Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Based on the young/old voter differential you referenced between 2012/2014, that question may simplify down to, why are older voters always there while younger voters only come out for presidential years?

Presidents are exciting, invoking a sense of great anticipation in what the future could hold with only a single candidate winning the position. Applying a pop culture term, a presidential vote is ****. Mid-term elections are not ****. A person can only (legally) vote for a single seat amongst 435 in the House, and perhaps they'll get to cast a vote for a senator, one amongst 100. The power isn't there, the sexiness is lost. And that's why many young voters tend to not make it to the polls in mid-terms. Meanwhile, dust farters know that there's true power in those large bodies within Congress, power that isn't term-limited.

ETA: se xy and se xiness are the **** words.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Maybe. I suggest we go ask them. I can think of two reasons. (1) Young people are doing stuff; old people have a lot of time on their hands. (2) Young people like shiny stuff. Presidential elections are shiny.

This would be my guess.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Is it possible this always happened, but we've never seen such a sharp generational difference in political preferences before? Clearly old people have more time on their hands, and I'd also say that the current crop of oldies (the 60-75 year olds) live to complain about things, and those are the people most easily motived to vote (usually against somebody). So one could also theorize that the older electorate is more apt to cast a protest vote against whoever is in charge, hence Presidents losing their Congressional majorities in 1986 (Reagan), 1994 (Clinton), 2006 (Bush II) and 2010/14 (Obama).

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Presidents are exciting, invoking a sense of great anticipation in what the future could hold with only a single candidate winning the position. Applying a pop culture term, a presidential vote is ****. Mid-term elections are not ****. A person can only (legally) vote for a single seat amongst 435 in the House, and perhaps they'll get to cast a vote for a senator, one amongst 100. The power isn't there, the sexiness is lost. And that's why many young voters tend to not make it to the polls in mid-terms. Meanwhile, dust farters know that there's true power in those large bodies within Congress, power that isn't term-limited.

ETA: se xy and se xiness are the **** words.

I suspect you've hit the nail on the head here.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Is it possible this always happened, but we've never seen such a sharp generational difference in political preferences before? Clearly old people have more time on their hands, and I'd also say that the current crop of oldies (the 60-75 year olds) live to complain about things, and those are the people most easily motived to vote (usually against somebody). So one could also theorize that the older electorate is more apt to cast a protest vote against whoever is in charge, hence Presidents losing their Congressional majorities in 1986 (Reagan), 1994 (Clinton), 2006 (Bush II) and 2010/14 (Obama).

I dunno - the 75-year-olds are the ones who originally brought us "Don't trust anyone over 30," so we've had serious generation gaps before (and probably continuously). Today's youngsters may have an even larger generational gap, but it's hard to tell because they're too lazy, apathetic, and disaffected to even bother coming up with a slogan.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Well, there was one good story Tuesday, anyway.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

So the question becomes, why are conservatives always there while liberals only come out for presidential years?

because for conservatives it is their own money at risk, while with Progressives it is merely other people's money at risk.



EDIT: Does one really need a "sarcasm alert" in this thread????

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

because for conservatives it is their own money at risk, while with Progressives it is merely other people's money at risk.

Ignoring for a second that your premise is ridiculous, how does this explain the difference between midterm and presidential year turnout?

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Yesterday in herpa-derp.

Yes, there was stiff competition, but you be the judge.

Wait, wait, wait. That guy got elected in Colorado Springs? Colorado Springs?? The home of (only Berkeley, Madison, and Boulder are more left leaning) Colorado College? Those folks needs to lay off the "legalized herb" before going to the polls apparently.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Which is why it's hilarious when people call him a socialist or what have you, it couldn't be any further from the truth.

He's "Howdy Doody", but I can't figure out whose hand is shoved up his ***** and making his lips move.

(At least with "Howdy" Bush we knew it was Cheney moving the lips.)

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Good point. It has been a dependable pattern since the 1840s, which corresponds to the abolition of property requirements for the franchise.

We have two electorates. The midterm electorate is a conservative subset of the presidential electorate. That's nothing against them; indeed, it's to their credit. Democracy is non-compulsory, and conservatives are making a greater effort to determine our country's future than liberals. They deserve the power they just gained.

Show up and vote or live with the results.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

They stayed home because they realized that even when dems had control they didn't make any meaningful systemic changes. They have every reason to be cynical at this point.

"Do nothing" and get the boot.

I think I said somewhere here that the R's are set to get bit by that same trap in 2016.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

So the question becomes, why are conservatives always there while liberals only come out for presidential years?

Stand by, in-rush of stereotypes to follow:

When you think of a conservative voter, or a conservative: consistent, persistent, determined, assignment-sharp. Call it a power running game in football. Not flashy, always there, works in almost any conditions (except when trying to come from behind). You know what you're getting. Pound. Pound. Pound.

Alternatively, liberals seem to be more "du jour", what's hot now, flashy-and-cool. There's nothing flashy or cool about voting for Governor Stodgy's fourth term or a US House seat that you can't name the incumbent for; but, voting for President is cooooool, and it's all the media talks about those years. Liberals are the football equivalent of the run-and-shoot offense: When it shows up and works, you're gonna get outscored and lose. However, it has to show up, and when it gets out of sync it is frustrating to that team because what used to work doesn't, and it doesn't always work under all conditions.

So, if the conservative offense shows up and the liberal offense does and hits --> the run-and-shoot builds momentum and the conservatives can't come back.

If the liberal offense doesn't show up or is out of sync (what was their "rally around and get out" message this time? I'd say "none"), the conservative offense pounds the rock to a win.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

It is funny seeing older people try to figure out why younger people arent voting. The answer is because 99% of the shlubs these parties put up in local and national elections have nothing in common with young people. When the average Congressmen or Senator looks like they are one day away from hospice care it tends to turn off people in their 20s and 30s. That a bunch of "Ya know in my day we didnt have that so get off my lawn.." type people are in charge of policy and deciding what is best for everyone it tends to make the young folk shake their head and tune out.

I mean Al Franken is 63 and he looks like a young pup compared to some of these guys...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

I mean Al Franken is 63 and he looks like a young pup compared to some of these guys...

Harry Reid: 74
Dick Durbin: 69
Chuck Schumer: 63
Dick Blumenthal: 68
Barbara Boxer: 73
Dianne Feinstein: 81

 

[walrus]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

I'm not happy about it, but I think you are so, so wrong on that.

She isn't Bill, she doesn't have the personality to bring out the troops. If she did she'd be president right now instead of Obama.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Don't know about your local paper, but there's a lot of finger pointing in the Washington Post. Everyone is to blame, no one is responsible.

 

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Sure he is. Record budget deficits (which would be much higher if the House wasn't constantly reeling him back in), making major policy moves via executive order (a very bad precedent regardless of political affiliation), lack of any coherent foreign policy (especially in the Middle East), appointing cronies in record numbers to ambassadorships, failing to enforce federal law when it doesn't suit his policy purposes (border, drugs, etc.) and it goes on.

Budget deficit as a percentage of GDP( a more accurate measure since it accounts for inflation) is something like a 50 year low, every president uses executive orders, it's only Obama's that seem to bother you guys, foreign policy is your opinion, there's not really any good solution for the clusterfook that W left us in the ME, deportations at an all-time high, and I have no idea what you're talking about with drugs. Decriminalizing MJ? Seems the folks out in the states want that.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Kepler may be right. This election won't change much. On the other hand, I really like grid lock most of the time. And Tuesday's voting will at least slow down the flow of "wise Latinas" for a while.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Campaign 2014: The Epic Struggle To Win The Senate And Change Nothing

Budget deficit as a percentage of GDP( a more accurate measure since it accounts for inflation) is something like a 50 year low, every president uses executive orders, it's only Obama's that seem to bother you guys, foreign policy is your opinion, there's not really any good solution for the clusterfook that W left us in the ME, deportations at an all-time high, and I have no idea what you're talking about with drugs. Decriminalizing MJ? Seems the folks out in the states want that.

6 years in and it's still Bush's fault?