|
If anybody cares, Begich finally conceded.
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I put together a little graph that shines a bit of light on the 2012 elections: Nice work. Does this include Senators Sanders (I-VT) and King (I-ME)? Can I use it somewhere else on the internet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I put together a little graph that shines a bit of light on the 2012 elections: I like the graph - any way you could filter it down to competitive (~5 point or less) races?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
SO over on DKE there's some chatter that there is chatter (so this is coming third hand, at best) that Coffman might challenge Bennett in the 2016 Colorado senate race. If so, needless to say, Bennett will win and by a large margin too. For those who don't know Coffman makes tons of gaffes and is a good source of humor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Nice work. Does this include Senators Sanders (I-VT) and King (I-ME)? Can I use it somewhere else on the internet? I don't think it does, since US Election Atlas (where I got the data from), considers them independent candidates. In 2012, the two of them together got a little over half a million votes, so it wouldn't make a big difference. And yes, feel free to use it. It perhaps could be formatted/sourced better before it is widely disseminated, depending on where you want to use it (you probably shouldn't use it in a Doctoral Political Science thesis as is). glowing-fish has issued a correction as of 02:59 on Nov 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:I like the graph - any way you could filter it down to competitive (~5 point or less) races? Not quite: both because it would involve a lot of work and because it might not be very revealing. Mixing raw vote numbers and percentage numbers wouldn't make a lot of sense, since a close race might have a large vote total, like in Florida. But taking that thought, I did decide to make a scatterplot graph showing percentages of presidential and senatorial votes in 11 states that have a close senatorial race in 2016, and have been swing states in the past decade. I used elections from 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012, if they occurred.  Not surprisingly, most Presidential swing states are Senatorial swing states, most elections. Also not surprisingly, there is a positive correlation between the percentage of the votes that Presidential and Senatorial candidates get, but it also isn't the only story. Retail politics still matter, as the fact that Grassley(R) and Harkin(D) could both get landslide victories in Iowa even though the Presidential election stayed within a narrow range. I guess what I am taking from this is that if 2016 continues the trend of elections being nationalized, Democrats will win. On the other hand, if the election is about how good Portman is at shaking people's hands outside of malls in Cincinnati, he will win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Hiiiiiiigh hopes, the Tea Party's got hiiiiigh hopes.quote:And in their most audacious plans, Tea Party groups are preparing to recruit challengers to run against high-profile Republicans they accuse of betraying them — as they did when they toppled Eric Cantor, the former House majority leader. At the top of their list of potential targets are politicians like Senator John McCain of Arizona, a proponent of an immigration overhaul. Their fantasy candidate: Sarah Palin, Mr. McCain’s former running mate who now spends much of the year at her home in Scottsdale, Ariz. Two prominent conservative activists, who spoke anonymously to divulge private discussions, said leading Tea Party figures planned to reach out to Ms. Palin to see if she was interested in running against Mr. McCain. I think we can all agree:  , though it won't happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hiiiiiiigh hopes, the Tea Party's got hiiiiigh hopes. McCain/Palin would be so much  I almost think it could happenespecially since Sarah blames Old Man John for losing in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hiiiiiiigh hopes, the Tea Party's got hiiiiigh hopes. Speaking as someone who has lived in Arizona for a long time, Sarah Palin may have a base of support but she would turn out Democrats at a level that the establishment wouldn't be very comfortable with. Not gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Speaking as someone who has lived in Arizona for a long time, Sarah Palin may have a base of support but she would turn out Democrats at a level that the establishment wouldn't be very comfortable with. Not gonna happen. Not to mention an alarming number of more moderate Republicans who are horrified by the thought of her holding public office again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hiiiiiiigh hopes, the Tea Party's got hiiiiigh hopes. The Democrats chances of regaining the Senate in '16 are shining bright should these hope find purchase in reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The Democrats chances of regaining the Senate in '16 are shining bright should these hope find purchase in reality. Democrats have a pretty good shot either way but its definitely not going to happen by way of a McCain-Palin battle. Anyways as far as the Tea Party goes, their greatest shot, honestly, is targeting anyone who spends very little time involved in state-district level issues. Remember, Lugar wasn't defeated because he was a liberal Republican, he was defeated because he was a liberal Republican who only came "home" to Indiana once a month or so. Voters of all stripes hate that poo poo. Cliff Racer has issued a correction as of 01:45 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
I wouldn't even classify Lugar as a liberal Republican. This is someone who campaigned on eliminating a whole bunch of taxes when he ran for President back in 96. He co-sponsored the FAIR Tax. He voted for the marriage definition amendment in the Senate. But yeah, not only did he not come home, but he was registered to vote in a house he lived in when he was Mayor of Indianapolis in the 1970s. A house he hadn't lived in in decades. Everyone just assumed he was registered on the Lugar farm in southern Indianapolis. But nope, he lives out of hotels and is registered to vote at a stranger's house. It really isn't hard to fend off Tea Party challengers if you run a competent campaign and you, you know, occasionally visit the state you represent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hiiiiiiigh hopes, the Tea Party's got hiiiiigh hopes. Instantly began playing in my head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReuBms-qZQk
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hiiiiiiigh hopes, the Tea Party's got hiiiiigh hopes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Hiiiiiiigh hopes, the Tea Party's got hiiiiigh hopes. As someone who lives in Arizona part of me is really excited by the idea of Palin as the Senate nominee, but Democratic nominees for state wide offices have been lovely lately. Hello, Senator Palin. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
If it's any sign of their current resolve, there are already at least 5 planned TP challenges to sitting State Senators in Virginia (we have senate elections the year before the presidential), at least one in a seat that could flip the senate blue. Dave Brat has a Posse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
UberAaron posted:As someone who lives in Arizona part of me is really excited by the idea of Palin as the Senate nominee, but Democratic nominees for state wide offices have been lovely lately. Hello, Senator Palin. As a UC student, please take Napolitano back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Dave Brat has a Posse. I really hope that Dave Brat becomes something like Justin Amash and tries to push his agenda, because it's insane and hearing more of it will be really funny. If he's just going to warm a seat as a backbencher in the House it'll be a lot less interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
2016 feels like a year that isn't going to see a lot of movement. The only D->R flips I could see are CO and possibly NV if Sandoval runs or Reid retires. Throw in WV if Manchin drops for another stint as WV-GOV. Every other D seat should be safe even if Mikulski/Leahy/Boxer all retire. The main issue with R->D flips (assuming the incumbent is the candidate) is the shallow D bench. Kirk could potentially lose if Madigan or possibly Duckworth runs but I doubt Madigan wants it. Duckworth is interesting but from my time in IL Kirk feels like the prototypical 'R that can win in a blue state' type of Republican that could survive. Toomey should lose in PA and Johnson should have issues in WI but I can't for the life of me figure out who the Dems put up in either case. Maybe drag Feingold out of whatever hyperbolic time chamber he went into after 2010 and let him try again. Every other incumbent would be untouchable. Things get more interesting if Vitter leaves to run for LA-GOV, Paul and Rubio drop their seats for a Presidential run (I don't think either will) and McCain/Grassley both retire but even if all of the above happen that still means a lot of reaches and hopes that 2016-PRES has high enough turnout and Clinton has the coattails to swing close races to be able to reach a net of 4+.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:2016 feels like a year that isn't going to see a lot of movement. The only D->R flips I could see are CO and possibly NV if Sandoval runs or Reid retires. Throw in WV if Manchin drops for another stint as WV-GOV. Every other D seat should be safe even if Mikulski/Leahy/Boxer all retire. Can the Dems run someone strong in NH to challenge Ayotte? I know she won by a ton in 2010, but would Hassan or Lynch (or Kuster?) prove an actual challenge to her?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:Toomey should lose in PA and Johnson should have issues in WI but I can't for the life of me figure out who the Dems put up in either case. The Democratic bench in PA is anything but weak. Setting aside all of the former congressmen who are viable, including Sestak who's made motions towards running again, there's people like Wagner, Huffel, etc who are very much so not nobodies. Not to mention whoever Philly and Pittsburgh have crawling around. I can only assume Illinois is even more fertile ground due to its Democratic history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
This may be a silly question, but why do the Democrats have so few good candidates, in so many states? I keep hearing about how the Dems in Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc., have a weak bench that's costing them a lot of races they could otherwise win. Why? And, is anything being done to ensure that they don't have this issue in the future?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Hedera Helix posted:This may be a silly question, but why do the Democrats have so few good candidates, in so many states? I keep hearing about how the Dems in Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, etc., have a weak bench that's costing them a lot of races they could otherwise win. Why? And, is anything being done to ensure that they don't have this issue in the future? The Democratic Party as a whole has not focused on local and state elections that much and that's how you develop state candidates. Also until recently a lot of those states were not very competitive so they atrophied (compare with the Republican Party of Hawaii).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The Democratic Party as a whole has not focused on local and state elections that much and that's how you develop state candidates. That can be part of it but there's also other causes. One is that there are states where there's a local machine that rewards people for being able to work the machine more than people who are actually electable. For example, Massachusetts, which thought it was a great idea to let Coakley run again. So the people who have the heft to run are lovely candidates, while the people who would be good candidates were less successful at the internal politics and never got the right profile or experience. Florida might also fall into this category given how Sink keeps getting to run. There's also states where the high-profile people who would otherwise be good candidates have flopped for one reason or another - corruption, scandal, etc. This is more random and can wipe out the star that has taken all the attention and good experience from the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
There's also a theory (NY Times piece based on this paper) that there are more Republicans of prime electable age right now because they came up during the Reagan revolution, while potential future Democratic candidates during that same period turned away from politics. I'm not totally convinced, but it's a possibility. If true, whether it will be corrected by Obama-inspired millennials in the 2036 election is an open question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I'm not convinced at all that millennials will be a very powerful leftward force once they get older. Sure they'll keep social liberalism, everyone loves gay people and weed. Economically, it's really not there. Young people voting in droves for Obama was mostly a function of Bush hatred and a neat flashy advertising campaign with excellent web presence focused on a superstar than any actual focus on the issues or left wing beliefs. Not much different than how boy bands were/are promoted to these age groups. This is exactly why this group is non-existent during the midterms. You have to focus on a bunch of different races and can't just promote one star to gather around. It's also lot more boring/wonky and millennials simply don't have an attention span. In addition to that, young people are forming their adult identities far later than any other group. This group is going to evolve politically in very unpredictable ways that will look very different from previous models. Probably a lot more libertarianism- I'd imagine that wing of the republican party will take over in the next 20 years or so, with the religious branch becoming more and more irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Pew has been doing a big thing on American political demographics all year long, and I believe they're correct in where a lot of millenials fall is "New generation left" http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-comparison/age/ Basically very socially liberal and support some government action on the economy/environment and support the safety net in theory, but are basically third way Dems willing to cut it more to get rid of "fraud" and to encourage work. The main thing they really want is expanded government services in regards to having their college debt paid off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
tsa posted:I'm not convinced at all that millennials will be a very powerful leftward force once they get older. Sure they'll keep social liberalism, everyone loves gay people and weed. Economically, it's really not there. Young people voting in droves for Obama was mostly a function of Bush hatred and a neat flashy advertising campaign with excellent web presence focused on a superstar than any actual focus on the issues or left wing beliefs. Not much different than how boy bands were/are promoted to these age groups. This is exactly why this group is non-existent during the midterms. You have to focus on a bunch of different races and can't just promote one star to gather around. It's also lot more boring/wonky and millennials simply don't have an attention span. Millennials are less white and that alone will tip the scales, regardless of what Wendy Davis's campaign may tell you otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Pew has been doing a big thing on American political demographics all year long, and I believe they're correct in where a lot of millenials fall is "New generation left" The one constant across time in every generation is the desire to manipulate the political system to one's own benefit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The one constant across time in every generation is the desire to manipulate the political system to one's own benefit. AKA gently caress you, please can I have mine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
As I said, I'm skeptical of assigning too much weight to generational explanations for political leanings, but the question here isn't whether there will be a mass politic of liberal millennials in 15-20 years, but rather whether Obama will inspire a wave of future Democratic politicians who fill up the state legislatures and Congress in the same way that Reagan inspired, say, Paul Ryan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
If this were true, wouldn't we be seeing a Bill Clinton wave about now? He was the most popular Democratic president in recent memory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Didn't Clinton's tenure also happen to be when the right-wing media sphere really got off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Someone was wondering if Vitter was going to run for Governor of Louisiana? Local talk has this as super likely. LA Governor is a Very strong position, which is one reason Jindal has boned this state as hard as he has
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Millennials won't throw their full heft in a presidential election until 2020, so until then it's a little hasty to predict where they'll change. The youngest is still only 13, keep in mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Didn't Clinton's tenure also happen to be when the right-wing media sphere really got off? Essentially, yes. His two terms coincided with its birth, as well as the early evolution of the 24-hour news cycle, and internet demagoguery. For examples of that last, remember that Matt Drudge made his bones breaking the Lewinsky scandal (likely why he's not bothered to update his site design ever since).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Millennials are less white and that alone will tip the scales, regardless of what Wendy Davis's campaign may tell you otherwise. True, but this is a racial analysis. Joementum posted:As I said, I'm skeptical of assigning too much weight to generational explanations for political leanings, but the question here isn't whether there will be a mass politic of liberal millennials in 15-20 years, but rather whether Obama will inspire a wave of future Democratic politicians who fill up the state legislatures and Congress in the same way that Reagan inspired, say, Paul Ryan. Joementum posted:As I said, I'm skeptical of assigning too much weight to generational explanations for political leanings, but the question here isn't whether there will be a mass politic of liberal millennials in 15-20 years, but rather whether Obama will inspire a wave of future Democratic politicians who fill up the state legislatures and Congress in the same way that Reagan inspired, say, Paul Ryan. And the answer is no. The Reagan revolution is analogous to what FDR did, Obama isn't even in the same galaxy as those two when it comes to how their admins played out. I mean even a superficial analysis shows how silly the comparison is. Obama's 2012 victory was nothing compared 1984, and it's incredibly unlikely dems win 2016 with the same margins Bush won 1988. Clinton largely continued a lot of their policies, so it's fairly easy to argue even Clinton was a remnant of the Reagan Revolution. Obama has had, and will have absolutely no effect on the republican party by comparison. Even he has largely been constrained by it. I don't doubt there will be obama inspired politicians, of course there will be. But there's no reason to suspect something like this happens: Joementum posted:that there are more Republicans of prime electable age right now because they came up during the Reagan revolution, while potential future Democratic candidates during that same period turned away from politics. No potential republican candidates have been turned away because of Obama, hell the exact opposite has happened. I think the comparison comes from a complete lack of understanding of why we would have less dems now. The reason why they turned away was because Reagan was right. That is, you need to look at the short term: the economy vastly improved, hostages were freed, the soviet union collapsed. I mean jeez, it's not hard to see why it became really loving to argue leftwing politics. None of this has been the case under Obama. The economy has marginally recovered (except most people don't believe it), we still have lovely wars, obamacare is loving awful or good depending on who you talk to, and the economics that lead to the collapse weren't invalidated in the slightest. That's treading water, not a revolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Millennials won't throw their full heft in a presidential election until 2020, so until then it's a little hasty to predict where they'll change. The youngest is still only 13, keep in mind. And this is why generational analysis is fairly terrible at prediction, someone born in 1985 has far more in common with a gen X than someone currently 13.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Oracle posted:If this were true, wouldn't we be seeing a Bill Clinton wave about now? He was the most popular Democratic president in recent memory. That's why there's a Billary wave among young, democratic-leaning millenial future campaign contributors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 00:21
|
|