Election 2014: Referenda Edition

[lopri]

1. One thing I pay attention in every election is how the "issues" votes align with party votes. I think it is worth checking out what people think on the issues other than partisan politics in Washington D.C.

The below link takes you to the results of variety of issues votes in this election cycle. There are abortion (shocker), medical marijuana, minimum wage, etc. The results are fascinating, to say the least, considering how the party votes were split.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/ballot?hpt=hp_t2

2. On the other hand, exit polls on party votes have not identified what issues the voters thought important other than generalized negative notions on the president and Washington politics. It will be interesting to learn what particular issue that voters thought important for their decisions. (I refuse to believe it was Ebola) It will also be telling if voters had no particular issue in mind but generalized discontent against the government.

Dems need to wake up. The country may not be what you thought it might be.. yet..

 

[lopri]

Also, Nate Silver reports that pre-election polls for the U.S. Senate had average 6% Democratic bias. In other words, about 6% of people polled prior to the election day answered they would vote for Democratic candidates either 1) lied, 2) did not show up, or there were systemic failures by polling firms (unlikely but possible).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/liveblog/special-coverage-the-2014-midterms/

What to make of this is up to you. If I were Dems I would worry.

 

[HomerJS]

Don't forget gerrymandering. In 2012 1 million more Dems voted nationwide yet Republicans gained house seats.

 

[lopri]

Yes, gerrymandering is a huge problem (both parties are guilty of it) so is voter suppression. But I am seeing something else here. By and large, the voters favored (in some of the deep red states);

1) Higher minimum wages
2) Reproductive freedom
3) Stronger gun controls
4) Legalized/decriminalized medical marijuana
5) etc.

But the partisan votes were not what the issues votes might lead one to believe. There was a similar and famous case in 2008, namely the Prop. 8 in California. That referendum also had a positive bias that did not match with the vote result. (i.e. More people said they favored granting civil marriage to same-sex couples outside the poll booths but in actuality voted otherwise)

I will leave it to experts how to interpret this phenomena.

 

[boomerang]

They overwhelmingly rejected licenses for illegals in Oregon. Oregon!

http://toprightnews.com/?p=7098

 

[IronWing]

In Arizona we passed Prop 122, an unconstitutional defense of the Constitution. It's like we enjoy losing in court.

 

[dank69]

...

I will leave it to experts how to interpret this phenomena.

It's called ignorance.

 

[nageov3t]

Don't forget gerrymandering. In 2012 1 million more Dems voted nationwide yet Republicans gained house seats.

what impact does gerrymandering have on Senate elections and popular referendums?

 

[cabri]

what impact does gerrymandering have on Senate elections and popular referendums?

It is an excuse for the Democratic failure; avoids having to look in the mirror.

Some of what is considered gerrymandering is due to the excessive concentration of Democrats within the urban areas.

Again, that because unacceptable data point and must be rejected.

 

[lopri]

@cabri: I think you misunderstand loki8481's statement. loki8481 means that U.S. senate elections and referenda are statewide. Gerrymandering does not have direct impact on those because what matters is the total votes within the states unlike seats for the U.S. House of Representative or some state officials.

It's called ignorance.

I would say the opposite. To me it shows they are not ignorant. Plus, the citizens in red states share a lot more with the citizens in blue states than what common sense dictates. (To be sure, there are plenty of ignorant people on every state)

For the party votes, though, I wonder if something else was at work.

 

[cabri]

@cabri: I think you misunderstand loki8481's statement. loki8481 means that U.S. senate elections and referenda are statewide. Gerrymandering does not have direct impact on those because what matters is the total votes within the states unlike seats for the U.S. House of Representative or some state officials.

I understand the difference between the Senate and representative voting by the public.

while quoting loki8481 ; the quote of Homer that loki8481 did was lost.

I was not interceding on critiquing loki8481 but rather backing him up against the excuse that Homer was putting forth.

 

[Ken g6]

Yeah, I don't understand how voters in Colorado defeated a personhood amendment, while also voting out Mark Udall for being primarily associated with wanting to defeat personhood laws.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, I don't understand how voters in Colorado defeated a personhood amendment, while also voting out Mark Udall for being primarily associated with wanting to defeat personhood laws.

The american electorate, can't live with'm, can't live without'm.

 

[dank69]

...


I would say the opposite. To me it shows they are not ignorant. Plus, the citizens in red states share a lot more with the citizens in blue states than what common sense dictates. (To be sure, there are plenty of ignorant people on every state)

For the party votes, though, I wonder if something else was at work.

I mean ignorance of what each party actually stands for. Not lip service either, actual voting records.

A person that is voting to increase minimum wage while voting for GOP candidates is ignorant, plain and simple.

 

[cabri]

Yeah, I don't understand how voters in Colorado defeated a personhood amendment, while also voting out Mark Udall for being primarily associated with wanting to defeat personhood laws.

Where did you get the info as to that is why Udall was ousted?

I thought Udall tied himself to Obama's coattails.

 

[cabri]

I mean ignorance of what each party actually stands for. Not lip service either, actual voting records.

A person that is voting to increase minimum wage while voting for GOP candidates is ignorant, plain and simple.

Why, the GOP candidate may not be against minimum wage or may stand for for of a voter's values than the other opponents.

You are acting just like both the Obama's did this past week.
It does not matter the quality of the person, just the letter beside their name.

Michelle tried to play the race card by saying that all blacks should vote Democratic, not matter who/what the candidate was. That would seem to be insulting to the black voter.

 

[dank69]

Why, the GOP candidate may not be against minimum wage ...

LOL

 

[Ken g6]

Where did you get the info as to that is why Udall was ousted?

I thought Udall tied himself to Obama's coattails.

Certainly not! No, lots of people, including The Denver Post complained that he was running "an obnoxious, one-issue campaign". Some dubbed him "Mark Uterus". I just don't understand why it was "obnoxious". His opponent never stopped sponsoring a "personhood" bill in Congress.

 

[cabri]

Certainly not! No, lots of people, including The Denver Post complained that he was running "an obnoxious, one-issue campaign". Some dubbed him "Mark Uterus". I just don't understand why it was "obnoxious". His opponent never stopped sponsoring a "personhood" bill in Congress.

My mail in was for Gardner because I did not like Udall from 6 years ago.:whiste:

 

[Fern]

Also, Nate Silver reports that pre-election polls for the U.S. Senate had average 6% Democratic bias. In other words, about 6% of people polled prior to the election day answered they would vote for Democratic candidates either 1) lied, 2) did not show up, or there were systemic failures by polling firms (unlikely but possible).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/liveblog/special-coverage-the-2014-midterms/

What to make of this is up to you. If I were Dems I would worry.

I thought we learned in 2012 this just doesn't happen, at all. That it is impossible.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

turnout numbers were way down compared to 2010 and 2012, which I'm sure favored the GOP a lot (and conversely, will hurt the GOP a lot in 2016 if Obama isn't weighing down the entire party again)

 

[Fern]

1. One thing I pay attention in every election is how the "issues" votes align with party votes. I think it is worth checking out what people think on the issues other than partisan politics in Washington D.C.

The below link takes you to the results of variety of issues votes in this election cycle. There are abortion (shocker), medical marijuana, minimum wage, etc. The results are fascinating, to say the least, considering how the party votes were split.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/ballot?hpt=hp_t2

Hmmm... I too think it interesting, but from another angle entirely. I see a lot of referendums listed in your link.

E.g., we have posters here suggesting it's stupid to vote for a Repub when that voter favors increased minimum wage.

But you know what, when you take issues like that and put them to vote in a referendum it removes that issue from the race between candidates. If my biggest issue is increased minimum wage I no longer need the Dem candidate to get it. I can devote my time, energy and resources for the increase to the referendum. And I'll be voting on the candidates on a basis other than min wage.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

Hmmm... I too think it interesting, but from another angle entirely. I see a lot of referendums listed in your link.

E.g., we have posters here suggesting it's stupid to vote for a Repub when that voter favors increased minimum wage.

But you know what, when you take issues like that and put them to vote in a referendum it removes that issue from the race between candidates. If my biggest issue is increased minimum wage I no longer need the Dem candidate to get it. I can devote my time, energy and resources for the increase to the referendum. And I'll be voting on the candidates on a basis other than min wage.

Fern

it could just be that some people see minimum wage as a fundamentally states-rights issue.

I'd support a raise in the minimum wage in my state, but it wouldn't be a factor in terms of who I'd elect to Congress because I'd be against a federally managed minimum wage of like $15/hour. what's right for California isn't necessarily what's right for Wyoming.

 

[cubby1223]

Yeah, I don't understand how voters in Colorado defeated a personhood amendment, while also voting out Mark Udall for being primarily associated with wanting to defeat personhood laws.

Maybe elections are about more than single issues?

 

[Brainonska511]

CNN seems to be missing a couple of ballot issues. For instance, NYS had 3 issues on the ballot and none are listed on CNN's page.