Alex Sink running for Bill Young's old house seat

[Brittain33]

This seat was a must-win for Democrats to have any hope for taking control of the House this coming election.

I can't speak for all Dems, but I think that ship had LONG sailed as far as any realist Democrat's assessment.

At this point, the question is whether enough Akins make it to the top to save the Senate for us.

[Kevin]

By all accounts given the 13th's demographics and the fact that David Jolly was a a terrible candidate with a terrible campaign Sink should have won.

If I were the a Democratic strategist I'd def take this as bad news for D prospects in general-not only in the House but in the Senate.  After all if they had trouble pulling off a victory in the 13th with more money, a better turnout operation and a stronger candidate imagine what it means in places even less friendly to the Democrats.   

[Miles]

Ugh. A DCCC pollster says that Sink's performance was "about as good as we could have hoped for."

[Donerail]

If I were the a Democratic strategist I'd def take this as bad news for D prospects in general-not only in the House but in the Senate.  After all if they had trouble pulling off a victory in the 13th with more money, a better turnout operation and a stronger candidate imagine what it means in places even less friendly to the Democrats.   

A lot of these Senate races will be taking up as much if not more money than FL-13, and will certainly have much stronger candidates than the Dems put forward here.

[DrScholl]

By all accounts given the 13th's demographics and the fact that David Jolly was a a terrible candidate with a terrible campaign Sink should have won.

If I were the a Democratic strategist I'd def take this as bad news for D prospects in general-not only in the House but in the Senate.  After all if they had trouble pulling off a victory in the 13th with more money, a better turnout operation and a stronger candidate imagine what it means in places even less friendly to the Democrats.   

Again, the district voted as it was drawn to, it's not a huge surprise or difficult for a Republican to achieve. If anything, Republicans lost a lot of ground, Young won 57% of the vote in a presidential year, whereas Jolly won only 48% in a special. We can spin all day, but it doesn't mean anything in terms of November.

[Brittain33]

By all accounts given the 13th's demographics and the fact that David Jolly was a a terrible candidate with a terrible campaign Sink should have won.

If I were the a Democratic strategist I'd def take this as bad news for D prospects in general-not only in the House but in the Senate.  After all if they had trouble pulling off a victory in the 13th with more money, a better turnout operation and a stronger candidate imagine what it means in places even less friendly to the Democrats.  

Again, the district voted as it was drawn to, it's not a huge surprise or difficult for a Republican to achieve. If anything, Republicans lost a lot of ground, Young won 57% of the vote in a presidential year, whereas Jolly won only 48% in a special. We can spin all day, but it doesn't mean anything in terms of November.

I don't see any extenuating circumstances here. Sink was a poor candidate but Jolly was no great shakes, either, and there was a libertarian in the mix. I think this race shows pretty well we're in at least a Lean R environment for this fall, which sustains the House Republican majority and puts too many Dem Senate incumbents in serious anti-Obama states in danger.

[Sbane]

If we are going to talk about the national implications of the race, it is important to note that Obama only won this district by 1.5 points in 2012. Sink lost by about 2 points. This implies that the national generic vote would be about even, which is where it was in 2012. How does this tell us anything new? If it tells us that the Democrats won't be retaking the house, then I would say that everyone already knew that. Yes, Democrats need to win this sort of seat to win the house but that is not going to happen in 2014. Whether or not the Democrats hold on to the Senate is the real question this election cycle and this race doesn't give us an answer to that question.

[Miles]

Again, the district voted as it was drawn to, it's not a huge surprise or difficult for a Republican to achieve. If anything, Republicans lost a lot of ground, Young won 57% of the vote in a presidential year, whereas Jolly won only 48% in a special. We can spin all day, but it doesn't mean anything in terms of November.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwxnWi3mn6o

[Zioneer]

So does Sink join Coakley in your Hall of Infamy, Dems?

Definitely.

Absolutely disgusting. The Florida Democrats need to be razed from the ground up.

This is exactly what I've been thinking.

Even if it was an off-year election...even if the district was a bit gerrymandered...you were still ahead in the polls when this started.

Sorry, Florida dems, you guys really fucked up this time.

They're not the only state party that needs to be rebooted...

[Timothy87]

Again, the district voted as it was drawn to, it's not a huge surprise or difficult for a Republican to achieve. If anything, Republicans lost a lot of ground, Young won 57% of the vote in a presidential year, whereas Jolly won only 48% in a special. We can spin all day, but it doesn't mean anything in terms of November.

Not comparable because FL-13 was not seriously contested in 2012.  Had the Dems spent $5 million on Jessica Ehrlich she no doubt would have won more than 42%

[Brittain33]

57% was basically tied with 1992 for Young's worst performance ever. I doubt he could have gone any lower - I don't think that any additional Obama-Young voters were inclined to switch even if he were running against Jesus.

[Torie]

If we are going to talk about the national implications of the race, it is important to note that Obama only won this district by 1.5 points in 2012. Sink lost by about 2 points. This implies that the national generic vote would be about even, which is where it was in 2012. How does this tell us anything new? If it tells us that the Democrats won't be retaking the house, then I would say that everyone already knew that. Yes, Democrats need to win this sort of seat to win the house but that is not going to happen in 2014. Whether or not the Democrats hold on to the Senate is the real question this election cycle and this race doesn't give us an answer to that question.

That assumes the candidate quality was about equal. If Sink were a superior candidate vis a vis Jolly, as I assumed, then one comes to a different conclusion. It is interesting Sink did so much better with the absentees than she did with the election day voters. That suggests the Dems were far superior on the ground than the Pubs were, which is another possible factor in the mix to consider. It is rather hard to believe that higher scale SES voters tend to vote on election day rather than before, when one's intuition is precisely the opposite, and I think in 2012 Obama did in fact do a bit better with the election day voters than the absentees. Another explanation is that Sink "sank" at the end of the race, and if that if most voters were election day voters, rather than absentees, than the election would have been more of a Jolly blow out.

[cinyc]

That assumes the candidate quality was about equal. If Sink were a superior candidate vis a vis Jolly, as I assumed, then one comes to a different conclusion. It is interesting Sink did so much better with the absentees than she did with the election day voters. That suggests the Dems were far superior on the ground than the Pubs were, which is another possible factor in the mix to consider. It is rather hard to believe that higher scale SES voters tend to vote on election day rather than before, when one's intuition is precisely the opposite, and I think in 2012 Obama did in fact do a bit better with the election day voters than the absentees. Another explanation is that Sink "sank" at the end of the race, and if that if most voters were election day voters, rather than absentees, than the election would have been more of a Jolly blow out.

Most of the red avatars on this site are blaming Sink for being a bad candidate.  I don't understand why.  She had the name ID, having run in a high-profile statewide race and the money to spend on the race.  How could Democrats have done better running a relative nobody with less name recognition and little money to spend on his or her own race?

Jolly was a sub-par candidate.  The Republican establishment was griping about his performance before the election.  Yet he won. 

Perhaps it is the Democrats' message that isn't resonating with voters, not candidate quality or supposed gerrymandering in a district that Obama won that has a practically even PVI of R+1.  Obamacare is toxic right now and Obama's approvals are low.  Nationalizing local races, tying the Democratic candidate to the unpopular president seems to work right now, and if things don't change before November, will work in November.

[Donerail]

That assumes the candidate quality was about equal. If Sink were a superior candidate vis a vis Jolly, as I assumed, then one comes to a different conclusion. It is interesting Sink did so much better with the absentees than she did with the election day voters. That suggests the Dems were far superior on the ground than the Pubs were, which is another possible factor in the mix to consider. It is rather hard to believe that higher scale SES voters tend to vote on election day rather than before, when one's intuition is precisely the opposite, and I think in 2012 Obama did in fact do a bit better with the election day voters than the absentees. Another explanation is that Sink "sank" at the end of the race, and if that if most voters were election day voters, rather than absentees, than the election would have been more of a Jolly blow out.

Most of the red avatars on this site are blaming Sink for being a bad candidate.  I don't understand why.  She had the name ID, having run in a high-profile statewide race and the money to spend on the race.  How could Democrats have done better running a relative nobody with less name recognition and little money to spend on his or her own race?

Notice how it's not in the district?

[Brittain33]

Most of the red avatars on this site are blaming Sink for being a bad candidate.  

It was the stories about how she has no energy, is a weak campaigner, and was perceived as invisible for months at a time. She absolutely had funding and name recognition—which is rare for a Dem in Florida—but she doesn't appear to have any charisma as an individual. I don't think she was an awful candidate, but she was definitely overhyped, as she was for governor in 2010.

[IceSpear]

It's easy to scapegoat Alex Sink rather than address the long term issue of Democrats not turning out in elections that don't have a president on the ballot. Kind of like how the GOP thinks all they need to do to regain the presidency is change the messenger and not the message.

[Sbane]

If we are going to talk about the national implications of the race, it is important to note that Obama only won this district by 1.5 points in 2012. Sink lost by about 2 points. This implies that the national generic vote would be about even, which is where it was in 2012. How does this tell us anything new? If it tells us that the Democrats won't be retaking the house, then I would say that everyone already knew that. Yes, Democrats need to win this sort of seat to win the house but that is not going to happen in 2014. Whether or not the Democrats hold on to the Senate is the real question this election cycle and this race doesn't give us an answer to that question.

That assumes the candidate quality was about equal. If Sink were a superior candidate vis a vis Jolly, as I assumed, then one comes to a different conclusion. It is interesting Sink did so much better with the absentees than she did with the election day voters. That suggests the Dems were far superior on the ground than the Pubs were, which is another possible factor in the mix to consider. It is rather hard to believe that higher scale SES voters tend to vote on election day rather than before, when one's intuition is precisely the opposite, and I think in 2012 Obama did in fact do a bit better with the election day voters than the absentees. Another explanation is that Sink "sank" at the end of the race, and if that if most voters were election day voters, rather than absentees, than the election would have been more of a Jolly blow out.

The biggest factor working against Democrats was that this is a special election. Although the ad attack from both sides might have tempered that somewhat, there was still a drop off from 2010 turnout, which usually hurts the Democrats. I think that counterbalances any advantage the Dems may have had due to candidate quality or a better turnout operation. Also, some of the locals, like Sjoyce, feel Sink wasn't the best candidate but I can't comment on that. Overall, if we can read anything into the national environment from this race, it is that the generic vote is probably tied (which is also consistent with polling), which means the pubs hold the house. They probably win the Senate too, but barely. I doubt they win in NH, IA, CO or MI. NC and LA should be interesting and AK is just a wildcard. Of course it is still March......

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Ken Welch or Charlie Justice would've won.

[Dave from Michigan]

The democrats really need to do something about turnout in midterms. Hopefully they can win a big in 2016 and take the house back with a large enough majority to not lose it in 2018. Although 2018 needs to be at least a decent year for the Democrats they need to get at least partial control of state governments for redistricting purposes. Even forcing fair maps will help.

[Joshgreen]

It's easy to scapegoat Alex Sink rather than address the long term issue of Democrats not turning out in elections that don't have a president on the ballot. Kind of like how the GOP thinks all they need to do to regain the presidency is change the messenger and not the message.

Except it's Sink's fault that she didn't turn out he vote...

[Zioneer]

The democrats really need to do something about turnout in midterms. Hopefully they can win a big in 2016 and take the house back with a large enough majority to not lose it in 2018. Although 2018 needs to be at least a decent year for the Democrats they need to get at least partial control of state governments for redistricting purposes. Even forcing fair maps will help.

I really don't understand why equally as partisan Dems don't vote at the same rate as partisan Republicans in midterms and special elections.

[IceSpear]

The democrats really need to do something about turnout in midterms. Hopefully they can win a big in 2016 and take the house back with a large enough majority to not lose it in 2018. Although 2018 needs to be at least a decent year for the Democrats they need to get at least partial control of state governments for redistricting purposes. Even forcing fair maps will help.

I really don't understand why equally as partisan Dems don't vote at the same rate as partisan Republicans in midterms and special elections.

Because Democratic voters tend to be skew younger and consist of more disenfranchised groups (lower income, more minority groups, etc.). The Republican base mainly consists of old white men who would crawl over broken glass to vote straight ticket Republican for the local city council and dog catcher races.

[Princess Nyan Cat]

Because Democratic voters tend to be skew younger and consist of more disenfranchised groups (lower income, more minority groups, etc.). The Republican base mainly consists of old white men who would crawl over broken glass to vote straight ticket Republican for the local city council and dog catcher races.

It's wild, inaccurate, bigoted generalizations like that that drove this young, professional female to become a Republican.

[Joshgreen]

Because Democratic voters tend to be skew younger and consist of more disenfranchised groups (lower income, more minority groups, etc.). The Republican base mainly consists of old white men who would crawl over broken glass to vote straight ticket Republican for the local city council and dog catcher races.

It's wild, inaccurate, bigoted generalizations like that that drove this young, professional female to become a Republican.

WTF are you talking about.

No one around here cares why you joined a party that works against your interests

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Just as I am sure no one is interested in someone deciding for someone else where their own interests lie.

Assuming the stupidity of those who vote Republican helps perpetuate them voting that way.

We had a feeling that Sink would blow this from the start and thus it is not surprising that she did.