• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the Reps win, or did the Dems lose?

Did the Reps win, or did the Dems lose?

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Did the Reps win, or did the Dems lose?

The 2014 mid-term elections, overall, nationwide. Now that we have a few hours of hindsight after the polls have closed and the campaigns are done.

I think a little of both, but I lean to the Dems losing the election in the sense that most ran horrible campaigns. They seemed to take their positions for granted, plus they really didn't have much to with with, and seemed incapable of realizing that and convincing people that they were the ones to move forward with.
 
both, kind of a stupid question if you ask me.
 
The republicans came in next to last, and the democrats came in second.
 
I'd say both. The Republicans clearly did a much better job of campaigning. They framed the issues in the way they wanted them framed and they pummeled the Democrats over the head with their major issues (which, at the end of the day, mostly came down to President Obama).

The Democrats, for their part, ran on...umm...I'm not really sure. It seemed as if one of the biggest campaign themes for the Democrats this year was that they weren't going to vote like Obama. Which is a campaign strategy I'll never understand. Take the Kentucky race between McConnell and Grimes. McConnell ran ad after ad telling us all the reasons Grimes was bad and he also ran ads telling us the good he has done for Kentucky. It was a solid, if unmemorable, campaign. Grimes, however, will always be remembered as the Democrat who refused to admit she voted for Obama, because she was too scared to admit she voted for Obama. When you run from your own beliefs and your own leaders, you don't deserve to win.

The Republicans ran on a ticket of "we're not Democrats" and the Democrats let them. The Republicans won and the Democrats lost.
 
Last edited:
Excellent question, and one that I noticed the pundits were also mulling over last night. Was this a "we support the Republicans" result, or was it a "we can't stand the Democrats" result. I think it was a little of both. I don't think the GOP should be sitting back saying "Woohoo we're popular now!". That isn't the case.

IMO the biggest problem for the Dems was their playbook. The old "war on women" isn't working anymore. The "war on minorities" also isn't working. Obama is also very unpopular, but was it the right decision to distance themselves from him to the degree they did? I don't think so.

I will also say that the GOP had some stellar candidates this time around, especially when you think about some of the assholes who they ran in previous years, general and midterm elections. They had some really bright, new candidates who didn't make mistakes, weren't radical, and who were very attractive to voters (not physically, just appealing).

The most noteworthy thing to me were the major pickups in governor races.
 
tres borrachos said:
Excellent question, and one that I noticed the pundits were also mulling over last night. Was this a "we support the Republicans" result, or was it a "we can't stand the Democrats" result. I think it was a little of both. I don't think the GOP should be sitting back saying "Woohoo we're popular now!". That isn't the case.

IMO the biggest problem for the Dems was their playbook. The old "war on women" isn't working anymore. The "war on minorities" also isn't working. Obama is also very unpopular, but was it the right decision to distance themselves from him to the degree they did? I don't think so.

I will also say that the GOP had some stellar candidates this time around, especially when you think about some of the assholes who they ran in previous years, general and midterm elections. They had some really bright, new candidates who didn't make mistakes, weren't radical, and who were very attractive to voters (not physically, just appealing).

The most noteworthy thing to me were the major pickups in governor races.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of this. In 2012, the Republicans constantly shot themselves in the foot. This time, whatever the reason for the difference may be, the Republicans mostly avoided any overly disastrous and ridiculous comments. Combine that with the fact 6 year midterms historically go against the President, as well as the absurdity of Democrats running from their leader, and they deserved to win.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I agree with most of this. In 2012, the Republicans constantly shot themselves in the foot. This time, whatever the reason for the difference may be, the Republicans mostly avoided any overly disastrous and ridiculous comments. Combine that with the fact 6 year midterms historically go against the President, as well as the absurdity of Democrats running from their leader, and they deserved to win.
Click to expand...

Remember some of the morons the GOP ran in the past, like Sharron Angle against Harry Reid? And the guy who made the idiotic rape comments? Most of the GOP candidates didn't make the usual gaffes. Say what you will about them, but generally speaking they ran solid campaigns.

Grimes is a case study for "what not to do". She made a huge mistake not saying that she voted for Obama, but go on to say "I'm not 100% in agreement with him and when I go to DC I'll be an independent voice for Kentucky" and so on. Not sure if that was her inexperience or what, but she blew that one on her own.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'd say both. The Republicans clearly did a much better job of campaigning. They framed the issues in the way they wanted them framed and they pummeled the Democrats over the head with their major issues (which, at the end of the day, mostly came down to President Obama).

The Democrats, for their part, ran on...umm...I'm not really sure. It seemed as if one of the biggest campaign themes for the Democrats this year was that they weren't going to vote like Obama. Which is a campaign strategy I'll never understand. Take the Kentucky race between McConnell and Grimes. McConnell ran ad after ad telling us all the reasons Grimes was bad and he also ran ads telling us the good he has done for Kentucky. It was solid, if unmemorable, campaign. Grimes, however, will always be remembered as the Democrat who refused to admit she voted for Obama, because she was too scared to admit she voted for Obama. When you run from your own beliefs and your own leaders, you don't deserve to win.

The Republicans ran on a ticket of "we're not Democrats" and the Democrats let them. The Republicans won and the Democrats lost.
Click to expand...

Obama and Reid lost it for the Democrats. Those two thought they could literally RAM their agenda down the publics throat, and when that failed the Democrats in the House and Senate were left holding the bag. They had no successes to run on, and only a mean-spirited reputation to make excuses for. Frankly I think Dems would have been more successful with Romney in office, because he's a hell of a lot more compassionate than Obama and not so conservative they wouldn't get any of their agenda through.
 
I think in the nationalized elections for the most part the Dems lost. I think in the state level elections (governorships) the Republicans won. Look at a state like Maryland, I mean look I am a moderate, but the Republican would have had to be a total nut job before I would have voted for a Democrat there because while I am not anti-tax, at some point it gets ridiculous. Same is true for Massachusetts.
 
I think it is a little bit of both. Every eight years we begin to see a shift from one party to the other because people are tired of the majority party's ****. Democrats are the majority party, people are tired of their ****, Republicans win.
 
tres borrachos said:
And the guy who made the idiotic rape comments?
Click to expand...
Just to highlight how bad 2012 was for the Republicans, I have to ask for you to clarify which person you're talking about. There was more than 1.

Most of the GOP candidates didn't make the usual gaffes. Say what you will about them, but generally speaking they ran solid campaigns.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. They were much better organized this year.

Grimes is a case study for "what not to do". She made a huge mistake not saying that she voted for Obama, but go on to say "I'm not 100% in agreement with him and when I go to DC I'll be an independent voice for Kentucky" and so on. Not sure if that was her inexperience or what, but she blew that one on her own.
Click to expand...
Yup, totally agree. And she got the shellacking she deserved.

I cannot stand Mitch McConnell, but there is no disputing the man knows how to play politics.
 
Perhaps a better question is will changing about 20 members within our herd of 535 congress critters make them act in a significantly new way? Will they cede any power back to the states/people (shrink the bloated federal gov't power/cost) or simply try to justify keeping the entire huge federal nanny state with about a 9% change in the mission statement?
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'd say both. The Republicans clearly did a much better job of campaigning. They framed the issues in the way they wanted them framed and they pummeled the Democrats over the head with their major issues (which, at the end of the day, mostly came down to President Obama).

The Democrats, for their part, ran on...umm...I'm not really sure. It seemed as if one of the biggest campaign themes for the Democrats this year was that they weren't going to vote like Obama. Which is a campaign strategy I'll never understand. Take the Kentucky race between McConnell and Grimes. McConnell ran ad after ad telling us all the reasons Grimes was bad and he also ran ads telling us the good he has done for Kentucky. It was a solid, if unmemorable, campaign. Grimes, however, will always be remembered as the Democrat who refused to admit she voted for Obama, because she was too scared to admit she voted for Obama. When you run from your own beliefs and your own leaders, you don't deserve to win.

The Republicans ran on a ticket of "we're not Democrats" and the Democrats let them. The Republicans won and the Democrats lost.
Click to expand...
That really sums up my thinking on this election.


tres borrachos said:
Excellent question, and one that I noticed the pundits were also mulling over last night. Was this a "we support the Republicans" result, or was it a "we can't stand the Democrats" result. I think it was a little of both. I don't think the GOP should be sitting back saying "Woohoo we're popular now!". That isn't the case.

IMO the biggest problem for the Dems was their playbook. The old "war on women" isn't working anymore. The "war on minorities" also isn't working. Obama is also very unpopular, but was it the right decision to distance themselves from him to the degree they did? I don't think so.

I will also say that the GOP had some stellar candidates this time around, especially when you think about some of the assholes who they ran in previous years, general and midterm elections. They had some really bright, new candidates who didn't make mistakes, weren't radical, and who were very attractive to voters (not physically, just appealing).

The most noteworthy thing to me were the major pickups in governor races.
Click to expand...
Agreed. For reasons that baffle me, I think this is common, and I think maybe why the Dems ran such lackluster campaigns. Basically, they got too complacent.

It doesn't surprise me that the Reps made gains, but the level of sweeping gains does surprise me a bit.

If the Reps are smart their mantra moving forward will be, "Ok, now don't eff it up!"
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
Just to highlight how bad 2012 was for the Republicans, I have to ask for you to clarify which person you're talking about. There was more than 1.

I agree completely. They were much better organized this year.

Yup, totally agree. And she got the shellacking she deserved.

I cannot stand Mitch McConnell, but there is no disputing the man knows how to play politics.
Click to expand...

The rape comment...it was some guy named Todd, forgot his last name. It was something about "legitimate rape". Stupid stupid stupid.

McConnell is a consummate politician, no question about that.
 
American said:
Obama and Reid lost it for the Democrats. Those two thought they could literally RAM their agenda down the publics throat,
Click to expand...
:roll:

That's really all your post deserves.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps a better question is will changing about 20 members within our herd of 535 congress critters make them act in a significantly new way? Will they cede any power back to the states/people (shrink the bloated federal gov't power/cost) or simply try to justify keeping the entire huge federal nanny state with about a 9% change in the mission statement?
Click to expand...

In my Congressional district (NH-1) we were one of those GOP pickups (Frank Guinta beat Carol Shea Porter). This is the 3rd time they ran against each other. It will be his 2nd visit to Congress (he beat her in 2010 when she was the incumbent, she beat him in 2012 and got her seat back, now he beat her in 2014 and gets the seat back). Will he be for small government? Probably not to the degree I expected him to be when I cast my vote for him yesterday.
 
tres borrachos said:
The rape comment...it was some guy named Todd, forgot his last name. It was something about "legitimate rape". Stupid stupid stupid.

McConnell is a consummate politician, no question about that.
Click to expand...
Todd Akin. He was running for Missouri Senator and had a very good chance of winning. But don't forget Richard Mourdock from Indiana.
 
Republicans didn't run on an agenda, so this was much more of a Democrat loss than a Republican win. As Obama himself said, "make no mistake, these policies are on the ballot." This was a rejection of liberal policies, not support of an unspecified conservative agenda.
 
tres borrachos said:
Excellent question, and one that I noticed the pundits were also mulling over last night. Was this a "we support the Republicans" result, or was it a "we can't stand the Democrats" result. I think it was a little of both. I don't think the GOP should be sitting back saying "Woohoo we're popular now!". That isn't the case.

IMO the biggest problem for the Dems was their playbook. The old "war on women" isn't working anymore. The "war on minorities" also isn't working. Obama is also very unpopular, but was it the right decision to distance themselves from him to the degree they did? I don't think so.

I will also say that the GOP had some stellar candidates this time around, especially when you think about some of the assholes who they ran in previous years, general and midterm elections. They had some really bright, new candidates who didn't make mistakes, weren't radical, and who were very attractive to voters (not physically, just appealing).

The most noteworthy thing to me were the major pickups in governor races.
Click to expand...

:agree: The people spoke last night loud and clear, and made it a night to remember! Wow! They want bipartisan cooperation, and I hope the divisiveness is replaced by cooperation so everyone benefits. :thumbs:
 
Slyfox696 said:
Todd Akin. He was running for Missouri Senator and had a very good chance of winning. But don't forget Richard Mourdock from Indiana.
Click to expand...

That's him - Akin! Mr. Legitimate Rape (whatever the **** that is). Yes, and I also forgot about Mourdock. That was the "gift from God" guy. You and I are in sync here. If you think about it, you can easily compare and contrast the candidates in 2012 and 2014. Last election the GOP got hammered, and deservedly so. This time it was the Democrats. 2016 should be really interesting - both parties seem to have mastered the art of putting up terrible candidates.
 
polgara said:
:agree: The people spoke last night loud and clear, and made it a night to remember! Wow! They want bipartisan cooperation, and I hope the divisiveness is replaced by cooperation so everyone benefits. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Oh me too, Pol. It may be nice the next 2 years. I really hope so.
 
As fickle as our electorate seems to be, I'd say that we are always in a state of trying to get rid of what we have, and trying the alternative, just long enough to figure out that we don't like their policies either. There is a base on each side who vote the same every single cycle, but there seems to be a growing segment who want to just ride the fence.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'd say both. The Republicans clearly did a much better job of campaigning. They framed the issues in the way they wanted them framed and they pummeled the Democrats over the head with their major issues (which, at the end of the day, mostly came down to President Obama).

The Democrats, for their part, ran on...umm...I'm not really sure. It seemed as if one of the biggest campaign themes for the Democrats this year was that they weren't going to vote like Obama. Which is a campaign strategy I'll never understand. Take the Kentucky race between McConnell and Grimes. McConnell ran ad after ad telling us all the reasons Grimes was bad and he also ran ads telling us the good he has done for Kentucky. It was a solid, if unmemorable, campaign. Grimes, however, will always be remembered as the Democrat who refused to admit she voted for Obama, because she was too scared to admit she voted for Obama. When you run from your own beliefs and your own leaders, you don't deserve to win.

The Republicans ran on a ticket of "we're not Democrats" and the Democrats let them. The Republicans won and the Democrats lost.
Click to expand...

Many demorats ran on a slight variation of that theme saying that "we will no longer be (Obama like) demorats". As I said in the 2012 presidential race - why vote for Obama-lite when you can have the real thing by just not voting?

The Obama line will still be that it was not his fault that others cannot sell BS as well as he can; if the congress critters won't make the laws that Obama wants then he will rule as if they did. It appears that Obama, the alleged constitutional scholar, sees using a pen and a phone as a viable alternative to following the letter of the law.

Obama'a plan for immigration "reform": who needs the power to pardon when you have the power to not bring any charges in the first place?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps a better question is will changing about 20 members within our herd of 535 congress critters make them act in a significantly new way? Will they cede any power back to the states/people (shrink the bloated federal gov't power/cost) or simply try to justify keeping the entire huge federal nanny state with about a 9% change in the mission statement?
Click to expand...

I think you about nailed it. The electorate keep hoping that the government will just leave them alone and when they get in power, Republicans and Democrats, they just can't help meddling unless they are not in power and are campaigning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom