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

a reply to: Logarock

I'm not going to reargue the ACA here, except to say that using a political majority in Congress to pass legislation is one thing.

Using State legislatures to redraw districts to insure that only your party can win is quite another.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Both parties have always done that or try to. Dems don't complain when they do it and win.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Typical spin. Look at how far the polls were off. Look at the margins by which the major upsets were won. You're throwing every close race and democrat win in the mix to make it look like it's not a big deal. It is a very big deal.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Almost as big a deal as Obama winning so easily both times. When Republicans win it's a mandate. When Democrats win it's a dirty trick. What a joke.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Almost as big a deal as Obama winning so easily both times. When Republicans win it's a mandate. When Democrats win it's a dirty trick. What a joke.

The Obama Mandate only lasted 2 short years with big damage caused.

The Republican Mandate started with the 2010 elections.

The majority of the population has been represented by elected House Republicans since the 2010 elections.

The Senate was delayed by the 1/3 seat vote every two years rule.

The House vote moves faster.

The balance of power and checks & balances apparently has been restored.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Almost as big a deal as Obama winning so easily both times. When Republicans win it's a mandate. When Democrats win it's a dirty trick. What a joke.

Uh, no. The word "mandate" was used so many times on TV after Obama's second "win". I forgot what it meant.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

I'm using published vote totals and census data.

Sources cited.

Calculations demonstrated.

Simple calculations, really.

I've stated exactly what numbers I'm using.

You are merely offering your opinion.

Thanks for participating.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

I'm using published vote totals and census data.

Sources cited.

Calculations demonstrated.

Simple calculations, really.

I've stated exactly what numbers I'm using.

You are merely offering your opinion.

Thanks for participating.

Now distill the Senate races from that data.

I'll be waiting.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Done.

Reread the OP.

Hey Gryphon thought you might want to see this article. I think a good add to the thread. It is an interview with The Executive Director of the DSCC Guy Cecil.

"This was not a turnout election in the sense that another door knock would have mattered of another half-million would have mattered. It was a wave election," Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Executive Director Guy Cecil said Thursday morning.

The Hill

a more detailed assessment on turnout of specific democratic constituencies is here .Even thought most disregard Breitbart as too right biased this article has links to supporting data.

I seriously think the biggest semantics argument is can a wave be considered a landslide if voter turnout is low. I'll let everyone else continue that argument as I don't really care. Results are results.

a reply to: xuenchen

Mandate? No. Hell, no. A balancing act of sorts. See it in every presidency. Mid term, people start voting the opposite party to balance things out and preventing a government from too much and too one sided change. It happened in the Bush years, too, with Democrat controlled congress in an attempt to block him from ruining the country any further. It's a sort of cycle. Not to mention during this cycle, the Republicans are finally distancing themselves from the Tea Baggers with less extreme candidates.

But a mandate? No. Not even close. Many people are still disgusted with the Republicans for the shutdown of the government and their petty antics. People are angry and disappointed with Obama, but they sure as hell are not happy with the right, either. I'd save your party hat for another day. A mandate implies support and approval, neither which the GOP really has.

The cycle shifts.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


There are some things to suggest otherwise to what you said in your second paragraph. That it that republicans lost almost nothing, very close to nothing and in about 80% of the new pickups were gained by upsetting incumbent democrats.

Overall incumbents of both parties did well. The vast majority of state stayed the same in numbers differential.

One could make a case for mandate by using the last three elections. Dems have been slowly but surely losing ground.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Gryphon66

Typical spin. Look at how far the polls were off. Look at the margins by which the major upsets were won. You're throwing every close race and democrat win in the mix to make it look like it's not a big deal. It is a very big deal.

The data suggests that democrats may have indeed voted for republicans in the new seat pickups.

The math of the situation is fairly clear.

If we wish to talk about a mandate or a landslide we are talking about a considerable majority of people (not states, not congressional districts), what an overwhelming majority of People seem to want based on voting.

Can we agree that's want the words mandate or landslide mean?

I've seen the voter turnout calculated since I started this thread from 29 to 36%.

The overall number of Republican votes as compared with the overall number of Non-republican votes comes to approximately a 52/48 split.

So look at the numbers not the politics. 0.29x0.52=0.1508 or 15% or 0.36x0.52=0.1872 or 18.7%

Should the will of 15-18.7% of the American people be considered a "mandate"? And that's giving credit for every Republican vote.

If you look at it as a "margin of victory" it's even less impressive.

About 43 million folks voted in the elections, give or take. 22.36 million voted Republican, 20.64 million didn't.

That's a margin of 1.72 million. I calculated 2.23 million earlier. Both are less than 2% of the electorate.

Someone wanted to look at a net less of Democratic party seats over the last three elections, which I will admit is an interesting trend since in the last three elections, Democratic candidates received well over 5 million MORE VOTES than Republicans did. Bloomberg - Republicans Win Congress as Democrats get More Votes

Irrelevant because the Republicans "are in power"? Perhaps. Or perhaps that's the reason.

Now ask yourself, is that a non-statist argument?

Does that even come close to reflecting the true will of the People?

Much less a mandate?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The math of the situation is fairly clear.

If we wish to talk about a mandate or a landslide we are talking about a considerable majority of people (not states, not congressional districts), what an overwhelming majority of People seem to want based on voting.

That's why we have whats called a republic. Raw democracy is not a good thing and is kept in check by local representation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Someone wanted to look at a net less of Democratic party seats over the last three elections, which I will admit is an interesting trend since in the last three elections, Democratic candidates received well over 5 million MORE VOTES than Republicans did. Bloomberg - Republicans Win Congress as Democrats get More Votes

Irrelevant because the Republicans "are in power"? Perhaps. Or perhaps that's the reason.

Now ask yourself, is that a non-statist argument?

Does that even come close to reflecting the true will of the People?

Much less a mandate?

Statistics on total votes really don't mean anything. They can and would be oppressive. That's why we have things broken down in districts. Urban areas that have more voters shouldn't be able to impose their will on the rest of the state. That's not true representation and not a balance of power. So district 1 that is more rural and has way less voters than district 2 can have proper representation.

If the case is good, the issues voted on, the platform ect then it is properly represented as the will of the people when we see districts with various and different demographics, industry, lifestyles ect line up on the same positions, vote for the same party. In addition most issues are local anyway. Its really what you could call a fluid democratic/republic. A pure and raw democracy, power in numbers only is not representative.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The math of the situation is fairly clear.

If we wish to talk about a mandate or a landslide we are talking about a considerable majority of people (not states, not congressional districts), what an overwhelming majority of People seem to want based on voting.

That's why we have whats called a republic. Raw democracy is not a good thing and is kept in check by local representation.

So your perspective on how a republic works is that it is intended to keep the American people from expressing their will?

I guess that's why the whole "Republicans weren't sent to Washington to govern" thing makes sense to those who believe as you do.

Well, at least you're honest!

a reply to: Logarock

Statistics on total votes actually do mean something, although, apparently, it means something you don't like: what the American people want.

Representation, even in "urban" areas is actually based on population, or was supposed to be before the ludicrous and overt level of Republican gerrymandering we currently see. That's why it's called "prpportional representation." I realize that since you apparently ascribe to the Republican theory that a few politicians should be the ones in charge rather than the People, and of course, you've got to do something to limit the vote of people in "urban" areas (who would that be now? Blacks, Latinos, Women and Younger voters, i.e. traditionally Democratic voters?)

Every vote matters, remember? Or was that just until you guys won the elections? The will of every individual voter should be expressed, right?

Oh, except the will of those who live in "urban" areas, i.e. Democrats, in favor of those who live in rural areas, i.e. Republicans Well, again, at least you're being honest. Because, of course, those "urban" folks can't be trusted to do the right thing.

You favor the will of the few over the many, you favor that government be controlled by professional politicians rather than the people of the United States.

Gotcha!

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


There are some things to suggest otherwise to what you said in your second paragraph. That it that republicans lost almost nothing, very close to nothing and in about 80% of the new pickups were gained by upsetting incumbent democrats.

Overall incumbents of both parties did well. The vast majority of state stayed the same in numbers differential.

One could make a case for mandate by using the last three elections. Dems have been slowly but surely losing ground.

All of which is part of the cycle I am talking about.

First years of a presidency, Congress tends to fit who the prez is. As time goes on, congress starts shifting towards the other party, with the last years of a presidency usually making a congress opposed to the administration. It happened with Bush, now its happening with Obama. I do not consider it a mandate. It is a trend.

I think every election is a mandate.