whatever happened to the overperforming heavyweights?

[freepcrusher]

Look at a year like 1994 for instance. Yes it was a bad year for democrats, but many of them did pretty well despite the circumstances like Kent Conrad, Bob Kerrey, Herb Kohl. Conrad and Kohl both got a solid 58 percent. This year no one seemed to fit that mold. Mark Warner should have played the role that someone like Conrad did in 1994, but even he couldn't break a majority. Yes, there's more partisanship now, but it seems that immense popularity should have gotten him in the mid-to-high 50s.

[Maxwell]

Jeff Merkley and Al Franken sort of played that roll. Gary Peters won an open seat by a large margin in spite of a wave. There are a couple of examples.  Democrats just recruited so poorly this cycle that there weren't many good candidates to count.

[freepcrusher]

Jeff Merkley and Al Franken sort of played that roll. Gary Peters won an open seat by a large margin in spite of a wave. There are a couple of examples.  Democrats just recruited so poorly this cycle that there weren't many good candidates to count.

i was referring more to incumbents.

[Maxwell]

Jeff Merkley and Al Franken sort of played that roll. Gary Peters won an open seat by a large margin in spite of a wave. There are a couple of examples.  Democrats just recruited so poorly this cycle that there weren't many good candidates to count.

i was referring more to incumbents.

Jeff Merkley and Al Franken are incumbents.

[IceSpear]

Oregon is pretty blue and Wehby imploded, so ironically, Franken is probably the best fit. He still won by double digits despite winning by like 0.0001% in a polar opposite wave.

[Ebowed]

It's true, Minnesota was denied representation for months in 2009 because of Norm Coleman's frivolous lawsuits, whereas this time around wasn't really a contest because Al Franken has been working hard and actually looking out for Minnesota's interests.  Democrats looking for a successful campaign in 2014 need to look no further: Franken embraced, not ran away from, Obama's policies and talked in a way tailored to middle class voters.  If Mark Udall had been talking about the minimum wage and overturning Citizens United, he would have had a much better shot.

This seems like a good place to mention that Mark Warner, since barely winning re-election, appears to have decided to posture himself as more wishy-washy and disliking of core Democratic principles rather than standing up for anything that his base elected him for.  Another self-serving milquetoast moderate with loads of personal ambition and very little else.  I guess we'll see how that works out for him.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Yep, Franken could be considered a heavyweight.  Frankly, the Democrats would be more popular if they had more Frankens or Warrens and less Bayhs, Warners, Schumers etc.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's true, Minnesota was denied representation for months in 2009 because of Norm Coleman's frivolous lawsuits, whereas this time around wasn't really a contest because Al Franken has been working hard and actually looking out for Minnesota's interests.  Democrats looking for a successful campaign in 2014 need to look no further: Franken embraced, not ran away from, Obama's policies and talked in a way tailored to middle class voters.  If Mark Udall had been talking about the minimum wage and overturning Citizens United, he would have had a much better shot.

This seems like a good place to mention that Mark Warner, since barely winning re-election, appears to have decided to posture himself as more wishy-washy and disliking of core Democratic principles rather than standing up for anything that his base elected him for.  Another self-serving milquetoast moderate with loads of personal ambition and very little else.  I guess we'll see how that works out for him.

Minnesota =/= Colorado

[Mr.Phips]

More polarization with fewer crossover voters.

[The Mikado]

Straight-ticket voting is more of a thing than it used to be and partisan identity much less flexible. I don't necessarily view that as a bad thing.

The really screwed ones are the districts that are really close to the national average, which might end up flipping every wave year which is basically going to be every two years.

[Ebowed]

Minnesota =/= Colorado

I never said that.  What I'm offering (and I said this before the election) is a better platform for Udall to have used than making abortion rights a primary focus, which was universally condemned as a political strategy but would have made more sense as a late push to boost turn-out after running a campaign based on economic themes.  Udall also could have run on his efforts to curb domestic spying, although that issue doesn't necessarily poll well, but it would have been interesting to see how that would have played out.  Anyway, the states are relatively 'moderate' (i.e. polarized) states with high voter turnout where the Democrats should have an advantage.  I don't think people vote Democratic for largely different reasons in Colorado than in Minnesota.

[Nichlemn]

Susan Collins was I believe the only Senatorial candidate to vastly overperform the state fundamentals.

[IceSpear]

I'm guessing Begich would qualify here as well. He only lost by 2 points in a mega GOP wave in a state that usually goes Republican by double digits. His opponent was also fairly inoffensive.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's true, Minnesota was denied representation for months in 2009 because of Norm Coleman's frivolous lawsuits, whereas this time around wasn't really a contest because Al Franken has been working hard and actually looking out for Minnesota's interests.  Democrats looking for a successful campaign in 2014 need to look no further: Franken embraced, not ran away from, Obama's policies and talked in a way tailored to middle class voters.  If Mark Udall had been talking about the minimum wage and overturning Citizens United, he would have had a much better shot.

This seems like a good place to mention that Mark Warner, since barely winning re-election, appears to have decided to posture himself as more wishy-washy and disliking of core Democratic principles rather than standing up for anything that his base elected him for.  Another self-serving milquetoast moderate with loads of personal ambition and very little else.  I guess we'll see how that works out for him.

Minnesota =/= Colorado

     Yeah, Franken succeeded by being a Democrat in Minnesota. Not much to say there.

[Ebowed]

Yeah, Franken succeeded by being a Democrat in Minnesota. Not much to say there.

You only need to look at his first election to provide a counterexample.  In 2008, he was perceived as a 'weak' candidate in a good environment for Democrats nationally, only barely able to knock out a mediocre and marginally disliked incumbent in a wave year.  The fact that his re-election was such a guarantee in a hostile political environment, where he used a completely different campaign strategy to his peers, speaks volumes.  There is nothing special about Minnesota that makes it immune to the political changes that affect its neighbors.  The Democrats just tend to run better campaigns in Minnesota.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, Franken succeeded by being a Democrat in Minnesota. Not much to say there.

You only need to look at his first election to provide a counterexample.  In 2008, he was perceived as a 'weak' candidate in a good environment for Democrats nationally, only barely able to knock out a mediocre and marginally disliked incumbent in a wave year.  The fact that his re-election was such a guarantee in a hostile political environment, where he used a completely different campaign strategy to his peers, speaks volumes.  There is nothing special about Minnesota that makes it immune to the political changes that affect its neighbors.  The Democrats just tend to run better campaigns in Minnesota.

Norm Coleman =/= Mike McFadden

[ElectionsGuy]

Franken, Merkley, and Peters. Peters outperformed Durbin (!!) after the race was thought to be competitive earlier in the year, Franken won easily just 6 years later after an intense recount (and with a much national environment too), and Merkley won by 19 points in a race that was expected to be a mediocre win.

But the lack of over performers? Well that's attributed to the purge of moderate candidates and a less than thrilled electorate (meaning many independents are sick of current politics and stayed home).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yea, for years you have people like Ted Stevens who would get 75% of the vote. Other good examples would be John Warner, Pete Domenici and so forth. A good case study would be Mark Warner who qualified in 2008 but did not this time around. Partisanship and the hatred of Washington has reduced most "popular incumbents" down to within a few points of a state's PVI.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yeah, Franken succeeded by being a Democrat in Minnesota. Not much to say there.

You only need to look at his first election to provide a counterexample.  In 2008, he was perceived as a 'weak' candidate in a good environment for Democrats nationally, only barely able to knock out a mediocre and marginally disliked incumbent in a wave year.  The fact that his re-election was such a guarantee in a hostile political environment, where he used a completely different campaign strategy to his peers, speaks volumes.  There is nothing special about Minnesota that makes it immune to the political changes that affect its neighbors.  The Democrats just tend to run better campaigns in Minnesota.

     Minnesota tends to elect any marginally-qualified Democrat. Franken...may have had a few questions at first. Granted, I don't know if those were questions among the electorate of Minnesota. He has certainly proven himself as a Senator in the years since then, though.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Look at a year like 1994 for instance. Yes it was a bad year for democrats, but many of them did pretty well despite the circumstances like Kent Conrad, Bob Kerrey, Herb Kohl. Conrad and Kohl both got a solid 58 percent. This year no one seemed to fit that mold. Mark Warner should have played the role that someone like Conrad did in 1994, but even he couldn't break a majority. Yes, there's more partisanship now, but it seems that immense popularity should have gotten him in the mid-to-high 50s.

Dumbass Democrats like Warner try to be bi-partisan when the Republicans aren't going to vote no matter what and it's about base turnout. And Warner gave them no reason to turnout. Senate Democrats have shown that they've learned nothing from this when they just added Warner to the leadership to counterbalance Warren. As in make 100% sure she's outvoted and irrelevant.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Look at a year like 1994 for instance. Yes it was a bad year for democrats, but many of them did pretty well despite the circumstances like Kent Conrad, Bob Kerrey, Herb Kohl. Conrad and Kohl both got a solid 58 percent. This year no one seemed to fit that mold. Mark Warner should have played the role that someone like Conrad did in 1994, but even he couldn't break a majority. Yes, there's more partisanship now, but it seems that immense popularity should have gotten him in the mid-to-high 50s.

Dumbass Democrats like Warner try to be bi-partisan when the Republicans aren't going to vote no matter what and it's about base turnout. And Warner gave them no reason to turnout. Senate Democrats have shown that they've learned nothing from this when they just added Warner to the leadership to counterbalance Warren. As in make 100% sure she's outvoted and irrelevant.

Warner won in no small part because he's a conservative Democrat, and even then almost anyone else we could've run probably would've lost (Warner's large personal vote in Virginia is probably what saved him from the abysmal Democratic turnout).  Warner used to be able to win in part by over-performing with conservative rural voters in places like CD-9.  If he can't do that against a C+/B- candidate like Gillespie, he definitely won't be able to do it against someone like Rigell or Comstock.  In light of this, while Warner ratcheting up the Moderate Hero schtick may not be his best move, it makes a lot more sense than galloping to the left.  We should be aiming for the most liberal candidate who can win and in some states that'll mean Democrats whose brand is "muh Moderate Heroism."  It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Minnesota =/= Colorado

I never said that.  What I'm offering (and I said this before the election) is a better platform for Udall to have used than making abortion rights a primary focus, which was universally condemned as a political strategy but would have made more sense as a late push to boost turn-out after running a campaign based on economic themes.  Udall also could have run on his efforts to curb domestic spying, although that issue doesn't necessarily poll well, but it would have been interesting to see how that would have played out.  Anyway, the states are relatively 'moderate' (i.e. polarized) states with high voter turnout where the Democrats should have an advantage.  I don't think people vote Democratic for largely different reasons in Colorado than in Minnesota.

It is possible for a real liberal to win in certain decidedly non-liberal states (see Sherrod Brown) by incorporating economic populism/"I'm fighting for the little guy" into one's brand, but that doesn't work everywhere (Virginia, by coincidence, happens to be a state where that would probably backfire for any Democrat who tried it).  Regarding Mark Udall, his campaign's internal polling consistently showed that the abortion/war on women attacks were by far the most effective and that Udall's negatives tended to go up whenever he talked about other issues.  I'd argue Udall actually would've done worse had he run primarily on economic issues.  Given that Udall lost pretty narrowly given how weak a campaign he ran, how strong Gardner's was, and the Republican tsunamei that 2014 turned out to be, I don't think it's clear that focusing primarily on abortion/the war on women stuff was a mistake at all.  I submit to you that Udall lost for the following reasons.

1. He was up in 2014.  It's pretty clear Begich, Hagan, and Udall would've all won if the Republican wave was even slightly smaller, let alone if they were running in a different year.  

2. The media was pretty much in-the-tank for Gardner (or more accurately had a strong anti-Udall bias).  The media was simply board with the "establishment can't control the tea-party" and "war on women" narratives and wanted a new one so this cycle's Senate narrative became "Establishment retakes control, runs only strong/gaffe-free candidates.  The media likes brief, simple, soundbite-friendly narratives and gets board when they aren't given new ones.  Unlike the last cycle where the media couldn't get enough of Republican Senate candidates saying stupid s[inks], this cycle the media largely ignored gaffes by folks like Ernst, Perdue, Tillis and the arch-conservative of folks like Cotton, Tillis, and Gardner because the media narrative this time was "the establishment is back in control and running strong, top-tier candidates for Senate everywhere."  This was especially true in Iowa (where it didn't change the outcome except at the margins) and Colorado (where it probably did).  

In Colorado, the local media basically threw a temper-tantrum because it got board with the abortion/war on women attacks and wanted Udall to use a new shiny object other talking points.  One especially pathetic excuse for a journalist addressed Udall as "Mark Uterus" during the debate said "journalist" was moderating (the guy really should've been fired for doing that, but I highly doubt he was).  

TL;DR for 2: The media has the attention-span of a hyperactive 5-year old on cocaine during a lecture on quantum-physics, the memory-span of a goldfish regarding voting records and policy, the intellectual curiosity of TLC, and the journalistic integrity of the New York Post.  This helped the Democrats in 2012 and hurt us in 2014 and Udall was probably the one who was hurt by it the most (Braley was too, but he'd have lost either way).  The "Mark Uterus" comment in particular was disgraceful, but it stuck and stuff like that often makes perception more important than reality.

3. Udall ran a fairly weak campaign and, much more importantly, Gardner was easily the strongest Senate recruit of the cycle on either side and ran an excellent and probably the best recruit the Republicans will get in Colorado for quite some time (and even then he barely won, it's obviously way too early to make any sort of meaningful prediction about 2020, but I suspect Gardner will be toast if he faces even a B-list Democrat).  In any event, Ken Buck (sorry Phil), Mike Coffman, or really any other CO Republican would've lost this year.

4. This is a minor factor and may not have mattered, but Udall made a bunch of unforced minor gaffes (that whole interview where he asked on-air if it could be re-filmed, "I'm the last person Obama wants to see" lol, "judge me not by the color of my skin, but by the content of my color," etc).

BTW, I'd argue people vote Democratic in Colorado for very different reasons than in Minnesota.  There is definitely some overlap, but the coalitions needed in each state are hardly the same.  For example, economic populism probably plays better in Minnesota than the abortion/women's rights.  In Colorado the reverse is true and focusing primarily on economic issues could potentially backfire in the Denver suburbs.  You need to tailor your message to the winning coalition in your state/district, not look for some mythical one-size fits all approach (too many different groups have too many competing interests and differing priorities for the latter to work).  

[CountryClassSF]

Look at a year like 1994 for instance. Yes it was a bad year for democrats, but many of them did pretty well despite the circumstances like Kent Conrad, Bob Kerrey, Herb Kohl. Conrad and Kohl both got a solid 58 percent. This year no one seemed to fit that mold. Mark Warner should have played the role that someone like Conrad did in 1994, but even he couldn't break a majority. Yes, there's more partisanship now, but it seems that immense popularity should have gotten him in the mid-to-high 50s.

I think that President Clinton was not as unpopular in 1994 as Obama is in 2014.  In the Democrat waves of 2006 and 2008, and even beforehand, deep red states have elected Democrat Senators, some of whom were way too liberal for their constituents.  In the Obama era, none of them cared to stand up to him on anything. In the end, they all voted for ObamaCare against their constituents wishes, and paid the price at the ballot box. Obama is much more polarizing than Clinton was.  White folks are also voting more Republican than in the 90s.

In 1994, there was a lot of room for Blue Dog Democrats and Third Way centrism.  Now that the Dems are relentlessly focused on birth control and abortion, there appears to be no longer room for these Democrats.

[Torie]

Gibson in NY-19 cut deeply into the Democratic vote by being a moderate Pub. Sure, his opponent, the well funded Sean Eldridge, was flawed, but winning by a 2 to 1 margin in a CD with a +1 Dem PVI is quite an achievement. Granted, upstate NY might be one of the least partisan places in the U.S. at this point. There can be large swings. As an example, Hudson, NY, which voted about 77% for Obama (58% for Sean Eldridge), has a Pub mayor, who won on the GOP line against a Dem running on the Democrat line in 2011,  and NY has partisan local elections, which I think is nutter, but that is the way it is. And then for re-election in 2013, he beat another Dem, by about a 14 point margin. The Dem he beat the second time has become a close friend of mine by the way. Interestingly, as to local issues, we agree about almost everything. And there you have it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Look at a year like 1994 for instance. Yes it was a bad year for democrats, but many of them did pretty well despite the circumstances like Kent Conrad, Bob Kerrey, Herb Kohl. Conrad and Kohl both got a solid 58 percent. This year no one seemed to fit that mold. Mark Warner should have played the role that someone like Conrad did in 1994, but even he couldn't break a majority. Yes, there's more partisanship now, but it seems that immense popularity should have gotten him in the mid-to-high 50s.

Dumbass Democrats like Warner try to be bi-partisan when the Republicans aren't going to vote no matter what and it's about base turnout. And Warner gave them no reason to turnout. Senate Democrats have shown that they've learned nothing from this when they just added Warner to the leadership to counterbalance Warren. As in make 100% sure she's outvoted and irrelevant.

Warner won in no small part because he's a conservative Democrat, and even then almost anyone else we could've run probably would've lost (Warner's large personal vote in Virginia is probably what saved him from the abysmal Democratic turnout).  Warner used to be able to win in part by over-performing with conservative rural voters in places like CD-9.  If he can't do that against a C+/B- candidate like Gillespie, he definitely won't be able to do it against someone like Rigell or Comstock.  In light of this, while Warner ratcheting up the Moderate Hero schtick may not be his best move, it makes a lot more sense than galloping to the left.  We should be aiming for the most liberal candidate who can win and in some states that'll mean Democrats whose brand is "muh Moderate Heroism."  It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Warner massive underperformed his polls because the support for people who don't stand for much isn't very deep.

[Ebowed]

I thought that was a very reasonable analysis of the Colorado race, and I appreciate the substantive response, but this is where we differ:

BTW, I'd argue people vote Democratic in Colorado for very different reasons than in Minnesota.  There is definitely some overlap, but the coalitions needed in each state are hardly the same.  For example, economic populism probably plays better in Minnesota than the abortion/women's rights.  In Colorado the reverse is true and focusing primarily on economic issues could potentially backfire in the Denver suburbs.  You need to tailor your message to the winning coalition in your state/district, not look for some mythical one-size fits all approach (too many different groups have too many competing interests and differing priorities for the latter to work). 

Of course I agree that the winning message needs to be tailored to your constituency, and it looks like nobody here disputes that Franken did a great job in that respect.  But, as the ballot measures across the country showed this year, the minimum wage increase is a hugely popular issue.  Yes, Colorado also has a lot of people voting Democratic who are more affluent or less religious than the average Democrat in Minnesota, but these people still support Social Security, Medicare, the central tenets of Obamacare, etc.  I think a campaign like Franken's would have played better in the Hispanic areas of Colorado, too, and ultimately I think abortion is best brought up later in the campaign rather than sooner.  Sure, Gardner looks stupid when he is still co-sponsoring a federal personhood amendment while opposing it within the state, but because he had time to "respond" to the attack, he neutralized it in a way that I don't entirely understand but appeared to satisfy people who thought that personhood in law went "too far" (and they make up even a good number of Republicans, after all).