Florida’s Special Election Does Not Bode Well for Democrats. Neither Do Obama's Poll Numbers.

flickr user Village-Square, Creative Commonsflickr user Village-Square, Creative CommonsIf you’re a Democrat, you’ve got to be feeling pretty glum today about the prospects for November’s mid-term election.

One reason why: In a special election in Florida's 13th Congressional District yesterday, Democrat Alex Sink lost to Republican David Jolly.

Sink, who ran a failed campaign for governor in 2010, was a candidate with better name recognition, and she had some real advantages. Last November, Sink was running ahead of Jolly by 20 points. Sink’s campaign was better funded, and outside group spending tilted toward the Democratic candidate by $1 million. Barack Obama won the district twice. And Jolly’s campaign was not exactly masterful (at one point he openly disagreed with an ad the national GOP was running against Sink). Libertarian candidate Lucas Overby managed to capture about 5 percent of the total, which may or may not have split off a few votes that would have otherwise gone Republican. (Nick Gillespie has more to say on the Overby question.)

Somehow, Sink still managed to lose.

What gives? The easy takeaway is that this was all about Obamacare. That’s the line that the national GOP is pushing, and it’s not totally wrong. But it’s a little more complicated than that. Jolly and his allies—really, Sink’s enemies—hit his Democratic opponent with a volley of ads accusing Sink of supporting the health law’s Medicare cuts and tying her to the Obamacare mess.

Yet although Democratic strategists had started to hope earlier this year that the party’s candidates would play offense on the law, Sink wasn’t exactly running as a full-throated Obamacare booster. Instead, Sink was calling the rollout of the exchanges last year “disastrous,” and saying that Obama had "failed us" with his management of the implementation.

Still, Sink’s half-hearted support for the law—despite misgivings about implementation, she opposed ditching Obamacare entirely—can’t have helped. And her party affiliation tied her to President Obama, who is not exactly racing up the popularity charts these days.

That brings us to another reason for Dem despair: A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released yesterday puts the president’s job approval rating at 41 percent, down two points since January. That’s the lowest it’s ever been. Overall, the national vibe is bad for the president and negative feelings toward Obama are up since last fall, at 44 percent, compared to 41 percent who report positive feelings.

Republicans aren’t winning hearts either. But the poll suggests that the public is coming around to the belief that the GOP should be in charge of the legislature. Slightly more respondents—44 percent—said they now prefer Republican control of Congress to control by Democrats.

Add in the fact that turnout in mid-term elections tends to favor Republicans, and you have a pretty gloomy outlook for Democrats come November. Bad news like we saw today exacerbates this effect. It's a feedback loop. Between the poor polling and yesterday's election, I suspect lots of Democratic hearts are starting to, well, sink. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • PRX||

    Bad news like we saw today

    what was the bad news?

  • Peter Suderman||

    Bad...for Democrats.

  • Tim||

    The Repubs will come roaring BACK! Yeah baby! And when they do they will continue deficit spending, raise taxes, fix things for big contributors and invade Iran or at least bomb the shit out of it. I can't wait!

  • Tim||

    Many Shuvs and Zuuls will know what it means to be roasted in the depths of the Slor on that day, I can tell you!

  • angelina139||

    Thats amazing..Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. It's a great work at home opportunity. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. www.CapitalPosts.com

  • ImanAzol||

    Or they'll legitimately rape their own party and refuse to abort the failure.

  • NoVAHockey||

    Jolly was a lobbyist too.

    /one of us, one of us. (me anyway)

  • waffles||

    You people are destroying this country!

  • BigT||

    If Congress didn't fill the trough with money the hogs (lobbyists) wouldn't be there filling their snouts.

    Cut spending!

  • Uncle Joe||

    Congress doesn't pay the lobbyists & most of the lobbyists aren't remotely interested in feeding at the government trough. They are very interested in convincing lawmakers to act in the best interests of their corporate masters. There are other groups (unions, environmentalists, etc) in there, but they aren't throwing around anywhere near the money spent by big business.

    The end result of shrinking government to the size it was in 1900, would be returning to what was a rather nasty era in American history.

    We need much stronger restrictions on campaign finance & lobbying. Nothing will change until we get that money out of politics.

  • Carolynp||

    So, what we need is bigger government, more regulation, and less freedom of conscience? Yeah, go with that...

  • Will Nonya||

    I think you pretty clearly misunderstand the issue. Lobbyist exist because congress has lots of money to spend and the power to make laws which distort markets in favor of their preferred vendors. Lobbyist reason for existing is to persuade congress to spend this money or wield this power in favor of their chosen benefactor.

    Finance laws and lobbying restrictions will never solve this issue. Only shrinking the power of congress and reducing its power to spend the peoples money at whim will every curb this activity.

  • Libertarius||

    You've got it backwards. The lobbyists exist *because* the government has so much arbitrary authority qua economics, and thus so many arbitrary favors to hand out.

    The solution to government corruption is to drastically reduce the size and scope of it's powers, not to expand them.

    "Get money out of politics"? What the hell does that even mean?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Not sure that this race indicates a red tsunami in November. Politics are local and even with record low approval ratings for Congress, only about 15 percent of the races are even contested. I guess bad news for Team Blue, since this was a race that was "theirs to lose"?

  • John||

    This was a district that went for Obama by a small margin. The Democratic candidate wasn't great but the Republican one was pretty bad. And there was an Libertarian candidate whose presence usually helps Democrats. Moreover, the national party pumped over 12 million dollars into the race. The media and Dems had been saying for years that district was going to go Dem once the Republican retired. And they still lost.

    Yes, all politics is local. But this local election had a ton of built in advantages for Democrats and the Democrats still couldn't win it. Given that, how are they going to win in places like North Carolina where they are defending seats and the Republicans have all of the built in advantages?

  • Brett L||

    Alex Sink is as well connected as you can get. Held statewide office, widow of a statewide office holder. Basically Blue Dog in her politics. If she can't beat a dead man's former aide who they pasted for being a DC lobbyist, I think the House just slipped away. Pickups are going to be really hard in incumbent districts for Democrats, and I read this as having open races lean Republican on a generic ballot.

    Only the Republicans infallible instinct to pick the most repugnant candidates they can find will keep the Democrats in the Senate race.

  • John||

    And if it turns out that this race was like Virginia and the Libertarian Candidate took more Dem votes than Republican votes, they Dems are really fucked. That means that their voters are either not turning out or if they do voting for a protest candidate.

    If Libertarian candidates consistently gave the Republican a one or two percent advantage, a whole lot of races would flip R.

  • Mr. Soul||

    lets not forget the establishment's unwillingness to support the tea party candidate the voters chose. Im not convinced these "bad" candidates would have lost the general had the establishment give the support they expect when their guy wins the primary.

  • John||

    That too Mr. Soul. The establishment is always the ones who refuse to support the party when their guy loses.

  • 110 Lean||

    Well hello, Mr. Soul, I just dropped by to pick up a reason.

  • Mr. Soul||

    any girl in the world could have easily known me better.

  • Curtisls87||

    She said, "You're strange,but don't change," and I let her.

  • PapayaSF||

    If she can't beat a dead man's former aide who they pasted for being a DC lobbyist, I think the House just slipped away.

    There was never any chance the Democrats would regain the House in 2014, despite all the blather to the contrary. Even popular presidents tend to lose House seats in the sixth year, and the slow "recovery" and Obamacare guarantee the Democrats lose seats. It won't be like 1994 or 2010, because they lost so many seats in 2010, but they certainly won't gain any.

  • carol||

    What statewide office did Bill McBride hold? I remember him getting his ass handed to him by Jeb Bush but I don't remember him ever winning anything other than the typical ambulance chaser case. Sink had name recognition and money going for her but her supreme unlikability shone through. Nasty, nasty woman. Her defeat brings me joy.

  • Carolynp||

    There is a sad piece to this in that liberals are starting to understand their policies might actually cost them money. As they leap away from the policies that hurt them personally, will they also be willing to back policies that create liberty for others? I don't see it.

  • mkreitler||

    Like you, I doubt it.

    True story about a Progressive friend (let's call this person 'A'). A told me of a friend (call the friend 'B') who had a history of drinking to excess at the expense of job security and financial stability. For years, B would hit up A for free meals, help with rent, etc. One day, A finally said, "No -- you have to clean up your act. I can't help you any more." Fast forward to now, and B is in AA, has a steady job and a flourishing long-term relationship.

    Yet A is unable to see that private charity can work, and work more effectively than centralized welfare.

    For whatever reason, the Progressive mind isn't capable of extrapolating from individual experience to macro policy.

  • SIV||

    Hey, a link to Slate's crack political reporter Dave Weigel.

  • ||

    The Pinellas County race pit Alex Sink, an uninspiring corporate Democrat, against David Jolly, a say-anything lobbyist who spent half a week of the stretch sleazily and baselessly calling his opponent a "bigot."

    He is such a huge pile of rat fuckers in the shape of a child.

    I have no idea about these candidates...but i am pretty sure you can find more bad things to say about the democrat who lost then uninspiring corporate democrat.

    hell I am pretty sure calling your opponent a woman hating, bigot homophobe is in the democrat's corporate training manual.

    And yet Weigel only points out the misdirection and hyperbole and race-bating that the one republican in the whole fucking world uses once.

  • PapayaSF||

    Didn't Sink say that we needed immigration so we'd have maids and gardeners? If a Republican had said that, he'd have been called a bigot and worse.

  • carol||

    Yes, she did. Early in my career I worked for her. The comment Sink made was totally in keeping with her general mindset. Just a really not nice person.

  • Carolynp||

    Exactly. It was not only racist, but also sort of creepy and out of touch corporatist. "If we don't pass immigration reform, wherever shall we find brown skinned children to tend our cotton?"

  • John||

    Here is another reason to despair. The last polls I saw had Sink ahead by two or three point, just at the edge of the statistical margin of error. She ended up losing by 1.8. That means she underperformed the polls by from four to five percentage points. The Democratic Mayoral Candidate in San Diego last month under performed by seven points. In both races the Democrats spent millions on get out the vote and the national party made winning them a priority. Yet, their candidates still under performed the polls.

    If they can't get their voters to come out when they spend millions and can concentrate on just that election and tell them that the election is important, how are they going to get out the vote in 470+ elections in November where they won't be able to concentrate on any one of them?

  • ||

    Look, man, the shriek sockpuppet is going to insist that TEAM BLUE isn't fucked. What else do you need to know?

  • John||

    He assured everyone that the Democrat was going to win this yesterday. There must have been some kind of fraud. Shreek is never wrong.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    As I keep telling the peanut gallery around here, all you need to know is 8%.

  • John||

    And he of course is nowhere to be seen today. This should shut him up for a while.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    It'll be here this afternoon to post a link about Fannie and Freddie.

  • Restoras||

    Or Warren Buffet.

  • Dweebston||

    You don't really believe that.

  • John||

    It shut him up for a morning.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I guess we will take what we can get.

  • Lord Humungus||

    apparently some "people" have no sense of shame.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    He assured everyone that the Democrat was going to win this yesterday.

    A lie. The race was a toss-up yesterday.

  • John||

    Do you think we are as retarded as you and can't cut and paste?

    Palin's Buttplug|3.11.14 @ 5:05PM|#

    Actually I will repost an earlier comment of mine:

    There is a special US House election tonight in Florida. The district has voted 49% for Obama over the last two elections.

    Many of the Peanuts have been saying that DOOM IS COMING! for Democrats due to Obamacare foibles. Tonight's election will give us a preview of the midterms.

    I predict the Peanuts are wrong (again).

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/03.....nt_4371357

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, I knew you were lying. The race followed statistical norms.

    There is no DOOM! We will see normal historical vote distribution all through 2014.

    Don't try to find a link where I predicted a Sink win - there is not one.

  • Lord Humungus||

    so in your world when you say:

    Many of the Peanuts have been saying that DOOM IS COMING! for Democrats due to Obamacare foibles. Tonight's election will give us a preview of the midterms.

    I predict the Peanuts are wrong(again).

    equals not a Sink win.

    That is certifiably fucked up.

  • Sevo||

    "That is certifiably fucked up."

    Words only mean what shitpiles thinks they mean.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    OK. I laughed.

  • John||

    That is what that says you weirdo. Which part of "I predict the peanut gallery are wrong" do you not understand?

    You are just pathetic. And even by your own lie, Sink only got 46%. Obama got 49%. She underperformed by 3%. So yes, this is really bad news for the Democrats. If they underperform Obama by 3% in every district, they are fucked.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And you're supposed to be a paralegal?

    No way in hell would any judge say that I predicted a Sink win based on what I wrote.

    There is no DOOM! is all I have been saying all along.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I laughed again!
    Stop it, Plug! You're killin' me!

  • SForza||

    Are we in court?

  • Carolynp||

    Seriously, why even bother to respond to someone who won't own up to what they obviously said, AFTER you've linked their words? Never met a statist who could issue the simple statement "I guess I was wrong." See Obama administration on Obamacare rollout for further research.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The guy was trying to compare a race where the R incumbent ran against a no-name (if hot) D challenger to a race where a huge D political figure with massive party support ran against a relatively unknown R.

    We already know this, but for any noobs: PB is a mendacious piece of shit.

  • John||

    BP,

    Bo is below telling us how there is no way the Democrat should have won this race.

  • Adam330||

    God you are dumb.

  • wareagle||

    shorter PB: don't believe the words in my post from before the election, believe what I am posting now.

  • NoVAHockey||

    this is getting a little to close to "words have no meaning"

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Lying sack of shit.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|3.12.14 @ 12:40PM|#

    Go fuck your daddy, shitpile.

  • Carolynp||

    I read a rather lengthy commentary today on how this is entirely the fault of the JOOOOOS...who also caused 9/11 with their scary money wielding mind control... Could have been him...

  • R C Dean||

    The Dems desperately need accurate pre-election polling, so they know how many votes to slug into the system to eke out a win.

    In certain precincts, I have no doubt that is the number one concern raised by these races.

  • John||

    You can only slug so many votes. They needed this election badly. I don't think they would have chanced it by not slugging as many votes as possible.

    That is one of the many things about this and the San Diego elections that should scare Democrats. In both places, the Dems brought the full force of their cheat to win machine to bear and they still lost. The Obama vote machine isn't able to make up the actual deficit they face.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Right on. This is a BIG deal exactly for the reasons you mention. The real question becomes what will happen AFTER the dust settles. More of the same? How many junior congresspeople have done anything to change anything?

  • Jon Lester||

    The DNC really should scale back this trend of funneling outside money into such races, not just because the actual constituents know better, but because national party efforts can actually do more harm than good. They're definitely throwing good money after bad in Texas, and what they're trying to do here in Georgia isn't any sure thing, either.

  • PapayaSF||

    Good point, John. And note that the GOP tends to over-perform those "generic ballot" questions about Congress.

  • Calbo||

    What cracks me up is reading the post in newspaper sites about this story. It seems the "Libertarians", needs scare quotes, stole 5% of the vote from TEAM RED. Yep, just walked in and took them votes from their rightful owner.

  • UnCivilServant||

    After I voted early, I was told I couldn't vote often because some Libertarian had stolen my spare votes. I had a sad.

  • Dweebston||

    You and I both know that Libertarian bought those votes for fair market value using the proceeds of his orphanarium/hand-cranked uranium refining mill.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    "orphanarium/hand-cranked uranium refining mill"

    That made me smile. A lot.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Fucking hilarious.

  • Carolynp||

    And bitcoin.

  • John||

    If that is true, and I doubt it is, doesn't that make things even worse for the Democrats? Most races won't have a Libertarian candidate who gets 5%.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Nothing a few Obama speeches can't fix. Or yet another fix to ACA.

  • UnCivilServant||

    If the fix doesn't involve gasoline and a fire, I'm not sure it'd be an improvement.

  • Tim||

    If Republicans do conquer, look for the ACA to be tweaked,rebranded and tarted up as free market- not revoked.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Depends on which R's win. The liberty guys and the Tea Party guys will not be down with that.

    And if repealing Obamacare is a central plank in winning candidates' platforms, there could be a big push for repeal. It's so obvious that Ocare is uniformly worse in almost every aspect than we had before, even the Democrats are noticing.

  • Tonio||

    The smartest thing they (Team Red) could do is STFU about ACA and let the public find out what it really does.

    There are issues groups who can do the talking about ACA.

  • Brett L||

    What I've heard from a friend who works with these guys is that they just cannot get anything else on the radar at home. If you go to a GOP event, all anyone wants to talk about in ACA.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Their best strategy is to claim that ACA was a TEAM RED idea all along. That they were somehow duped into writing and passing the law by the evils TEAM RED. And if they have any problems with ACA they should vote them (back) in so they can make it right now that the TEAM RED spell has finally worn off. Signed, Future Leader of DNC

  • ||

    Nuh uh, shreek told me that the PPACA was going to be a non-factor in the mid-terms and the GOP would suffer losses.

  • iEagleHammer||

    He really said this?

    You really have to wonder what planet it lives on.

    The ACA isn't even the Dems only problem. There's the IRS and NSA too...

  • ||

    Those are fake scandals...

  • Mock-star||

    Do not forget the attempts at gun control, too.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Fast and Furious….

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    FEC violations…..

  • BLeeBoy||

    BENGHAZI!!!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    and the GOP would suffer losses.

    Another lie. The first part is right though (about a non-factor).

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|3.12.14 @ 1:00PM|
    GO FUCK YOUR DADDY, you lying piece of shit.
    Do you think we can't read what you've posted? You are one slimy turd.

  • fish||

    C'mon Sevo...you know with Rectal Obstruction the only post that counts is the one he was directed to post that day.

    History...that's the other guys problem!

  • ||

    Well, I can't read what it posts because I have it blocked on reasonable :)

    (technically I can read it if I click the magic button, but why would I want to?)

  • Tim||

    Assuming the Dems do get routed, look for a lot of media hand wringing over racist America just in time for the Holidays.

  • BigT||

    Tim, I think they will crank up the race baiting before the election in an attempt to forestall the looming disaster. And looks for lots of War on Wymens talk. That still flies with the Donkeys, asses that they are.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    You are right on there, my friend. Attempt at pulling the carpet right on out…...

  • Carolynp||

    Why don't they ever bring up Filner?

  • R C Dean||

    Remember the abuse Bush the elder caught for remarking on, I believe, laser scanners at a checkout?

    Obama is apparently amazed that you can now sign the POS machine rather than a slip of paper at a checkout:

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/new.....rd-machine

  • John||

    The man just can't get any RSPECT.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    -1 job taken by a POS machine

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Obama is a POS machine.

  • ||

    Winnar

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    +2

  • grrizzly||

    And Bush père was presented with a new, advanced scanner that was not available yet at grocery stores. I believe it could scan partially damaged barcodes. Bush also displayed only polite interest.

  • kinnath||

    That is how I remember the details as well.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I she Louie or Marie Antoinette? I just dont see the wookie as Marie.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    But given our anemic base turnout, Democratic candidates need to do a better job motivating them to vote. And in this case, I don't blame our base voters. When Democrats like Alex Sink run on austerity, cutting Social Security and bringing back the Simpson-Bowles Catfood Commission, well, no one is inspired.

    Good lord, Pubs barely hold a seat in an overwhelming white district they've held for 4 decades and had to spend $5M to do it? We'll be fine — @Alan_Covington

    Add "southern" to "overwhelmingly white" and suddenly the GOP's victory last night looks that much less impressive. Borrowed time.
  • CampingInYourPark||

  • Curtisls87||

    the amount of butt-hurt in the comments over there are both staggering, and delightful!

  • John||

    So Kos's spin is Sink just wasn't crazy enough. She actually tried to pretend that just because there are still checks in the checkbook doesn't mean we have any money left.

    And remember, some douche bag lefty blogger is totally more qualified to tell you what issues Sink should have ran on. The paid professionals who are actually on the scene are just too stupid to understand what is going on the way some leftist jackass who has never even been to the state is.

    They just can't comprehend that maybe their ideology might not be popular right now. Nope, if anyone loses it is because they just tried to be too reasonable.

  • Brett L||

    She was CFO of the state. And, although former LTC now Swiss Servator hates her, she did point out that the state of FL should really rethink how they wanted to define "insurer of last resort" as they were on the hook for way more liabilities than they had assets to pay out. So I would definitely count her as a member of the reality-based community.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    "don't break the bank, I need it!"

    I still hope she ends up homeless, squatting under a bridge.

  • carol||

    I second!

  • Juice||

    Don't they get it? Low voter turn out is a symptom not the disease.

  • ||

    Covington is definitely fooling himself. He is as delusional as shreek.

    He is saying that the dem candidate went against the party line in order to appeal to the voters in that district and still lost. How is this in any way an indication that they will be fine?

  • PapayaSF||

    This.

  • BigT||

    Good lord, Pubs barely hold a seat in an overwhelming white district they've held for 4 decades and had to spend $5M to do it? We'll be fine — @Alan_Covington

    DO NOT disabuse those idiots of their smug self-assurances. If they honestly evaluate the election results they could change strategy and start going on about how they have solid plans to dramatically revise Obamascare. This would put some doubt in the minds of the weak-willed middle of the roaders. They also might stop blowing hot air about climate change. Those two issues will sink lots of Donkeys.

  • Dweebston||

    (at one point he openly disagreed with an ad the national GOP was running against Sink)

    How is this not masterful (or at least tactical)? If the Democrats lose big in November it's not because Republicans are suddenly palatable. It's because Democrats climbed so far out on Obamacare and sawed off the branch behind themselves.

  • PapayaSF||

    This.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    In 2012 the Republican (Young) won FL-13 57%-43%.

    To predict DOOM! in the midterms based on Sink outperforming prior (D) candidates is a little much premature.

    The Peanuts will predictably try to spin this as DOOM! but the numbers just don't back them up.

  • John||

    Young was a long time incumbent you fucking retard. This seat was supposed to go D after he retired. And just yesterday you were assuring us the Dem was going to win.

    You told us yesterday how big of a deal this was and how you were certain Team Blue had it in the bag. Go fuck yourself.

    And did you manage to get someone from KOS to cut and paste the talking points for you? Apparently they came in late so did they give you some extra help?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think PB makes a good point.

    I have said for months if there is any justice Obamacare will become for the Democrats what Iraq became for the GOP, and that starts with losing the Senate.

    But that does not induce fantastical wishful thinking in me. What I would like to see and what is the case are not always the same thing. The district appears to be a moderate-leaning GOP one in Congressional races.

  • ||

    But no one cares what you think, Blue Tulpa.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, yes, this is Episarch's Facebook Wall, I get it.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Like

  • SugarFree||

    CITIZEN NOTHING SugarFree has sent you a Sugar Crush request

  • robc||

    Wouldnt that game immediately kill you?

  • SugarFree||

    Wouldnt that game immediately kill you?

    THAT'S NOT HOW DIABETES WORKS, LINDA!

    I pretty much stick to Plants vs. Zombies.

  • ||

    lulz.

    +1

  • John||

    His point was Obamacare isn't going to hurt Democrats. And this elections shows that to be completely false. They lost in a District that a year ago was considered to be a certain Dem pickup.

    And even by his post hoc, spin, it is still bad for the Democrats. Their candidate underperformed Obama by 3 points, despite being by all accounts a good candidate with a lot more money and outside support than her opponent. If every or even a good minority of Democrats under perform Obama by 3 points in November, it will be a complete disaster that will make 10 look like a good year for the Democrats.

    This was an important election. Too many Democrats said it was to now come back and say it is no big deal.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "They lost in a District that a year ago was considered to be a certain Dem pickup."

    But why would anyone think that? Because Obama won it slightly? My point is that is a silly reason to think you would pick the same seat up in a special, non-Presidential election.

  • John||

    Because of the Demographics of the District. The Republican had been in office for years and had run unopposed. This was a district that was thought to be a sure Dem pickup when the Republican retired.

    Sorry Bo, but the $12 million that the DNC put into this race tells me all I need to know about how important this race was and how winnable they thought it was. Your post hoc talking points don't persuade quite as much as the actual actions of the DNC prior to the elections.

    You must be Shreek's handler who decided to come on here and try and limit the damage of him constantly fucking up the talking points. Otherwise, there is no explanation for your troll act.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The 12 million the DNC put into that race tells me the Dems were desperate for a win.

    "Otherwise, there is no explanation for your troll act."

    Yes, John, there is no other possible explanation for questioning whether the results in Presidential election are a good basis for predicting a switch in a congressional district special election, none at all.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    FL-13 is a very old district. 25% of the registered are over 65. Not an electorate that favors Dems at all in a special election.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|3.12.14 @ 1:17PM|#
    Lies, lies and more lies.

  • BigT||

    Yes Mr Plug. But of course. Don't worry about a thing. The Donkeys will come back and save the day in the end. They are all heroes.

    [Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon Bonaparte ]

  • Lord at War||

    Botardesque-

    But why would anyone think that?

    Because Sink won that district as the Dem candidate for Governor in 2010, had a 20% spending advantage, and led the "generic" Repub in polling by over 20% just three months ago.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Dems can't hold the Senate without North Carolina - which is a toss-up today.

    Hagan rode the 2008 Obama overvote to victory but NC is trending white-collar which favors the D's.

    But the normal vote distribution is in effect - so a toss-up is back for NC.

  • John||

    North Carolina is such a toss up the AFL CIO has decided not to spend any of its money supporting Kay Hagan

    http://www.nationaljournal.com.....y-20140224

    Jesus Christ Shreek, didn't they send you the memo that Hagan is dead and to stop pretending she can win? You are supposed to lower expectations. Read the God damned things your handlers send you once in a while.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....ls/senate/

    Toss-up, fool.

    I am sure you will claim I predicted a Hagan win later if she were to lose.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|3.12.14 @ 1:21PM|#
    Liar.

  • wareagle||

    NC, in the last state election, went so far right that this should explain all you need to know. Repubs hold everything; Dems are reduced to photo op rallies outside the Capitol. How does this help Hagan? Show your work.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    wareagle, usually the GOP has advantages in non-Presidential elections because big Democrat constituencies, minorities and young people, do not vote in them. NC GOP has passed what are seen as voter restrictions on minorities and young people and that has both groups pretty energized up there (google 'moral marches'). If the GOP had not done this I would say the usual midterm election patterns should follow, and with the Dem President unpopular nationally Hagan should have been easy toast. Now I think it is closer to a toss-up leaning GOP.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    NC GOP has passed what are seen as voter restrictions on minorities and young people and that has both groups pretty energized up there

    What difference does that make? They can't vote anyway because...ID restrikshuns

  • PapayaSF||

    Well, they can only vote once, which will be a handicap for any NC Democrat.

    My prediction: Hagan is toast.

  • WTF||

    It's BAAAAAAACK!

  • Lord Humungus||

    bahahahahhahaha

    8%

    8%

    that's the number she should have won by.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, the margin voting against the Dem was @ 8%, when you add the Libertarian vote to the Repub margin.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    To predict DOOM! in the midterms based on Sink outperforming prior (D) candidates is a little much premature.


    I actually agree with you, Buttwipe - it is still too early for the Repubs to sing the songs of victory. But to say that the numbers don't say that the Dems are in trouble wins you the head-in-sand award of 2014.

    Congratulations!

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|3.12.14 @ 12:35PM|#
    Lying slimy turd.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Why is there no exit polling to be found? Nobody wanted to know or the media is spread too thin covering all those other elections?

  • ||

    Jesus Christ, the sockpuppet still showed. How desperate is it for attention?

  • tarran||

    You guys keep acknowledging its existence!

    If you train a neural net to spit out unpleasant strings of text, it's going to spit out unpleasant strings of text.

  • ||

    Listen, and understand. That sockpuppet is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are bored shitless.

  • John||

    It is never going to go away. So you might as well taunt it when you can.

  • SugarFree||

    We're going to need a bigger IGNORE.

  • Tonio||

    Ms. Sink doesn't look very jolly in that picture.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    One of my favorite things to do is watch Huffington Post cover Obamacare. Slate, Salon, and other sites have pretty much given up and are in desperate damage control by trying to impeach Obamacare horror stories.

    But Huffington Post thinks that everything is actually working greate. It's like Hitler sitting his bunker during the last days delusionally thinking that if he launches one more counter-attack they'll annihilate the Russians and drive them from Berlin.

  • Tonio||

    Don't give them the joy of being able to claim a Godwin, GMSM.

  • pmains||

    Especially when the Baghdad Bob comparisons write themselves.

  • ||

    Remember this Baghdad Bob classic?

  • PapayaSF||

    I do remember the video footage of guys in white coats with "Baby Milk Factory" (or maybe it was "Plant") in English on the back. Hilarious.

  • John||

    It is going to be interesting. If the Dems lose control of the Senate, Harry Reid won't be able to keep bills that Obama doesn't like from coming to a vote in the Senate. This will make Dem Senators up for re-election face the choice of abandoning Obama or making a really unpopular vote. My guess is they will ditch Obama. When that happens, Obama will be vetoing bi-partisan bills. It is going to be hilarious watching Huffpo explain how only racist evil Republicans object to Obama.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I can not see how the modern Democrat Party can abandon Obama, the First Black President. That is too big a constituency to throw overboard.

  • John||

    The Party can't but a Senator facing re-election in anything but a dark blue state can. If you are a Democratic Senator going before the voters in 16 in any state that is not D +10, how do you vote against the Obamacare repeal bill?

    The Dems have avoided this dilemma by using Harry Reid's power as majority leader to keep the house bills from ever coming to a vote on the floor. If the Republicans take the Senate, they won't be able to do that anymore and every Dem will either have to vote against cloture, meaning they filibustered the bill or vote against it. Otherwise it passes with "bi partisan support".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, that is my point, the Democrats will likely be represented only by Senators in either deep blue states or purple states where the Democrat base relies heavily on black votes. They just will not be able to throw Obama overboard for their own sakes, and thus they will not be able to grow past blue states. They will be in a somewhat similar position to the GOP to Socons and the South (but I think the Dems will be worse, that is what you get when you ride the coattails of a cult of personality).

  • John||

    the Democrats will likely be represented only by Senators in either deep blue states or purple states where the Democrat base relies heavily on black votes.

    No they won't. Go look at the list of Dems up in 16. A good number of them are from swing states where voting to preserve Obamacare will be death.

    Moreover, hard to see how the black vote really cares about a vote against Obamacare. It is not like they like it anymore than anyone else. And lastly, Obama's approval numbers among blacks are a lot lower than you would think they would be.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    The blacks are *mostly* gonna block vote for Blue. They always do.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If the Dem running is seen as throwing Obama under the bus I am not sure of that.

  • ||

    They could always stay home.

    But '16 is going to have Biden telling them that the GOP will put then "in chains!!"

  • Warren's Strapon||

    No they won't. Go look at the list of Dems up in 16. A good number of them are from swing states where voting to preserve Obamacare will be death.

    What am I missing here? I could see an argument for Colorado and for Reid's seat itself, but the rest are a lock. California, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington. Those states went to Obama in 2012 by margins of 23, 17, 26, 28, 12, 36, and 15.

  • Ivan Pike Trolle||

    every Dem will either have to vote against cloture, meaning they filibustered the bill or vote against it.

    Present!

    They may simply not vote. I don't know if they becomes defensible or not, but they may try it.

  • John||

    They might try that. But I don't think that will do them any good.

  • BigT||

    Harry Reid won't be able to keep bills that Obama doesn't like from coming to a vote in the Senate. This will make Dem Senators up for re-election face the choice of abandoning Obama or making a really unpopular vote.

    It will be important for the Elephants to write the bills carefully to make this happen.

  • PRX||

    mmmmmm. delicious nothingburger. eat hearty democrat party.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not so sure, I would kind of expect an unremarkable Democrat in a special election to come in quite a few points shy of what a national Democrat did in a Presidential election. Like him or not Obama turns out voters that just do not vote in non-Presidential elections.

  • John||

    That is not what the Democrats were saying yesterday. Moreover, the "unremarkable Democrat" was a holder of state wide office and had a ton more money and outside support than her opponent.

    I would expect a pretty lousy and underfunded Republican candidate in a District where Obama got 49% and had been trending Democrat for years to lose.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    She lost to the long time incumbent's successor. If the Democrats thought that was going to be a certain pickup, then more fool them.

    I think Pryor is toast. Hagan should be toast, but the NC legislature has really energized the Dem base there, so I think that is more a toss up now. If the GOP can get over the nomination and keep anyone from running third Party Begich should be toast as well.

  • John||

    You can pretend the "base is all charged up" all you like. But these elections prove otherwise. Despite putting millions of dollars into a race they thought they could win and indeed would have won six months ago, the Dem candidates keep under performing in the polls and losing.

    The lefty media were all over this race and how important it was right up until the Democrat lost. Sorry, you can't now claim it doesn't matter.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    6 Months ago?

    "Democrats On Verge Of Flipping Florida’s 13th District As Alex Sink Up 7 Points
    Friday, February, 14th, 2014, 11:20 am
    What should be interesting in this race is that Sink has been very supportive of the ACA and has not shied away from discussing the health care law. Therefore, this could be seen as a way to debunk the theory that Obamacare is going to be a negative campaigning tool for Democrats in the upcoming mid-terms. Considering that more and more people are signing up and seeing the positive benefits of the law, it might even be the case that Democrats will see that they can use the law to their benefit, and turn the table on Republicans.

    http://www.politicususa.com/20.....oints.html

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, perhaps you are confusing how important one side sees an election with how much of a lock they thought they had? The Dems desperately wanted some good news, I would agree with that.

  • robc||

    See the post 1 minute before yours. I think it debunks your theory.

    Its a bit of both, they were looking at this as a possible strategy. "If Sink wins, we can run on supporting the ACA!"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I expect a pick up in West Virginia too. One of Obama's lasting legacies will be his war on coal delivering what was once the solidly blue state of WV (at least at the non-Presidential level) into the GOP ranks for a long time.

  • robc||

    Same for KY.

    KY, in presidential elections, goes with the winner. 1960-2004, KY went to the winner.

    Obama got destroyed. The coal areas of the state are the most reliably democratic. And they went for McCain and Romney.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    That's more than a little disingenuous, Bo. Sink was the former state CFO and had been the gubenatorial candidate in 2010 (she won the district). The guy who won has never held any office before or even been on the ballot. Oh, and he was a lobbyist. Trying to pretend this is anything other than bad news for the Dems is silly.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What you say is true Bill, but what I say is true is as well: it was a longtime GOP district and Obama's numbers there are not a good indicator since he had unusual turn out from voting groups that tend to not vote in special Congressional elections. Wishful thinking from both Teams! aside, it seems like a pretty standard outcome to me.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except, I'm not holding Obama's role as especially meaningful in my analysis. She won the district in her 2010 (another year Obama was not on the ticket) gubenatorial run. Having a relatively major political player lose to a guy who hasn't been on a ballot before is most certainly not a standard outcome.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    She won with 51%, and then in a special election, where Democrats traditionally underperform, she lost with 47%. Again, hardly remarkable in my opinion.

    Do not get me wrong, I imagine we agree that the GOP should win the Senate back, if only to rebuke Obama and Obamacare. But I think the best indicator of that happening is simply in the number of seats the Dems are defending in red states (and to be sure, those states are so red in response to dislike of Obama and his signature law).

  • Pulseguy||

    Bo.....Not unreasonable, except for the full weight of the Democratic machine was behind a big name WOMAN candidate. If it had been two local machines running against each other, then I would agree with your post. But, adding in the big blue machine changes it.

  • Kevin47||

    Seems to me like this is the 2012 electorate minus people turning out just for Obama. Anyone can tell you 2014 is going to be a disaster for the Dems. What they should be concerned about is 2016. What are they going to do if they don't have a black candidate at the top of the ticket to drive black turnout?

  • John||

    Exactly Kevin. Obama got historic black turnout in both elections. Take that away and his margin, especially in 2012 shrieks to just a couple of million votes. Both 08 and 12 were huge turnout years for Dems and poor turnout years for Republicans.

    Maybe 16 will be that way again. But, if it is not, the Dems are in a lot of trouble.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Seems to me like this is the 2012 electorate minus people turning out just for Obama.

    He is agreeing with me you idiot. We are going back to 2004/06 voting patterns.

    Notice Kevin did not mention Obamacare?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So you seem to acknowledge that Obama got historic turn out from constituencies that otherwise do not turn out, and yet Jolly's win is somehow amazing?

    John, I share with you the hope the Democrats lose the Senate, but until then try not to let what you want to be the case get in the way of a critical analysis of what is going on. That helps no one (when you expected Romney to win on election eve and he then did not, who did that help?).

  • John||

    and yet Jolly's win is somehow amazing?

    No one said it was amazing. It means Democrats are in a lot of trouble, which they are if they can't get turnout to look like 2012. Jolly winning indicates they probably are not.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    See, I think they might be in a lot of trouble, but I think this special election does not indicate that in any real way. This election unremarkably follows the usual pattern, really.

    What means Democrats are in trouble is something that was the case before this election: they have more vulnerable seats up in a year their President is unpopular.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It looks as if the 13th District changed from 2012 to now. It used to be a few counties in SW Florida, and now it's basically just Pinellas.

    If that's true (I sent Suderman an email, so he might look into it) this is big. If a Democrat can't win in Pinellas, they are in trouble.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There seems to be maps of the district here.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/wei.....n_win.html

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "The 13th district was redrawn in 2012 so that now it is entirely located within Pinellas County. The district includes an area from Dunedin to western and northern St. Petersburg."

  • BigT||

    Maybe the Donkeys will all run in blackface. It would probably fool some of their core voters.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I think what this shows is that the Dems can't expect a midterm like Clinton's second. At the very least, we should now expect a typical number of pick-ups by the GOP. At the very least.

  • Almanian!||

    So it seem EIGHT PERCENT is enough to swing the result, right shriek? RIGHT?

    SINK: "I AM THE EIGHT PERCENT"

    #LOSING

    /8%

  • The Late P Brooks||

    DRAT! I was really hoping Shreeek was lying in a ditch next to an empty 1 gal paint thinner can.

  • John||

    At some point the paint thinner does so much damage it really can't hurt you anymore.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    We had a constant Aurora (IL) arrestee, back in 1998, name of Manny DeLaCerda. over 100 arrests and citations for "unlawful use of an intoxicant" - huffing paint thinner. He was quite....damaged, but just. wouldn't. die. His family kept him somewhat alive, because he was on SSI disability.
    One day we had a new judge - rich little dainty white woman, just appointed. Manny comes up for bond call, drooling and staggering and the judge looks mildly nauseated. All the sudden she looks in a panic, and bolts the bench for her chambers - just before I could ask WTF? a big woman jail guard thwacks Manny and says "God Damn it, Manny!" He had just totally unloaded in his lovely blue jail suit - shat and pissed himself, full bore.

    I shan't ever forget that judge's look before she ran.

  • ||

    That is a great story. Made me laugh my ass off.

  • John||

    I would be very curious to see how many Democrat votes the Libertarian candidate drew. If this is like the Virginia governor's race and the L candidate took more Dem votes, that means that Republican voters are saying fuck it I have to vote to stop the Democrats and the Democratic voters are in some numbers demoralized enough to vote for a protest candidate.

    The Libertarian candidate drawing significantly more Dem voters is a very bad sign for Democrats who have depended on the enthusiasm of their base to win the last two Presidential elections.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think who the Libertarian draws from depends on the Libertarian candidate and what they accentuate within libertarianism. Sarvis would have been what is called a 'cosmotarian' around here and thus drew from Democrats. Someone like Bob Barr would have done the opposite.

  • John||

    But Sarvis wouldn't have drawn any D votes in 08 or with a Democratic nominee who wasn't one of the worst ever put up for state office.

    The ability of any Libertarian candidate to draw votes from either party is directly proportional to how demoralized and angry that party's base is.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What complicates that is that sometimes a candidate that energizes one faction of the base can anger another (at least for the GOP, which really is a 'bigger tent' these days).

  • Sevo||

    John|3.12.14 @ 12:28PM|#
    "And he of course is nowhere to be seen today. This should shut him up for a while."

    Not a chance John.
    The slimy bastard hopes he can lie his way out of the predictions he made.

  • John||

    I know. I taunted the troll Gods and was justly punished.

  • DRM||

    Just more evidence the Republicans were idiots to nominate Romney instead of anybody else at all. It was a winning issue in Scott Brown's special election, it was a winning issue in 2010, and it's a winning issue now . . . but the top of the Team Red ticket couldn't run on it in 2012.

  • John||

    Yes they were idiots. And they had no balls. They were afraid to go after Obama because the media might not like it.

    The upside is that had Romney won, the Dems would have filibustered delaying or repealing Obamacare and then blamed the resulting disaster on Romney. Since Obama won, there is no doubt who is to blame.

  • kinnath||

    I've seen several liberal writers talk about the 2012 election and how Obama was utterly dismissive of Romney regarding Russia. When the liberal press starts saying Romney was right; Obama was wrong; and Obama was a prick; then the tide has started to head out.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It was his turn.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yup. Quite possibly one of the worst R candidates since Dewey.

  • robc||

    You forget Dole in 1996.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Dole was bad, but he didn't create RomneyCare or flop on as many issues as RomneyBot.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Dole did get beat much worse, however.

    They were both pretty terrible, of course.

  • BigT||

    Romney was a bad candidate for 2012. In 2000 or 2004 or 2008 he would have been better. But once Ocare was in the mix he was toast.

  • ||

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! Now just wait a minute. This can't be right ! Shreek assured us just yesterday that Sink had it in the bag and it would prove that Obumblecare was not an albatross hanging around the dem's necks.

    What gives?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It was a seat held by an R incumbent that was barely won by Obama in 2012. Don't worry your pretty little head about it, those are the only relevant facts and clearly this election says nothing about national trends or Obamacare's popularity at large.

    /

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If that is supposed to be referring to the post cut and pasted supra from PB it seems a bit unfair to me. PB's post reads to me like this: "People here say it is doom for the Dems, but there is a Dem running in a special election in FL who is polling well. I predict the doomsayers will be proven wrong tomorrow."

    I am not sure that says Sink would win, just that the election would not be terrible for the Democrat candidate. As it was it appears she lost according to historical margins in that district.

  • ||

    You are either terrible at reading what Shrike writes or you are intentionally giving him way more credit then he is due.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    He is and was obviously predicting a win for the D candidate, since there is no context indicating that anyone on the thread was predicting some kind of blowout and thus no 'Peanut' opinion of that kind to be proven wrong by a 'historical margins' argument.

    For being such a smart guy, you can be really, really dumb sometimes.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    IT, so saying something will not be 'DOOM!' (his all caps) is guaranteeing a win? Is that the only possible reading a smart guy like yourself can give that language?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It is the most straightforward and compelling reading given the context. Generally, when someone thinks that X will be proven wrong by Y, statement Z (made by X) must be proven false.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Unfortunately for your argument, what PB explicitly said would be proven wrong that was being said by the 'Peanuts' was not 'a loss,' but DOOM! which certainly implies something more than a slim loss.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    PB is a dishonest moron, since no one in that thread used the DOOOOM vocabulary. In fact, almost everyone in the linked thread (including John) believed that the Dem would win this special election, indicating that for those people to have been wrong, the Dem would not only have to win but win by a landslide. The statement of relevance is 'I predict the Peanuts are wrong' -- and for that statement to have been true, it has to take into account the actual opinions of the Peanuts rather than the voices in PB's head.

    Duh.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    PB is PB, but in arguing that he was proven wrong in a prediction, what he was predicting is kind of important, and what he clearly said in the excerpt was that those predicting DOOM! would be proven wrong. Perhaps he was unfairly representing the Peanuts and they did not predict DOOM!, but it was this prediction of DOOM! that he was clearly referring to.

  • Lord Humungus||

    holy twisted knot. How is that pretzel job working out for ya?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Look, here is the definition of doom (and this is not 'all caps, exclamation point DOOM!):

    doom
    /do͞om/
    noun

    noun: doom
    1. death, destruction, or some other terrible fate.

    And here is what PB said, exactly:

    "Many of the Peanuts have been saying that DOOM IS COMING! for Democrats due to Obamacare foibles. Tonight's election will give us a preview of the midterms.

    I predict the Peanuts are wrong (again)."

    CLEARLY what PB is predicting here is that the DOOM predicted that will come for Democrats will not occur.

    Now, I realize this is the internet and PB is disliked by this 'internet community.' Perhaps there are good reasons for that, I am relatively new here and I myself have found him to be sometimes dishonest. And I get that in 'internet communities' piling on becomes something of a fun thing to do for many people. But look, reading those words as necessarily being shown wrong by the slim loss that occurred in that election defies what most normal, unconnected people would see in those words. Anyone saying otherwise is the one tying themselves into pretzel like knots. PB literally said that predictions of DOOM for the Democrat Party would not be born out by the election, and it is entirely reasonable to see a slim loss as something different than 'DOOM!'

  • goneGalt||

    Serious question, exactly which Peanuts were saying that DOOM IS COMING! for Democrats due to Obamacare foibles?

  • Pulseguy||

    Bo...He said the election will be a preview of the mid-terms. If it is, it does spell DOOM for the Dems. Obviously no one will die, so the DOOM word is hyperbole. His, by the way, not ours. Taking it down to a reasonable level, ie, a loss when one expects a win, one can only think he thought Sink would win.

    And, yeah you can argue about it and nitpick, but if he thought Sink was going to lose, do you not think he would have reasonably said, 'Sink might, or might not lose, but it is pretty unreasonable to read too much into it, and anyone predicting DOOM from a Sink loss is wrong.' He didn't say that, he said it would be a harbinger of the midterms. And, someone ahead in the polls, with a lot of name recognition, and the full weight of the Dem machine behind her, lost to a pretty uncharismatic generic Repub. If he is right, and since he is wrong on virtually everything he writes about, and it is sign of what is to come, then the Dems are in trouble.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Bo,

    In a conversation about the special election, Shriek claims the suggestions of Democratic doom will be proven wrong. Explain to me honestly (not with a legal burden of proof or ban on hearsay) how exactly that isn't predicting a Dem win?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "In a conversation about the special election, Shriek claims the suggestions of Democratic doom will be proven wrong. Explain to me honestly (not with a legal burden of proof or ban on hearsay) how exactly that isn't predicting a Dem win?"

    Er, because 'doom' can mean a pretty solid spanking, not a slim loss?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Let us say that the day before the Super Bowl, someone said 'a lot of people are saying Peyton is unbeatable and the game is going to be DOOM! for the Seahawks, but I think those people are wrong.' That guy is only correct if the Seahawks win? Come on. Most people would feel vindicated by that language if the Seahawks had lost a close game.

  • ||

    Well, I am convinced now.

  • kinnath||

    The only thing left at this point is to hope for a massive failure on the part of the democratic party this fall. I would pay good money to watch the petulant mutherfucker in the white house spend two years fighting with a republican house and senate.

  • robc||

    OT: Day 3 survived. All cases settled before 11:30.

    Unlikely to get called on Thursday and wont be called in on Friday.

    So Ive probably made it thru week 1.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Do keep us informed of week 2. I keep hoping for something interesting (but short, for your sake).

  • robc||

    Same here, I would prefer a nice misdemeanor or $3k civil suit to sitting around doing nothing.

  • ||

    I once served on a jury. A guy robbed a pizza delivery man. No money, he just took the pizza. The accused was a pitiful looking creature. It was impossible for me not to feel sorry for the guy.

    They had to dismiss the case when the prosecution had no evidence. No pizza. The cops had eaten it after they caught the guy. The delivery guy could not identify the thief because it was dark.

    The. Judge. Was. PISSED.

    I googled it to see if I could find the case and see that it has happened more than once. Jesus.

  • BigT||

    Pizza, drugs, jewels, car, boat, the cops will eat anything!

  • Lord Humungus||

    the one time I was called for jury duty, the gas mains broke. The building was evacuated and the judge let us all go. It was a thankful intervention of fate.

  • HYUFD||

    This is actually a sign of support for the status quo. The GOP already held this District and they already hold the House of Representatives. The only chamber the Democrats hold is the Senate, and as no Florida Senate seat is up in November, this Florida special election does not give many clues!

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Yes, we have no fucking clue what could possibly have flipped this seat from a sure win for Dems to a Republican upset in the space of 5 months. None at all.

    Of course, not too long ago (when this seat was a lock for Dems) this was surefire proof that Obamacare would not hurt (and maybe even help) D prospects in 2014. Funny how that works.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course a statewide office holder started off the race in a special election ahead of an unknown newcomer five months before the election. For a gap like that to close after campaigning is hardly remarkable.

    For such a smart guy IT,... :)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    For the incumbent advantage theory to hold weight, the side with incumbency must start out at either an advantage or at least an equivalent position as the challenger, rather than at the deficit that the R started out as in this race.

    By implying that events in the space of the campaign had a significant impact on the race, you are in fact conceding the point, since the most obvious issue in both the campaign and the national consciousness during that time was Obamacare's rollout and implementation.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are missing the common electoral dynamic that people with name recognition always start out far ahead of one without months before an election, but as the latter campaigns that is erased. That is unremarkable.

    THEN throw in that the guy campaigning was the hand picked successor of the long time incumbent, and that his campaign spent a fair amount of time and effort in informing people of that, his win seems pretty standard fare.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    ...oy. I'm done here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    With respect, you should be. Like John you are letting your conservative (shall we say Burkean?) wishes color what are pretty standard facts.

    It is unremarkable for a candidate with state wide name recognition to be far ahead of an unknown candidate early in the race, and then, when that race is a in a district that has traditionally gone in the direction against that big name candidate, as the unknown fellow gets more known the gap closes. I have a feeling if you felt you could prove that did not happen quite a bit, you would, rather than being 'done here.'

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Here are two examples right off the top of my head.

    The PA primary between Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak. Long time Senator Specter started off with a 62-24% lead, but he was running in a primary that leaned to the left away from him. By the time of the primary Sestak closed that gap and won.

    Or take the election of George Allen (of Macaca fame) as governor over Mary Sue Terry, where Terry started out with an over 20% lead in the polls, but in a state that was going conservative. For that matter, think of Allen's later loss to Jim Webb. Allen started out with a 57-26% lead against the unknown Webb. But the state was becoming more blue, and Webb closed the gap and won.

    Again, unremarkable.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    you are letting your conservative (shall we say Burkean?) wishes color what are pretty standard facts


    It is entirely unsurprising that you would come to this conclusion without evidence, since this is what you say about everyone and everything which disagrees with you. I'm surprised you don't throw out some references to the 'reality based community'. In point of fact, this discussion (right down to obfuscation about 'normal trends') reminds me of nothing more than Bush lovers' support of their party and the Iraq War's continued popularity despite all evidence to the contrary.

    I have a feeling if you felt you could prove that did not happen quite a bit, you would, rather than being 'done here.'


    To quote a pedant, "Is that the only possible reading a smart guy like yourself can give that"? I'm done because showing quantitative evidence for my position would involve linking to polls and lots more typing, which is a PITA on a tablet posting from a meeting that will (hopefully) wrap up soon.

    Ultimately, I comment here because it is fun and interesting, neither of which describes this bit of pedantry. Thus, I'm done.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "since this is what you say about everyone and everything which disagrees with you"

    No, only those who are pretty evidently sympathy with conservatives or the Republican party (which you rather acknowledge).

    I have put forward my argument, which you have misunderstood (confusing my argument about the disputation of name recognition leads during campaigning with an incumbency argument). I then provided concrete examples of my argument in the world. You are left with little except your leanings here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ah, meant to write 'dissipation'

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And Bo wonders why so many of us consider him to be an asshole.

  • ||

    I guess I should tell my 'it'll float!' story again. Short version.

    I was a little kid and my grandfather was taking me fishing with a friend of his. I stood on the dock and watched the friend overload his boat until water began coming over the side. My grandfather told him it was sinking and to get out of the boat. The guy kept insisting it would float, yelling 'it'll float!' repeatedly until the boat was firmly on the bottom and he was chest deep in water. He even insisted it would float one more time after the boat was on the bottom.

    This is water coming over the side. So, someone, you know who I mean, tell us one more time how it is gonna float.

  • SugarFree||

    "You'll all float down here."

  • 110 Lean||

  • 110 Lean||

  • 110 Lean||

    Damn 3:00 squirrels.

  • BigT||

    3:00 must be when the NSA does their upload from all enemy sites.

  • R C Dean||

    This thread just goes to show how hard Team players will work to avoid a fairly obvious conclusion:

    That one of the reasons why their candidate blew a massive early lead might have something to do with a hugely controversial and unpopular national program sponsored by their Team failing spectacularly in the months before the election.

  • GregMax||

    So let's say the Republicans control the house and senate. . . how fast will Harry Reid reinstate the 60 vote requirement for nominees? And how will anything (other than not having Democrats blabbering on the news all the time) change?
    Same shit, different suit color. When the Republican statists start laying out a plan to cut the size of government by 50%, I'll start being a believer.

  • ||

    Me too....

  • prolefeed||

    And Jolly’s campaign was not exactly masterful (at one point he openly disagreed with an ad the national GOP was running against Sink).

    This is not necessarily a sign of a poorly run campaign. The national GOP could run an ad that undercut a candidate's message, especially if they never bothered to ask the candidate what their views or strategy are.

  • Almanian!||

    Jesus Christ - Bo Fucking Tard AND shriek to fuck up the thread. Thanks, guys!

    Shrieky - how's that 8% workin' for ya? #DOOM

  • Will4Freedom||

    Don't get cocky, folks. Never underestimate the power of the liberal montra "the ends justify the means".

    Again, non-Repugs are being put into a position of either voting for the best guy or voting for a Republican.

    If they put a Liberal Lite RHINO, I for one, will vote for the best guy.

    But I'm in NJ... can't vote in the Repug primaries and can't outvote the Liberal "gimie" crowd. My vote doesn't count.

  • Nixonfan||

    Two polls taken in February showed Sink ahead by 7% and 9%. Bradley factor?

  • Duelles||

    As despicable as so many politicians are and I have a memory of the last time the Republicans held both houses, it wasn't as bad as now. I will fund and vote anti democrat at each and every opportunity. On the good side for Dems, this recovery is so. Sluggish, slow, weak that it may go on for another 3-4 years and my portfolio will benefit.

  • ||

    Is it pronounced Over-bee? Or Over-bye?

    As to Obama's polling, it's very easy to see how he spins it.

    "Great laws and ideas are never popular in the beginning. In the long-run, it'll pay off and my approval rating will go up and up until they chisel my face on Mount Rushmore. In fact, I'll be so popular they'll have to keep my face separate from the other dudes!"

  • Uncle Joe||

    Suderman is either misinformed or being deceptive by claiming Sink outspent Jolly by a million bucks. When you add the outside groups into the equation the difference shrinks to $6.4 million for Sink versus $6.3 million for Jolly. Much of Jolly's money came at the end of the campaign, when it would have the most punch. Both candidates had a lot of baggage, but this is a district where talking about Medicare cuts should be the political equivalent of a death sentence.

    Anyone who thinks this district is anything other than a steep uphill battle for a Democrat, is completely oblivious. The Republicans have been dominating this race for years. Obama's numbers in 2008 & 2012 reflect the fact that the GOP candidates were really unappealing to the district. Sink's name recognition made it seem closer than it ever was.

    I wouldn't take much away from this as a predictor for the 2014 mid-terms. The prevailing winds favor the GOP, but only a few races are really open. Unless something changes drastically between now & November, the Democrats are going to lose some seats in both chambers of Congress. Whether the GOP gets the Senate majority has more to do with who their nominees are than anything else. Candidates who focus on the economy, on jobs & on the bad aura surrounding Obama & the ACA can compete. If the enough of the same tired social ideologues & 47% hating pseudo-libertarians are running, the Democrats can hang on to the Senate.

  • Will Nonya||

    It's that damned citizens united again, opening the door for all that money to come in and buy elections...wait, what? Oh, never mind.

  • Pulseguy||

    Polling is becoming meaningless. Notice how wrong the polls have been for the last number of years?

    When I was a kid people polled door to door, because not every family had a phone. As phones became ubiquitous polling was done by phone. But now, more and more, cell phones are dominating. You can't poll using cell phones because you can't say for certain where people are living and voting. I don't know how pollsters can get around this.

    A very middle class subdivision in a working class neighborhood in a suburb of my city was recently completed. The local landline company refused to wire the subdivision for landlines because they would not get anyone signing up. We're building a 175 unit rental building downtown and we're not wiring it for landlines. It would be a waste of money.

    How do you poll accurately if you don't know where the person resides? You can't. And, you can't know if there are no landlines.

  • PCMcGee||

    Gun control was the main point effectively used against Sink here, not healthcare.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement