ADVERTISEMENT

OK it was a wave of proportions

Ladoga

All-Big Ten
Oct 25, 2009
4,352
1,672
113
only slightly anticipated by the best and brightest of aggregators and prognosticators.

The charts show only a slight uptick in the 48 hours before the election. That was the precursor of an underlying massive wave that swept away Obama, his party and his policies.

And that's what the election was all about.

There is no major love of Republicans or conservatives among the electorate.

There was no national agenda of the Republican Party though in individual races and for individual Republican candidates there were specific issues.

This election produced a huge mandate.

The mandate is stop Obama, his party and his policies. The electorate, if you read the results and the exit polling literally hate his policies, fear him and voted by much larger margins than anticipated to put Republicans in place to stop him.

There is no mandate for any Republican policy. None for conservatism. There is no mandate to compromise or get along with liberal policies. The ONLY mandate is to stop Obama, his party and his policies and end the harm to the nation.

If the Republican majorities do not perform exactly as mandated, they will be a mere flash in the pan and they'll lose again. They are the other guys elected to stop Obama and if they don't do it, they'll be toast in short order.

This post was edited on 11/5 3:21 PM by Ladoga
 
I think I need you to explain a bit more.

I'm not sure how you are distinguishing between a mandate to stop Obama, his party and his policies, and a mandate for Republican policies and conservatism. You say there is a clear mandate for the former, but none for the latter, but I have a hard time seeing how they are two entirely different things.

goat
 
As Obama said

This election was about his policies. You can fool an electorate by promising the sun, moon, and stars and convening Christmas Eve votes, but you can't fool them when Christmas is over and their bills have gone up and income has gone down. Our young people are in serious trouble, living at home with high student debt and very few job opportunities that are full time jobs with benefits that lead to a career.

Each one of those Senators who got voted out last nite can now tell you that hitching your wagon to partisan politics and bad policy will eventually lead to your demise. The republicans need to put bill after bill of real, targeted job creation measures on Obama's desk and see what he does with them. I'd start with natural resource jobs and immediately repeal the individual and employer mandate on Obamacare and immediately rework the corporate tax code to stop good paying jobs such from leaving this country, repatriate that money and watch the tax base grow and stop the attrition.

The voters spoke and want real and immediate action away from this President. Democrats wouldn't be seen with the guy for the past year so Obama's clearly not a leader even for his own party at this point. I watched some MSNBC coverage last nite and that was interesting. A lot of hurt feelings and despondent heads on the set.
 
Ok, there was no

national Republican agenda mentioned in any campaign except stopping Obama, his party, Obamacare, his immigration policies and his international failures. Separate candidates emphasized issues in their jurisdictions, but across the board - everywhere down to legislative races - the message of candidates and the intent of disgusted voters was to stop Obama, stop his party and stop all liberal policies. It can be found across Indiana legislative races which far exceeded Republican expectations.

That's too brief but succinctly IS the only point.

To carry out that mandate, you DO NOT compromise with him. You stop him and do what you can. This doesn't prove that Republicans are loved - or any particular policy of theirs. It doesn't prove that conservatives are adored nor their policies. It proves that Obama, Democrats and progressivism is abhored and repudiated in the electorate. The Dems now hold only 25 legislative bodies in the country - lowest since the 1920s. The US House numbers are in the same decade. Voters didn't have Obama on the ballot so they removed everyone possible who might side with him on his agenda. Independents sided with that effort by about +20 points. The numbers almost parallel the right direction/wrong track number.

But Republicans MUST act on this mandate and allow Obama only to join their positions but never compromise with him on anything.
 
Doesn't matter....you are wrong a lot....


You whiffed on Orman....the electorate in Kansas knew he was a Democrat attempting to BS the voters.....

You whiffed on Hagan....Tillis beat Hagan by exactly the margin you claimed she would win by...

You whiffed on Perdue in Georgia.......he took 53% of the vote...there is no runoff, as you so confidently predicted.

You called Cotton over Pryor by 4 points.....Cotton won by 56.6% to Pryor by 39.4% over 17%..

You called McConnell by 7 points.....McConnell won by 15.5%

You called Ernst by one point over Braley Ernst won by 8.5%

Landrieu had a pluarality of 1.1%.....over 200,000 votes went to the other Republican candidate....who is supporting Cassidy..
Landrieu has only weeks left in her career....time to start packing..


Looks like predictin' isn't your career path....


In the Senate, one would literally have to be a Republican Senate staffer to know what was in the legislation the dead dog H. Reid refused to bring to a vote to protect the carcass that is now Obama....

It was a complete repudiation of Progressive government..

LOL!
 
I don't know that

Republicans will do it, but what they should do to follow their mandate is tell the President that he's welcome to come to them to discuss matters but everything he's ever propose dis dead and will never be considered in anything close to its past form.

They should send him what they want and he can take it, leave it or engage solely on their turf and get what they are willing to give him if anything. He's not trustworthy nor respectable in anyway regarding the practice of his Presidency. They should also require as a condition of his getting anything ever that he not speak first on the matter and when he does speak, give Congress the credit for the idea he supports.
 
That's kind of insane.

Both McConnell and Obama are saying they want to find common ground and work together. You're suggesting the best path for the GOP is to do none of that, and simply try to pretend there is no President. If they do that, and the President appears to be the one willing to work both sides of the aisle, all that will happen is that his approval ratings will go back up, an almost guaranteed Democratic Senate victory in 2016 will be set in stone, and a very likely Democratic White House victory will become virtually unstoppable.

Some key Exit Poll numbers:

Obama - Approve:44 Disapprove: 55
Congress - Approve: 20 Disapprove: 78

Obama - Satisfied/Enthusiastic: 40 Dissatisfied/Angry: 59
GOP Leaders - Satisfied/Enthusiastic: 39 Dissatisfied/Angry: 59

Democrats - Favorable: 43 Unfavorable: 55
Republicans - Favorable: 42 Unfavorable: 54

Global warming a serious problem - Yes: 57 No: 41
Illegals working in USA - Grant legal status: 57 Deport: 39

I don't see a mandate against liberalism, progressivism, Obama, whatever. I see an electorate deeply divided and upset with everyone.

goat
 
If the GOP doesn't get it's shit together they will be sent packing...

Sent packing in the primaries by the Tea Party that is. This was a major victory and validation of the tea party. I'd love to see Mcconnell and Boner thrown to the wolves too.
 
Exactly...

Last night was a rejection of the lie "you can keep your insurance and doctor if you like it."
It was a rejection of allowing our enemies in the Middle East to rise up again and then call them them the Jayvee.
It was a rejection of allowing Ebola into our country and then not shutting off flights in and out of West Africa.
It was a rejection of the moronic 'war on women'. Davis, Grimes, Udall, etc. got clobbered by using that strategy. Women don't just vote with their uterus.
It was a rejection of identity politics, Republicans made inroads with women, hispanics, Asians.
It was a rejection of the loathesome Harry Reid and his moronic 'Koch Brothers are evil' hogwash.
It was a rejection of Reid using the iron fist in the Senate and blocking 300 bills.
It was a rejection of using the IRS to hush your opponents.

Pretty much a thorough ass whuppin' across the board, that includes Governor races and State Legislatures also.
 
Eh not really...

The main reason Republicans won so decisively is simply that Democrats didn't turn out. They don't care unless a Rockstar is running. Now watch African Americans whine about various policies... well they had there chance to vote and didn't show.

This post was edited on 11/5 5:12 PM by toastedbread
 
Laughable...

cite all the polls you want but the only poll that mattered was last night. Oh, BTW, Reid and Obama have said they want to find common ground in the past. Neither have looked for it. Case in point, the ramrodding of Obamacare through Congress.
 
Not at all


How do you deal on an even footing with a President who is untrustworthy and Anti-Constitutional.

You don't treat him as if there is no President. You treat him as the role of the President restrained in the words of the Constitution.

Obama loudly proclaimed that his policies were on the ballot and that everyone of those Democrat Senators running had supported him.

So his policies and supporters were destroyed electorally. Reid is on the trash heap and leads nothing.

Those policies are liberalism/progressivism writ large.

Obama's policies are roundly rejected - repudiated - the voters having trashed them on Obama's own terms.


Now he can behave per the specific terms of the Constitution and participate with Republican majorities or ignore the Constitution, act as a legislator/Congress and his party will bear decisions that it cannot abide as the majorities enact legislation to undo/reform the mess.

The people do not want any more Obamaism. He and his policies and party have been trashed in an election. He MUST live with what is left to him or take his party down with him.
 
I have to disagree.

They were not trashed in this election. There were a few trouble spots: North Carolina, a couple of governorships, but by and large the Republicans won states they should have won, states that were really only Democratic to begin with because 2008 was a wave election for Democrats.

goat
 
Those were last night's polls.

We've been talking on this board for weeks about how the GOP was going to have a big election this year no matter what, because the cards were stacked in their favor. Dems and Repubs on this board all understood and agreed with that. And while I do admit they did even better than I expected, the end result is still roughly the same: a divided electorate that shifted slightly toward Republicans in a way that helped guarantee they won a bunch of races they should have won anyway.

goat
 
Found this analysis interesting


I know this is from a very liberal MSM source, and the attitude of the writer towards what happened yesterday is clear, yet I think the analysis is pretty interesting. FWIW, it projects two more years of gridlock followed by a likely Republican presidency, so I think many of the conservatives on here might agree with at least some of the article (although they clearly won't see Hillary as the only thing that can prevent that result).

The other things that to me will be interesting is to see how the Republicans handle things they HAVE to do -- numero uno being extending the debt ceiling sometime in the first half of next year. That is clearly one of the most contentious internal issues they will have to face, and their approach to addressing it will require lots of internal wrangling that cannot be avoided. The one thing I don't think they can allow is another government shutdown.

I saw the Dems squander their advantages in 2008 with internal bickering (and a Senate that was not filibuster proof). Will the Reps do the same? They really don't have enough votes to force things through the Senate or overcome a veto. Will they try for the "grand idea" -- repeal of Obamacare or impeachment -- or will they be satisfied to "work together" and achieve small victories? I certainly hope the latter and it might actually do some good.

What really scares me is the belief that our last two presidents have been two of the worst in our history and our society is even more polarized than ever. I'm not sure any of this is heading in a direction other than down the shithole.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/democrats-have-2-choices-gridlock-or-disaster.html
 
Here's some good analysis

from Sean Trende. He's right. It was a referendum on the President.


A Referendum on the President
A Referendum on the President

By Sean Trende - November 5, 2014









There are two basic approaches to evaluating elections. The first view holds that elections are choices: Voters evaluate the proposals put forward by the candidates, and carefully select the candidate that best lines up with their own views.

The second view, of which I am a longstanding proponent, is that elections are referenda on the party in power. That is to say, people might give some thought to the other party's proposals, but their ultimate choice focuses almost entirely on their opinion of the performance of the president's party. As the great political scientist E.E. Schattschneider put it, "The people are a sovereign whose vocabulary is limited to 'yes' or 'no,'" and it can only speak when spoken to.

Last night's elections gave a pretty good test of these hypotheses, because we had some well-developed theories on either side that predicted different outcomes. A variety of "fundamentals"-based models suggested that Republicans should have picked up a large number of Senate seats. They varied in particulars -- Alan Abramowitz's model suggested six seats, an early version of the Washington Post model said eight.

Proponents of the choice model suggested that the unpopularity of the Republican brand and/or policy positions would cause the GOP to underperform what the fundamentals suggested. To them, "war on women" messaging could trump fundamentals in states like Colorado (and so forth). And, for a large portion of the election, it looked as if they might be correct.

But, in the end, the fundamentals won out. Back in February of this year, I put together a simple, fundamentals-based analysis of the elections, based off of nothing more than presidential job approval and incumbency. That was it. It suggested that if Barack Obama's job approval was 44 percent, Republicans should pick up nine Senate seats. Obama's job approval was 44 percent in exit polls of the electorate, and it appears that Republicans are on pace to pick up nine Senate seats. Moreover, only one Democrat -- Natalie Tennant in West Virginia -- ran more than 10 points ahead of the president's job approval.

Democrats ran about even with the model in the races that were ignored: states like South Carolina, Texas and Mississippi. Democrats ran well ahead of the model in states that were thought to be competitive early on but where Republican campaigns fizzled over the summer: Michigan, Oregon, Minnesota. They also ran ahead in Kentucky and West Virginia, states where a local Democrat's base is probably well above the president's job approval. In the rest of the states they ran 2-3 points ahead of the model, which probably either reflects fundamentals that my rudimentary model didn't include (the Democrats' ground game and monetary advantage), or the fact that these things are non-linear at the extremes: A quality Democrat in Iowa simply isn't going to fall down to the 41 percent showing that the model predicted.

Of course, this doesn't prove anything, but I do think it is safe to say that the fundamentals-based approaches performed better than the choice approaches. While the Republicans weren't as unpopular with the electorate as some polls suggested the might be, they were still unpopular; a "choice electorate" probably would have rendered a split decision.

With this, I think we have the answer to the question of "What did the election mean?" The answer: The president received a vote of no confidence. It was amplified in Senate races because of the playing field, but the overall House vote and the performance of Democratic senators in purple states is consistent with this approach.

But, saying "no" to the party in power is not the same as saying "yes" to the party out of power. Parties have plenty of evidence of this, yet they always seem to convince themselves that "this time is different," and that the American people have validated their approach. The success or failure of the new Republican Congress will probably be determined by how well they have learned this lesson.//



Sean Trende is senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics. He is a co-author of the 2014 Almanac of American Politics and author of @SeanTrende.
 
Believe...

what you want to believe and we will just have to agree to disagree. Republicans made practically every race a referendum on Obama (he/she voted with Obama 95% of the time for example) and won with that strategy. It was their one unifying strategy.
 
That's good stuff.

I would make only a couple of short, independent points:

1. I don't disagree that the election was partially a referendum on Obama. I disagree that the result was a resounding "No way!" I think it was more of an "Eh, no thanks." Structural realities in the House and a red playing field in the Senate greatly exaggerated what, in raw numbers, was a relatively close election.

2. I do want to repeat that I think the GOP did better than expected to an extent. I am not trying to deny this fact.

3. On a side note, you might be interested to know that my spreadsheet - which was very much a simple "choice model" - performed admirably according to the "Strong GOP Break" run that was at the very extreme of the runs I did. Had I gone with those numbers, I'd be looking like a genius right now.
3dgrin.r191677.gif
But that's why I don't get paid for that stuff. I was just crunching poll numbers, not messing with them much, and in the end showed just how untrustworthy they can be.

goat
 
You remind me of the guy that would rather see...

his arch rival lose than his team win. That is hardly an ideal attitude for Republicans or society at large.
 
feelings hurt?

Obama had 6 years to live up to his rhetoric and failed to deliver. Last night's election was what Milton Friedman might have referred to as a natural market correction. America is looking for a new direction and decided it was time churn government. Apparently it bothered you?
 
Perhaps you miscomprehended mj's point . . .

it had nothing to do with Obama, or even the election results. It had everything to do with Ladoga's reaction to the election results, i.e., that Ladoga's happier that Democrats were defeated than he is about the country being strong, healthy and prosperous. It's an observation many have made over the years about Ladoga . . . mj's post was really nothing remarkable . . . .
 
Huh?

First off, why would my feelings be hurt? I didn't vote for BO last time around nor do I support Liberal economics. I enjoyed last night, but I also tend to root for my team instead of rooting against the opponent. Apparently, that is beyond your realm of thinking.

Since when did Milton Friedman coin the natural market correction term?

Oh, and by the way, how is your inflation prediction working out? Your gold seems to be slumping.
 
Let's hope the Republicans get us a budget,and make Obama veto a repeal to

the healthcare law. This law is what is the real problem in our economy. People are forced to pay more for their health insurance than they did before. People are forced to go to part time work. It is just a bad law that needs to be done away with. Let's start over to get real health care reform,not a govt takeover.
 
Let me clarify...

I'm talking about Ladoga being more happy about the failures of the Democrats instead of giving credit to the fundamental policies and principles that represent Conservatives. In other words, if this was just a damning backlash against the President's policies, that illustrates a problem with current Liberalism. In my opinion, this is a negative for the GOP b/c Democrats can reform their policies and stances to change future election results.

It is much more impressive if people felt compelled to vote GOP because the GOP's policies and principles got them excited and felt it was going to lead the country in the right direction.

In other words, the Democrats played a poor game and the GOP was the better of two bottom dwellers vs. the GOP edging out the Democrats for the title.
 
Gotcha . . .

I guess I'd be impressed if the GOP had a message other than "s/he's an Obama clone". But that's all I heard from the campaigns this year. And the GOP ain't gonna make that charge stick against HIllary.

BTW, I believe that Hillary is the presumptive Democratic candidate for 2016, and despite my strong preference for her candidacy in 2008 I really am not all that excited about her running in 2016. Sometimes you just miss your chance, and I think that happened to her . . .

. . . so is it Christie for the GOP? Cruz? or somebody else . . . .
 
Christie should get it.

He's a slash and burn kind of guy and exactly what we need right now. The media tried to destroy him over bridgegate and it did seem to have some impact. I still think he should get the nomination. A Christie/Hillary race would be fun.
 
People I would like to see go head-to-head in a GOP primary

1. Not Romney - twice a loser - I don't want to see him go for strike 3. Truth be told - I don't want any of the folks who tried last time to even show up for the debates.
2. Bobby Jindal - I know he bombed in a Republican response to a SOTU address, but the guy is smart and showed excellent administrative skills during the huricane that hit the big easy after Katrina.
3. Scott Walker - lets see how his show is received on a national stage.
4. Jeb Bush - I'd like to see what he's got.
5. Chris Christie - ya either love him or you hate him. Bob Knight runs for President?
6. Condeleezza Rice - I think she is way better than the movie "W" painted her. Smart, conservative but not too conservative, if you know what I meen.
7. Rand Paul - I won't vote for him, but would like to see him in the mix.
8. ?????

Those are the obvious ones for me.
 
I want to tell you and goat that I really appreciate your exchanges.....

in the last week. Both of you did a terrific job of presenting your positions without disparaging the other, and the board benefited from it. There is no rule that says everyone has to agree with either one of you. A few weeks ago I asked people to try to post the way you two have in this thread and others. For the most part the board has complied, which made my job very easy.

I lift a virtual beer to both of you! - Well - maybe after lunch - it's a bit early in the day to be drinking (especially since I'm not still coming in from the night before) - virtual or otherwise!
 
You misunderstand my post

I was describing WHY Republicans won in terms aggregated from exit polling, election results and campaigns.

There was no national Republican agenda that the voters chose to support. There wasn't a national conservative agenda. What they voted for was to stop the President, his party's agenda and his policies. That's what every challenger ran on though in some races there were other issues.

Look at the exit polling. The electorate was angry at what's been going on the last 6 years and they took it out on the folks who have been doing it.

Even several Democrat analysts agree.

It was across the board and right down to state legislative levels.

The data and analysis is there to be read if you want to.

I'm only noticing it.
 
There wasn't much of a Republican agenda to be supported....

It seems to me that the Republican strategy was along the lines of "let the Democrat ship sink". We will provide lifeboats, but we aren't advertising that we have a better ocean liner.

And that may have been enough to win the election - but it won't be enough to win it again in two years. Now that the survivors are in the life-boats they need to see that the rescue ship is not only going to not sink, but that it will provide a reason to want to book the return cruise on the same liner.
 
But Sope

"happier that Democrats were defeated than he is about the country being strong, healthy and prosperous."

Those aren't mutually exclusive. You can't really have one without the other. We have seen this for over 70 years.
 
They can make that charge


and they will. All they have to do is claim, and rightfully so, that Hillary would be just another four years of Obama.

Playing that tape of her saying "it just doesn't matter" is the only thing they need to do.

I am not sure why anybody would be excited about that stupid women being POTUS.
 
Great analogy.

It might become a watchword here.

Of course, there will be legislation advancing the mandate to stop the Obama policies such as repeal of Obamacare in whole or in part and a much different immigration approach. However, as a national party, Republicans didn't ask to be elected for that and voters didn't send them to Washington on specifics. Had the voters intended to send folks to get along with and compromise with Obama, they'd have elected Democrats, the very ones who have enacted his agenda thus far. They chose, rather, to send up to Washington folks committed to stopping the Obama agenda in it tracks.

Now there will be an agenda and Obama and his party will agree with it or not, but it is the Democrats' decision to get on board or not. The agenda will include measures that the electorate approve of, not mere compromises for the sake of compromise.
 
But don't

you think that a lot of people just voted against Democrats rather than for Republicans ? I think that happens in a lot of elections. A prime example is when Obama got elected the first time. People were voting against Bush (even though he wasn't running) rather than for Obama. Voters tend to think that voting for change is always going to be good. I would love to think that the Republicans will come in and pass some good legislation and try to work with Democrats on things but I have my doubts.
 
All are okay

except I really don't want another Bush.
 
I dont either

But right now that's simply an anti-dynasty feeling. He deserves to be able to give it his best shot.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT