I suspect in the coming days when they dissect the numbers we will see a shockingly low participation rate from Hispanics. In the end Obama pussy footing around the issue to cover his red state Democrats backfired. Not only did it not help any of them but in the end it may cost the races in Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado where a healthy Latino turnout could of made up the difference. Perfect example of what Knave is talking about Democrats not standing by their principles and letting themselves be intimidated into a corner.
Hillary Clinton statement: "Tonight we are all Republicans." ....#JustKidding— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) November 5, 2014 A joke of cutting truth, and one that pretty much sums up how the idiot Dems are going to react to this one.
OK, I've had most of a bottle of wine. No specific drinking game, just drink when some jackass Republican wins, or when some loser Democrat loses. So yeah, lots of drinks. I'm not that worried about the Senate - they can get rid of the filibuster and vote to repeal Obamacare all they want, but they will never be able to override an Obama veto. I'm mostly pissed off about the governor's races. Not Texas -- Wendy Davis is great but there's no point in running as a Democrat in a statewide race in Texas for another ten or twenty years. But bluish states like Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan re-elected their Republican governors, after a track record of failure. And Illinois goes red? Sorry guys, you get what you deserve. I just wish it didn't cost so many of my tax dollars from California to support your failed states.
We need to get that secession shit back up and going. We could probably even field a pretty decent national team.
That's why I prefer parliamentary over presidential systems. How's the head of government supposed to be governing when he has no majority? And that in a political culture of polarization where comprimising is considered a sakrilege? Weimar calling. Hey wake up political America, this is the 21st century!
My neighbors to the north in Maryland voted Red for a couple of prominent offices. Although reports from that state say that they had some of the lowest voter turnouts ever. The main problem in the US is that people don't vote unless it is the Presidential Election.
Righteous indignation alert... So Louisiana is going to a runoff, and will spend millions of dollars that could be better spent on literally anything else, simply because they can't be bothered to change their ballot to allow voters to rank candidates instead of voting for a single one? Amazing.
This is the same country that uses first past the post for virtually every election, with zero discussion of this ever changing. It would be interesting for a couple of states to try this out. And then when the republic doesn't collapse, maybe take it federal.
Early analysis from NBC news: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/where-were-all-dems-heres-who-turned-vote-n241696
I believe someone (losing party) make the argument that this would be to difficult for voters. Nothing has upset me more the last 12 years in politics than the money that is being spent. Although, this money does support the economy as it is spent. It is just that ads and campaigns have been greatly dumbed down to the point that candidates are using hypothetical thinking as fact. ie) Candidate X voted along with Obama in Washington..... while serving as State comptroller. How is this possible?
Well, Maryland elected a Republican governor. On the bright side of that vote is the hit Martin O'Malley's presumptive presidential election too. I'm certainly not afraid to pay taxes, but he has whopped us with several hikes over the past year, he's not particularly stuck his neck out for the Bay, and yet he's really run hard at farmers and watermen, our link to more traditional forms of business here on the Shore. I'm not sorry to see him go, and any less air that he breathes conventioneering will be better used by others.
As always the day after an election, I spent a little time looking at precinct level returns. My neighborhood voted straight ticket Democratic for every single statewide office. And also voted GOP for the State Assembly. For the House (a bizarre contest between two Republicans -- thanks jungle primary), they voted not for the moderate challenger, but for Tom McClintock, one of the fringiest tea partiers in Congress. Some people voted for Governer fcuking Moonbeam, and Tom fcuking McClintock on the same fcuking ballot. I find that totally baffling.
It is looking like Madigan is keeping his veto proof Illinois House and the Illinois Senate is 40-19 for the Dems so I don't think Rauner is going to be able to do a lot of stuff he would probably want to do.
Basically, to force Republicans to spend money on campaigning for their guy. The only people who are surprised are the ones who thought that a huge state that was comfortably red for three decades was all of a sudden going to flip on a statewide basis.
Spoiler alert: It wouldn't have made that much difference. Gardner ran toward the middle, made people forget about his actual voting record, and benefited from a horrible Udall campaign that was incapable of seeing how ineffective their single-issue campaign was.
I'll give my city credit in that it was consistently "blue" on every candidate, Martha Coakley, Moulton, State house, Markey etc. The county was blue for everything EXCEPT Governor. Massachusetts dems need to find another Deval Patrick next time. And run some more negative ads.
If she gets nominated for any state wide office ever again, I'll be convinced it's because she has pictures of prominent backers in compromising positions with farm animals.