Who was more depressed after Election Night?

[solarstorm]

?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think the situation is more depressing for Democrats. Republicans still had the House and Supreme Court after 2012. Democrats only have one very lame duck President now.

[Potus]

I think the situation is more depressing for Democrats. Republicans still had the House and Supreme Court after 2012. Democrats only have one very lame duck President now.

Objectively, this is true. Subjectively, however, 2012 was pretty devastating for me across the board.a large part of that was that Mitt lost.

[Tender Branson]

Can't really say that I'm "depressed" or anything.

I already speculated before that it's going to be a bad night, just not this bad ...

[Gustaf]

I think a lot of Republicans thought they would win in 2012. In this case it was more widely expected that Democrats would lose the senate.

[Tender Branson]

I think a lot of Republicans thought they would win in 2012. In this case it was more widely expected that Democrats would lose the senate.

Yeah, but only between Obama's bad debate and Sandy. After Sandy, everyone knew that Obama would be re-elected.

[Mr. Illini]

We were on Tuesday. There were literally zero positives to take away. Everyone lost that had a remotely close race.

[Lurker]

Yeah, but only between Obama's bad debate and Sandy. After Sandy, everyone knew that Obama would be re-elected.

This couldn't be more wrong. The majority of Republicans - and virtually every prominent GOP pundit/"expert" - thought that Romney would win until the results came in.

[Panda Express]

Most people don't really care about midterms. The Presidency always has, and always will be, the big prize.

[Lurker]

Most people don't really care about midterms. The Presidency always has, and always will be, the big prize.

This. I can't believe 2014 is "winning" this poll. Short memories, probably.

[Vega]

I think it's important for Democrats not to get too caught up in what happened on Tuesday.

Republicans had targeted Obama specifically, for everything. To see him win by as much as he did, I imagine it was was devastating.

I think any Midterm loss isn't as depressing for the opposite party as a Presidential election loss is.

[PAK Man]

I think Republicans in '12 were more depressed. They were all convinced they would take both the senate and the presidency even though most polls indicated they wouldn't. Whereas this year, Democrats pretty much knew they were going to lose the senate going into the night.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I think Republicans in '12 were more depressed. They were all convinced they would take both the senate and the presidency even though most polls indicated they wouldn't. Whereas this year, Democrats pretty much knew they were going to lose the senate going into the night.

Democratic Leaders seemed convinced they'd narrowly keep the senate right up until the first polls closed and McConnell won easily and VA wasn't a poll-close call. Then the panic began.

[ElectionsGuy]

We were on Tuesday. There were literally zero positives to take away. Everyone lost that had a remotely close race.

Jeane Shaheen, Dan Malloy, and John Hickenlooper won.

[Beet]

The only thing that was truly scary about Tuesday that the Republicans in '12 had no equivalent to was how the Democrats seemed to just evaporate as a force. In some ways, a proper wave with a reason behind it (like a Watergate-style scandal, or an outright recession) would have been more reassuring. Instead, the Democrats just seemed to pull this mysterious, unexplained disappearing act in large swathes of the country.



I mean look at this map. We haven't seen anything so monocolored since the 1980s. In many ways the map above is far more ominous than a presidential landslide because we know why some presidents used to win massive, 45+ state landslides. If one presidential candidate makes a gaffe in a debate, everyone in the country sees it, doesn't matter if you're in Bronx or bum Nebraska. You're all deciding between the same two people. An idiot in NYC is still an idiot in Nebraska. But in the map above we're talking about a different legislature for every state... hundreds, thousands of districts. What it suggests is that something is fundamentally wrong.

And in a way that wasn't true for either party in 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002 or any other election in recent memory. Someone made a thread about how the Dems failed to reach 60% in any gubernatorial races (except maybe CA, barely). Usually in wave elections the losing party manages at least one or two governors in the 50 states who is popular on local issues and wins in a landslide. It didn't happen this time. Even in places like Kansas where you saw dissatisfaction with the GOP candidate, it wasn't a Democrat but an independent who served as the opposition. It suggests something deeper than a "wave" or a bad election-- but something that goes to the fundamental infrastructure- the plumbing, if you will- of our two party system. The Democrats are becoming a national party no more. It wasn't true when Zell Miller made the charge in 2003, but it is true or nearly true today.

[New_Conservative]

Romney losing in 2012 was bad, especially if Hilary wins in 2016, so I am going to say 2012.

[Person Man]

The only thing that was truly scary about Tuesday that the Republicans in '12 had no equivalent to was how the Democrats seemed to just evaporate as a force. In some ways, a proper wave with a reason behind it (like a Watergate-style scandal, or an outright recession) would have been more reassuring. Instead, the Democrats just seemed to pull this mysterious, unexplained disappearing act in large swathes of the country.



I mean look at this map. We haven't seen anything so monocolored since the 1980s. In many ways the map above is far more ominous than a presidential landslide because we know why some presidents used to win massive, 45+ state landslides. If one presidential candidate makes a gaffe in a debate, everyone in the country sees it, doesn't matter if you're in Bronx or bum Nebraska. You're all deciding between the same two people. An idiot in NYC is still an idiot in Nebraska. But in the map above we're talking about a different legislature for every state... hundreds, thousands of districts. What it suggests is that something is fundamentally wrong.

And in a way that wasn't true for either party in 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002 or any other election in recent memory. Someone made a thread about how the Dems failed to reach 60% in any gubernatorial races (except maybe CA, barely). Usually in wave elections the losing party manages at least one or two governors in the 50 states who is popular on local issues and wins in a landslide. It didn't happen this time. Even in places like Kansas where you saw dissatisfaction with the GOP candidate, it wasn't a Democrat but an independent who served as the opposition. It suggests something deeper than a "wave" or a bad election-- but something that goes to the fundamental infrastructure- the plumbing, if you will- of our two party system. The Democrats are becoming a national party no more. It wasn't true when Zell Miller made the charge in 2003, but it is true or nearly true today.

If the Democratic Party no longer functions, what happens now? Will the party rebuild itself or will there be a progressive alternative that will supplant the Democrats or are we headed towards one-party rule?

[Beet]

Well obviously it'll still function in the blue areas, the Northeast, the West Coast, parts of the Midwest and in urban areas all over the country. It's just in the Romney areas that it seems to be disappearing up and down the ballot. It's as if everything is nationalized... if this trend doesn't change, we'll probably see a lot of Roberts/Orman style conflicts, or more intra-party GOP primaries that determine how people in these areas resolve their real political differences. The Democratic party just won't be involved. Factions will form within the GOP.

[Person Man]

Well obviously it'll still function in the blue areas, the Northeast, the West Coast, parts of the Midwest and in urban areas all over the country. It's just in the Romney areas that it seems to be disappearing up and down the ballot. It's as if everything is nationalized... if this trend doesn't change, we'll probably see a lot of Roberts/Orman style conflicts, or more intra-party GOP primaries that determine how people in these areas resolve their real political differences. The Democratic party just won't be involved. Factions will form within the GOP.

So, the Dems could just pull out of red states and even reddish ones and just compete with Republicans through independents? I can see that if the Democrats don't recover in the next few cycles, that the Democrats could devolve into regional opposition where some left-wing party solidifies control in very large coastal cities, that regular Democrats run candidates in suburban and midwestern states like Michigan, Colorado and Pennsylvania and some Reform-like moderate party competes everywhere else. If they start doing well, the Republicans could do the same if the pendulum swings back fast enough.

[IceSpear]

I think Republicans in '12 were more depressed. They were all convinced they would take both the senate and the presidency even though most polls indicated they wouldn't. Whereas this year, Democrats pretty much knew they were going to lose the senate going into the night.

Democratic Leaders seemed convinced they'd narrowly keep the senate right up until the first polls closed and McConnell won easily and VA wasn't a poll-close call. Then the panic began.

lol, no they weren't. They projected confidence because that's what you're supposed to do. They knew just as well as everybody else did that the chances of holding the Senate were slim.

[Mehmentum]

I mean look at this map. We haven't seen anything so monocolored since the 1980s. In many ways the map above is far more ominous than a presidential landslide because we know why some presidents used to win massive, 45+ state landslides. If one presidential candidate makes a gaffe in a debate, everyone in the country sees it, doesn't matter if you're in Bronx or bum Nebraska. You're all deciding between the same two people. An idiot in NYC is still an idiot in Nebraska. But in the map above we're talking about a different legislature for every state... hundreds, thousands of districts. What it suggests is that something is fundamentally wrong.

And in a way that wasn't true for either party in 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002 or any other election in recent memory. Someone made a thread about how the Dems failed to reach 60% in any gubernatorial races (except maybe CA, barely). Usually in wave elections the losing party manages at least one or two governors in the 50 states who is popular on local issues and wins in a landslide. It didn't happen this time. Even in places like Kansas where you saw dissatisfaction with the GOP candidate, it wasn't a Democrat but an independent who served as the opposition. It suggests something deeper than a "wave" or a bad election-- but something that goes to the fundamental infrastructure- the plumbing, if you will- of our two party system. The Democrats are becoming a national party no more. It wasn't true when Zell Miller made the charge in 2003, but it is true or nearly true today.

Calm down. 

Democrats have a turnout problem in midterm elections. Yes, that is a serious problem, there's no doubt about that.  That doesn't mean Democrats are on the way to coming a regional party.  Just two years ago, we won Senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri.  They won governor's races in Montana, West Virginia and Missouri. 

[Mister Mets]

The Republican loss in '12 was bigger. They lost the presidency, and were slaughtered in the Senate. Meanwhile, Democrats were arguing that they had an enduring majority.

[solarstorm]

Yeah, but only between Obama's bad debate and Sandy. After Sandy, everyone knew that Obama would be re-elected.

This couldn't be more wrong. The majority of Republicans - and virtually every prominent GOP pundit/"expert" - thought that Romney would win until the results came in.

Those "pundits" had better take a look at Atlas more often...

[GaussLaw]

The Republican loss in '12 was bigger. They lost the presidency, and were slaughtered in the Senate. Meanwhile, Democrats were arguing that they had an enduring majority.