View Full Version : Yesterday's Elections
Look's like yesterday's elections went fairly well for the conservative side, both for various offices and ballot initiatives.
More than one article I read referred to the Democrats being "at a disadvantage in non-presidential elections." I assume that's a delicate way of saying low turnout.
Kentucky in particular seems to have surprised a lot of people. I think I heard the Democrats are down to 17 governors offices at this point.
More than one article I read referred to the Democrats being "at a disadvantage in non-presidential elections." I assume that's a delicate way of saying low turnout.
According to FiveThirtyEight.com that's actually a feature the Democrats depend upon to help their cause. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/?ex_cid=story-twitter
It seems that the issues their core constituency cares most about are deliberately included in off-year elections in order to keep the masses from providing input.
Ultralight
11-4-15, 4:44pm
I used to vote mostly Democrat. Yesterday I was part of the "no turnout." haha
According to FiveThirtyEight.com that's actually a feature the Democrats depend upon to help their cause. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/?ex_cid=story-twitter
It seems that the issues their core constituency cares most about are deliberately included in off-year elections in order to keep the masses from providing input.
So issues of particular interest to teachers' unions looking to authorize school bonds or taxi companies trying to regulate Uber out of town would be scheduled for elections with fewer of their voters without that special interest? Wouldn't that only work in heavily Democratic areas? I would think that otherwise the more consistent turnout of the GOP would work to their disadvantage.
I heard Alan's home state voted down legal marijuana. The somewhat automatic assumption in my mind pins that as a liberal cause with conservative opposition in most cases. Is there any truth to that in the Ohio results, Alan?
ApatheticNoMore
11-4-15, 5:25pm
What election? Only thing on the ballot was one community college head. Yea no turn out. Fine make me feel guilty about not researching community college leaders (or rather one of them). If only I did my civic duty it would be top priority or something because it's a very important election ...
I heard Alan's home state voted down legal marijuana. The somewhat automatic assumption in my mind pins that as a liberal cause with conservative opposition in most cases. Is there any truth to that in the Ohio results, Alan?
No, I was fully prepared to vote for legalization, although that wasn't what the issue was about. The real issue was allowing 10 private entities to have a state enforced monopoly on all marijuana sales in the state. That issue by itself spawned another ballot issue to make a change to the state constitution forbidding legislated monopolies. The mostly conservative turnout in an off-year election ensured that the right side of both issues won out.
So issues of particular interest to teachers' unions looking to authorize school bonds or taxi companies trying to regulate Uber out of town would be scheduled for elections with fewer of their voters without that special interest? Wouldn't that only work in heavily Democratic areas? I would think that otherwise the more consistent turnout of the GOP would work to their disadvantage.
According to the article:
Why do Democrats and Democratic-aligned groups prefer off-cycle elections? When school boards and other municipal offices are up for election at odd times, few run-of-the-mill voters show up at the polls, but voters with a particular interest in these elections — like city workers themselves — show up in full force. The low-turnout election allows their policy goals to dominate.
No, I was fully prepared to vote for legalization, although that wasn't what the issue was about. The real issue was allowing 10 private entities to have a state enforced monopoly on all marijuana sales in the state. That issue by itself spawned another ballot issue to make a change to the state constitution forbidding legislated monopolies. The mostly conservative turnout in an off-year election ensured that the right side of both issues won out.
I don't think I would ever have known that from the national media. Perhaps there was also more nuance to the Houston Bathroom Brawl or the San Francisco Sanctuary Sheriff Sacking.
This country is endlessly fascinating.
In the most liberal county in my state, I was re-elected yesterday with 99% of the vote. Yay.
In the most liberal county in my state, I was re-elected yesterday with 99% of the vote. Yay.
How many votes were cast?
How many votes were cast?
In the district for my position, nearly 700!
My campaign costs: well under $1. I think I need to court more super-PACs.
rodeosweetheart
11-4-15, 7:11pm
In the district for my position, nearly 700!
My campaign costs: well under $1. I think I need to court more super-PACs.
Wow, bae, that is one efficient campaign!
Williamsmith
11-5-15, 8:12am
In the district for my position, nearly 700!
My campaign costs: well under $1. I think I need to court more super-PACs.
Is it true, no one ran against you?
No, I was fully prepared to vote for legalization, although that wasn't what the issue was about. The real issue was allowing 10 private entities to have a state enforced monopoly on all marijuana sales in the state. That issue by itself spawned another ballot issue to make a change to the state constitution forbidding legislated monopolies. The mostly conservative turnout in an off-year election ensured that the right side of both issues won out.
I had been hearing about the monopoly issue too, and thought that was a good reason to vote no to it. But I do think it's unfortunate that it can't be legalized for medical use.
I don't live in the big city near us, but the guy I was rooting for won the mayoral vote. He used to be a prosecutor, and I have high hopes that he'll successfully deal with the high crime rate there.
Is it true, no one ran against you?
That is indeed one of the keys to running an efficient campaign.
This somewhat click-baity article at the Atlantic claims the election to be evidence that "liberals are losing the culture war".
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/liberals-are-losing-the-culture-war/414175/
I'm not sure I buy that a few local skirmishes equals the war.
I don't think I would ever have known that from the national media. Perhaps there was also more nuance to the Houston Bathroom Brawl or the San Francisco Sanctuary Sheriff Sacking.
This country is endlessly fascinating.
I can't speak for everyone that voted against him, but my reason for voting against our sheriff had nothing to do one way or the other with the sanctuary thing and everything to do with the apparent challenge he has with ethics and the fact that there was a well qualified alternative.
I can't speak for everyone that voted against him, but my reason for voting against our sheriff had nothing to do one way or the other with the sanctuary thing and everything to do with the apparent challenge he has with ethics and the fact that there was a well qualified alternative.
Another instance of the national punditocracy drawing broad conclusions about complicated events and giving credence to the axiom that all politics are local.
iris lilies
11-5-15, 7:06pm
This somewhat click-baity article at the Atlantic claims the election to be evidence that "liberals are losing the culture war".
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/liberals-are-losing-the-culture-war/414175/
I'm not sure I buy that a few local skirmishes equals the war.
Agreed. I was stuck in the car this afternoon and listened to conservative local,radio where the host was crowing about liberals losses. Now there are only 16 or 17 Democratic governors. She claimed losses of 1,000+ Dems in Statewide offices over the last few years of President Obama 's reign.
If only that were the trend. I doubt it.
Agreed. I was stuck in the car this afternoon and listened to conservative local,radio where the host was crowing about liberals losses. Now there are only 16 or 17 Democratic governors. She claimed losses of 1,000+ Dems in Statewide offices over the last few years of President Obama 's reign.
If only that were the trend. I doubt it.
Those numbers may not be that far off.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/11/04/how-badly-has-the-obama-era-damaged-the-democratic-party/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-04/democrats-lost-the-war-for-staying-power
I think, however, that there may be more going on than dissatisfaction with the President (although that was probably a large contributor to the great slaughter of 2010). In some states, the Dems fielded candidates more attractive to the party elite than the general public such as Wendy Davis in Texas. The increased control in various state legislatures from 2010 may have opened up some opportunities for the GOP to gerrymander (or reverse prior Democrat gerrymanders). Bush Derangement may have run its course during the past several years. In some local races, heavy-handed pushing of issues like guns in Virginia or gender identity and restrooms in Houston may have inspired some level of resentment. And don't underestimate the power of state and local organizing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.