It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Mandate? Landslide? Just the facts, ma'am. (US SENATE 2014)

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:17 AM
Good god! Okay, let's try again.

I used two sources for these numbers: Huffington Post Election Totals - US Senate

Voting Statistics (based on US Census data)

Yesterday, in the Senate races:

EDIT: Corrected these numbers at 2:02 AM Eastern, 11/6/2014.

43,126,318 Americans voted.

23,295,639 voted for the Republican Candidate

19,830,679 voted for the Non-Republican (Democrat Except for Kansas)

Difference? 3,464,960 votes.

According to the US Census data, there are 146,311,000 registered voters (that seems to be rounded to the nearest 1,000s)

So the Republicans won by a margin of 3,464,960 / 43,126,318 or 8.03 % of those who voted.

Comparing that to the total number of registered US voters 3,464,960 / 146,311,000 or 2.3% of those registered to vote.

Comparing that to the total number of US citizens who could vote 3,464,960 / 206,072,000 or 1.6% of the US population.

Not a hard and fast rule, but most describe a landslide to be a case where one opponent beat another by a margin of 15% or more.

Politico says 10%; New York Times says 20% margin. US Politics .com "What is a landslide election?"

So, landslide? Mandate?

What say you, ATS?

edit on 0Thu, 06 Nov 2014 00:39:13 -060014p1220141166 by Gryphon66 because: Duh

edit on 0Thu, 06 Nov 2014 00:42:19 -060014p1220141166 by Gryphon66 because: Source for "landslide"

edit on 1Thu, 06 Nov 2014 01:03:06 -060014p0120141166 by Gryphon66 because: Small corrections in totals after checking my work. NOTED IN RED

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:19 AM
Geez!!! Is that how bad politics has gotten lately??? You post just the facts and the OP is completely empty??

It's worse that I thought! That says it all without really saying anything.

It's alright. We've all done it and gotten the tshirt.

If anyone has authored more than one thread, they've done it at least once.

edit on 11/6/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:19 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do the quick panic/edit. We've all been there. Some of us several times.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:20 AM
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

It's the dreaded hitting enter when you finish your title, I think I have done it on every thread I have ever made!
At least that is my guess.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:21 AM
a reply to: Sremmos80

I figured that much. I've done it on more than a few occasions myself. It's a pain for sure.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:28 AM
Just the facts m'am.

Joe Friday was a man of few words. The OP's words are definitive

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 12:58 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Landslide? Depends on the perspective. Given that much of the districts around the various States leaned the "other" direction, I would say yes.

Mandate? I despise that word. The thought that just because one wins election is a consent of mandate is the ultimate kick in the groin.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:07 AM
Rush Limbaugh's comments today are what spurred me to do these tallies and think about the issue:

It is rare that a political party running for office in a midterm election not standing for anything ends up with a mandate, and they have one, and it is the biggest and perhaps the most important mandate a political party has had in the recent era, and it is very simple what that mandate is. It is to stop Barack Obama. It is to stop the Democrats. There is no other reason why Republicans were elected yesterday. Republicans were not elected to govern.

Source - The Rush Limbaugh Show

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:11 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

He is a blowhard. Fun to listen to; even when you might not agree with his politics; but in this instance, I believe he read the tea-leaves wrong.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:12 AM
I say it is the same phenomenon that brought Obama into office - the new American way, otherwise known as the knee-jerk reaction. The same way we swing from phone carrier to phone carrier or from cable company to cable company whenever we get upset.

Obama won because people were fed up with Bush. This red victory is because people are fed up with Obama.

What we are seeing in a manifestation of the same thinking that causes people to get married and divorced faster than the paperwork can be processed.

In short - people have largely stopped voting for anything, but, rather, against whatever the current party happens to be.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:22 AM
a reply to: Hefficide

I admit, I had to slide another marker over into "you can't trust the media anytime, anyhow" today when even liberally-biased websites (MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc.) were claiming that this proves that most Americans are against Obama, against the Democrats, and against liberal-progressive policies.

Looking at the numbers, I just can't see that at all.

What I see is: (A) less than 1/3 of all registered voters voted, (B) A margin of a little more than 8% of those that voted chose the Republican Candidate, (C) That margin represents a tiny (1-2%) fraction of the American People.

What I do see is a liberal media apparently trying to demoralize their constituents, just as the conservative media is trying to rally theirs.

In other words, divide and conquer.


posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:25 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's all geared for reaction and effect. Oh, and to keep us from noticing, as we work our fingers to the bone, that superPACS are now deciding everything for us. Sadly trying to explain the Electoral College used to be a work in futility with some folks - but trying to, now, explain the Electoral College AND Citizens United?

That takes more than a thirty second soundbyte - and media has made sure we have about that much of an attention span as a culture.

The process is broken, the players are crooked, the game is rigged - and we're all conditioned to blame each other.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 01:38 AM
Wolf-PAC won in a landslide at least

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 02:23 AM
Thanks for the thread S&F OP.

I am seriously close to depression though now after reading it.

Not because of who won or lost I take that in stride because the pendulum always swings at some point. Sometimes slower or faster.

What I find depressing is out of a country over 350 million less than 150 million are registered to vote and of those 150 million not even 50 million voted 46 million thats it.

Right there is the problem with our country I know there are a lot of problems but those numbers alone will destroy any nation of our size. It is pathetic.

With those numbers do you realize if any demographic turned out near 100% they could decide the nation in just about any election?

After that reality check I don't care to hear any whining from any group on any issue about not being represented.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:49 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

What those numbers say to me is that

1) The American media, all media, left, right, middle, up, or down, is a propaganda machine for SOMEBODY that means to control the American people rather than inform or educate them. I did not see one left-leaning outlet say a word about "well, folks, you do realize that this Republican win reflects the will of less than 2% of American voters."

Nope, gloom, doom or "well, the People have spoken."

I'm not even going to talk here about what RW media has said, aside from Rush's ... "advice" presented earlier.

2) There is obviously a desperate need for a third, fourth and fifth political party in this country. If the complaint is "no reason to vote, both sides are the same" then let's get other sides in there!

3) No one can claim to represent "the People."

The "winners" this time won with a margin of 2% of the electorate.

Any recognizable "group" --- women, gays, or neo-Catholic-whale-watching-ninjas --- should be able to field numbers equal to that ...

That is what is truly chilling to me.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 09:08 AM
A more depressing number would be to calculate the money spent during the election to get that 2%. I'm sure the per person number would be mind-blowing.

We will not get a viable third party for some time, because despite what Republicans say about limited government, they seem to have no problem with it when it comes to social issues, corporate hand outs and backyard pork. In the end, there is very little space between the two parties.

All of that is true because the electorate makes that true.

I doubt the electorate will change anytime soon.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 09:15 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just curious.

I wonder what the numbers would say if you ran them for the 2012 election.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 09:28 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually last night my state posted the statistics of voter, by county, it seems that this time we may have made history as the people that got out of their homes to vote.

Some counties register the highest numbers of voters for mid term elections ever.

I tell you at least in my neck of the goods people really wanted to change the face of congress

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 09:34 AM
Maybe comparing Presidential election year turnout to midterm years to arrive at some conclusion is as comparing apples and oranges. A better one might be past midterm results vs 2014 results.

From the President's own mouth "this election is about my policies"

The American voter just repudiated that - did they not?

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: marg6043

Same here in West Georgia - I asked poll worker midday how busy it was and reply was extremely busy with high turnout.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in