Which election was better?

[moderatevoter]

Just curious to see what people think.

EDIT: Just to clarify (if it was any way unclear), I'm referring to the US Midterm Elections.

[Person Man]

2014 was a bigger wave than 2010. The wave itself was slightly smaller, but its base was far taller.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I voted 2010 because the results weren't as bad as this year's were, but 2010 was quantities more unbearable than this year was.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Definitely 2014 (R)

[TDAS04]

2010 wasn't as bad. 

[ElectionsGuy]

2014 because of more interesting races to watch. Though 2010 was good for the onslaught of pickups in the house and better turnout.

[SWE]

2010 because Mark Udall was still a senator.

[TNF]

2014 was far better by every measure. Alaska, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Nebraska voted to raise the minimum wage (not even on the ballot anywhere, in my knowledge, in 2010). Alaska, Oregon, and DC voted to legalize pot (in 2010 only one state voted on it, California, which saw it defeated), and states rejected anti-woman 'personhood' amendments across the country. All in all 2014 was a solid string of victories for the left.

[Mr. Smith]

2014 because it didn't elect Pat Toomey or Ron Johnson, who are far worse than Gardner, Ernst, or Cotton combined.

Also more close ones against the GOP.

But most importantly, Jerry Brown won by a higher margin XD

[Miles]

2010.

The biggest (only?) redeeming factor with 2014 is that it's not a pre-redistricting cycle.

[New_Conservative]

2010 (R) because of Scott Brown

[Frodo]

2010 -at least we still held the Senate, and our destruction in the South wasn't nearly as total as it is now is. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It appears at this point that the 2010 additions to Congress were of higher quality, though some of the upcoming freshman class could surprise us.

[Dirk]

2010. Jim DeMint killed absolutely any likelihood of the GOP capturing the Senate that year.

[Bigby]

I noticed that Democrats seem to like 2010 more than 2014. Most of them keep saying the GOP performed better in 2010, so it's kind of odd to me.

[Maxwell]

2014 because it didn't elect Pat Toomey or Ron Johnson, who are far worse than Gardner, Ernst, or Cotton combined.

Also more close ones against the GOP.

But most importantly, Jerry Brown won by a higher margin XD

How is Pat Toomey worse to you than Joni Ernst?

[Goldwater]

2014

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

2014 by a mile.

[LeBron]

2014, I guess. From an Ohio standpoint, we got stuck with Kasich in 2010 and 2014, but also in 2010 we saw the rise of John Boehner who since taking the gavel has turned Ohio into a national embarrassment. That was also the year we lost Boccieri, Kilroy and Wilson in Congress, so that sucked to.

We certainly did lose greater incumbent Senators this year than we did in 2010 (Udall, Hagan, Begich etc.), but in the long run, 2010 had a worse impact on the Obama Presidency. Losing the House made the nation go from progress to obstruction overnight while losing the Senate this year doesn't change much except increasing President Obama's veto power.

[IceSpear]

2014 because my own state got a new Democratic governor. If it wasn't for that, 2010 would probably be slightly better.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2010. Jim DeMint killed absolutely any likelihood of the GOP capturing the Senate that year.

Not single handedly. Even if you give credit to Jim DeMint for costing us CO, DE and NV, you are still one seat short, and Republicans got their strongest possible candidate in WA the next closest seat. Granted, if Capito had run in 2010 she might have won, but unlike in 2014, the GOP was not ready to capitalize on the environment there from an organizational standpoint. Though Raese was obviously not a good choice, I don't think there were any better ones aside from Capito that would have made a difference.

On the other hand, the establishment blew CT and CA by rallying to the moneybag computer lady and moneybag wrestling lady respectively instead of the moderate former Republican Congressmen Tom Campbell and Rob Simmons. Ironically the one person who spreads the blame wholly to both sides (tea party and establishment) is Ann Coulter.

At the end of the day Republicans had a bad map (the 2004 map) to go into 2010 with and even if they had run the table they still would have come up short most likely by a seat or two.

[moderatevoter]

On the other hand, the establishment blew CT and CA by rallying to the moneybag computer lady and moneybag wrestling lady respectively instead of the moderate former Republican Congressmen Tom Campbell and Rob Simmons. Ironically the one person who spreads the blame wholly to both sides (tea party and establishment) is Ann Coulter.

Other way around.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

2010, because Rand Paul

[politicallefty]

In terms of the lay of the land afterwards, 2010 was better. We still held the Senate and were in better shape in the House and among the states. At the same time, I would've preferred we had done much better in 2010 over 2014, primarily due to redistricting. If Republicans had only won a bare majority in the House in 2010 (and achieved much less among the states), we'd likely have recaptured the trifecta in 2012.