Houston GOPlifer blog on the GOP and its chances in 2016

[ESF]

The blog post is two weeks old, so I apologize if it's already been discussed.  It's a fascinating analysis of the GOP "win" in the midterms and the state of the party.  I can only hope that the Democrats don't take this as a sign that they can just continue being as ineffective as they currently are, but it still will probably help me sleep at night.


blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/11/the-missing-story-of-the-2014-election/#28114101=0



The missing story of the 2014 election


Posted on November 10, 2014 | By chrisladd

Few things are as dangerous to a long term strategy as a short-term victory. Republicans this week scored the kind of win that sets one up for spectacular, catastrophic failure and no one is talking about it.

What emerges from the numbers is the continuation of a trend that has been in place for almost two decades. Once again, Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level across the most heavily populated sections of the country while intensifying their hold on a declining electoral bloc of aging, white, rural voters. The 2014 election not only continued that doomed pattern, it doubled down on it. As a result, it became apparent from the numbers last week that no Republican candidate has a credible shot at the White House in 2016, and the chance of the GOP holding the Senate for longer than two years is precisely zero.

For Republicans looking for ways that the party can once again take the lead in building a nationally relevant governing agenda, the 2014 election is a prelude to a disaster. Understanding this trend begins with a stark graphic.

Behold the Blue Wall:

 


The Blue Wall is block of states that no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. Tuesday that block finally extended to New Hampshire, meaning that at the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes without even trying. That’s 257 out of the 270 needed to win.

Arguably Virginia now sits behind that wall as well. Democrats won the Senate seat there without campaigning in a year when hardly anyone but Republicans showed up to vote and the GOP enjoyed its largest wave in modern history. Virginia would take that tally to 270. Again, that’s 270 out of 270.

This means that the next Presidential election, and all subsequent ones until a future party realignment, will be decided in the Democratic primary. Only by sweeping all nine of the states that remain in contention AND also flipping one impossibly Democratic state can a Republican candidate win the White House. What are the odds that a Republican candidate capable of passing muster with 2016 GOP primary voters can accomplish that feat? You do the math.

By contrast, Republicans control a far more modest Red Fortress, which currently amounts to 149 electoral votes. What happened to that fortress amid the glory of the 2014 “victory?” It shrunk yet again. Not only are New Hampshire and probably Virginia now off the competitive map, Georgia is now clearly in play at the Federal level. This trend did not start in 2014 and it will not end here. This is a long-term realignment that been in motion for more than a decade and continues to accelerate.

The biggest Republican victory in decades did not move the map. The Republican party’s geographic and demographic isolation from the rest of American actually got worse.

A few other items of interest from the 2014 election results:

- Republican Senate candidates lost every single race behind the Blue Wall. Every one.

- Behind the Blue Wall there were some new Republican Governors, but their success was very specific and did not translate down the ballot. None of these candidates ran on social issues, Obama, or opposition the ACA. Rauner stands out as a particular bright spot in Illinois, but Democrats in Illinois retained their supermajority in the State Assembly, similar to other northern states, without losing a single seat.

- Republicans in 2014 were the most popular girl at a party no one attended. Voter turnout was awful.

- Democrats have consolidated their power behind the sections of the country that generate the overwhelming bulk of America’s wealth outside the energy industry. That’s only ironic if you buy into far-right propaganda, but it’s interesting none the less.

- Vote suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. Eventually Democrats will help people get the documentation they need to meet the ridiculous and confusing new requirements. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races. Meanwhile we kissed off minority votes for the foreseeable future.

- Across the country, every major Democratic ballot initiative was successful, including every minimum wage increase, even in the red states.

- Every personhood amendment failed.

- For only the second time in fifty years Nebraska is sending a Democrat to Congress. Former Republican, Brad Ashford, defeated one of the GOP’s most stubborn climate deniers to take the seat.

- Almost half of the Republican Congressional delegation now comes from the former Confederacy. Total coincidence, just pointing that out.

- In Congress, there are no more white Democrats from the South. The long flight of the Dixiecrats has concluded.

- Democrats in 2014 were up against a particularly tough climate because they had to defend 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be defending precisely one seat that could possibly be competitive. One.

- And that “Republican wave?” In Congressional elections this year it amounted to a total of 52% of the vote. That’s it.

- Republican support grew deeper in 2014, not broader. For example, new Texas Governor Greg Abbott won a whopping victory in the Republic of Baptistan. That’s great, but that’s a race no one ever thought would be competitive and hardly anyone showed up to vote in. Texas not only had the lowest voter turnout in the country (less than 30%), a position it has consistently held across decades, but that electorate is more militantly out of step with every national trend then any other major Republican bloc. Texas now holds a tenth of the GOP majority in the House.

- Keep an eye on oil prices. Texas, which is at the core of GOP dysfunction, is a petro-state with an economy roughly as diverse and modern as Nigeria, Iran or Venezuela. It was been relatively untouched by the economic collapse because it is relatively dislocated from the US economy in general. Watch what happens if the decline in oil prices lasts more than a year.

- For all the talk about economic problems, for the past year the US economy has been running at ’90’s levels. Watch Republicans start touting a booming economy as the result of their 2014 “mandate.”

- McConnell’s conciliatory statements are encouraging, but he’s about to discover that he cannot persuade Republican Senators and Congressmen to cooperate on anything constructive. We’re about to get two years of intense, horrifying stupidity. If you thought Benghazi was a legitimate scandal that reveals Obama’s real plans for America then you’re an idiot, but these next two years will be a (briefly) happy period for you.

This is an age built for Republican solutions. The global economy is undergoing a massive, accelerating transformation that promises massive new wealth and staggering challenges. We need heads-up, intelligent adaptations to capitalize on those challenges. Republicans, with their traditional leadership on commercial issues should be at the leading edge of planning to capitalize on this emerging environment.

What are we getting from Republicans? Climate denial, theocracy, thinly veiled racism, paranoia, and Benghazi hearings. Lots and lots of hearings on Benghazi.

It is almost too late for Republicans to participate in shaping the next wave of our economic and political transformation. The opportunities we inherited coming out of the Reagan Era are blinking out of existence one by one while we chase so-called “issues” so stupid, so blindingly disconnected from our emerging needs that our grandchildren will look back on our performance in much the same way that we see the failures of the generation that fought desegregation.

Something, some force, some gathering of sane, rational, authentically concerned human beings generally at peace with reality must emerge in the next four to six years from the right, or our opportunity will be lost for a long generation. Needless to say, Greg Abbott and Jodi Ernst are not that force.

“Winning” this election did not help that force emerge. This was a dark week for Republicans, and for everyone who wants to see America remain the world’s most vibrant, most powerful nation.

[ESF]

I'm bumping this up since it didn't any love over the weekend, and I think it's interesting. It probably overstates the certainties of some states to go blue in 2016, but I do think his point about the Republican support growing deeper, not wider is a good one.

I wasn't aware that people think Georgia can turn blue. Is that true? What's driving that?

[tacosforlife]

Nov 24, 2014 11:36:42 GMT -5 ESF said:

I'm bumping this up since it didn't any love over the weekend, and I think it's interesting. It probably overstates the certainties of some states to go blue in 2016, but I do think his point about the Republican support growing deeper, not wider is a good one.

I wasn't aware that people think Georgia can turn blue. Is that true? What's driving that?

Demographic shifts. Had AA turnout been higher, Nunn might have won.

[tacosforlife]

Nov 23, 2014 14:32:02 GMT -5 ESF said:

- In Congress, there are no more white Democrats from the South. The long flight of the Dixiecrats has concluded.

This is false. Lloyd Doggett is a white male Democrat from Texas. I don't know if there are others, but I knew him off the top of my head.

[sunshine608]

Nov 24, 2014 11:36:42 GMT -5 ESF said:

I'm bumping this up since it didn't any love over the weekend, and I think it's interesting. It probably overstates the certainties of some states to go blue in 2016, but I do think his point about the Republican support growing deeper, not wider is a good one.

I wasn't aware that people think Georgia can turn blue. Is that true? What's driving that?

They have been saying this for the last two years or so. A changing demographic ( increase in minority population) is the reason I've heard. However after the last election and democratic defeat here, I am starting to question this. I haven't heard anything about this since the election either.

[tacosforlife]

Re: white southern Democrats. Apparently they are referring to the "deep South." www.cnn.com/2014/11/05/politics/last-southern-white-democrat-in-congress/

[ESF]

Nov 24, 2014 11:43:13 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Nov 23, 2014 14:32:02 GMT -5 ESF said:

- In Congress, there are no more white Democrats from the South. The long flight of the Dixiecrats has concluded.

This is false. Lloyd Doggett is a white male Democrat from Texas. I don't know if there are others, but I knew him off the top of my head.

Dumb question, but is Texas considered the "South"?  Or is the West? Or maybe just standing alone as Texas?

ETA  - you are one step ahead of me.

[tacosforlife]

Nov 24, 2014 11:45:58 GMT -5 ESF said:

Nov 24, 2014 11:43:13 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

This is false. Lloyd Doggett is a white male Democrat from Texas. I don't know if there are others, but I knew him off the top of my head.

Dumb question, but is Texas considered the "South"?  Or is the West? Or maybe just standing alone as Texas?

Not a dumb question at all. This is actually a major issue among political scientists who study American voter behavior. Most studies actually control for the South, but what is the South? The traditional definition political scientists use is the 13 states of the former Confederacy. So that includes Texas. But that excludes Kentucky, which I think we can all agree is culturally Southern. If you use the Mason-Dixon line, Maryland is also Southern, but I don't think most political scientists put it into the South.

But that CNN article referred to the "deep South," and Texas is generally not considered part of that.

ETA: The blog you posted did not differentiate between the South and the deep South. While Texas is different in a lot of ways, I do think that politically Texas fits in with the South and thus I still say that the statement "no white Democrats from the South" is wrong. Add the descriptor "deep" and you get no argument from me. Not that any of this is that important to the broader point.

[saz]

This was fascinating and I've been sucked into this blog now. It's full of gems like this:

"It is possible to win an election in a way that makes it impossible to govern. Republicans have been doing this for years, at mounting cost. The crux of the problem is an electoral appeal based almost entirely on paranoia and premised on denial of certain basic, observable realities."

[jeaniebueller]

I am sort of surprised that Arizona is in the undecided category, just given Gov Jan Brewer and crazy Sheriff Joe being so popular with certain segments of conservatives.

[ESF]

Nov 24, 2014 11:51:48 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I am sort of surprised that Arizona is in the undecided category, just given Gov Jan Brewer and crazy Sheriff Joe being so popular with certain segments of conservatives.

I do think the demographics are changing there quite a bit, so that may have something to do with it.  That said, I think he's over-stating Democratic chances to make his point that the Republican party is in the shitter.

The takeaway that I got from this is that the Republicans won a few weeks ago not because they attracted new voters, because because they have a very fervent base that out-voted the Democrats apathetic base.

My fear is that Democrats see these kinds of maps, and think they don't need to try very hard.  Never underestimate a Democrat's ability to fuck shit up and lose an easy race.  ::cough, cough Martha Coakley cough, cough::

[Velar Fricative]

Nov 24, 2014 11:43:13 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Nov 23, 2014 14:32:02 GMT -5 ESF said:

- In Congress, there are no more white Democrats from the South. The long flight of the Dixiecrats has concluded.

This is false. Lloyd Doggett is a white male Democrat from Texas. I don't know if there are others, but I knew him off the top of my head.

I don't remember, but is Mary Landrieu all but toast with this runoff? I mean, if she does win, this statement won't be true and Louisiana is most definitely a Southern state!

[Velar Fricative]

I agree that this is way overstating the Ds' chances in 2016. The math is right that the Blue Wall brings us very very close to 270 electoral votes, but I'm still not too confident about the Ds taking advantage of this.

Plus, if the R base really truly mostly consists of old white rural folks, they're not going to lose that base in just two years.

[ESF]

Nov 24, 2014 12:05:58 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I agree that this is way overstating the Ds' chances in 2016. The math is right that the Blue Wall brings us very very close to 270 electoral votes, but I'm still not too confident about the Ds taking advantage of this.

Plus, if the R base really truly mostly consists of old white rural folks, they're not going to lose that base in just two years.

But that base isn't growing.  Or certainly not at the rate Democrat-leaning demographics are.  Old white Christian rural folks are increasingly a minority in this country, and I think being marginalized is what is leading them to be angrier and more impassioned and loyal voters.  The GOP can't keep them and also grow it's base, because catering to those people's fears is what alienates growing voting blocks.

[msmerymac]

Nov 24, 2014 12:02:15 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Nov 24, 2014 11:43:13 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

This is false. Lloyd Doggett is a white male Democrat from Texas. I don't know if there are others, but I knew him off the top of my head.

I don't remember, but is Mary Landrieu all but toast with this runoff? I mean, if she does win, this statement won't be true and Louisiana is most definitely a Southern state!

She's 15-20 points behind in the polls, so... yes.

[msmerymac]

Nov 24, 2014 12:01:56 GMT -5 ESF said:

Nov 24, 2014 11:51:48 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

I am sort of surprised that Arizona is in the undecided category, just given Gov Jan Brewer and crazy Sheriff Joe being so popular with certain segments of conservatives.

I do think the demographics are changing there quite a bit, so that may have something to do with it.  That said, I think he's over-stating Democratic chances to make his point that the Republican party is in the shitter.

The takeaway that I got from this is that the Republicans won a few weeks ago not because they attracted new voters, because because they have a very fervent base that out-voted the Democrats apathetic base.

My fear is that Democrats see these kinds of maps, and think they don't need to try very hard.  Never underestimate a Democrat's ability to fuck shit up and lose an easy race.  ::cough, cough Martha Coakley cough, cough::

I didn't follow the race THAT closely, but it's not like Coakley was a shoo-in. MA has a history of electing Republican governors. Dukakis and Patrick were anomalies over the past 30 years, really. Republicans also tend to get elected in off years, when voter turn out is lower. Exhibit A: Scott Brown.

[tacosforlife]

Other white Democrats in the Texas congressional delegation: Beto O'Rourke and Gene Green. So Texas has three. Plus several Hispanic members, but I assume we're talking white, not Hispanic (hey, the census lists white and white, not hispanic!).

I mean, still. Three white non-Hispanic southern Democrats doesn't really change the point much from 0. I just hate when little details like that are inaccurate.

[sparrowsong]

Reading this gives me a little nugget of hope down deep despite my generally pessimistic outlook on the future.

[tacosforlife]

Nov 24, 2014 13:06:27 GMT -5 @mx said:

Nov 24, 2014 12:49:51 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Other white Democrats in the Texas congressional delegation: Beto O'Rourke and Gene Green. So Texas has three. Plus several Hispanic members, but I assume we're talking white, not Hispanic (hey, the census lists white and white, not hispanic!).

I mean, still. Three white non-Hispanic southern Democrats doesn't really change the point much from 0. I just hate when little details like that are inaccurate.

I really have no horse in this fight, but given the size of TX I'd say some parts are southern and some aren't. Beto O'Rourke represents El Paso which has never seemed southern to me at all. But mostly I love him because he's an Irish guy pretending to be Mexican by calling himself Beto.

LOL.

I mean, you are right about El Paso being way less Southern than other parts of Texas.

But the first person I named was Lloyd Doggett!

Green is in the Houston area. Doggett is in the Austin area. And political scientists count Texas as the South for demographic purposes. So if anyone says there are no more white southern Democrats from Texas, I'm gonna need further clarification. Because I'm stubborn like that.

[downtoearth]

Nov 24, 2014 12:22:41 GMT -5 ESF said:

Nov 24, 2014 12:05:58 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I agree that this is way overstating the Ds' chances in 2016. The math is right that the Blue Wall brings us very very close to 270 electoral votes, but I'm still not too confident about the Ds taking advantage of this.

Plus, if the R base really truly mostly consists of old white rural folks, they're not going to lose that base in just two years.

But that base isn't growing.  Or certainly not at the rate Democrat-leaning demographics are.  Old white Christian rural folks are increasingly a minority in this country, and I think being marginalized is what is leading them to be angrier and more impassioned and loyal voters.  The GOP can't keep them and also grow it's base, because catering to those people's fears is what alienates growing voting blocks.

I agree about the GOP "base" being older and white, but a new Harvard study found that millennials are likely to be the next base.  Especially if the GOP are able to separate the social (aka gay marriage bans and abortion issues) from the economic and focus on the economic. However, I don't think the GOP can get too excited b/c although the Harvard study focuses on the 50/50 chance of a millennial being dem or repub, it also says that that is primarily for Hispanic and white voters and that it's mostly not a swing in ideals, but more a disgruntaled mindset with both parties and having come-of-age in a depressed economy. Also black millennials, are still more likely to vote dem it's just that more Hispanic and white voters are likely to turn out to actually vote. So, there is still a racial divide, but I'm not sure what that means.  Plus, a reluctant "base" isn't really a base, but a big group of swing voters who might just flip/flop things back and forth and end up contributing to less getting done at the national level with major changes each election season.

www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2014/1029/Millennial-poll-Why-the-youth-vote-now-leans-Republican

or

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/30/new-harvard-study-finds-the-door-to-millennial-vote-is-open-to-gop.html

[ESF]

Nov 24, 2014 12:45:44 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Nov 24, 2014 12:01:56 GMT -5 ESF said:

I do think the demographics are changing there quite a bit, so that may have something to do with it.  That said, I think he's over-stating Democratic chances to make his point that the Republican party is in the shitter.

The takeaway that I got from this is that the Republicans won a few weeks ago not because they attracted new voters, because because they have a very fervent base that out-voted the Democrats apathetic base.

My fear is that Democrats see these kinds of maps, and think they don't need to try very hard.  Never underestimate a Democrat's ability to fuck shit up and lose an easy race.  ::cough, cough Martha Coakley cough, cough::

I didn't follow the race THAT closely, but it's not like Coakley was a shoo-in. MA has a history of electing Republican governors. Dukakis and Patrick were anomalies over the past 30 years, really. Republicans also tend to get elected in off years, when voter turn out is lower. Exhibit A: Scott Brown.

Well, yes, but the fact is, they ran a loser candidate, so they fucked it up by giving the state a candidate who was dead on arrival.   In the entire state of Massachusetts, she was the best Democrat up for the job?  Yeah, no.

[tacosforlife]

Nov 24, 2014 13:24:29 GMT -5 ESF said:

Nov 24, 2014 12:45:44 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I didn't follow the race THAT closely, but it's not like Coakley was a shoo-in. MA has a history of electing Republican governors. Dukakis and Patrick were anomalies over the past 30 years, really. Republicans also tend to get elected in off years, when voter turn out is lower. Exhibit A: Scott Brown.

Well, yes, but the fact is, they ran a loser candidate, so they fucked it up by giving the state a candidate who was dead on arrival.   In the entire state of Massachusetts, she was the best Democrat up for the job?  Yeah, no.

This is something that was frustrating in multiple races. The last 2 Democratic candidates for governor in Wisconsin have been not great. I love love Tom Barrett (mayor of Milwaukee), but he was never a good candidate for statewide office. Mary Burke was not a good candidate.

And motherfucking Florida. The best they could do was to run a former Republican governor? The shit is that about?

Get your shit together, Democrats!

[heyjude]

"If you thought Benghazi was a legitimate scandal that reveals Obama’s real plans for America then you’re an idiot, but these next two years will be a (briefly) happy period for you."

lys.

[downtoearth]

Nov 24, 2014 13:21:03 GMT -5 @songforyou said:

Nov 24, 2014 12:01:56 GMT -5 ESF said:

I do think the demographics are changing there quite a bit, so that may have something to do with it.  That said, I think he's over-stating Democratic chances to make his point that the Republican party is in the shitter.

The takeaway that I got from this is that the Republicans won a few weeks ago not because they attracted new voters, because because they have a very fervent base that out-voted the Democrats apathetic base.

My fear is that Democrats see these kinds of maps, and think they don't need to try very hard.  Never underestimate a Democrat's ability to fuck shit up and lose an easy race.  ::cough, cough Martha Coakley cough, cough::

Like Dems need a reason not to try very hard.

What? Maybe b/c I'm an optimist or maybe b/c I'm a dem in a state that recently went republican for a national senate seat that hasn't been republican in that seat for just over 100 years! I felt like there has been a lot of work and trying/fighting the whole election and that our candidate was trying super hard and would make a huge difference. Then again, she was more liberal than most candidates, and a woman, so I'm guessing those were both against her in a state that pretty much tolerates moderate, white, male democrats who can get on powerful committees.

Plus, I have two friends in the state legislature and they are always working super hard to try and continue to keep people's rights and to extend services and budgetary money to valuable social programs. They work even when not on the clock to be responsible to their voters and introduce meaningful legislation. Again, they are in the minority in my state (that isn't uncommon at the state legislature level).

I will be just as pissed at national dems if they start slacking and avoiding all votes on legislation or just start filibustering in order to avoid discussion of issues.  I'll eat my hat if they act as poorly (e.g. try to repeal the ACA umpteen times, focus on Benghazi-like inquiries to the deficit of actually getting work done, or voting to shut-down the government or fail to act on gun control legislation that 90% of people support, etc.).  These are not the typical tactics of the dem party, are they?

Even non-partisan experts on congressional actions have discussed the inaction and inability for repubs to work with the other party and only focus on retaliation of having their party lose the presidential election (reference). I, personally, think that the dems are the ones who ARE trying very hard to get legislation to the floor or passed.  And maybe there are repub leaders trying the same, but in general the repubs are acting all sorts of crazy in the House at all times IMO.  

[downtoearth]

Nov 24, 2014 14:03:38 GMT -5 @songforyou said:

Nov 24, 2014 13:52:46 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

 

Individually, of course, there are some Dems who try really hard.  As a whole, I just feel like we fuck up and slack off on a regular basis.  I'm not talking about getting things done after the election, though--I mean mostly during campaign seasons.  It's not for lack of wanting, maybe competence, maybe not being hardcore enough?  I don't know.  I'm surprised at your surprise, though.  I don't think this is an unpopular sentiment, even among Dems. 

Are you in one of the safe dem states? Maybe that is why I think differently. It's a struggle every time.  Even when I was in CO, it kept surprising me how many people outside Denver metro were conservative.

[dirtyred]

Nov 24, 2014 12:05:58 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I agree that this is way overstating the Ds' chances in 2016. The math is right that the Blue Wall brings us very very close to 270 electoral votes, but I'm still not too confident about the Ds taking advantage of this.

Plus, if the R base really truly mostly consists of old white rural folks, they're not going to lose that base in just two years.

I live in a county full of old, white rural folks.  Trust me, the R's are losing them faster than you think.  Our obituary section is huge, and my county has a small population.

[tacosforlife]

Nov 24, 2014 14:24:10 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Nov 24, 2014 14:03:38 GMT -5 @songforyou said:

Individually, of course, there are some Dems who try really hard.  As a whole, I just feel like we fuck up and slack off on a regular basis.  I'm not talking about getting things done after the election, though--I mean mostly during campaign seasons.  It's not for lack of wanting, maybe competence, maybe not being hardcore enough?  I don't know.  I'm surprised at your surprise, though.  I don't think this is an unpopular sentiment, even among Dems. 

Are you in one of the safe dem states? Maybe that is why I think differently. It's a struggle every time.  Even when I was in CO, it kept surprising me how many people outside Denver metro were conservative.

See above what we were talking about re: poor candidates.

In several races that should have been winnable this year, the Dems did not put up good candidates.

Mary Burke in Wisconsin. Bruce Braley in Iowa. Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Charlie Crist in Florida.

It just feels like the party as a whole said "Fuck it" when they put these candidates up. Obviously there's more to it than that, but there's a reason that people say Democrats are talented at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[secretlyevil]

Nov 24, 2014 13:26:22 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Nov 24, 2014 13:24:29 GMT -5 ESF said:

Well, yes, but the fact is, they ran a loser candidate, so they fucked it up by giving the state a candidate who was dead on arrival.   In the entire state of Massachusetts, she was the best Democrat up for the job?  Yeah, no.

This is something that was frustrating in multiple races. The last 2 Democratic candidates for governor in Wisconsin have been not great. I love love Tom Barrett (mayor of Milwaukee), but he was never a good candidate for statewide office. Mary Burke was not a good candidate.

And motherfucking Florida. The best they could do was to run a former Republican governor? The shit is that about?

Get your shit together, Democrats!

The turn out numbers were pathetic, truly and utterly pathethic.

[ringstrue]

This is an interesting article but it seems the end point is still the same as always. It always seems to wind down to Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia.

[ESF]

Nov 24, 2014 15:48:23 GMT -5 tacosforlife said:

Nov 24, 2014 14:24:10 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

Are you in one of the safe dem states? Maybe that is why I think differently. It's a struggle every time.  Even when I was in CO, it kept surprising me how many people outside Denver metro were conservative.

See above what we were talking about re: poor candidates.

In several races that should have been winnable this year, the Dems did not put up good candidates.

Mary Burke in Wisconsin. Bruce Braley in Iowa. Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Charlie Crist in Florida.

It just feels like the party as a whole said "Fuck it" when they put these candidates up. Obviously there's more to it than that, but there's a reason that people say Democrats are talented at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

This is why I keep going back to the amazingness that was Howard Dean's run as DNC chair.  He was an establishment outsider, and I felt during his reign, the party seemed to be able to find and support winning candidates. Yes, his success is due in part to Bush and Republican fatigue, but still.

Now that we've had insiders running that joint for the last 6 years, it's all going to shit, because they are funneling money and support into primary candidates based on political favors, not on electability.

They need to can Wasserman Schultz, and bring in someone fresh and interesting.