2014 Post-Mortem: How did the Democrats screw this up so badly?

[Storebought]

Being reliant on a flaky voter base, for starters.

[bedstuy]

We didn't give people anything to vote for.  What was our real pitch to the voters?  We couldn't realistically promise anything because we all knew that Congress was inevitably going to be an impediment.  It's not Democrats' fault necessarily, but obstructionism worked. 

Since the two years just promised to be trench warfare, Democratic voters felt like they had nothing to gain by voting and not much to lose by staying home.  The resulting of losing of this election seemed fairly hypothetical and parliamentary, even to people who were political junkies.  Who even has any idea what will go on in this next Congress?  Remember 2006 and 2008 when we won?  There was no doubt about the day one agenda in those two wins and I don't think it's a total coincidence. 

Republican voters, on the other hand, just show up consistently and they had the built in motivation of opposing Obama.  That was the fundamental reason we lost, it's game theory.  We're in political trench warfare so all we could say is don't vote for the other guy.  That's always a position of weakness in politics, clarifying and distinguishing versus arguing and attacking. 

What's the lesson going forward?  Democrats need to set the agenda and stand up for something.  Hillary Clinton needs to run on a populist John Edwards 2008 type message.  Republicans succeed by making the government into a farce, so they'll never successfully govern, but they'll always mess things up.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Our voting system is divorced from any accountability for the actions of office-holders. Republicans just figured out how to game that better than Democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The GOP autopsy appears to have worked. I think the Tea Party stranglehold in the GOP caucus might be broken.

What you mean is that total lunatic tea partiers like Ernst can now win in purple states.

[Citizen Hats]

The Democrats did several things wrong. Their organizational strength appeared was a strong as could be expected, but

• They need to run a national campaign.  The Democrats should run a coordinated campaign around common themes, and common appearances, and they need to hold it together and sell a unified image. The nature of the Republican party gives a more common theme to them naturally, since they are a philosophical party. The Democrats have to work at this and try to sell the popular issues that they win on.
• Barack Obama. Obama was told to keep quiet and hide in the white house because Democrats were afraid of his polling numbers. The fact is that Americans actually like Barack Obama when he's out telling them why they should like him.  Hiding him from the public was a mistake

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The Democrats are led by a man who has governed like a moderate Republican for six years.

The Republicans didn't run a slew of bigoted nutjobs for office.

And the economy still sucks for many people.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The GOP autopsy appears to have worked. I think the Tea Party stranglehold in the GOP caucus might be broken.

You do realize that Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst, and Ben Sasse are all tea-party candidates, right?  I don't know if Steve Daines is or not, but I wouldn't be surprised.  If anything, the tea-party crowd will likely be emboldened by these results.  As for the so-called GOP autopsy, 2014 doesn't prove anything about its success or failure.  They still have all the same problems they did right after the 2012 Presidential election, but the Presidential year electorates and midterm year electorates are extremely different (as we've seen from 2008-2014).  


As for the OP's question, this is the correct answer:

What's wrong is that we have two different electorates that are increasingly different from each other and the way our system is set up means that we have wild, embarrassing swings from pathetic ~40% turnout rates. The end result is a wildly unstable and schizophrenic government that doesn't represent the broader population, exacerbated by other issues such as voting rights restrictions, gerrymandering, the nature of the Senate, etc.

[Slander and/or Libel]

The Republicans ran people who were good at hiding being bigoted nutjobs, with the assistance of a media eager to craft a narrative about the GOP triumphing over its extreme base.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The GOP autopsy appears to have worked. I think the Tea Party stranglehold in the GOP caucus might be broken.

What you mean is that total lunatic tea partiers like Ernst can now win in purple states.

Your right. That is why we have Senators-elect McDaniel, Broun, Miller, Wolf, Buck, and Bevin right?

[Slander and/or Libel]

The GOP autopsy appears to have worked. I think the Tea Party stranglehold in the GOP caucus might be broken.

What you mean is that total lunatic tea partiers like Ernst can now win in purple states.

Your right. That is why we have Senators-elect McDaniel, Broun, Miller, Wolf, Buck, and Bevin right?

Ugh. Nobody said that they won everywhere. But Joni Ernst is a straight-up lunatic, and she won in a purple state.

[Simfan34]

Democrats failed to gloat about healthy state of the economy and jobs, and instead got mired down on "culture war" issues that failed to inspire people. They should have ran a campaign based on "Republicans will shut down the government and get us downgraded again" to get people out rather than "the war on the women!!!" shtick that so many of them seemed to be on.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The GOP autopsy appears to have worked. I think the Tea Party stranglehold in the GOP caucus might be broken.

What you mean is that total lunatic tea partiers like Ernst can now win in purple states.

Your right. That is why we have Senators-elect McDaniel, Broun, Miller, Wolf, Buck, and Bevin right?

Ugh. Nobody said that they won everywhere. But Joni Ernst is a straight-up lunatic, and she won in a purple state.

Thanks for proving my point.

The party on the whole is shifting back to the establishment. Ernst may be a Tea Party candidate, but she was elected in part due to the presence of more Cory Gardiners and Sullivans and less Todd Akins and Allen Wests.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Here is a map showing how much worse turnout was compared to 2010.

[Mehmentum]

I'm very surprised that Georgia had higher turnout in 2010 than 2014.

[New_Conservative]

The candidates were great (Ernst, Gardner, Gillespie, Tillis especially), hopefully the Tea Party choke hold on the party is coming to an end.

I think it remains to be seen whether the voters in 2008 + 2012 were Obama voters, or permanent members of the Democratic base.

[Lief 🗽]

How did turnout fall by 11 points in South Dakota? They actually had a competitive Senate race this year!

[IceSpear]

I'm very surprised that Georgia had higher turnout in 2010 than 2014.

Yeah seriously, what the flying f[inks]?!

[Landslide Lyndon]

How did turnout fall by 11 points in South Dakota? They actually had a competitive Senate race this year!

Obviously they were dissatisfied with the quality of the candidates.

[Indy Texas]

Democrats failed to gloat about healthy state of the economy and jobs, and instead got mired down on "culture war" issues that failed to inspire people. They should have ran a campaign based on "Republicans will shut down the government and get us downgraded again" to get people out rather than "the war on the women!!!" shtick that so many of them seemed to be on.

Look at the exit polls - Democrats won voters who were satisfied with the state of the economy; Republicans won voters who thought the economy was doing poorly by larger margins than Democrats won those who thought it's doing well.

How do you say the economy is doing well without sounding insensitive? How do you say it's doing poorly without shooting yourself in the foot?

Unfortunately we've got this bizarre coalition arrangement where the Democrats have the non-white poor and a smattering of wealthy "creative class" types, and the Republicans have white Middle Americans who are less wealthy now than they were 15 years ago along with wealthy non-professional business owners and elderly voters who simultaneously depend on the welfare state to survive while demanding it be pared back for everyone except them. Producing coherent messaging for all those people while also persuading the few swing voters there are left is next to impossible.

[Holmes]

Barack Ebola.

Lol, have fun with the red avatars, krazen.  It's been a long time since the blues here have had their way with them.

Tell me you haven't gotten so old that you've already forgotten 2010?

[J. J.]

Think of how out of it and apathetic I was this election. Obviously I still voted, but how many Democrats didn't?

I was apathetic as well. 

Part of it was the idea that the country was deteriorating nationally and internationally.  Part of it was bad candidates. 

Part of it was the sixth year trend. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

The GOP autopsy appears to have worked. I think the Tea Party stranglehold in the GOP caucus might be broken.

What you mean is that total lunatic tea partiers like Ernst can now win in purple states.

Your right. That is why we have Senators-elect McDaniel, Broun, Miller, Wolf, Buck, and Bevin right?

Ugh. Nobody said that they won everywhere. But Joni Ernst is a straight-up lunatic, and she won in a purple state.

Thanks for proving my point.

The party on the whole is shifting back to the establishment. Ernst may be a Tea Party candidate, but she was elected in part due to the presence of more Cory Gardiners and Sullivans and less Todd Akins and Allen Wests.

What? Proving your point? Ugh.

Ernst and Gardner won not because they have moderate, more establishment-friendly views. They won because they were disciplined enough to be able to hide their views when they had to.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Also in Ernst's case because her inept opponent refused to call her a lunatic like Reid did with Angle.

[ZuWo]

What's wrong is that we have two different electorates that are increasingly different from each other and the way our system is set up means that we have wild, embarrassing swings from pathetic ~40% turnout rates. The end result is a wildly unstable and schizophrenic government that doesn't represent the broader population, exacerbated by other issues such as voting rights restrictions, gerrymandering, the nature of the Senate, etc.

Is it guaranteed that the coalition of voters that propelled Obama to victory twice will come out in full force again in two years, though?

I followed this election exclusively on CNN and maybe they will be proven wrong, but at some point both Republican and Democratic pundits said it's conceivable that a sizable chunk of the voters that made the difference in 2008 and 2012 (i.e. young voters, minorities, women) are mainly loyal to Obama and not to the Democratic Party. The conclusion was that with someone else leading the Democratic ticket in 2016, many of them simply might not show up to vote.

[Brittain33]

Is it guaranteed that the coalition of voters that propelled Obama to victory twice will come out in full force again in two years, though?

I followed this election exclusively on CNN and maybe they will be proven wrong, but at some point both Republican and Democratic pundits said it's conceivable that a sizable chunk of the voters that made the difference in 2008 and 2012 (i.e. young voters, minorities, women) are mainly loyal to Obama and not to the Democratic Party. The conclusion was that with someone else leading the Democratic ticket in 2016, many of them simply might not show up to vote.

Agreed. Turnout will be up and it will be up disproportionately among the Obama coalition, but without Obama it a) won't go up enough for the Dem to match '08/'12 and b) will include a lot of younger people who will be open to voting for a non-insane Republican. Hillary Clinton certainly can't summon up the Obama coalition with Obama strength; Dems have to hope that she takes a chunk out of the Republican anti-Obama coalition.