It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78


I certainly agree with you that the republicans shouldn't get all crusade bent. Part of what go them here is just towing the line staying firm but not so fluctuant.

As far as partisan bickering it looks like folks can see through all that. And really this look much less like a call for holding hands and working together than it does a boot up the azz. Republicans will have folks puking all over themselves if they go in singing Kumbaya but should none the less stay steady and unexcited.




posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

So, Logarock, you would agree with Rush Limbaugh's position? "You weren't sent there to govern?"

The vote doesn't represent a desire for change in Washington, a reduction of gridlock, actually getting the business of the People done ... just 2 more years of "kickin' A and takin' names"?

I really hope you're right.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you wake up the day after to being in a red state which use to be blue? How many local races flipped from Dem to REpub? From what I've read 2/3 of the country national and local are in the Repubs hands now so I would call that a land slide.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: guitarplayer

Nope, I live in GA.

Can you link your statistics?

Seems there was a net gain of 2 governorships, and a few more state legislatures went red in a mid-term.

Still though, 5% margin of victory in the Senate?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us!



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Continuing to look at the data, I did find a great graphic that sums up what happened in State Legislatures:



Notice that there was a net gain of eight chambers (either House or Senate) for the Republican candidates nationwide.

Eight out of 98 total or a gain of 8.16% of the total number of State legislative chambers.

The Republicans gained 3 (or 4) Governorships or, again, 8% of the total possible.

I'm seeing trend here ... do we think that a victory margin of 8% is a landslide? A mandate?

Perhaps there is another explanation?



After the 2008 election, the Republican Party launched a strategy called the REDistricting MAjority Project, or REDMAP. The strategy shifted GOP focus towards state legislative elections in an effort to control the redistricting process following the 2010 census. REDMAP was successful, netting Republicans more than 660 state legislative seats in November 2010.

Heading into the redistricting process, the GOP took over both legislative chambers in 25 states and had control of the legislature and governorship in 21 states. They used this advantage to realign districts in their favor, securing Republican-controlled seats and allowing for some states to elect Republican majorities while losing the popular vote. For example, Democrats in Michigan won more than 54 percent of the vote in state House elections yet ended up with only 51 of the 110 seats.


Source for both the graphic and the quote -

I'm starting to see a picture, and it's not pointing to a landslide ...



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

So, Logarock, you would agree with Rush Limbaugh's position? "You weren't sent there to govern?"

The vote doesn't represent a desire for change in Washington, a reduction of gridlock, actually getting the business of the People done ... just 2 more years of "kickin' A and takin' names"?

I really hope you're right.



What we have here are the sore azzed dems trying to define the tone and meaning of their recent crushing's. Seen it before.

Oh and so now the Dems want reduction of gridlock. Which translated, gridlock that is, means the check and balance of power system hasn't worked in their favor over the last two years.

And WOW business of the people! Why one would have thought all the business would have been taken care of when the dems controlled everything a few years ago.

Simply more see through political water muddy by the libs. Truth is if people wanted and end to gridlock they would have voted in more dems and given them control of the peoples business. And its more like constipation than grid lock anyway.

Who in the world would want to trust immigration reform to the same party that passed a 2000+ health care bill without even reading it?

Who wants to trust a party that uses the IRS to intimidate opponents? ect



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

So, Logarock, you would agree with Rush Limbaugh's position? "You weren't sent there to govern?"

The vote doesn't represent a desire for change in Washington, a reduction of gridlock, actually getting the business of the People done ... just 2 more years of "kickin' A and takin' names"?

I really hope you're right.



What we have here are the sore azzed dems trying to define the tone and meaning of their recent crushing's. Seen it before.

Oh and so now the Dems want reduction of gridlock. Which translated, gridlock that is, means the check and balance of power system hasn't worked in their favor over the last two years.

And WOW business of the people! Why one would have thought all the business would have been taken care of when the dems controlled everything a few years ago.

Simply more see through political water muddy by the libs. Truth is if people wanted and end to gridlock they would have voted in more dems and given them control of the peoples business. And its more like constipation than grid lock anyway.

Who in the world would want to trust immigration reform to the same party that passed a 2000+ health care bill without even reading it?

Who wants to trust a party that uses the IRS to intimidate opponents? ect


You seem to be pontificating on your opinion of how Democrats are reacting to Tuesday's election results ... may I ask that you kindly spare us the same old tired arguments that we always see? We've heard them, and they don't belong here.

The topic here is the actual percentages by which the Republicans won those elections and whether or not a win margin of 5 - 8% actually represents a landslide or a mandate from the People for the Republican party. Love to hear from you on that score.

What do you think about that topic?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
One can insidiously attempt dilution via averaging the electorates voting into national percentages in trying to repudiate a drubbing.

No one can deny that Republicans control 70% state legislatures, all but 16 governorships and both houses of Congress.

Whether one deems mandate or not is irrelevant as the people have spoken.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Thanks for your response!

Can you expand on exactly how you think that comparing the national margin of victory (i.e. the difference between Republican and Non-Republican votes) to the number of people who actually voted yesterday is an "insidiously attempt [sic] dilution"?

I mean, the Republicans are a national party, and when the terms "mandate" or "landslide" are used, it's not usually applying to who won Dogcatcher in Dixville Notch, is it?

How would you compute a "victory margin"?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I addressed your question in an earlier post. Its simple you have party line voters and the turn out there varies. And then as always you have your 5%/10% that swing the thing one way or another.

The two important factors here are 1. Why did the dems turn out low? 2. Why didn't the swing % vote dem leadership in like they did say 6 years ago?

So why were dem line voters remiss? Well they voted by not voting. When the party in control has voters that relinquish position for one reason or another. Same thing happened 2 years ago in Obamas favor. It looks like then that the voters purposely sought to create stalemate or that geographic voting played a major role by taking out enough dem congressman to created a stalemate.

Look at what is happening. West Va is going republican...milestone. Kentucky decided to keep a guy that both parties had been beating up on just to keep a democrat out of office. Ohio....dems were smashed down hard. Dem candidates hardly even tried here.....waste of money.

Again why are Dems not turning out? Why did they lose most places where they tried?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Phoenix



How would you compute a "victory margin"?





Losing senate seats when the other party already has majority in the house is a bad thing. The margin should been seen in standings not total voter numbers. Dems senators couldn't protect their seats against a republican house? They are just going to have to eat the same bucket of crap the republicans had to eat 6 years ago.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

A "mandate" usually means that an overwhelming majority of voters believed in your message and put you in office.

A "landslide" usually describes a situation where one candidate or one party receives an overwhelming majority of votes.

Both conditions depend on the majority of votes received.

The Republicans received between a 5 and 8% majority yesterday, in the Congress, in the State legislatures and in the Governorships.

Nothing in the OP and no one is saying here that the Republicans "didn't win," or that "they're not in power."

But was it a "landslide" ... do they have a "mandate."


That's the question we're looking at here.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Gryphon66

I addressed your question in an earlier post. Its simple you have party line voters and the turn out there varies. And then as always you have your 5%/10% that swing the thing one way or another.

The two important factors here are 1. Why did the dems turn out low? 2. Why didn't the swing % vote dem leadership in like they did say 6 years ago?

So why were dem line voters remiss? Well they voted by not voting. When the party in control has voters that relinquish position for one reason or another. Same thing happened 2 years ago in Obamas favor. It looks like then that the voters purposely sought to create stalemate or that geographic voting played a major role by taking out enough dem congressman to created a stalemate.

Look at what is happening. West Va is going republican...milestone. Kentucky decided to keep a guy that both parties had been beating up on just to keep a democrat out of office. Ohio....dems were smashed down hard. Dem candidates hardly even tried here.....waste of money.

Again why are Dems not turning out? Why did they lose most places where they tried?



Pretty sure I responded to your first post here, Logarock; are you talking about your response in another thread, perhaps?

I'm not sure we can assume that it was only "Dems" that didn't turn out. There was only about 29% of registered voters voting yesterday. Even I wouldn't say that all 71% are Democrat.


Aside from that, it is a general trend in the last few cycles that Democrats do not participate in the mid-terms at the same level as in the Presidential cycle. Republicans usually do well in the mid-terms, but one of the points of this discussion is to ask whether that "doing well when the other guys don't show up to play" can really be considered any kind of "mandate."

One election doesn't make a trend, but I will say with the REDMAP efforts, the Republicans are more successful at the moment at rigging the system to work in their favor; I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Thanks for a reasonable response, Logarock! Good contribution to the discussion.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryph,

Mandate smandate,

When a controlling party wants to pass legislation it will even with the slimmest majority - ACA is great example being a majority of public was against passage and Senate abused parliamentary procedure to do so.

Or conversely that same majority can sit on 350+ bills from another legislative body that could be said to have a mandate by virtue of makeup.

This mandate discussion is irrelevant to how things work but may serve some purpose in assuaging those that perceived loss in Tuesdays result.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Gryphon66

I addressed your question in an earlier post. Its simple you have party line voters and the turn out there varies. And then as always you have your 5%/10% that swing the thing one way or another.

The two important factors here are 1. Why did the dems turn out low? 2. Why didn't the swing % vote dem leadership in like they did say 6 years ago?

So why were dem line voters remiss? Well they voted by not voting. When the party in control has voters that relinquish position for one reason or another. Same thing happened 2 years ago in Obamas favor. It looks like then that the voters purposely sought to create stalemate or that geographic voting played a major role by taking out enough dem congressman to created a stalemate.

Look at what is happening. West Va is going republican...milestone. Kentucky decided to keep a guy that both parties had been beating up on just to keep a democrat out of office. Ohio....dems were smashed down hard. Dem candidates hardly even tried here.....waste of money.

Again why are Dems not turning out? Why did they lose most places where they tried?



Pretty sure I responded to your first post here, Logarock; are you talking about your response in another thread, perhaps?

I'm not sure we can assume that it was only "Dems" that didn't turn out. There was only about 29% of registered voters voting yesterday. Even I wouldn't say that all 71% are Democrat.


Aside from that, it is a general trend in the last few cycles that Democrats do not participate in the mid-terms at the same level as in the Presidential cycle. Republicans usually do well in the mid-terms, but one of the points of this discussion is to ask whether that "doing well when the other guys don't show up to play" can really be considered any kind of "mandate."

One election doesn't make a trend, but I will say with the REDMAP efforts, the Republicans are more successful at the moment at rigging the system to work in their favor; I don't think anyone would dispute that.



Oh so now its a rigging? wow.

Yes one election doesn't make a trend. How about the fact that in 2012 the dem senate, while maintaining control lost 6 seats? House republicans while in control gained 6 more. And that wasn't in a mid term!!!!!! This has been coming.

Over the last two elections the dems have lost 13 senate seats.......in two years!!!!!!!

2012 was simply an early warning. 2014 full blossoming.

Dems probably saw this coming when the lost 6 senate seats in 2012 and lost the house. They tried and failed in the last two years, with the help of their press mouthpieces, to keep the thing headed for the ditch.

So this latest election was hardly a knee jerk as early warning signals were demonstrated 2 years ago.
edit on 7-11-2014 by Logarock because: n



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Yes, I think an admission on your website's front page that:



Republicans have an opportunity to create 20-25 new Republican Congressional Districts through the redistricting process over the next five election cycles, solidifying a Republican House majority.


... fairly clearly can be called overt and shameless election "rigging" ... that's only my opinion though.

I can appreciate that for you this topic is a matter of castigating the Democratic party; I'm more interested in looking at the question that even if 53% of Americans want a certain thing that the opinions of 45% just suddenly ceases to matter, as it seems to some.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Yes, I think an admission on the REDMAP website's front page that: EDIT: Link



Republicans have an opportunity to create 20-25 new Republican Congressional Districts through the redistricting process over the next five election cycles, solidifying a Republican House majority.


... fairly clearly can be called overt and shameless election "rigging" ... that's only my opinion though.

I can appreciate that for you this topic is a matter of castigating the Democratic party; I'm more interested in looking at the question that even if 53% of Americans want a certain thing that the opinions of 45% just suddenly ceases to matter, as it seems to some.
edit on 10Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:06:18 -060014p1020141166 by Gryphon66 because: Provided link



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not a register republican.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Logarock

Yes, I think an admission on your website's front page that:



Republicans have an opportunity to create 20-25 new Republican Congressional Districts through the redistricting process over the next five election cycles, solidifying a Republican House majority.


... fairly clearly can be called overt and shameless election "rigging" ... that's only my opinion though.

I can appreciate that for you this topic is a matter of castigating the Democratic party; I'm more interested in looking at the question that even if 53% of Americans want a certain thing that the opinions of 45% just suddenly ceases to matter, as it seems to some.



Well what do you think about ramming the AHCA down the throat of the minority? Not a single republican voted for that.....and did that give the dems any pause? No.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Yep, I caught and clarified the "your" ... bad pronoun reference; beg pardon.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join