite, trading a single solidly Republican district for a bunch of marginally Democratic ones. This is the whole point of gerrymandering. No, **adaher** is correct. There are two types of gerrymandering. When state legislatures gerrymander for the advantage of their party, it works as you describe. However, we also have the issue of federal courts ordering the states to create “majority minority” districts. These are not created to help a political party. Instead, they are created to help racial minorities, in theory. (In reality, like so many liberal ideas, they hurt the people they’re intended to help.) As a side effect, they hurt the Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/52 "2014-11-22T19:13:23Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > And how have they learned from the shutdown? I’d say they learned that a shutdown won’t hurt them at the ballot box if done far enough away from the next election. ---
**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 22, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/53 "2014-11-22T20:01:16Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Everything in the article that inspired this post is false, or close enough. Let’s have a look at some examples. > > 1. “all progressive Democratic ballot initiatives won in the midterms.” Not even close. Ballot initiatives typically aren’t partisan so there were no “Democratic ballot iniatives”, but lots of measures promoted by liberals got crushed. Nevada’s Question 3 sought to raise business taxes and give money to public schools. It lost by 4-to-1 margin. Colorado and Oregon both voted on measures requiring labeling for genetically modified foods, long a dream of hippies. The measures were crushed by 2-to-1 margin. Massachusetts voted on an expanded recycling program and rejected it by a 3-to-1 margin. Massachusetts also repealed an increase in the gas tax. etc… > > I don’t know why on earth anyone would try to claim that all progressive ballot measures won, but they didn’t. > > 1. “The Blue Wall is block of states that no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win.” The article does not explain why no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win this particular list of states. Some of the states in the “Blue Wall” were won by a Republican Presidential candidate as recently as ten years ago. The GOP also won big governors races in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Mexico, among others. Obviously the Democrats _may_ win all those states in 2016, but it’s certainly not guaranteed. > > 2. “Arguably Virginia now sits behind that wall as well. Democrats won the Senate seat there without campaigning”. This gets it backwards. In the 2014 Virginia Senate race, Democrat Mark Warner outspent Republican Ed Gillespie by 4 to 1. Republicans at the national level made no attempt to help Gillespie. It was the Republicans who were barely making the effort in Virginia. Even so, Gillespie came within inches of winning. > > 3. “The Midterms of 2014 demonstrate the continuation of a 20 year old trend. Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level where the population is the largest utilizing a declining electoral base of waging, white, and rural voters.” No evidence for this if offered. > > I’m also amused by the fact that Kos describes the author, Chris Ladd, as a “Republican strategist”. Glancing over his webpage, he appears to be the sort of Republican who doesn’t like the GOP at all. Your response seems to be a matter of quibbling around the edges in an attempt to disprove the main thesis. Sure, the Blue Wall is not made of bricks, there might be some changes. But here’s the thing: the Democrats REALLY DO have 249 electoral votes they stand a good chance of picking up right out of the gate. They REALLY DO have opportunities to pick up victories in purple states that all went blue in 2014 in a larger turnout election. So yeah, the Republicans have their work cut out for them in 2016, big time. Just as the Democrats had their work cut out for them, big time, in 2014. And you see how well that went for the Democrats in 2014. I will not make an absolute prediction of a Democratic win because Democrats have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Also, the Washington “centrists” (read: Republican lite) continue to ignore progressives even when their ideas are popular, which could hurt turnout in 2016 like it did in 2014. But really, the numbers are on the Democrats’ side, and no amount of chipping away at the edges of the thesis will change things. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/54 "2014-11-22T23:52:14Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Colorado and Oregon both voted on measures requiring labeling for genetically modified foods, long a dream of hippies. In another thread, it was demonstrated that opposition to GMOs does not break down along liberal/conservative lines. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/55 "2014-11-23T02:34:33Z")
Neither do a lot of other issues that people think do. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/56 "2014-11-23T14:48:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You people never disappoint me. The Dems get their butts kicked nine ways from Sunday, and it is a cheery sign of ultimate triumph. > > Let’s hope you have more of the same encouragement in 2016. > > Regards, > Shodan The fact is that, again, the GOP only seems to do well when turnout is low. In midterms when only 80-90 million people show up to vote the GOP wins. In presidential elections when 120 million show up the democrats win. So in 2016 even if the dems lose the presidency they will probably gain the senate back. On a long enough timeline the GOP can’t resist the demographic tide against them, or count on low voter turnout to keep them in power. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/57 "2014-11-23T15:22:05Z")
If people say this when the Republicans won, I can only imagine what they would have said if the Republicans had lost. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/58 "2014-11-23T15:30:28Z")
“Voter fraud”! ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/59 "2014-11-23T17:22:01Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > There are maybe 5 important swing states for the presidency. FL, OH, NC, VA, CO. In order for the GOP to win they need to win all of them. The democrats only need to win 1 assuming they keep their hold on the northeast, west coast, northern midwest, NM and NV. Why on earth would you assume all that? One of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination is the Pub governor of WI, and the Pub governor of Michigan is a dark horse. One of their leading candidates for VP is the governor of New Mexico. [QUOTE=Happy Fun Ball] What? Where did you get this. Republicans are the ones that shove all the democrats into a single district so the other districts end up as 60% Republican. Democrats do the opposite, trading a single solidly Republican district for a bunch of marginally Democratic ones. This is the whole point of gerrymandering. [/QUOTE] > **[Gerrymandering in the United States | Affirmative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States#Affirmative)** > > While the Equal Protection Clause, along with Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, prohibit jurisdictions from gerrymandering electoral districts to dilute the votes of racial groups, the Supreme Court has held that in some instances, the Equal Protection Clause prevents jurisdictions from drawing district lines to favor racial groups. The Supreme Court first recognized these "affirmative racial gerrymandering" claims in Shaw v. Reno (Shaw I) (1993), holding that plaintiffs "may The... I am always amazed that intelligent people actually believe this kind of insanity. We have a long, long history showing that ethnic loyalties change or fade, that cohorts shift priorities as they age, that unexpected events shape public priorities and perceptions, and above all, that politicians and parties change and adapt to changing sentiments. And yet intelligent people, from Karl “permanant majority” Rove to the progressives here, get swept up in partisan euphoria, exactly like sports fans convinced that their team will never lose again. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289/60 "2014-11-23T17:51:07Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > The fact is that, again, the GOP only seems to do well when turnout is low. In midterms when only 80-90 million people show up to vote the GOP wins. In presidential elections when 120 million show up the democrats win. So in 2016 even if the dems lose the presidency they will probably gain the senate back. > > On a long enough timeline the GOP can’t resist the demographic tide against them, or count on low voter turnout to keep them in power. That might happen. It also might not happen. The Democrats’ assumed dominance among young voters has been dissipating since 2008. From 66-32 in 2008 to 60-37 in 2012 to 54-44 in 2014. Any group that voted for a party in one election can move to another party over the long term. As for the “blue wall”, there’s no such thing unless an election is close. Sure, in a close election as the last few have been, the Democrat has an advantage. Not all elections are close. If a Republican wins the popular vote by three points, he almost certainly sweeps the five states you mentioned and probably takes NH, IA, and WI to boot. And if Democratic turnout when Barack Obama is not on the ticket continues to be a problem, the GOP will do very well in two years indeed. You assume that it’s midterms that are the problem. So why did they become a problem just now? It’s because the Presidential elections are the outliers, not the midterms. A lot of Obama voters won’t vote for anyone else. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republican-analyst-says-2014-was-disaster-for-republicans-long-term/705289.md?page=4)