Why did the Democrats lose so badly in 2010?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:43:51 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Why did the Democrats lose so badly in 2010?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Why did the Democrats lose so badly in 2010?  (Read 5663 times)
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2016, 01:57:44 PM »

And above all, it was the sheer stupidity and amnesia of the voters. Putting Republicans back in charge in 2010 because of the economy after we'd thoroughly vanquished them in 2006 and 2008 because of the economy is like you're not losing weight fast enough on a diet so you start pounding down cheeseburgers.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2016, 02:00:18 PM »

And above all, it was the sheer stupidity and amnesia of the voters. Putting Republicans back in charge in 2010 because of the economy after we'd thoroughly vanquished them in 2006 and 2008 because of the economy is like you're not losing weight fast enough on a diet so you start pounding down cheeseburgers.

I mean...we ARE Americans...
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2016, 11:10:10 PM »

The GOP has had the House 16/20 years and the Dems which will include 2016 have held onto WH for 16/20 years and the Senate has been at parity 10/10 years.  2010 was bound to happen anyways.  But, when the Dems get back the SCRT this year, a legislative mandate from the House won't be necessary because Congressional Acts like Gun Control and Gerrymandering will be legislated once Garland is seated.
Gerrymandering was around long before the Republicans did it in 2011. I'm not saying Gerrymandering is right but Dems do their share of gerrymandering as well. Actually Republican Voters(per PPP) are for Gun Control Republican Lawmakers are just scared of the Conservative Media ripping them to shreds over the issue and Donors(The NRA) taking their money away.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2016, 11:20:24 PM »

Is there even a way to truly know the main reasons behind that epic loss? I see a lot of decent suggestions here but it's all over the place. Perhaps a combination of them?

I think Obama/Democrats had/have a severe messaging problem. Democrats actually cut taxes for most people in 2009-2011 and I think some minor cuts after... but did people even realize this? The bank bailout - why were Democrats blamed for this? Nearly half the country in 2010 thought TARP was passed under Obama. This ignorance is a major failure on the part of Democrats. ObamaCare during a recession? Honestly that was the wrong time to introduce such a social program. He shouldn't have spent so much political capital on healthcare reform during a recession/recovery. It's really sad that Obama helped ruin our prior success for such a weak bill.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/was-tarp-passed-under-bush-or-obama/

I really like Yankee/muon2's take as well. I also believe that Obama accelerated (and later finalized) the Southern realignment as well - something that was always going to happen, but just happened faster for various reasons, with, imo, race included.

My lazy opinion: Perfect storm of numerous issues/mistakes by Democrats/Obama + state of economy
Well Obama did continue TARP early in his Presidency. Basically voters were pissed at both Obama and Bush W. for bailing out the banks. TARP is a tough vote for a member of Congress though.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2016, 11:30:37 PM »

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2016, 11:38:52 PM »

And above all, it was the sheer stupidity and amnesia of the voters. Putting Republicans back in charge in 2010 because of the economy after we'd thoroughly vanquished them in 2006 and 2008 because of the economy is like you're not losing weight fast enough on a diet so you start pounding down cheeseburgers.
I don't think politics works that way the Presidents Party almost always loses Seats in Congress in mid-term years. It happened to Reagan in 1982(because of inflation and the economy was bad) when the Republicans lost 26 House Seats in that mid-term year.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2016, 11:44:33 PM »

Because mostly old angry white people vote in midterms.

This is why the Democrats who think they'll landslide in midterms during a Republican president are silly. The old angry white people who vote in midterms are not going to suddenly start hating the GOP in most circumstances. 2006 was an aberration because Bush was SO godawful that even many of the old angry white people stayed home or voted D in protest.

Well I'm sure Old Angry White People voted in mid-terms elections from 1954-1990 when the Dems held a majority in the US House from 1955-1994.

I agree with you about 2006 Bush W. was hated because of the Iraq War.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2016, 11:47:41 PM »

2010 is extremely obvious- weakest point of employment combined with Obamacare/cap and trade anger.  The 2014 GOP wave is the harder one to explain, particularly as it is very rare for a party to get wiped out during both midterms of the same presidency.

Yeah, 2014 made even less sense especially given that the economy was quite good by that point.
Yeah but on Election Day 2014 Obama's approval ratings were like 42%.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2016, 11:53:44 PM »

Well Obama did continue TARP early in his Presidency. Basically voters were pissed at both Obama and Bush W. for bailing out the banks. TARP is a tough vote for a member of Congress though.

To go off topic a bit -

I really think it's unfair that either party was blamed for the bailouts. I'm sure some more favorable changes could have been made (none of which would have mattered as long as it was even remotely seen as a bailout), but it was needed. People don't like the idea of bailing out companies who caused the problem in the first place and if they had the final say, we'd be a hell of a lot more trouble even now just because the people wanted to be vindictive. I do things all the time I don't like but at the same time, know that I have to for the greater good.

This is why we need a more engaged & educated populace. This stuff shouldn't even need to be explained to everyone, as people should do their own research before forming such strong opinions. It's the huge absence of this kind of logical behavior that frequently makes me wonder how the hell we ever got to this stage of technological evolution to begin with.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2016, 12:07:22 AM »

Democrats were over-extended after 2006 and and 2008. They held a lot of deep red territory that they honestly had no business holding in the first place.
True Dems were overextended into alot of Republican Districts from the 2006 wave I think. But also Dems were trounced because the economy was bad, ObamaCare, Obama's approvals were like 47% on Election Day.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2016, 12:15:47 AM »

Nah, Turnout was like 39-40% the same it always is in mid-term elections although in 2014 it was 37%. The thing is the Dems lost Indies by 14-15% points thats what killed them.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2016, 09:26:29 AM »

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.

I meant NY-25 rather than NY-24.  In FL-22, Klein voting for Obamacare shouldn't have been that big of a problem in a district that even John Dying Tree Kerry won.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2016, 11:39:01 PM »

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.

I meant NY-25 rather than NY-24.  In FL-22, Klein voting for Obamacare shouldn't have been that big of a problem in a district that even John Dying Tree Kerry won.

The district had been held by a Republican for decades prior to 2006 when Clay Shaw lost and it was a fairly close district. Also, it was horrendous gerrymander.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2016, 06:07:05 AM »

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.

I meant NY-25 rather than NY-24.  In FL-22, Klein voting for Obamacare shouldn't have been that big of a problem in a district that even John Dying Tree Kerry won.

The district had been held by a Republican for decades prior to 2006 when Clay Shaw lost and it was a fairly close district. Also, it was horrendous gerrymander.

Shaw held that seat due to personal popularity, not because it was a Republican district.  Klein should have been able to hold on even in 2010, especially against someone like Allan West.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2016, 08:03:17 AM »
« Edited: August 23, 2016, 08:06:56 AM by muon2 »

Well Obama did continue TARP early in his Presidency. Basically voters were pissed at both Obama and Bush W. for bailing out the banks. TARP is a tough vote for a member of Congress though.

To go off topic a bit -

I really think it's unfair that either party was blamed for the bailouts. I'm sure some more favorable changes could have been made (none of which would have mattered as long as it was even remotely seen as a bailout), but it was needed. People don't like the idea of bailing out companies who caused the problem in the first place and if they had the final say, we'd be a hell of a lot more trouble even now just because the people wanted to be vindictive. I do things all the time I don't like but at the same time, know that I have to for the greater good.

This is why we need a more engaged & educated populace. This stuff shouldn't even need to be explained to everyone, as people should do their own research before forming such strong opinions. It's the huge absence of this kind of logical behavior that frequently makes me wonder how the hell we ever got to this stage of technological evolution to begin with.

Even with an engaged populace there would have been frustration at perceived injustice at the treatment of the oligarchy of Wall Street. The level of financial education needed to understand the vertical integration that was happening in Wall Street and its impact is fairly high. I doubt many engaged citizens were noting in the 1960's when the feds began to reinterpret Glass-Steagall to permit certain partner arrangements that would lead to de facto consolidations. I know few educated voters during the go-go tech boom in 1999 cared about Gramm-Leach-Billey removing the last major barriers to financial integration constructed by Glass-Steagall. Enron was a big deal to the public in 2001, but it didn't translate into better awareness of the overall financial market. I personally only started to take real note of the larger picture when I head John McCain talk in 2005 about the potential problem looming with Fannie and Freddie. But by 2008 it was too late, and the mortgage derivatives were already bust (in 2007) by the time when the public was feeling the impact (mostly in 2009).

I'm not sure how one could have better educated the voters who weren't in finance as a career. I do agree that the push to make healthcare reform a signature in Obama's first two years distracted from other achievements that needed explanation to the public.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2016, 08:38:58 AM »

Because mostly old angry white people vote in midterms.

This is why the Democrats who think they'll landslide in midterms during a Republican president are silly. The old angry white people who vote in midterms are not going to suddenly start hating the GOP in most circumstances. 2006 was an aberration because Bush was SO godawful that even many of the old angry white people stayed home or voted D in protest.

Well I'm sure Old Angry White People voted in mid-terms elections from 1954-1990 when the Dems held a majority in the US House from 1955-1994.

I agree with you about 2006 Bush W. was hated because of the Iraq War.
It was different angry old white people. Even into the late 80s, midterm elections favored Democrats and older voters were a Democratic voting bloc because the FDR generation was still around and still voting Democratic in large numbers.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2016, 10:06:43 AM »

Because mostly old angry white people vote in midterms.

This is why the Democrats who think they'll landslide in midterms during a Republican president are silly. The old angry white people who vote in midterms are not going to suddenly start hating the GOP in most circumstances. 2006 was an aberration because Bush was SO godawful that even many of the old angry white people stayed home or voted D in protest.

Well I'm sure Old Angry White People voted in mid-terms elections from 1954-1990 when the Dems held a majority in the US House from 1955-1994.

I agree with you about 2006 Bush W. was hated because of the Iraq War.
It was different angry old white people. Even into the late 80s, midterm elections favored Democrats and older voters were a Democratic voting bloc because the FDR generation was still around and still voting Democratic in large numbers.

Exactly.  I believe Seniors were the most Democratic voting bloc in 1988, going 63%-36% for House Democrats and splitting 50%-50% in the Presidential race.  Even in the 1990 midterm, Seniors were heavily Democratic.  The Seniors that came of age in the 1950s and 1960s are much more Republican and there are very few Seniors that remember the 1930s and early 40s still living.
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2016, 08:15:50 PM »

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.
That iteration of IL-17 was not the same one we have today, either. It's PVI was probably within a point of even. It was considerably further south than the current IL-17.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2016, 08:47:17 PM »
« Edited: August 23, 2016, 08:50:17 PM by Mr.Phips »

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.
That iteration of IL-17 was not the same one we have today, either. It's PVI was probably within a point of even. It was considerably further south than the current IL-17.

I think it was still like D+3.  The point is that more Democrats in favorable.enough districts should have been able to properly use the advantages of incumbency to hold on even in 2010. 
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2016, 10:37:19 PM »

A very large part of why Dems lost so badly was that Obama allowed his people to take over the DNC and tear down the 50 state strategy that had served the party so well from 2005-2008.  With this infrastructure gone, most Democrats elected with its help had no support to help them withstand Republican attacks and onslaughts.  

Had the infrastructure that Howard Dean had set up in 2005 and 2006 remained in place, Democrats may have held their losses to a more normal amount (around 30 seats in the House).  Remember that Dems lost multiple seats that they should have been able to hold even in a bad year like FL-22, IL-17, TX-27, NY-24, NC-02, MN-08, etc.

FL-22: Klein voted for ObamaCare
NY-24: Republicans held that seat before the 2006 Dem Wave.
MN-08: Cravack wiped the floor with Oberstar in a debate.

No way should Dems should have lost TX-27 though I agree with you there.
That iteration of IL-17 was not the same one we have today, either. It's PVI was probably within a point of even. It was considerably further south than the current IL-17.

I think it was still like D+3.  The point is that more Democrats in favorable.enough districts should have been able to properly use the advantages of incumbency to hold on even in 2010. 
But the GOP ran up a 6.8% margin in the nationwide House race that year, which would have made a D+3 seat exceedingly hard for any Democrat to win. I think most seats with that level of Democratic lean fell in 2010 because it was a wave if we've ever seen one.

Plus, the Illinois Dems were at the height of their unpopularity with Rod Blagojevich having just become the first Illinois governor to be impeached and removed from office, enough so that Bill Brady (basically a Generic R candidate, much more conservative than Bruce Rauner) came within a percentage point of the Illinois governor's mansion and probably could have won it had he campaigned more in the collar counties.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 12 queries.