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

a reply to: Phoenix

Yes I am southern GA, I was very surprised at the numbers of voters, specially when mid term elections are not really taken as the same way as presidential elections by many voters.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just curious.

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

In 2008, Obama won 53-46. That was a clear mandate according to the Democrats and the media. Some even made the argument when it was 51-47 in 2012.

But that 8% margin Tuesday was nothing special.

As I look across the major levels of government in this country, here's what I see:

GOP majorities in the US House of Representatives.
GOP majorities in the US Senate.
More than 60% of the state governorships are controlled by the GOP.
About 70% of the state legislative bodies are controlled by the GOP.

You tell me if that's a mandate or not.

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

Looks like Obama is as popular as ever.

Watch how the "Mandates" pile up now when he suddenly runs out of ink to sign legislation.

Mandate !!

Historical

Landslide !!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Is it just me again, or are those two links busted?

What's the main point anyway?

Wierd. Okay.

Election Results by State - US Senate 2014 - Politico

EDIT: Original Results from HuffPo (Corrected link)

Voting and Registration - US Census

EDIT: Voting Statistics - Original Information Used

I'll see if I can find a better summary of the US Census information for the discussion. Fixed it!

Xuenchen:

The point is the actual numbers involved in the Republican win yesterday, as compared with the number of people who voted yesterday total, the number of registered voters, and the total number of Americans eligible to vote.

The question was whether or not that win can be considered either a landslide or a mandate.

(As clearly noted in the OP.)

a reply to: vor78

I asked the question and provided the facts.

So, we should put you down as feeling that 1.6% of the American Electorate (or so, give or take) makes for a mandate, landslide or landsliding mandate then?

Check.

a reply to: marg6043

Marg, I can't say I blame anyone for wanting to change the face of Congress, can you?

I have long advocated for the solution provided in the great camp film Mars Attacks!

I had an inch ITCH and scratched it as far as the actual numbers were concerned, and I related that information above.

(And boy, it was an angry inch too ... LOL)

I asked the question as to whether ATS members feel like those numbers represent a mandate or landslide.

a reply to: loam

I think the time is coming though for smaller, independent parties.

The American people are, clearly, disgusted with the two-party system.

(Less than 30% turn out in yesterday's elections, despite those billions that were spent.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can put me down for saying that the results are what they are. The spin a person puts on the numbers is their own choice.

a reply to: Gryphon66
According to a story in our local paper we had a turnout of 45% on election day. For a mid-term election, that's a pretty fair turnout considering that many of the local races were uncontested---having been decided in the primary.
murrayledger.com...

It seems to me that looking at elections on a more local or state basis makes more sense than looking at overall national totals when it comes to turnout. How did your local turnout look? Did your local governance change in some substantial way? Local and state elections have far more direct impact on your life than national elections. In our case I think it was the proposal to institute a brand new local property tax that brought out the vote. In our county the voters answered the question, "Do you want more taxes on all your property?" quite clearly by voting NO.
In our county, for the first time in living memory an independent was elected to the executive position and a Republican was elected to the county's governing body. That is a real change and is seen, on the local level, by those of us who aren't party hacks as a really, really good thing because people aren't automatically going into the booth and pulling the party lever. If memory serves me correctly, I believe there were three county executives in our region elected as independents. In our area, that's a BIG DEAL!

Mandate

Landslide

Obama voters boycotted Obama by the millions !!!

A "NO didn't vote" = a Mandate against Obama and Democrats.

The Democrat Party is in deep trouble all of a sudden.

Looks like they have been exposed as the New "NO" Party.

originally posted by: xuenchen

Mandate

Landslide

Obama voters boycotted Obama by the millions !!!

A "NO didn't vote" = a Mandate against Obama and Democrats.

The Democrat Party is in deep trouble all of a sudden.

Looks like they have been exposed as the New "NO" Party.

this is a good point. But I think it is more that democrats boycotted Obama's policies because he hasn't been liberal enough. Much like Romney was boycotted by millions of voters who did't think he was conservative enough or of the wrong religion and gave Obama a second term. Moving people to the extremes is what has created this back and forth. Many folks who don't give a damn about abortion, religion or gay rights have almost no party to belong to any longer.

Interesting:

Using the updated numbers from Politico from this evening ... (my first calculations were based on numbers from Huffpo from early this AM):

US SENATE

Total Number of Republican votes: 23,470,841

Total Number of non-Republican votes: 21,242,788

Margin of Victory: 2,228,053 votes

Margin as Percentage of Registered Voters: 1.52% (0.015228)

Margin as Percentage of American Electorate: 1.08% (0.010812)

Registered Voters: 146,311,000 (US Census; Statisticsbrain.com, linked above)

American Electorate: 206,072,000 (US Census; Statisticsbrain.com, linked above)

a reply to: vor78

Is it a "spin" to look at the total number of votes cast by party and compare that with the total numbers of voters registered and Americans eligible to vote? I don't think so.

I haven't commented on what the numbers mean; I asked a question.

Thanks for your answer.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The whole thing is pointless.

People can't vote for candidates out of their State or Congressional Districts.

Only a few thousand people vote for each Congressman.

The entire elections was a Democrat failure.

a reply to: Gryphon66

i bet those numbers as a percentage are super close to 2006 and 2010. Just a guess.

a reply to: diggindirt

My latest calculations based on the most recent numbers says that (and this is for US Senate only):

44,713,629 Americans voted yesterday. (Based on Politico numbers at 5:15 PM 11/6/2014)

There are 146,311,000 Americans registered to vote.

There are 206,072,000 Americans eligible to vote.

Yesterdays votes (for US Senate) then amount to 30.56% of the registered voters and 21.69% of the eligible voters.

That's the basis of the point made here, and the question is, therefore: does a margin of victory of 1.5% of registered voters or 1.08% of the Electorate make for a landslide or a mandate.

Thanks for your answers!

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't think facts about how Americans actually voted are pointless, Xuenchen.

Remember, every vote is important! Right?

The makeup of the US Congress, and the legislation and actions about to take place affect ALL AMERICANS.

Why wouldn't we consider the numbers of votes, then, in terms of ALL AMERICANS.

EVERY VOTE COUNTS, Xuenchen; do I need to quote you on that?

originally posted by: howmuch4another
a reply to: Gryphon66

i bet those numbers as a percentage are super close to 2006 and 2010. Just a guess.

How do you mean, exactly?

In terms of turnout? Republican votes? Non-Republican votes?

If you have a way to link those results as compared with these, that'd be a great add to the thread!

My eyes are going crossed at the moment, LOL.