Posted on 12/12/2014 7:06:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The defeat of Democratic senator Mary Landrieu by Republican representative Bill Cassidy in last weekend’s Louisiana runoff ends an election year that has been very successful for Republicans — and has implications for 2016. Some observations:
(1) Democrats relied heavily on legacy candidates — and lost nevertheless. Mary Landrieu’s father, Moon Landrieu, was elected to the Louisiana legislature in 1960 and as mayor of New Orleans in 1970 and 1974. Her father’s anti-segregationist legacy helped Mary Landrieu appeal to black voters and win narrow victories in 1996, 2002, and 2008. It wasn’t enough in 2014.
Other defeated Democratic candidates this year — Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Michele Nunn and Jason Carter in Georgia, Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Udall in Colorado — had forebears first elected to Congress or as governor between 1961 and 1972. But that wasn’t enough to overcome opposition to the Obama Democratic party’s liberal policies. Exception to the rule: Gwen Graham, daughter of a former governor and senator first elected statewide in 1978, beat a Republican House member 50.4 to 49.6 percent in a Florida district, which President Obama narrowly lost (52–47) in 2012.
The obvious implication for 2016 is that the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, is something of a legacy candidate, too. Her own record as senator and secretary of state is perhaps less of an asset than the record of her husband, who first ran for office in 1974 and won his last election in 1996. That’s starting to seem like a long time ago.
(2) Voters today increasingly vote straight party tickets. Begich ran 5 points ahead of Obama’s 2012 percentage in his state, Landrieu 3.5 points ahead in hers. In the 1970s and 1980s, personal appeal, local issues, and pork-barrel projects enabled similar candidates to run far ahead of their party’s national leaders. Not so any more.
In 2012, only 26 of 435 congressional districts voted for a House member of one party and the presidential nominee of the other, the lowest number since 1920. In 2014, the number of “split districts” rose, but only to 31, mostly because Republicans picked up seats where Obama approval fell below 50 percent.
This makes for more rational politics: Voters can choose between reasonably coherent sets of public policies. The corollary: It produces Congresses — and state governments — that will push against the policies of an unpopular president, as in 2006, 2010, and 2014.
The implication for 2016 is that Democrats will be at a serious disadvantage if Obama’s job approval stays at current levels or falls. Republicans will be at a disadvantage if it rises to 50 percent or above.
(3) Old political species — Blue Dog Democrats, Rockefeller Republicans — are pretty much extinct. Their constituencies have migrated into the other party. Affluent Californians are left-wing Democrats; the Jacksonian belt from Western Pennsylvania along the Appalachian chain and toward east Texas is increasingly conservative Republican.
Political scientist V. O. Key, author of the 1949 classic Southern Politics, hoped that economic common interest would produce a liberal block of blacks and poor whites in the South. Instead, voters are divided by their views on cultural, moral, and even religious views, inside and outside the South.
(4) Today’s political map looks static, but may be a little more fluid than many think. The South is not quite solidly Republican. Obama carried Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, states which now have 57 electoral votes, in 2008 and the first two in 2012, and statewide Democrats were still competitive there in 2014. This, even though George W. Bush won between 52 and 56 percent in those states in 2004.
Similarly, Republicans may be competitive in 2016 in seven states with 71 electoral votes — Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin — where Obama got between 51 and 54 percent in 2012. This year Republicans won statewide races and/or the House popular vote in each.
(5) Republican strength is at historic highs. The party holds more House and state legislative seats than it has since the 1920s and only one less Senate seat than its post-1920s high. The 2008 Obama coalition, which some argued would dominate politics for decades, has been fraying: Blacks and gentry liberals remain faithful, but Hispanics and millennials are falling away, while Jacksonians grow increasingly opposed.
The 2014 results don’t guarantee Republicans victory in 2016. But they show it’s certainly possible.
— Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner
The GOPe loves folks like you. They can sh!t on you all they want and you will never hold it against them.
Now, go on and tell me how I'm actually liberal for voting the man instead of the party. I haven't heard that one enough.
Agree. Running a moderate in the hopes of peeling off enough mushy middle voters hasn’t worked. Amazing that party leadership still hasn’t learned this.
There was a poll out this week showing that the Beast either beat or tied all opponents in North Carolina. If the GOP is struggling to win in *North Carolina*, we’re done. The electoral math is just too rigged. The Kerry states (246EVs) will likely stand firm, Virginia(13) is being overrun with illegals and D.C. overflow population in the northern suburbs (it couldn’t go red in a year like this?), Nevada(6) & New Mexico(5) are flooded with illegals..
Is doesn’t even include Iowa, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, etc. The GOP candidate has to run a *perfect* campaign in order to have a chance of squeaking-out a win. Our enemies have rigged the game. At this point, we’re hoping for an economic implosion to change the map.
Well when I look back on all the votes I have cast over the years I still have no regrets.
In 1984 I voted for RR over Mondale. No regrets.
In 1988 I voted for Bush over Dukakis. No regrets.
In 1992 I voted for Bush over Clinton. No regrets.
In 1996 I voted for Dole over Clinton. No regrets.
In 2000 I voted for Bush over Algore. No regrets.
In 2004 I voted for Bush over Kerry. No regrets.
In 2008 I voted for McCain over Soetoro. No regrets.
In 2012 I voted for MR over BS. No regrets.
Would you like me to repeat this same exercise for US Senate candidates? Gubernatorial candidates? Congressional candidates I have voted for? It’s the same story.
If we can get a conservative nominated over “the machine” of the GOPe, he’ll get elected.
You lost, anyway. You threw your vote away. And you further encouraged the GOP to run liberals, since they know they can count on your vote, no matter what.
Your continued support of liberals is well noted.
/johnny
Voting third party in CA is not even an option in CA anymore now that they have instituted the blanket primary.
I realize my only realistic way to advance the conservative cause is within the Republican primary. And I never fail to vote for the most conservative candidate available.
I would vote for MR a million times over again over BS.
I would vote for ANY Republican candidate over BS.
Not voting is a vote for the Democrats.
Voting third party is effectively a vote for the Democrats.
Is that vote system in effect for all races in the state now?
Would it be possible that the Cal Nov 2016 POTUS ballot would be Fauxcahontas vs. Hillary?
Yep.
Not supporting a liberal republican candidate in the general also keeps them from getting elected and they will quit running. Running as a liberal republican must be made a political kiss of death.
Otherwise, you show that you will support whatever liberal the GOP-E runs, and they know they can count on your vote.
Reward bad behavior, get more of it.
/johnny
Voting third party is effectively a vote for the Democrats.
You have bought the GOP-E lie. Not voting for the liberal republican means they will quit running liberal republicans.
This is a pragmatic, long-term game, not one that can be won in one election.
What you are doing clearly doesn't work. You lost. You threw your vote away. You voted for a liberal.
/johnny
No.
California recently implemented the blanket primary.
It eliminates all minor party candidates in the general election. The two top vote getters in the primary face off in the general.
In some heavily Dem districts, your choice may only be limited to two Dems. Ditto in the few remaining heavily Rep districts we have left in CA.
Like I said before...your choice in politics aren’t always perfect, but they are always easy.
Another McDolney and I am thru.
So you keep doing the same thing election after election, and so do many others.
And the elitist republicans keep staying in power, and our country gets worse and worse.
So if Warren and Clinton are the top two voter totals in the POTUS primary (very possible if there are 2 Democrats and 10 Republicans running), would the November ballot have only those two.
Whatever.
I vote conservative in the primary.
I vote Republican in the general.
Not voting is not an option for me.
As I explained before, the blanket eliminates third party candidates from consideration.
I would never a vote for Democrat for anything.
Biggest cry baby thread ever?
This was true in Kentucky also. Alison Grimes was a despicable candidate so I voted for McConnell. Now I am reminded of the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We need a nationwide Conservative (Tea) party. One that would give us a Conservative choice when the republicans run a RINO, or support a true conservative running as a republican.
But you will vote proudly for a liberal republican that has the same goals as the Democrat.
/johnny
Oddly enough, the very best way for the Republicans, and conservatives to win big in 2016, uses the original idea of The Contract With America (bitterly opposed by RINOs back then.) It is a way to keep your core values, yet run a very popular campaign.
Conservatives need to poll themselves to come up with a bullet list of “The 100 most important changes we want to have happen in government.” These are the really vital things to repair what is horribly wrong.
Once we have a “top 100” list, we need to prioritize it to the “Top 25 things” that are the “conservative agenda items”. The purpose is to focus what conservatives in office should try to do as major goals for our country.
Then we take this list of 25 things, and ask Republicans as a whole to select the “Top 20” that are most important to them as well as conservatives.
Finally, we present that “Top 20” list to the swing voters in America, asking them to choose the “Ten Most Important” issues, to them.
So, we end up with a list of just 10 major agenda items, that are wanted by conservatives, Republicans, and swing voters. Importantly, the other 90 major agenda items are still there, but the 10 are what we campaign on.
Simple, concise and clear to the public. 10 things that conservatives want to do if elected. The campaigning is limited to that: a clear, concise message to the public.
The public LOVES clear, concise messages, even if they are not exactly what they want. No double talk, no voting for it before voting against it, no forked tongue, lies, or cheating.
In this way, conservatives get to keep all their core values, they are supported by all but the liberal Republicans and those that are wholly owned by business and government interests, and they are also appealing to swing voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.