Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Midterm Election Night


How it looks so far.

 
 

52 comments:

bagoh20 said...

We're bAAAAaaaack.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Disappointing Brown didn't pull thru.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Seven seats gain thus far. R52 D45

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

No State Senate for Sandra Fluke

Rabel said...

It looks like those simple mountain folk in Colorado are going to do the right thing. Good for them.

bagoh20 said...

IL has a Republican Governor? WTF! Hope and change is here.

chickelit said...

Crist lost, Lem. Orange you glad?

Rabel said...

That's only good until the indictments are announced.

ndspinelli said...

Congrats to Haz who worked hard for a Walker victory.

bagoh20 said...

Congrats to all wingnuts. Right. Now lets get on that reinstal of Jim Crow right away. Grab your woman by the hair tonight and drag her to bed.

chickelit said...

I'm investing in oven crematoria. There are a lot of misfits out there.

chickelit said...

Plus I think I need to hire an accountant between now and next April because I have a lot of Koch money to to offshore.

Methadras said...

DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE HARRY!!! DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

"Said on @NBCNews earlier that this was not a wave. But the returns since then say otherwise."

David Axelrod

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Crist lost, Lem. Orange you glad?

Positively glad.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

CNN: “Amazingly, the White House is not putting out a statement tonight.”

virgil xenophon said...

They're committing Hari Kari over at DU tonight, lol.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

"Only question tonight: why was someone messing with the lights on the Empire State Building?"

Did anybody hear anything about this?

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

While I'm glad republicans have both houses... there still no word on what they intend to do with it.

While Obama, on the other hand, speaks boldly and fearlessly about what he intends to do for his remaining two years.

Unknown said...

Mark Udall is GONE GONE GONE.
Gone gone gone gone gone gone gone gone gone gone.

To celebrate this incredible victory, I'm going to walk around my leftwing town with a huge grin on my face.

Take that.

Have any idea how humongously huge it is to oust a 16-years in the senate fixture Mark Udall? He was another that wanted to die in there. In the past, he never even ran a campaign. Udall was such a shoe-in, all he had to do was show up. shows us what a great candidate can do. Cory Gardner is AWESOME. I'm over the moon.

Unknown said...

We can't stop now. Keeping Hillary dictator out is job #1. No resting.

Unknown said...

Sandra Fluke lost
Jimmy Carter's family lost
Crist lost.

Perhaps we are sane after all?

Unknown said...

did Clay Aiken lose? I suspect so.

Unknown said...

btw - I'm doing the Mark Udall is Gone/ Cory Gardner won happy dance. *jiggy jiggy fanny jiggy*

The bad news is that there are already reports that Cory Gardner has removed all the condoms and tampons from store shelves. Also, my ovaries are gone.

Unknown said...

Joni baby! Now that the first female to represent the senate from Iowa won (a seat held by Tom Harkin (d) a total communist) I expect the collective left to become even more misogynistic and condescending towards her. Such lovely people.

Karen of Texas said...

Hahaha, April. I take great joy at your glee. I'm trying to refrain from rubbing it in. But a nutter may set me off. I saw New York, Illinois, Colorado, California and Massachusetts tags around our fabulous red city the last several weeks. I was a bit concerned abortion Barbie might just pull it off with outside help. Thank God we're such backward, racist, homophobic, bigoted Christianistas in this state.

Unknown said...

Hi Karen - How badly did the abortion Barbie lose? 17 points? Be gleeful. We seldom get the chance. Enjoy!

I actually saw a "I stand with Wendy" sticker on the back of a CO licensed car the day before elections. I just laughed.

Michael Haz said...

Tired but very happy. We had an incredible ground game here in Wisconsin - more than two million phone calls made by humans, and more than one million door knocks. Walker is now 3-0 against big labor money, and all the pressure and money DC could bring.

Great victory. With the sole exception of Secretary of State, Walker ran the table in all statewide contests, and added to the R majority in the state assembly and state senate. And this in a state that gave Obama. Solid majority over Romney two years ago.

Karen of Texas said...

Probably an Austin transplant, lol. Heh. Was over on the demo underground site. They're taking it pretty hard. OMG it's the end of the world!! The Christianistas are going to make everyone abstain from sex. And women will be barefoot, pregnant, and have to stay at home!! No one will have healthcare!! Old people and children will starve!! And the environment will be a cesspool!! Not that I intent to do a victory dance on their graves... After decontamination, holy moley, I have added a few tidbits to my arsenal. My few democrat friends don't believe that THESE nutters are part of THEIR party. They swear it's Republicans who are like this. Both. Damn. Sides. Have. Nutters. But wow. They are unhinged over there.

Unknown said...

Congratulations, Haz. Great work.
Walker's huge win is huge for America.

The corrupt union power grab just took a well deserved beating.

Fr Martin Fox said...

A lot of folks are missing the real story here: the GOP could have done better.

The GOP leadership is crowing today about how smart they were to make it all about Obama, rather than about issues. They were wrong.

What cost the Dems their seats were votes they cast and turnout differential. GOPers repeating "Obama" all year didn't depress the Dems' base turnout; those folks love Obama. And motivating GOP turnout comes far more from the issues they care about: guns, taxes, abortion, unions, etc. It is those issues they should have been talking about; they did some. They would have benefited more, with more of that.

Scott Brown's narrow loss might have been a Kelly Ayotte-like win, had he motivated more conservatives to vote for him. I think that's probably true of Gillespie in Virginia, and certainly true in the races in New Mexico, Michigan and Minnesota. I'm not saying all those were winnable, but one or two might have been.

Look at how Snyder rolled to victory in Michigan, labelled a right-wing extremist, while the GOP Senate candidate, playing it safer, got no traction.

Also, had there been more base-mobilizing, it might have helped races down-ballot.

The other story being missed is that Harry Reid's strategy actually worked. He likely saved both Shaheen (NH) and Warner (VA), and maybe Udall (NM), by sparing them uncomfortable votes that the GOP Senators wanted to put before them. The pundits were saying last night he should have allowed those votes; and the Dems who lost could have cast votes to differentiate themselves from the President.

That's true, but it's far from a cost-free vote. That would have infuriated the Democrats' loyal constituencies, hurt fundraising, and spawned primary challenges.

And in the end, those vulnerable Democrats would still have been vulnerable; I think all those who lost last night would still have lost. But had Reid not done what he did, two or three more may have lost.

Sorry to dampen anyone's celebration, but there it is.

Karen of Texas said...

Very astute, Fr. Fox. Doesn't dampen my celebrating. Much. I think most of us are aware of the Republican ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. There is much work to be done. It remains to be seen what they will do now that they have the power to actually *do* something.

ndspinelli said...

Padre, I think it was more Dems losing than Republicans winning. When all you have are 2 choices stuff like this happens often. Want to REALLY change things, get some more choices to vote.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Chris Matthews showed Reid's hand last night; he kept saying that what mattered wasn't the GOP taking the Senate this year, but the Dems being able to come back in 2016.

On another note: if you want a guilty pleasure, go read Huff Post or Daily Kos. Especially the comments.

"Who knew the polling would be so wrong," a lot of the Kos folks are muttering.

Well...I did.

Unknown said...

Showing up to vote is a start.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Here's another missed story, but this one will make you feel good: The state legislatures.

I shouldn't say it's totally being missed; but it's being under-reported and too little appreciated.

And I think if you look closely, it is in the state legislatures that the conservative, base-motivating issues came into play.

Which helps explain the national results, too. If I were still working in politics, I'd want to do some comparisons in New Hampshire, where the GOP took the state house; how did Brown do in those districts where the GOP candidates won?

Unknown said...

Sadly, Hickenlooper (who Hillary will more than likely pick as her running mate - you heard it here first. He's a big smush so don't be too worried)
won re-election to the CO governorship by the skin of his teeth.
Bob Beauprez didn't take advantage of the political mood and left many issues on the table. His campaign was almost non-existent.

Beauprez never mentioned that fact that Colorado education will have to pay for Obamacare/medicare expansions and the state is broke. Never mentioned it.

Fr Martin Fox said...

April:

That is too bad.

Unknown said...

I think we should enjoy successes, even when the polls showed tighter races:

"Almost every Democrat in a big race went down last night, and a lot of them went down by a lot.

Charlie Crist in Florida. Kay Hagan in North Carolina. Mark Udall in Colorado. Bruce Braley in Iowa. (By 8 points!) Mark Pryor in Arkansas. (By 16 points! A rout!) Michelle Nunn in Georgia. (By 8!) Allison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky. (By 16 as well!) Mary Burke in Wisconsin. Pat Quinn in Illinois. Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Anthony Brown in Maryland. So-called “independent” Greg Orman in Kansas. (Lost by 11!)


Campaign spot at NRO.

Now, we must build on success despite a hostile hack media.

Unknown said...

Yeah it stinks to see Hick win.
He really is a 2-faced jerk in real life, despite his need to be liked. He barely won. Beauprez just didn't fight hard enough and took it all for granted. That doesn't work.

Unknown said...

I'm most surprised (and delighted) by Kay Hagen's loss.

Obama and Hillary did nothing for her.

chickelit said...

So much for "The New Confederacy."

Meade said...

"And motivating GOP turnout comes far more from the issues they care about: guns, taxes, abortion, unions, etc. It is those issues they should have been talking about; they did some. They would have benefited more, with more of that."

No wonder you no longer work in politics.

Keep it simple: Jobs and the economy. Govern with competence.
Win elections.

Let the other party talk about social issues while failing to address jobs and the economy. Let them lose.

TTBurnett said...

The good Padre was addressing tactics, not competence. It is true that taxes and economic matters play their role convincing voters, but social issues are the inspiration for the doctrinaire to appear in numbers at the polls. It is obvious that, to win elections, a party among a divided electorate has to turn out its supporters while attracting independent or even opposition voters. These last should be motivated more by promises of competence than repelled by humbug.

If, once in power, a party devotes its attention to fripperies while presiding over the decline of national wealth and prosperity, it ought, in theory, to lose elections.

It is, of course, possible to manipulate people with enough bread, circuses, and fear to enable an elite to take elections for granted, and to remain in power long enough to preside over the fatal decline of that which they purport to govern. This is one of the classic objections to democracy.

For all that, it still remains, as Churchill said, the least bad system, at least from what it seems. It has for some time, however, become a matter of appearances. Those who actually direct our affairs are a shadow government of both plutocrats and bureaucrats, who have decided they know better than hoi polli or their clownish elected officials what is to be done. Thus, the electorate is distracted by guns, gays and abortions, while matters of the highest policy remain hidden from those upon whom they will have the greatest effect, rendering competence beyond the grasp of visible politics.

This sort of sham republic is not unknown to history, the glaring example being the Most Serene Republic of the Venetians, which endured, mostly to the benefit of its inhabitants—but more to its oligarchs—for over a millennium. Not to recount a history of Venice, but I think it is fair to say that when the shadow was lost from that which was made to appear to have cast it, they both wandered into oblivion.

Politicians may come and go, writing laws and breaking them, gesturing and promising, kissing babies and helping to abort them, but, in the end, you and I have very little to say in this complex world how we shall live our lives, husband our wealth, or what to accept in the name of the State. I am afraid it was ever thus, and as Jesus asked his followers to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's, so we should do, too, knowing the narrowness of what is enclosed within Caesar's walls of time.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I'm not interested in engaging with Meade, for reasons that most here will readily know, so no explanation is needed, or edifying.

But for others who may be interested, here is a little episode from my work in politics.

In 1992-94, I was in a leadership role with the primary organization that battled the so-called "Striker Replacement" bill, which was Big Labor's top priority that session; and with Clinton in the White House, and strong, Democratic majorities in both houses, it looked likely to pass, if only with some face-saving "compromise."

There were lots of groups opposing the bill; I worked for the group that had the most ability to stop it (and a track record on prior union-power battles to substantiate that). I didn't determine the whole strategy, but I had a hand in it; and I had a big role in executing it. My point being, not that I originated anything terribly innovative or brilliant; but I was part of something that worked pretty brilliantly.

We beat the bill, including whacking cold-dead any so-called compromise. In the course of that, I am proud to say I made Senators Dennis DeConcini, David Pryor, Ernest Hollings, among others, not very happy.

In the fall, we made sure voters were very aware of the votes of those who backed the Strike Bill.

A whole bunch of 'em went down to defeat. I've forgotten the raw numbers, but it was more than the margin of control -- the Congress flipped.

Congress didn't flip solely on this issue. But it was a significant part of it.

I know this, because we know -- from polling data -- that some segment of actual voters in any given election will be motivated by a particular issue. This is true left or right. That means, they don't show up if the issue they care about isn't -- in their eyes -- at stake.

And there is a history of similar consequences for advocates of forced-unionism in the wake of such votes: after the attempt to repeal Taft-Hartley 14(b), after the "Common Situs" battle of 1975, and the so-called "Labor Law Reform" of 1977.

In a competitive district (or state), a certain number of folks will simply vote their party; that number is, more often than not, well below 50%+1, the margin of victory.

Getting a candidate from, say, 35-40% (where his own party people will often get him) to victory depends on a coalition formed around these issues. On the right, these issues tend to be the ones I mentioned: guns, prolife, union power, taxes. At least, these are the ones that move larger numbers.

I'm proud to this day for helping to beat that bill, which never came back in any subsequent session of Congress. To this day.

And, if you're interested, I can tell you about the fits we caused Senator Bob Dole in 1996. And about the business lobbies who predicted we'd fail spectacularly in our objective; and, in fact, we won.

Yes, I know a thing or two about what gets people elected and defeated, and what gets legislation enacted, or derailed.

Fr Martin Fox said...

So, I maintain that NH was gettable. Scott Brown didn't have enough to offer. He only needed a small slice more, which being prolife (like NH Senator Kelly Ayotte) would have brought, for example.

Or, by being vocally pro-Right to Work.

TTBurnett said...

Fr. Fox has an interesting story about practical politics, while I proffer gloomy abstractions. I still stick to the fundamentals of my abstractions, and here is yet another reason, from a Catholic blog, why.

On a more practical note, as someone who has seen Scott Brown up close and personal - and who voted for him in Massachusetts - and who thinks he knows a bit about nearby New Hampshire, I think there are two reasons he lost. One is he is perceived as a carpetbagger, with no long-time association with the Granite State. That is a simple fact, and, as likeable as Scott Brown is, he is distinctly a creature of Massachusetts, complete with South Shore accent. Politics CAN be incredibly local around here. Who your people are and where you're from are much more important in ways that are hard to understand for outsiders. Think, "halfway to England."

Another point is that New Hampshire had been colonized by liberal Massachusetts voters wanting low taxes and cheaper real estate. I'm afraid they got neither, but that's a matter for greater fool theory. But the bottom line is New Hampsha no longer is rock-ribbed Republican. Hot-button conservative issues are no longer a winners. Brown was a likeable enough outsider, but his outsider status was enough to sink him, IMHO, no matter what positions he might have taken. Welcome to New England. We might talk to you about belonging after you've lived here five generations as a start.

Fr Martin Fox said...

TT:

I defer to you totally on local knowledge, but if you don't mind, let me offer a rebuttal on other bases.

First, that NH has become more liberal is true, but then, Kelly Ayotte got elected. She is not more liberal, but clearly more conservative -- significantly so, is she not?

Second, about the carpetbagger tag. No doubt, that is true for some. However, that only strengthens my point about motivating issue-focused voters. Someone for whom guns or prolife is the make or break issue -- by definition! -- won't be deterred by the carpetbagger issue. Nor, I think, will the party-line voter. So the carpetbagger thing is mainly, I suspect, an issue for a noisy few, plus the media folks who are usually clueless but voluble. I suspect a good number who cite that, as a reason not to vote for Brown, would have voted against him anyway.

TTBurnett said...

I think it's all debatable and actually quite interesting politically, Father. "Carpetbagger" was, indeed, brought up by people who are recent arrivals themselves. Plus, New Hampshire does not have quite the fierce local involvement that we do in Massachusetts. That said, still his outsider status--despite his constant mentioning of being born in New Hampshire--did not, IMHO, help among moderate, local voters. Massachusetts-style lefties are fairly rare in New Hampshire, but there are a lot of "moderates" of the Northeastern Republican stripe, (I will not use the word "RINO") who might not be thrilled with yet another Massachusetts transplant. How big a number, I can't say. but in such a close race, every vote counted. Shaheen had the advantage of incumbency, plus, as I say, conservative, hot-button issues no longer work that well in New Hampshire. I, frankly, never saw him winning, alas, because I like him and his family a lot and would love to see him back in the Senate.

I was frankly shocked when Elizabeth Warren beat him here. But I think that proved how beatable he can be, and that just got transferred to N.H. One of the reasons he has proven beatable, is, again IMHO, because he is so basically honest and decent. He's the WYSIWYG candidate, a nice guy perfectly suited to the State Senate, but quite out of his depth among sharks of the big time.

Michael Haz said...

Fr and TT:

Good points, both. And an interesting story, Father.

In my opinion, most elections are about two or three issues. The rest is noise. A well-run campaign with an excellent and disciplined candidate can win, even if the candidate is in the minority party.

In Wisconsin, no Republican presidential candidate has won a plurality since 1984, yet we have had both Democrat and Republican governors. Scott Walker has now won three elections in three increasingly hostile contests in a evenly-divided state. He did it be telling the truth, keeping his promises, staying on message, and staying upbeat and optimistic.

We ran two Republican rookies (Sean Duffy and Reid Ribble) against seasoned incumbent Democrat congressmen, and both won election, and now re-election. We ran Republican rookie Ron Johnson against the very seasoned Russ Feingold, and cleaned Feingold's clock. Johnson had a simple message, stayed on it, explained it well in simple terms, and won. We also lost a Senate race to ultra liberal Tammy Baldwin, whose people ran a great campaign.

Point is: Given an excellent candidate and a good ground game, an candidate or an incumbent can will election, even if his/her party is not in the majority.

Michael Haz said...

And by the long, rambling disposition, I mean to say the Brown was an iffy candidate in the sense the although attractive and well-qualified, the Brown campaign didn't hammer the two or three basic issues of jobs, economy and security.

Meade said...

"jobs, economy and security"

This.