Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 5, 2014 21:12:55 GMT -5
So who were the big losers in this election cycle other than the candidates that lost?
The Clinton backers. Bill and Hilary campaigned for a lot of losers this week. The President. He couldn't even get the Governor of Illinois re-elected and he and his wife spent time working for him. Other candidates he stumped for fell also The pollsters-regardless of what everyone says, they got it wrong on a lot of state races this year.
The winners? Christy-just about every candidate he politicked for won. He built a ton of good will and iou's across the country Tuesday Rand Paul-his plans for the White House in 2016 increased tremendously, but Christy might have just trumped him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:57:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 21:13:12 GMT -5
I disagree. Those that voted for the idjits that keep up the whole "same ol', same ol'" way of governing deserve it. Those that DON'T vote deserve it... but the minority that actually voted for good candidates based on ability for the job (instead of party, or race, or gender, or religion, or "best of two bad options, when there were MORE than two options")... we/they don't deserve it. Obviously voting was not sufficient. Did you give money? Volunteer time to the campaign? No money to give, nor any time. Otherwise I would have.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Nov 5, 2014 21:31:54 GMT -5
I channel flipped between Fox, CNN, MSNBC last night. Fox was basically calling all the Senate races before the other two. I do not know if they were taking chances, or the other two could not believe what was happening to the Democrats, but they were slow to report projected winners.
Virginia was a surprise, but the REPUBLICAN lost, so since we were not playing darts, it did not matter....... Nunn's loss percent in Georgia was a big miss in Georgia. North Carolina, the pollsters totally blew. Same for West Virginia No one here wants to mention McConnell's level of victory here-it was a blowout. Kansas- the Senator had called Mitch, earlier in the day and told him not to worry, as Orman was not going to win. We had to warhorses that knew in the end, how to finish the campaign properly. Then we have Colorado, where Udall totally blew his campaign, and Gardner was a fresh face from Congress who made a strong campaign program work for him. Governor Walker of Wisconsin, regardless of millions of dollars thrown against him by labor and Democrats, won re-election easily making a mockery of pollsters. That is three wins for him in four years, not bad for someone that is supposed to be hated by the citizens of the state..... Quinn in Illinois- defeated by a non politician, despite repeated visits from the President and Biden to back Quinn and the Democratic ticket Another race that pollsters always had Quinn winning. If only Durbin suffered the same fate, but alas, we cannot have it all. Then we have Iowa, where we had a talented woman who ran an excellent campaign to take the Senate seat.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 5, 2014 21:47:31 GMT -5
So who were the big losers in this election cycle other than the candidates that lost?
The Clinton backers. Bill and Hilary campaigned for a lot of losers this week. The President. He couldn't even get the Governor of Illinois re-elected and he and his wife spent time working for him. Other candidates he stumped for fell also The pollsters-regardless of what everyone says, they got it wrong on a lot of state races this year.
The winners? Christy-just about every candidate he politicked for won. He built a ton of good will and iou's across the country Tuesday Rand Paul-his plans for the White House in 2016 increased tremendously, but Christy might have just trumped him. Isn't he the one who quarantined that nurse and took flak for it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 5, 2014 22:02:35 GMT -5
Obviously voting was not sufficient. Did you give money? Volunteer time to the campaign? No money to give, nor any time. Otherwise I would have. well, if you don't have any money, you are not a person. the SCOTUS said so!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 5, 2014 22:21:49 GMT -5
I channel flipped between Fox, CNN, MSNBC last night. Fox was basically calling all the Senate races before the other two. I do not know if they were taking chances, or the other two could not believe what was happening to the Democrats, but they were slow to report projected winners.
Virginia was a surprise, but the REPUBLICAN lost, so since we were not playing darts, it did not matter....... Nunn's loss percent in Georgia was a big miss in Georgia.
don't know why. she was trailing or tied in something like the last seven polls in that state. reported here!
North Carolina, the pollsters totally blew.
no, not totally. NC was seen as a competitive race. of the last SIX polls conducted, the result was within margin of error. the only one that got it wrong was PPP. the GOP poll (Harper) said that Tillis would win by 3%
Same for West Virginia
the last poll conducted in WV was done by CBS. they predicted that the GOP would win by 22%, and they won by 27.6%, which was only 0.6% beyond polling error, hardly a large mistake.
No one here wants to mention McConnell's level of victory here-it was a blowout.
the last poll showed McConnell up by 9%, he won by 15.5%, which was 2% beyond polling error.
Kansas- the Senator had called Mitch, earlier in the day and told him not to worry, as Orman was not going to win. We had to warhorses that knew in the end, how to finish the campaign properly.
i will discuss this one later. i have some theories about it. but it was a weird race for a lot of reasons.
Then we have Colorado, where Udall totally blew his campaign, and Gardner was a fresh face from Congress who made a strong campaign program work for him.
that one was within polling error. i called it for Gardner myself two weeks ago.
edit: just ask our CO resident. she was not happy when i did.
Governor Walker of Wisconsin, regardless of millions of dollars thrown against him by labor and Democrats, won re-election easily making a mockery of pollsters.
the only one that called this race for Burke was Rasmussen. and i agree, they are a joke.
all of the other major pollsters called this one for Walker, and they were all within polling error. Marquette predicted he would win by 7%, which turned out to be optimistic.
That is three wins for him in four years, not bad for someone that is supposed to be hated by the citizens of the state..... Quinn in Illinois- defeated by a non politician, despite repeated visits from the President and Biden to back Quinn and the Democratic ticket Another race that pollsters always had Quinn winning.
this is also false. Rauner was shown leading the state in EVERY POLL between January and August, by as much as 13%. there were only THREE polls taken in all of 2014 that showed Quinn leading beyond MOE. there were FOUR four Rauner. if you had asked me to call this race, i could not have done so. the polling was too close. and yes, he won by 5%, which was outside of MOE for ALL BUT ONE POLL (Chicago Trib). however, i think most people missed something very shocking in the polling, and that is that the one pollster that got it right also showed a THIRTEEN POINT SWING for Rauner. anyone watching should have taken notice there. but clearly, a couple of pollsters did indeed get this one very wrong.
If only Durbin suffered the same fate, but alas, we cannot have it all. Then we have Iowa, where we had a talented woman who ran an excellent campaign to take the Senate seat. Ernst is a whackadoodle. seriously. she is a hot mess. but i wish her luck. i didn't see you much on this thread, VB. if you had been following it, not much you just mentioned would have surprised you. i thought after 2012, you, of all people, would have taken the time to turn off the cable and tune into the polldancer. clearly, i need better PR.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 5, 2014 22:29:32 GMT -5
The pollsters-regardless of what everyone says, they got it wrong on a lot of state races this year. on results? no, they didn't get a lot wrong. a few, but not a lot. i can think of maybe a dozen out of 500 races where they got it wrong. and this does happen. i remember Rasmussen getting a race in Hawaii wrong by something like 32%. not this year, some time in the past. nothing that wild happened this year. not even close. on degree? yes, quite a few got it wrong. not unusual. i could not tell you whether the amount that got it outside MOE was unusual or not. i have not studied it, nor do i plan to. i have already given my general observations, and i stand by them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 5, 2014 22:37:32 GMT -5
all in all, i learned a lesson here: that the LATER polls are way more accurate. WAY more. the last poll conducted in MANY of these runaway races was the most accurate. and that makes perfect sense, right? some people don't even pay attention until the closing days of a race. others change their mind at the last minutes. and then there is the undecided that MUST DECIDE. if you don't vote, undecided means that someone who voted got a say and you didn't. so, there is that, too.
California had it's lowest turnout in a generation this election, and the result is that Democrats lost three house seats that they likely WOULD HAVE WON had they just shown up. oh well, their loss is my gain.
let the fun of governing begin!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 15:57:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 23:00:52 GMT -5
No money to give, nor any time. Otherwise I would have. well, if you don't have any money, you are not a person. the SCOTUS said so! The SCOTUS has said a lot of things that it had no business saying (Hobby Lobby and Obamacare rulings come to mind most recently)... this is not exactly news to me. LOL
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 5, 2014 23:04:02 GMT -5
i just remembered that there was ONE state that the pollster aggregators got as much wrong as NC: LA. in BOTH cases, two pollsters called it a tossup (which was right), and the other EIGHT got it wrong: www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/comparisons.htmli think you will notice something else from this matrix. the pollsters got the Senate races almost exactly right. edit: incidentally, Huffington was the most accurate pollster by degree. they not only got Kansas right, but they came closest to getting Louisiana and NC right, unless you count those that used "tossup" rather than % (which i don't think is fair. after all, both of the tossup pollers called Georgia, Kansas and Arkansas a tossup, and they were all blowouts). so, despite their reputation for being batshit liberal, Huffington beat everyone this time, including Nate Silver and Princeton. again, 80% of the aggregators got NC, LA wrong. 70% got KS wrong. the three best this year were Huffington, Princeton, and Nate Silver in that order. but NONE got the Senate right.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 5, 2014 23:05:48 GMT -5
Dems never show up for Midterms.
We don't have a prayer in 2016. I'd rather have the Prez and the House than this set up. Another two years of gridlock and some Presidential Executive Orders.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 5, 2014 23:16:08 GMT -5
ok, i found UPSHOT's matrix of house races. this will help answer the question of how "wrong" the polls were.
of the house races judged likely democratic win, only ONE was won by a Republican. of the house races judged likely republican win, only TWO were won by Democrats, and both are runoffs, that the GOP might ultimately win. of the house races judged LEAN democratic, THREE were won by Republicans of the house races judge LEAN republican, NONE were won by Democrats of the tossups, 9 were won by democrats and 16 were won by Republicans.
in other words, out of 435 races, UPSHOT got a grand total of SIX wrong, or 1.4%
in the Senate they did somewhat worse. they got NC and LA wrong (as did ALL OTHER poll aggregators), for a 6.7% error.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 5, 2014 23:22:38 GMT -5
Dems never show up for Midterms. We don't have a prayer in 2016. I'd rather have the Prez and the House than this set up. Another two years of gridlock and some Presidential Executive Orders. you are absolutely right. the GOP stands less than a 10% chance of winning the Senate in 2016, imo. they have a bit better chance of winning the presidency, but not much. and a bit better still of keeping the gerrymandered House, and better still of keeping a majority of governors and state legisatures. this is WHY the ill fated idea of killing ObamaCare, getting a balanced budget amendment, overturning RvW, or anything else of consequence is extremely unlikely in the next 26 months. but it will be fun to watch them try.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 1:16:49 GMT -5
all in all, i learned a lesson here: that the LATER polls are way more accurate. WAY more. the last poll conducted in MANY of these runaway races was the most accurate. and that makes perfect sense, right? some people don't even pay attention until the closing days of a race. others change their mind at the last minutes. and then there is the undecided that MUST DECIDE. if you don't vote, undecided means that someone who voted got a say and you didn't. so, there is that, too. California had it's lowest turnout in a generation this election, and the result is that Democrats lost three house seats that they likely WOULD HAVE WON had they just shown up. oh well, their loss is my gain. let the fun of governing begin!!!! i wanted to add something to this. the SMART aggregators give a higher weight to the more recent polls, which is why they were so incredibly accurate. but what they did WRONG was the same thing i did wrong. they probably should just drop any poll that was made more than two weeks before a midterm election. there were very few cases where those polls ended up predicting the result. in fact, i can't think of a single example.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Nov 6, 2014 6:31:26 GMT -5
expect "repeal obamacare", "fetuses are people, too" and "make elections harder", as well as "appoint our judges or ELSE" and "here is some impeachment cobbler for you, mr president". got your popcorn?Not only do the Republicans have a great deal of internal dissention BUT Democrats will be digging their heels in with filibusters, procedural stuff & Presidential vetoes w/o Republican numbers enough to override. Also the junk that is WAAAY out of mainstream popular opinions that dj wrote about.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,985
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 6, 2014 7:47:52 GMT -5
this is why i don't pole dance. i just dance with polls. much safer. Polls or Poles? I like a good polka myself
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 6, 2014 11:00:26 GMT -5
Dems never show up for Midterms. We don't have a prayer in 2016. I'd rather have the Prez and the House than this set up. Another two years of gridlock and some Presidential Executive Orders. you are absolutely right. the GOP stands less than a 10% chance of winning the Senate in 2016, imo. they have a bit better chance of winning the presidency, but not much. and a bit better still of keeping the gerrymandered House, and better still of keeping a majority of governors and state legisatures. this is WHY the ill fated idea of killing ObamaCare, getting a balanced budget amendment, overturning RvW, or anything else of consequence is extremely unlikely in the next 26 months. but it will be fun to watch them try. Why would voters kick the Republicans out of the Senate if they're doing everything in their power to make good on their legislative goals and being perpetually shot down by an unpopular executive branch? You make it sound as though Americans will blame them for the gridlock by 2016, but most Americans plainly don't even blame them for the gridlock now.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,561
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2014 11:19:14 GMT -5
... Why would voters kick the Republicans out of the Senate if they're doing everything in their power to make good on their legislative goals and being perpetually shot down by an unpopular executive branch? You make it sound as though Americans will blame them for the gridlock by 2016, but most Americans plainly don't even blame them for the gridlock now. There is the (mis)perception by too many that it is either Republican or Democrat. Thirty-three (or four) states had a Senate race with either a R or D in office. Voters could keep the party (and in most cases the person) in power or elect someone from the other party (with one exception). In 2016, it will be a different mix of states, half the same - half different, which will have Senate races with an entirely different set of office holders.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 6, 2014 12:01:23 GMT -5
... Why would voters kick the Republicans out of the Senate if they're doing everything in their power to make good on their legislative goals and being perpetually shot down by an unpopular executive branch? You make it sound as though Americans will blame them for the gridlock by 2016, but most Americans plainly don't even blame them for the gridlock now. There is the (mis)perception by too many that it is either Republican or Democrat. Thirty-three (or four) states had a Senate race with either a R or D in office. Voters could keep the party (and in most cases the person) in power or elect someone from the other party (with one exception). In 2016, it will be a different mix of states, half the same - half different, which will have Senate races with an entirely different set of office holders. Maybe it's time I learned how exactly elections scheduling works in the US. In Canada, it's simple. Election is called. All MPs are elected simultaneously four weeks later. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and have a lifetime term. Life goes on. The only hiccup is when an MP resigns or dies, necessitating a by-election. In the US, primaries are run... unless there isn't a need for a primary... but it's an election year... and then senators are elected sometimes... for some states, every four years, but not the same four years that the President is elected leader of the ruling party... which isn't the party controlling the House... unless they were elected two years earlier... but not for 33 states with Senate races... Is there maybe a flowchart or diagram that explains the major points? I'm interesting in the timing specifically, not a lengthy overview of the US congressional system.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 12:15:45 GMT -5
all in all, i learned a lesson here: that the LATER polls are way more accurate. WAY more. the last poll conducted in MANY of these runaway races was the most accurate. and that makes perfect sense, right? some people don't even pay attention until the closing days of a race. others change their mind at the last minutes. and then there is the undecided that MUST DECIDE. if you don't vote, undecided means that someone who voted got a say and you didn't. so, there is that, too. California had it's lowest turnout in a generation this election, and the result is that Democrats lost three house seats that they likely WOULD HAVE WON had they just shown up. oh well, their loss is my gain. let the fun of governing begin!!!! Actually I am surprised to see you expressing surprise at this. Polls are simply showing a snapshot in time- which is a fact that I know you have expressed several times here. The closer to the election we get the less the earlier polls matter.
i didn't say i was surprised. however, i tend to like to have LOTS of polls, and that has caused me to aggregate OLDER polls with newer ones in states like VIRGINIA where there was almost no polling. what i was trying to say is that i need to have a second standard. MORE polls don't mean BETTER polling, necessarily. MORE TIMELY polls do.
The other lesson imo is that the trustworthiness of the late poll models is very important too. If the late poll(s) are done by groups with less than stellar methods they are (of curse) more questionable, and given their outsize importance because of the timeframe, somehow that should be taken into account as well, perhaps by increasing the MOE.
However, 31 out of 33 is a pretty good run.
i did OK. actually, i did better than Nate Silver this year.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 12:16:55 GMT -5
you are absolutely right. the GOP stands less than a 10% chance of winning the Senate in 2016, imo. they have a bit better chance of winning the presidency, but not much. and a bit better still of keeping the gerrymandered House, and better still of keeping a majority of governors and state legisatures. this is WHY the ill fated idea of killing ObamaCare, getting a balanced budget amendment, overturning RvW, or anything else of consequence is extremely unlikely in the next 26 months. but it will be fun to watch them try. Why would voters kick the Republicans out of the Senate if they're doing everything in their power to make good on their legislative goals and being perpetually shot down by an unpopular executive branch? You make it sound as though Americans will blame them for the gridlock by 2016, but most Americans plainly don't even blame them for the gridlock now. has nothing to do with WHY. it has to do with demographics, and seats that will be up.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,561
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2014 12:17:32 GMT -5
There is the (mis)perception by too many that it is either Republican or Democrat. Thirty-three (or four) states had a Senate race with either a R or D in office. Voters could keep the party (and in most cases the person) in power or elect someone from the other party (with one exception). In 2016, it will be a different mix of states, half the same - half different, which will have Senate races with an entirely different set of office holders. Maybe it's time I learned how exactly elections scheduling works in the US. In Canada, it's simple. Election is called. All MPs are elected simultaneously four weeks later. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and have a lifetime term. Life goes on. The only hiccup is when an MP resigns or dies, necessitating a by-election. In the US, primaries are run... unless there isn't a need for a primary... but it's an election year... and then senators are elected sometimes... for some states, every four years, but not the same four years that the President is elected leader of the ruling party... which isn't the party controlling the House... unless they were elected two years earlier... but not for 33 states with Senate races... Is there maybe a flowchart or diagram that explains the major points? I'm interesting in the timing specifically, not a lengthy overview of the US congressional system. Senate 100 members, 2 from each state. You have to mentally "jump into the middle of the ongoing flow" here. Senators are elected to a six year term. Roughly one-third are up for election every two years, never two from the same state. That means every third cycle, there isn't a Senate race in each state. (Vacancies can have special rules determined by state.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 12:17:47 GMT -5
... Why would voters kick the Republicans out of the Senate if they're doing everything in their power to make good on their legislative goals and being perpetually shot down by an unpopular executive branch? You make it sound as though Americans will blame them for the gridlock by 2016, but most Americans plainly don't even blame them for the gridlock now. There is the (mis)perception by too many that it is either Republican or Democrat. Thirty-three (or four) states had a Senate race with either a R or D in office. Voters could keep the party (and in most cases the person) in power or elect someone from the other party (with one exception). In 2016, it will be a different mix of states, half the same - half different, which will have Senate races with an entirely different set of office holders. precisely. and the mix is VERY unfavorable to Republicans. regression to the mean.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 12:19:24 GMT -5
There is the (mis)perception by too many that it is either Republican or Democrat. Thirty-three (or four) states had a Senate race with either a R or D in office. Voters could keep the party (and in most cases the person) in power or elect someone from the other party (with one exception). In 2016, it will be a different mix of states, half the same - half different, which will have Senate races with an entirely different set of office holders. Maybe it's time I learned how exactly elections scheduling works in the US. In Canada, it's simple. Election is called. All MPs are elected simultaneously four weeks later. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and have a lifetime term. Life goes on. The only hiccup is when an MP resigns or dies, necessitating a by-election. In the US, primaries are run... unless there isn't a need for a primary... but it's an election year... and then senators are elected sometimes... for some states, every four years, but not the same four years that the President is elected leader of the ruling party... which isn't the party controlling the House... unless they were elected two years earlier... but not for 33 states with Senate races... Is there maybe a flowchart or diagram that explains the major points? I'm interesting in the timing specifically, not a lengthy overview of the US congressional system. the most important thing to know is that in EVERY presidential election year, the Senators that are up come from MIDTERM elections. in the case of 2016, it will be the MIDTERM elections of 2010 that will be up for a vote. do you recall what that year was like for Republicans?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,561
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2014 12:25:23 GMT -5
Maybe it's time I learned how exactly elections scheduling works in the US. In Canada, it's simple. Election is called. All MPs are elected simultaneously four weeks later. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and have a lifetime term. Life goes on. The only hiccup is when an MP resigns or dies, necessitating a by-election. In the US, primaries are run... unless there isn't a need for a primary... but it's an election year... and then senators are elected sometimes... for some states, every four years, but not the same four years that the President is elected leader of the ruling party... which isn't the party controlling the House... unless they were elected two years earlier... but not for 33 states with Senate races... Is there maybe a flowchart or diagram that explains the major points? I'm interesting in the timing specifically, not a lengthy overview of the US congressional system. Senate 100 members, 2 from each state. You have to mentally "jump into the middle of the ongoing flow" here. Senators are elected to a six year term. Roughly one-third are up for election every two years, never two from the same state. That means every third cycle, there isn't a Senate race in each state. (Vacancies can have special rules determined by state.) There is no "ruling party". The House, everyone elected every two years, votes for a "Speaker of the House". In theory this could be any member. In practice, whichever party has more members elected gets together and picks someone, then that person is rubber stamp elected by the whole House. The Senate elects a "Majority Leader" in the same way. The President is not a part of this process.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,561
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2014 12:33:19 GMT -5
... the most important thing to know is that in EVERY presidential election year, the Senators that are up come from MIDTERM elections. in the case of 2016, it will be the MIDTERM elections of 2010 that will be up for a vote. do you recall what that year was like for Republicans? That is actually an interesting piece of minutiae for people who are very much into understanding things but is very far from "the most important thing to know"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 12:51:01 GMT -5
... the most important thing to know is that in EVERY presidential election year, the Senators that are up come from MIDTERM elections. in the case of 2016, it will be the MIDTERM elections of 2010 that will be up for a vote. do you recall what that year was like for Republicans? That is actually an interesting piece of minutiae for people who are very much into understanding things but is very far from "the most important thing to know" bills- i meant in terms of WHY the Senate is very likely to flip, not in terms of our republic, or anything so grand.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,561
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2014 12:57:12 GMT -5
That is actually an interesting piece of minutiae for people who are very much into understanding things but is very far from "the most important thing to know" bills- i meant in terms of WHY the Senate is very likely to flip, not in terms of our republic, or anything so grand. You quoted Sir Virgil's request for American Government 101 information and gave a graduate seminar response. I was clarifying for his sake.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 6, 2014 13:03:37 GMT -5
I channel flipped between Fox, CNN, MSNBC last night. Fox was basically calling all the Senate races before the other two. I do not know if they were taking chances, or the other two could not believe what was happening to the Democrats, but they were slow to report projected winners.
Virginia was a surprise, but the REPUBLICAN lost, so since we were not playing darts, it did not matter....... Nunn's loss percent in Georgia was a big miss in Georgia. North Carolina, the pollsters totally blew. Same for West Virginia No one here wants to mention McConnell's level of victory here-it was a blowout. Kansas- the Senator had called Mitch, earlier in the day and told him not to worry, as Orman was not going to win. We had to warhorses that knew in the end, how to finish the campaign properly. Then we have Colorado, where Udall totally blew his campaign, and Gardner was a fresh face from Congress who made a strong campaign program work for him. Governor Walker of Wisconsin, regardless of millions of dollars thrown against him by labor and Democrats, won re-election easily making a mockery of pollsters. That is three wins for him in four years, not bad for someone that is supposed to be hated by the citizens of the state..... Quinn in Illinois- defeated by a non politician, despite repeated visits from the President and Biden to back Quinn and the Democratic ticket Another race that pollsters always had Quinn winning. If only Durbin suffered the same fate, but alas, we cannot have it all. Then we have Iowa, where we had a talented woman who ran an excellent campaign to take the Senate seat. There would have to be photos of him in a compromising position with an underage boy before that would ever happen in this state.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2014 13:24:47 GMT -5
I channel flipped between Fox, CNN, MSNBC last night. Fox was basically calling all the Senate races before the other two. I do not know if they were taking chances, or the other two could not believe what was happening to the Democrats, but they were slow to report projected winners.
Virginia was a surprise, but the REPUBLICAN lost, so since we were not playing darts, it did not matter....... Nunn's loss percent in Georgia was a big miss in Georgia. North Carolina, the pollsters totally blew. Same for West Virginia No one here wants to mention McConnell's level of victory here-it was a blowout. Kansas- the Senator had called Mitch, earlier in the day and told him not to worry, as Orman was not going to win. We had to warhorses that knew in the end, how to finish the campaign properly. Then we have Colorado, where Udall totally blew his campaign, and Gardner was a fresh face from Congress who made a strong campaign program work for him. Governor Walker of Wisconsin, regardless of millions of dollars thrown against him by labor and Democrats, won re-election easily making a mockery of pollsters. That is three wins for him in four years, not bad for someone that is supposed to be hated by the citizens of the state..... Quinn in Illinois- defeated by a non politician, despite repeated visits from the President and Biden to back Quinn and the Democratic ticket Another race that pollsters always had Quinn winning. If only Durbin suffered the same fate, but alas, we cannot have it all. Then we have Iowa, where we had a talented woman who ran an excellent campaign to take the Senate seat. There would have to be photos of him in a compromising position with an underage boy before that would ever happen in this state. i probably shouldn't laugh at this, but i thought it was hilarious.
|
|