2014 Elections Analysis from moderate Independent point of view. Governors & SL
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:07:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  2014 Elections Analysis from moderate Independent point of view. Governors & SL
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2014 Elections Analysis from moderate Independent point of view. Governors & SL  (Read 2505 times)
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 10, 2014, 05:30:18 AM »

This topic is a twin to corresponding one in a forum devoted to Congressional elections. All neccessary previews and explanations are given there.

Part 1 Governors.

It's a sort of irony that there was exactly the same number (36) of Governor elections as Senate one this year, and that in most likely case (Shumlin confirmed as a governor by Vermont's legislature & Walker winning Alaska) the result is exactly the same: 12 Democrats (most analyst include "renegade Republican" Walker in that category, especially because his running mate is a Democrat and his main opponent is a Republican) and 24 Republicans. But governor's map wasn't so South-oriented as Senate's one. so - situation is at least somewhat different. Nevertheless - there are lot of similarities too...

Contrary to Senate races, where it was a sort of axiom, that Democrats will lose substantial number of seats, and the only question was - how much, more republican governors (many of them elected in 2010) then democratic one's must defend their seats in 2014. Naturally - Democrats expected some gains there, and almost until the end it seemed that this is quite feasible. Nevertheless - in the end "the bottom fell under" many Democratic candidates the same way as in Senate races, and, if the results will be as described above - Republican party will gain 2 governorships (losing Alaska and Pennsylvania, but winning Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts) for general total of 31. Democrats will have tough task before them in 2018, though they have one plus - very few seats (like Colorado) they can lose.

If among 12 most likely Senators-elect there is only one Democrat (Peters in Michigan), then among 11 most likely new governors 3 are Democrats (Ige in Hawaii, Wolf in Pennsylvania and Raimondo in Rhode Island), 1 "almost Democrat" (Walker) and 7 republicans. Ideologically (which fit general pattern, where Republican governors are frequently (but - not always) are less ideological and more pragmatical (good example - governor Haslam in Tennessee, which is dark red now and could elect an extremely conservative candidate with ease) then most of their congressional counterparts) they are also more "mixed bread" then in Senate - among Senators-elect only Capito may be considered "somewhat moderate" or "pragmatic conservative", but among Governors-elect Hogan and Rauner belong to that category (both are strong fiscal conservatives, who, essentially, ignored social issues during their campaigns in blue states) and Baker in Massachusetts is, most likely, a "genuine moderate" with some fiscal conservative tendencies, but socially - almost liberal. Given that all three ran in strongly Democratic states - no surprises here.

Another similarity to congressional races - collapse of Democrati candidates in the South. Except Georgia (where former President Carter's grandson got, essentially, the same respectable percentage of votes - 45 - as very good Democratic candidate for Senate) and purple Florida (47) - no Democratic candidate for Governor got more then 42% of votes there. It did't matter whether the candidate was liberal (Davis in Texas) or relatively conservative (Ross in Arkansas or Dorman in Oklahoma). So - elections were, essentially, nationalized - southern voters again held in mind Obama and Pelosi and didn't cared too much about qualities of local candidates.

Republicans managed to run very well in some solid Democratic states, winning the above mentioned Massachusetts, Maryland and Illinois, running very close in some other blue or blue-leaning states (Vermont, Maine, Colorado, Connecticut and even Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Oregon). Even in Minnesota they lost more or less respectably. The biggest (and predictable) Democratic win was California with popular governor Brown, but even he so far failed to get 60%, while at least 3 Republican governors cracked 70, and, in some cases (Nevada) this win has wide ranging concequences, essentially decimating Nevada's Democratic party.

The biggest surprises were, probably, Maryland (no one expected Hogan to win until at least mid-October) and ultra-blue Vermont, where governor Shumlin almost lost to little-known candidate and now needs to wait confirmation from Democratically-controlled legislature, where republicans also made some gains (first time in many years)

Republicans managed to reelect almost all their most controversial candidates  (Scott, Brownback, Walker (Wisconsin), Snyder) with sole exception of Corbett in Pennsylvania, in whose case nothing could overcome his absolute unpopularity.

Next big Governor elections of 2018 thus become critical. Especially - in light of post-census redistricting. Sure - republicans will have much more seats to defend that year (and if i am correct - a lot of governorships will be open because of term limits), but, first of all, for Democrats. A sort of irony - a party, which has a preferential position in most recent Presidential contests, is forced to prove it's relevance in many parts of the country on slightly lover levels...
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2014, 06:27:34 AM »

Part 2 State Legislatures

As everyone knows - state legislatures are main source of Congressional candidates (frequently more then 50% of Congressmen-elects are present or former state legislators) and, in addition, wield considerable power itself, so the results there are important both from statistical point of view (we will not use "high statistic" here and will only look at some tendencies, but with the ample data something interesting will surely show up), and from practically political too. In addition - this gives us a possibility to look at future candidate's "benches" in corresponding states.

In general - the tendency was the same: in most (statistically - almost all) cases in favor of Republicans. They substantially increased their majority over Democrats in overall count, took back some legislatures (like Minnesota House,  New Hampshire House, New Mexico House, Maine Senate and New York Senate), utterly dominated in some states (Arkansas and West Virginia, more about that later) and busted only once (in Oregon, more about that also below). So (more details on map on www.ncsl.org, which is discussed in another topic of this forum) - Republicans have more then 2:1 advantage in number of controlled legislatures now, and much more trifectas to boot.

In most states Republican gains were substantial, but - modest. This was true for such different states as blue Washington, red Alabama or almost purple Pennsylvania. Even in some cases, where difference seems big, like New Hampshire House (about 240 seats instead of former 180) it comprises no more then 15% of general chamber's capacity (and this is very "elastic" New Hampshire with a lot of very few districts). But, as i already said, 3 cases merit special consideration.

West Virginia. The bottom really fell under Democrats in this formerly Democratic stronghold. AFAIK - the only hope Republicans had in the state before election was control of the state House, which was controlled 53-47  by Democrats before election. They got almost 2:1 majority (62 - 33 with 5 seats too close to call at moment of this writing). No one even thought that it's possible to make something substantial with 24 - 10 majority Democrats had in state Senate before election, but after it it turnrd into 17- 17 tie, and, immediately, Democratic state Senator switched giving Republicans 18- 16 majority. All, that Democrats preserve in the state, is Manchin in Senate and Tomblin as Governor (and i am reasonably sure that both would be defeated this year if they must run this year).

Arkansas. No coal here, but similar situation. Complete rout. Democrats initially had hopes of flipping lower house of legislature, where Republicans led only 51 - 49, but after election Republicans lead 64 - 36, defeating in process a number of centrist and moderate conservative Democratic legislators, and not winning more only because many Democratic legislators were unopposed. Otherwise, taking into consideration a relatively low percentage of Blacks in the state, the number of Democratic legislators in House could fall to Tennessee level (about 25), substantial majority of whom would be black

Oregon. An opposite case, "the beacon of light" for Democrats. I noticed in May that Oregon was one of the few states with  rather high number of flawed (including "tea-party type") Republican candidates (so Wehby was far from being alone), and rather few moderates, even in Democratic-leaning districts. Result - gain of 2 seats (probably, count still goes on) for Democrats in state Senate, at least one additional seat in House and rather solid Democratic control on all levels. That's what happens when there is too much care about candidate's "purity" and not enough - abiut them being tailored for district tastes. Would, say, Massachusetts Republicans nominate Fischer instead of Baker - they could kiss goodbye to Governorship immediately....

There are more situations then described here. There are some Republican states (like Idaho, South Carolina and Georgia) where numbers barely changed - probably Republicans maxed out there, there is unexpectedly good result for Republicans in New England, usually considered very Democratic (modest gains in all states, with maximum - in northern part - Vermont, New Hampshire and, especially, Maine), continuing "realignment" in Pennsylvania, where western, "Appalachian", part becomes more and more Republican, and so on. But i think what's already written is enough...
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2014, 10:13:44 AM »

Monica Wehby was not a "tea party" candidate, she's a Susan Collins-type moderate, but her personal scandals killed her campaign and dragged on the GOP ticket in Oregon. It's a case where we can say that the actual "tea party"/conservative candidate in the primary, Jason Conger, might not have won but almost certainly would've done better and prevented the ORGOP from losing legislative seats.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2014, 10:47:00 AM »

Monica Wehby was not a "tea party" candidate, she's a Susan Collins-type moderate, but her personal scandals killed her campaign and dragged on the GOP ticket in Oregon. It's a case where we can say that the actual "tea party"/conservative candidate in the primary, Jason Conger, might not have won but almost certainly would've done better and prevented the ORGOP from losing legislative seats.

I disagree politilely. She was pro-choice, but her economic program was much closer to tea party candidates. Agree that Conger was a social conservative...
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2014, 10:58:58 AM »

She supports gay marriage and amnesty and is pro-choice, endorsed WydenCare, initially indicated she wouldn't support repealing Obamacare, received the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce, etc. etc. She was not in any way a "tea party" candidate.
Logged
KCDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,928


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2014, 01:21:58 PM »

Mainstream conservative economic policy =/= "TEA Party agenda"  or "right-wing extremist"

Can we all just agree on this okay

Conservativism is by definition extreme.

Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2014, 10:38:29 PM »

She supports gay marriage and amnesty and is pro-choice, endorsed WydenCare, initially indicated she wouldn't support repealing Obamacare, received the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce, etc. etc. She was not in any way a "tea party" candidate.

I read her program and statements during campaign differently. And, IMHO, the roots of "tea party movement" lie in economical sphere, so you can be tea partier and social libertarian too. But - thanks for opinion.. Let's disagree, it's usually good
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2014, 10:40:38 PM »

Mainstream conservative economic policy =/= "TEA Party agenda"  or "right-wing extremist"

Can we all just agree on this okay

OK. Though differences blurred at least somewhat in the last years.
Logged
Potus
Potus2036
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,841


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2014, 10:27:46 AM »

Mainstream conservative economic policy =/= "TEA Party agenda"  or "right-wing extremist"

Can we all just agree on this okay

Conservativism is by definition extreme.



This is the literal opposite of the truth.
Logged
Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort
Joshua
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,710
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2014, 12:50:17 PM »

Mainstream conservative economic policy =/= "TEA Party agenda"  or "right-wing extremist"

Can we all just agree on this okay

Conservativism is by definition extreme.



This is the literal opposite of the truth.

It's true that by definition, conservatism is the opposite of extreme. The only problem is many of the people who deem themselves "conservatives" aren't conservatives, they're reactionaries, which is extreme.
Logged
njwes
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2014, 02:17:41 PM »

I read her program and statements during campaign differently. And, IMHO, the roots of "tea party movement" lie in economical sphere, so you can be tea partier and social libertarian too. But - thanks for opinion..

Nice to see someone acknowledge this. It's amazing how quickly the Tea Party movement's origins were forgotten/misremembered, intentionally and unintentionally, by both Dems and Pubs.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2014, 05:25:21 PM »

Mainstream conservative economic policy =/= "TEA Party agenda"  or "right-wing extremist"

Can we all just agree on this okay

Conservativism is by definition extreme.



On the contrary, extremism is by definition un-conservative. It may be reactionary, but not truly conservative.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2014, 05:08:42 AM »

It's an interesting analysis, and thanks for posting it.  I think it ignores the turnout decline too much, which explains a lot of these results, although AR and WV should have happened a while ago.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2014, 06:01:13 AM »

It's an interesting analysis, and thanks for posting it.  I think it ignores the turnout decline too much, which explains a lot of these results, although AR and WV should have happened a while ago.

It would be too simple to explain almost everything by turnout decline
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2014, 03:54:19 AM »

so what is your analysis on what this means for 2016?

In 2016 Democrats must be on offensive in Senate races and have rather good (i would say - about 50-50 now) chance to get 50 seats, which is a bare minimum for majority (in favorable situation). But even if they regain a majority - it will be minimal. And then comes 2018 when Democrats will have to defend a lot of seats, and Republicans - minimum. In gubernatorial races situation is reverse - not especially favorable for Democrats in 2015 - 2017 races (though they obviously have targets, like North Carolina in 2016 and New Jersey in 2017), but very "rosy" situation in 2018..
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.235 seconds with 12 queries.