Election 2014

Democrats Couldn't Count on Women for Victories in Midterm 2014 Elections. Will They Learn?

Did Democrats woo women at the expense of young and independent voters?


Sen. Kay Hagan/Facebook

Democrats in many states were counting on women to win election 2014 victories. It seems to have been a bad bet. Liberal Senate candidates who put particular emphasis on issues like birth control and equal pay legislation were roundly defeated by Republican challengers last night. 

The über case here comes out of Colorado, where Democratic Sen. Mark Udall lost his seat to GOP Rep. Cory Gardner after running heavily on how Gardner would be bad for women. It was a strange choice for one of the few Democratic Senators who could have campaigned on his record of questioning intelligence community abuses. Udall was championed by groups such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the American Civil Liberties Union for his criticism of National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, his insistence on declassification of the CIA's post-9/11 interrogation techniques, and his refusal to support National Defense Authorization Act provisions allowing for indefinite detention of American citizens. "He's definitely deviated from the Obama administration on these issues," Laura Pitter, senior national security counsel at HRW, told the Huffington Post

Gardner, meanwhile, scores pretty low on support for civil liberties. But in campaign literature and TV ads, Udall largely emphasized his differences from Gardner on social issues, particularly those related to contraception and abortion. He hammered Gardner for previous support of a Colorado personhood amendment and repeatedly suggested that Gardner wanted to ban birth control. 

Despite all this, female voter turnout Tuesday remained stubbornly low in Colorado. This is far from unprecented—in general, women, young adult, and minority voters tend to drop off during non-presidential election years. But this year, Colorado women's turnout was at its lowest point since 1992, according to ABC News. And while unmarried women did lean overwhelmingly Democrat, this much-courted cohort did so at their smallest margin in over 20 years. 

In preliminary exit poll data from CNN, Sen. Udall managed to capture 52 percent of Colorado's women voters, compared to Gardner's 44 percent. But this wasn't enough to make up for Gardner's 17 percent lead among men. And similar dynamics were seen in other Senate races where Democrats had stressed GOP opposition to abortion, health insurance coverage for contraception, legislation meant to address gender pay gaps, and other issues expected to rally women voters. 

In North Carolina, for instance, Republican Thom Tillis beat incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan by just 2 percentage points overall. But he lead by 15 percent among male voters, enough to trump Hagan's 12 percent lead with women. In Alaska, Republican Dan Sullivan won against incumbent Sen. Mark Begich by earning just 2 percent less support from women but 11 percent more support from men. In Iowa, Republican state Rep. Joni Ernst won her new Senate seat with 1 percent less of the female vote and 16 percent more of the male vote.

In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell kept his seat by wooing both more male and more female voters; he beat challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes by 3 percent among women and 25 percent among men. Arakansas' Tom Cotton came out on top with 10 percent more female supporters than opponent Mark Pryor and 24 percent more male supporters.

Exit poll data shows female voters preferring Democratics by seven percentage points overall, according to the Wall Street Journal. "That was a distinctly better showing than in the latest midterm elections, in 2010, when women broke for the GOP by a percentage point and helped propel Republicans to control of the House," the Journal notes. Yet the gender gap still skewed in Republicans' favor this year, with GOP candidates capturing male voters by 13 percentage points more. 

To be clear, it's unlikely that focusing on supposed women's issues drove male voters away from Democrats—that 13-point male lead Republicans enjoyed is pretty standard fare for midterm elections. And men make up a majority of the Republican party generally. A Pew Research Center Survey from 2012 found 52 percent of GOP or GOP-leaning voters were male, compared to 43 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaners.  

And there's nothing to say that Democrat's "GOP war on women" rhetoric didn't motivate some female voters who may have otherwise sat this election out. Perhaps without it, we'd have seen even bigger margins of GOP victory in states like North Carolina and Alaska. 

But I'd love to be able to peer into some alternate reality where Democrats like Udall had campaigned on opposition to CIA torture and NSA spying; or had attempted to motivate their minority bases by focusing on issues like those coming out of Ferguson, Missouri; or had hitched their wagon to marijuana legalization in states where it was on the ballot. These are some of the issues that matter most right now to young voters—another group historically absent from midterm voting, with last night being no exception. Though 18- to 29-year-olds make up about a quarter of the U.S. population, they accounted for just 13 percent of voters yesterday. (The reverse is true for seniors, who constitute about 13 percent of the total population but represented 22 percent of the midterm vote.)  

Could campaigns that emphasized opposition to civil-liberties abuses, police brutality, and drug criminalization have captured more ballot-box love from millennials? As we've seen in poll after poll—from Harvard's to Pew Research Center's to our own here at Reason—millennials are massively dissatisfied with traditional partisan options and more likely than any young cohort previously to consider themselves political independents. And those issues are ones not necessarily beholden to a natural partisan divide. A Republican or a Democratic candidate who ran with them could well capture post-party, post-Hope millennial passions (along with older independents, too, of course). 

Instead, both parties keep choosing to run on the most partisan of platforms and dog-whistles. (Democrats more so than Republicans this year, though that's not to the credit of GOP candidates, who largely seemed to run on nothing.) Republicans are still relying on older white men and religious conservatives to carry them. And Democrats keep hoping that if they just remind women and minorities they're On Their Side, Not Like Those Republicans, they don't actually have to have any ideas, do anything, or stand for anything. 

It's a great way to turn out exactly the people and constituencies who would vote for you anyways. And sometimes an OK way to eek out your own party's dominance. It's not a sound strategy if you have any hope of actually affecting change, or turning politics into anything but the sad, silly spectacle it is currently. But I suppose that's never the real goal anyway…

Funnily enough, many on the left are now dismissing last night's Democratic losses as a mere side effect of more male, white, and over-45 voters—aka more Republicans—showing up at the polls. (See the closing paragraph here for one fine example.) It's an effective bit of ass-covering on their part, I guess, but I feel sorry for the future of the left if any of them actually believe it convincing. "The excuse is, itself, just a restatement of the problem," as Ezra Klein writes.

The fact that less registered Democrats, less millennials, and less women turned up to vote is neither random nor some sort of natural, immutable force. It is evidence that what the Democratic Party and candidates are doing is not working. And if the best their pundits can come up with afterward is, "well, that's how voter turnout goes," we could be in for a GOP majority for much longer than anyone expects.

NEXT: GOP Won't Battle With the Prez, Says McConnell

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.

  1. ME – on teh Tweeterzzesz: Wow – the projection, animism, fear and loathing are SUPER delicious! This election is better than most for the schadenfreude! #MorePopcorn

    Not gonna lie – this is WAY better than I’d hoped. And we’re only ONE day into it! Makes 2008 ans 2012 TEAM RED wailing seem utterly innocuous in comparison.

    Go TEAM BLUE! Cry! Emote! Lash out! Misunderstand! Miss the point! Remain deaf! Look but do not see! It’s totally, wonderfully entertaining, and couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch! Fuck you!

    1. More salty tears! I demand more!

      1. I’m telling you – I’m happier the more I go on the Tweeterz and Derpbook. It’s astounding how sad all these fuckers are.

        I can’t wait for the next soul crushing of whichever team in 2016! If it’s anything like this year, I’ll be SUPER happy right through the new year!

        Goooooo Team Schadenfreude!

        1. Do we get jerseys on Team Schadenfreude? I would like a jersey.

          1. What kind of libertarian would I be if I went around providing TEAM shirts!

            Have your orphans make you one – duh!

            1. Now now, let’s be reasonable. I’ll work out a business to business deal with you all. If you sponsor my racing yacht, I’ll make sure that a few boxes of jerseys mysteriously disappear from the sweatshop and end up in your hands. Keep the orphans in the salt mines where they belong.

    2. I’m sorry Brown didn’t beat Shaheen, and it would have been amusing to see Gillespie win, but yeah, not bad overall. The crushing of the Hope and Change 2008 Obamabots is truly amusing.

      It was annoying to see that the new primary system meant that I had no Libertarians on my ballot at all. And for state-wide races, that will probably be the case from now on, because the top two finishers will always be D and R or D and D.

      1. Standing for Dumb and Dumber

      2. Fuck Gillespie and fuck Brown.

        1. You prefer Warner and Shaheen?

      3. Precisely. I tried to tell everyone I could that the new primary system here would NOT result in more moderate candidates as was claimed, but would, instead, result in the loss of any third party candidates on the fall ballots. Then I realized that in such a heavily Democratic state, this was a feature, not a bug.

    3. While the proggie weeping is lovely to hear, I also can’t wait to see how the GOP goes about screwing itself. I’m almost giddy thinking about it. I don’t think they’re dumb enough to start claiming mandates RE: culture war. But they might be…

      1. So far, they’ve avoided being really stupid. I wonder how long that will last.

  2. Obama: “I would like having some Kentucky Bourbon with Mitch McConnell.”

    That’s all what is left for him, sweeping alcoholism.

    1. Is it just me, or does McConnell’s face look like a snapping turtle?

      1. Not just you. And one of his nicknames is “Yertle.”

  3. It was bizarre to see Udall campaign on birth control of all things. That was some sort of focus-group-created concept the Democrats used in 2012, but it never made much sense to me. How many Republicans want to ban it? Maybe they don’t want to hand it out for free, or have issues with morning-after pills, but Udall had a campaign ad suggesting that Gardner wanted to ban condoms! WTF? Did they think that low-info Democrats would believe that, and that it would motivate them to vote?

    Maybe those young single women the Democrats are courting aren’t really as stupid and suggestible as they think?

      1. She’s one of the reasons I voted

      2. I forgot all about that! Great!

    1. To be fair, the ad didn’t say he’d ban condoms, just that because bc pills were outlawed all the condoms were gone from store shelves (soldout).

      Not that it makes the ad any less dumb. But Jesus Tap Dancing Christ, do they really not understand how economics works? (And wasn’t Gardner’s position that bc should be sold over the counter?)

      1. I only saw the ad once, and I think you are correct, but the overall impression the ad wanted to make was “Senator Gardner = no condoms.” And they just ignored the over-the-counter thing, because it conflicted with their message.

        One reason the election was heartening was not just the failure of the War on Women bull, but something larger: the failure of the Democrat strategy of assembling a coalition of minority grievances into a majority vote. It failed spectacularly. People voted about the economy, immigration, and the country as a whole. Good.

  4. Why the obsession with the Republican’s female gender gap, with no discussion of the Democrat’s (nearly) equal and opposite male gender gap?

    Even if you say “Well, the Democrats are manufacturing their lead among women by catering to their issues”, that just begs a separate question: Why do Repubs have a (nearly) equal lead among men despite not catering to their issues?

    1. I don’t think we need to ask ENB to Mansplain this to us, RC….

      1. I think I do, Almanian.

        Hell, if she just wants to chicksplain it, I’ll have Mrs. Dean translate for me.

    2. It’s because the MSM largely determines the topics of discussion, and “women” have been a bigger topic that “men” for decades. Plus, discussing the “more men vote GOP” thing works against the Democrats, so they avoid it.

  5. Could campaigns that emphasized opposition to civil-liberties abuses, police brutality, and drug criminalization have captured more ballot-box love from millennials?

    Really, ENB? You just COULDN’T let it go, could you….

    “We’d have won, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids millenials?!!

    1. All of 5 people that looked remotely “millennial” walked into my precinct out of 300. I would say that a solid 60% were Boomers and the rest were gen X. Millennials only vote in presidential elections.

      1. Ours is mostly “old people”, but I live in Farmville, MI, so….comes with the territory.


    2. Clearly they should have run on how unfair Lena Dunham has been treated. I bet that would have gotten the Yutes out in force.

      And what Clown Hunter said below. It would be nice if someone would for once talk about the Democrats gender gap with men. Even though Elizabeth apparently thinks men are unworthy of consideration in the political process, our votes still count.

      1. Um, literally every mention of the female gender gap in my article is followed by the corresponding male gender gap.

        1. Fair enough. But you don’t see it as much of a problem for the Democrats to solve. The article seems to be saying the problem for the Democrats is to get the women voters back. Maybe they should try not making war on men for a while. Just a thought.

    3. We are legion!

    4. I know, I snuck ’em in at the end, like vegetables.

      1. (gah, comment in reply to one way above about millennials)

      2. We thank you

      3. 🙂

        I like broccoli

  6. Oh, almost forgot – re: this article….

    something something something women are the new Cleveland Browns something something

    1. We can count on them to let us down?

  7. Seems to me that one of the most untalked about trends in the midterm–and one that hardly anybody’s talking about–is how well the Republicans do when they shut the fuck up about social conservatism.

    If women stayed home because they weren’t sufficiently terrified of Republicans’ gay bashing, abortion hysteria, or slut shaming the Sandra Fluke of the month, then somebody should be smearing that in the faces of cultural conservatives.

    …since the likelihood of the latter claiming responsibility for this victory is already at 100%.

    1. Seems to me that one of the most [important] trends…

      You knew what I meant!

    2. That or the Democratic attacks on culture war issues don’t hunt so well when things start to get really bad.

      I see no evidence that any of the Republicans who won last night are social liberals or are swearing their alliance to gay marriage and free abortion. The Republicans look the same as they have always looked. The only thing different is the usual Democratic bullshit didn’t work.

      I have a newsflash for you Ken, late term abortion is not popular in this country and neither is the government paying for everyone’s birth control. And gay marriage hasn’t won many elections either. If it had, the judiciary wouldn’t have had to shove it down the country’s throat.

      1. What’s different about this is the lack of a real “culture of death” push.

        No Terri Schiavo.

        No Sandra Fluke…

        Seriously, if I thought their biggest beef with ObamaCare was that Sandra Fluke is a dirty little whore? then I’d say fuck the social conservatives and their sicko cronies in the Republican party, too!

        1. Except that the Republicans never brought up Sandra Fluke. It was the Democrats who did. It was the Democrats who claimed we had to force nuns to pay for contraception because Sandra Fluke couldn’t afford birth control.

          The Democrats are sticking a boot on the country’s face and telling them they must pay for birth control. All the Republicans ever did was stand up and say no. Why you think they should have cheered the Democrats on or stood idly by and said nothing is beyond me.

          1. John, Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute.

            1. So what? A lot of liberals called Sarah Palin a lot worse than that. So do all Democrats hate women? If not, then why does Limbaugh speak for anyone but Limbaugh? Or is it that calling Palin a stupid whore is okay because she is one of those people?

              1. The point is, that was Limbaugh making the GOP look bad. Is that fair or right? No. And it didn’t matter.

              2. I don’t think Limbaugh was the only data point for that claim. And what liberal pundit anywhere Limbaugh’s significance to conservatives said something equivalent?

                1. . And what liberal pundit anywhere Limbaugh’s significance to conservatives said something equivalent?

                  About Palin? Let’s see. Andrew Sullivan accused her of faking her pregnancy and obsessed over it in the pages of the Atlantic for months.

                  Bill Maher called her “a snarling bitch”. Barny Frank said she was a terrible mother. SNL did a skit which joked about her husband having sex with their daughters.

                  All of that is a hundred times worse than anything Limbaugh said. And yet people like you think it was great but also think the problem in this country is how the Republicans hate women.

                  There really isn’t anything you won’t put down the memory hole is there?

                  1. John is right. Palin got much, much worse than Fluke.

                    1. Palin was running for office, that’s considered a much more eligible target than a college student who testified in front of a subcommittee

                    2. So it is okay to say horrible sexist things about women as long as they are running for office? That is even pathetic for you Bo and that is a very low bar.

                      And Barney Frank is an elected official not a clown. And the Atlantic is one of the oldest and most respected publications in America and they had a lunatic publishing speculations about how Palin really didn’t have her last child for month.

                      Only someone as mendacious as you could get on here and claim that something Limbaugh, who is a professional entertainer said about Fluke is worse. Just go fuck yourself and insult people’s intelligence somewhere else for once.

                    3. So it is okay to say horrible sexist things about women as long as they are running for office?

                      No, John. For Bo, it is okay to say horrible sexist things about Republican women as long as they are running for office.

                    4. OK, let’s talk about Bristol Palin. She certainly wasn’t running for office.

                    5. Says who?

                      As far as I can tell, any activist sticking themselves in the political process to push an agenda has effectively put themselves in the role of politician.

                    6. On the other hand, Palin has said her share of stupid sh*t over the years too.

                    7. So has Bob Costas… What’s your point?

                    8. Costas should stop dyeing his hair. That is all.

                    9. ^^this

                    10. The_Millenial|11.5.14 @ 4:25PM|#

                      On the other hand, Palin has said her share of stupid sh*t over the years too.

                      So that totally makes accusing her husband of incest okay. Thanks for playing.

                    11. Never said that

                  2. Andrew Sullivan is hardly to the left what Limbaugh is to the right. As for Maher, calling someone a bitch and calling someone a slut are two different things with different cultural baggage. If you can’t see how the latter fit into a narrative about castigating young women for wanting to have sex without fear of unwanted consequences I can’t help you.

                    1. You’ve got to be kidding.

                      If you really want to run a comparison of the relative insult of insults, bitch isn’t the one you should be looking at. SNL accusing her husband of incest is. Are you really going to try to argue that slut is anywhere near the level of that?

                      Oh, wait, weren’t you defending Lena Dunham yesterday? I guess you are.

                    2. Maybe because some people don’t believe in funding sex without unwanted consequences? Wasn’t that the entire fucking point of Limbaugh? Fluke was in front of Congress bitching about not being able to afford her promiscuity, and Limbaugh said that she wants to be paid for being a slut. Seems politically incorrect, but damn near on target.

                    3. I oppose Fluke’s policy preference, just noting he did call her that (which you seem to concede).

            2. John, Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute.

              No he claimed that the staggeringly exaggerated claims by Fluke about the costs of her birth control would seem to indicate that she must be having a staggeringly higher amount of intercourse than the average lady, thus he joked that she must be working as a prostitute. As far as I’m concerned it was a solid argument, the hurt feelings of social justice warriors notwithstanding.

              1. I listen to Rush regularly. He said that because she wanted taxpayers to pay for the means for her to have sex she was asking us to ‘pay her for sex’ and thus was a prostitute

                1. I listen to Rush regularly. He said that because she wanted taxpayers to pay for the means for her to have sex she was asking us to ‘pay her for sex’ and thus was a prostitute

                  Sell your bullshit elsewhere. I listened to the very broadcast in question the day of, and by coincidence also just last week. I know for a fact the context was her claims about costs. Thus also the “buckets of birth control” comment, that the amount of money she was talking about would buy that much, which also had the pundits raving out-of-context.

              2. trshmnster and Free Society are correct. It was never about “castigating young women for wanting to have sex without fear of unwanted consequences.” Nobody cared who she screwed, only that she wanted someone else to pay for her birth control.

                Plus the fact that she lied about the cost. And it annoyed the crap out of me that the left totally forgot about the “safe sex” mantra they’d been going on about for decades.

        2. While I see your point and agree with you that it’s not usually a winning tactic for the Republicans to push social issues, I think John has a valid point here. Stupid commentary from conservatives aside, it’s kind of hard to argue that the Democrats aren’t increasingly the one’s doing the pushing of values down other people’s throats.

          1. Both sides overreach when in power.

            1. Yes Bo we get it. When Democrats are clearly wrong it is always “well both sides do that”

              It is called concern trolling and everyone who reads this board sees when you do it.

              1. John, whatever else you clearly, clearly don’t know what ‘concern trolling’ refers to!

      2. the Democratic attacks on culture war issues don’t hunt so well when things start to get really bad.

        This is a major point. When the economy sucks, the Mideast is in flames, and the country is worried about Ebola and EV-D-68 and immigration, issues like whether Fluke gets free birth control, or whether gays can get wedding cakes from whoever they want, begin to pale.

        I also suspect there was backlash about Ferguson. Most voters think Mike Brown was a thug who got what he deserved, not that he is a civil rights martyr. The administration and MSM focus on the case (and on Trayvon Martin) hurt Democrats more than it helped them.

        1. I think you might be overthinking things. Doesn’t every sitting Presidents party do poorly in the six year midterm? Their enthusiasm among supporters lessens with time while the animosity felt by their opponents only gains over time

          1. I think you might be overthinking things. Doesn’t every sitting Presidents party do poorly in the six year midterm? <<br /
            Not this poorly. Obama now holds the record for losing the most seats in Congress of any two term President in history. In addition, the Republicans no hold more state governments than at any time since 1929. This was not just another bad midterm.

            I think you might be spinning and concern trolling here Bo.

            1. I get it John, most important election Evah!!!

              1. Remember, Bush lost one less in 06 than Obama did this time.

                I’m not saying Obama wasn’t a huge drag, he was and should have been, but it’s a little less special than you’d like to think

                1. The GOP lost 5 Senate seats in 2006. The Democrats just lost 8, and probably 9.

          2. Yes, six-year midterms are traditionally bad for the President’s party, but not this bad.

    3. THIS. It’s over SoCons; you’re radioactive and not in a useful way.

      1. That is right. And worse still, the Demographics are against them. Just think how much people will hate SOCONs after a few million more Catholics from Latin America and Muslims come in the country. Then those fuckers will really be irrelevant. I mean nothing says social liberal like Muslims and Catholics. Right?

        1. LOL. We’ll assimilate them just like we always have. Their children will spurn their out-dated mores and fears.

          1. Sure you will. Everyone is just dying to be an atheist and embrace gay marriage. I mean that is why so much of the world fits that description. I hope the fantasy world you inhabit is a good for you.

            1. As far as I can tell, religious people don’t have a patent on “marriage” or copyright on the use of the word “marriage”. Since contracts are non-theistic, that is to say ‘atheist’, it would seem logical that atheists should be the one’s with the patent. Someone needs to outlaw your lifestyle and personal relationships, John.

              1. Since when does not getting a license make it illegal? Tays could be married. They just couldn’t get the government to put a gun to people’s heads andake the. Recognize their marriages

                1. That’s not how marriage licensing works.

          2. Assimilation only works if

            1) the culture at large pushes it to happen, and doesn’t instead push multiculturalism and bilingualism and etc.

            2) if numbers of immigrants are not too great

            3) if the immigrants aren’t members of a religion whose core beliefs aren’t antithetical to the country’s values.

            1. Ruinous papists!

              1. Catholicism is a far, far better fit with traditional American values than Sharia law. Duh.

          3. We’ll assimilate them just like we always have.

            They’re bypassing the U.S. for Canada now?

      2. This is absolutely true. And it’s also why so much of the attempt to spook libertarians with the social conservative bogeyman is just bullshit. They aren’t about to take over and send us all to church in chains. At this point, they’re more likely to be the ones fighting for their right to be left the hell alone. But, we still get Bo here, assuring us that, if we don’t check extra hard under the bed, the nasty socon monsters are gonna come and get us.

    4. Seems to me that one of the most untalked about trends in the midterm–and one that hardly anybody’s talking about–is how well the Republicans do when they shut the fuck up about social conservatism.

      I thought this addressed some of that well – http://nymag.com/daily/intelli…..model.html

      1. The dems talked about little else – thet highlighted Gardner’s support for a life begins at conception bill and his former support of a personhood amendment – he only chanded his mind because he thought it would endanger contraception. He made clear he was against abortion.

        And he still won.

  8. And since when is “Obama sucks” running on nothing? “Bush Sucks” is what the Democrats ran on in 2006 and I don’t recall Reason thinking that election was about nothing.

    Come on Ms Nolan Brown. You owe yourself and your readers to think a little harder about this.

    1. Yeah, the Republicans seemed to be running against Obama’s policies, from the ads that I saw.

      1. And that is most certainly something. I don’t understand why Reason has such a hard time admitting that.

        1. They’re obviously secret liberals out to undercut your Team.

          1. Or you are a moron who can do nothing but concern troll. There is always that.

            1. I’m concern trolling? Physician heal thyself

  9. in general, women, young adult, and minority voters tend to drop off during non-presidential election years

    Has anyone ever looked into why this is the case?

    1. For your answer let’s turn to the classic book by Ike Turner, Womans Be Thinking Too Much.

      /mid-80s Letterman bookmobile

  10. Holy smoke, I really hope Putin isn’t watching this Obama press conference.

  11. Surprise! Apparently women care about something other than their vaginas!!

    1. Communist!

  12. “Could campaigns that emphasized opposition to civil-liberties abuses, police brutality, and drug criminalization have captured more ballot-box love from millennials?”

    This is a fascinating question. Perhaps someone should do a poll.

  13. To be clear, it’s unlikely that focusing on supposed women’s issues drove male voters away from Democrats

    I have to wonder if that is going to hold if more states adopt CA-style affirmative consent laws.

  14. The war on wiminz crap has worn out it’s welcome with the American public. The race baiting crap too. Gun control? Big loser. Hysterical environmental issues? Another big loser.

    That’s all Democrats really have outside of their failed progressive economic policies, which are in effect anti-economic policies.

    Once the free shit folks figure out that they will keep their free shit even with the GOP in power, they will just say fuck it, why vote? At that point, all the Dems can do is scream racism and war on wiminz and it will fall on deaf ears. Of course they can also write their constituents threatening letters for not voting. I doubt that will be very successful. Half of their constituents probably can’t even read.

    They should have seen this coming. They went full on batshit crazy and just went over the top with hubris and arrogance, and the tiresome divisive stuff.

    Seriously, the GOP will have to really really, I mean really fucking go all out stupid or they will make even more gains in the next election, including the white house if they nominate Rand.

    1. So don’t bother asking me if I think the GOP is capable of fucking this up. I not only think that they can, but I expect them to. Their biggest mistakes will be of course trying to go neocon again and starting even more wars and completely dismissing the juggernaut of support for cannabis prohibition repeal. You think they could read the numbers on that latter issue and not be so stupid. But also, they still are the stupid party.

      1. Eh I doubt the GOP is going to go neocon. The neocons lost their grip a while back. The GOP was largely responsible for preventing Obama war on Syria.

        1. Syrian intervention was tremendously unpopular last year and numerous members of the GOP have been playing up the threat posed by ISIS. It may help explain why popular opinion has shifted toward “limited intervention” in this conflict.

          1. Bombing ISIS makes a lot more sense than bombing Assad.

            1. That’s another issue. My point is that I’ll remain skeptical of the GOP when it comes to conducting a responsible foreign policy until they prove otherwise.

              1. I don’t trust the GOP not to push for belligerence, but I’m not too worried about that right now as that tends to come from the Executive branch these days.

      2. Wait, can/will the GOP fuck this up is even a question?

        1. You don’t have any hope that the GOP will change?

          That’s what they promised.

          1. See, Elizabeth? Millenials are the future and this guy just said the GOP is going to change, ergo a reformed GOP is the future. Someone should do a poll…

            1. See my reply to JEP below. Could’ve probably done better

              1. I was joking even more than you were.

          2. That is a little naive.

            1. I wasn’t serious. I really just wanted to use the terms “hope” and “change” in reference to a GOP victory.

      3. Why should they bother? It’s not like the dems do any better on trying to wind prohibition down. Staying their course means their dem opponents can’t say they’re “soft on crime” or some such bullshit.

    2. The war on women crap has definitely fizzled. And you could see it had when you saw the polls on how so many people regretted Romney didn’t win the election. People woke up and realized it was a bunch of bullshit and quickly got tired of hearing it.

      I am not really sure what universe Elizabeth lives in where race mongering on Ferguson wins you votes outside of Harlem but I hope I hope it has nice weather.

      1. The war on women crap has definitely fizzled.

        Good. I’m tired of fighting women. I want to make love, not war.

    3. The war on wiminz crap has worn out it’s welcome with the American public. The race baiting crap too. Gun control? Big loser. Hysterical environmental issues? Another big loser.

      Good point about environmental hysteria. The “Pause” has really messed up the Global Warming narrative.

  15. ENB, did you really link to Cosmo for election analysis?!?! I’m not clicking on that, but I do wonder if it included a list of the 20 Hottest Sex Moves to Try on Election Night.

    1. Reminds me of a link to a story I saw in the sidebar of a Time article someone posted earlier. Something like “Taylor Swift explains the significance of Emma Watson’s speech to the UN”
      I was dying of curiosity of course, but managed to refrain from clicking.

    2. It happened to be the most recent example I’d read of the ‘oh, it’s just voter turnout’ phenomenon.

  16. Feminists can’t stand Joni Ernst. Salon has been running hit pieces on her for the last month leading up to the election. Yet, she took 48% of the women, just one percent behind Braley.

    1. Wendy Davis lost among women. There is your war on women for you.

      1. I decided not to vote for the dead Libertarian who was still on the ballot. I decided that I wanted to enjoy being a sexist pig for voting for a woman.

    2. I don’t know much about her politics or ambitions, but she has the looks and ad-making skills for the presidency. I’d probably prefer Rand Paul, but imagine the tears over a female Republican president.

      1. She is going to get the full Palin treatment. Expect the usual group of hags to start eating the furniture as soon as she gets any kind of national exposure.

        She is everything they hate. She is normal, has a husband and worst of all is a breeder. Ernst committed the crime of not getting an abortion and having a child while not being a lesbian. We just can’t have that.

        1. Wow, you’re like Bart and Milhouse after their squishee bender today.

          1. The sand in your vagina over last night has made you even more humorless than usual.

            1. I guess you missed my comment on AM links. I couldn’t be happier with this election, Obama and the Dems got rebuked, legal weed advanced and personhood amendments got crushed.

              I’m just delighting in your Team giddiness, that’s all

              1. Copious amounts of protestation over how bad the SoConz truly are followed by pleading that you’re super excited about yesterday’s results. I personally don’t doubt you’re sincere, but I also get why a ton of people seem to think you’re a pedantic and erudite version of shriek.

      2. From Wikipedia:

        Ernst was born Joni Kay Culver in Montgomery County, Iowa, the daughter of Marilyn and Richard Culver. She was valedictorian of her class at Stanton High School. Ernst earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Iowa State University and a Master of Public Administration degree from Columbus College. While in college, Ernst took part in an agricultural exchange to the Soviet Union.

        Ernst is a lieutenant colonel in the logistics branch and currently commands the 185th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion at Camp Dodge, the largest battalion in the Iowa Army National Guard. As of 2014, Ernst had served 21 years between the Army Reserve and the National Guard. She spent 14 months in Kuwait in 2003-2004 as a company commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

        She is from Western Iowa. Her politics put her to the right of Santorum on social issues. 😉

        But she is the junior Senator. Appears to be very politically savvy. I expect her to be a good Senator.

        1. Don’t tel Cytoxic. It is people like her that is causing the Republicans to lose.

      3. One of the best moments of the campaign was a TV debate where Braley (trial attorney) bashed her for not being hawkish enough about fighting ISIS.

        She replied that her boots stood on the ground that ISIS now controls, but that she would carefully consider the circumstances before voting to send U.S. men and women into harms way.

  17. For all the whining going on I am thinking it is just getting cranked up.

    I am wondering what the turtle is going to do about the senate rules that Reid put into place to neuter the R’s. Are they going to keep them or are they going to be the party of stupid?

    If they had even one brain cell and one testicle among them they would keep them and run roughshod over the D’s for at least a year. Cut Harry’s balls off and make Obumbles eat them on TV. Teach the fuckers a lesson.

    “You wanted a progressive system? Fine. Now it is our turn to make progress.”

    1. I have to wonder if the Democrats would care for now. “Oh, no filibuster for us? No big, our guy in the White House who can’t get reelected will veto anything crazy you pass.”

      1. And anything popular too.

        1. And the media will blame Republican obstructionism.

          1. “Why didn’t the Republican Congress send him a law he could sign?”

            1. That would work except that Democrats will be voting for those bills now. They will have to. And that is what is going to kill him.

    2. Forbes has a good article up about how the R’s could use those rules to force an Obamacare repeal – or at least force it onto the president’s desk for a veto – even though they don’t have a filibuster proof majority.

      And then, even if he vetoes it, they can force innumerable amendments directly neutering key provisions.

  18. To be clear, it’s unlikely that focusing on supposed women’s issues drove male voters away from Democrats …

    And there’s nothing to say that Democrat’s “GOP war on women” rhetoric didn’t motivate some female voters who may have otherwise sat this election out.

    And, of course, so-called “women’s issues” don’t appeal only to one gender. Men can be sufficiently passionate about abortion and birth control to vote for Udall, and women can be opposed to abortion and so vote for Gardner. This narrative that a voter responds to a gender-specific policy with, “Well, that policy is/is not directed at my gender, so I must support/must oppose that candidate,” always irks me.

    1. This narrative that a voter responds to a gender-specific policy with, “Well, that policy is/is not directed at my gender, so I must support/must oppose that candidate,” always irks me.

      Not a fan of identity politics, eh? Report to your nearest DNC office for re-education!

  19. Democrats Were Wrong Count on Women for Victories in Midterm 2014 Elections

    See! All this hanging around with millenials has you doing that ‘textspeak’ thing those durn kids are doing. Leaving out words ‘n shit. Next thing you know you’ll be talking about how dancing is evil and waiting for the rapture.

  20. The problem with criticizing the NSA and torture is that the Republican opposition can trace the problem back to the highly unpopular president.

    We all want the nation to mind the NSA scandals, Bitcoin, export-import bank, Uber, Bitcoin, food freedom, etc. But those aren’t cause celebre issues. We all know why the media jumped on the Trayvon Martin scandal but remained virtually silent when three black kids shot a Aussie baseball player for fun.

    Race, Sex, class warfare – it’s still the name of the game.

  21. “Though 18- to 29-year-olds make up about a quarter of the U.S. population”

    Math fail.

    1. Looking it up, they look to be about 13% of the population. So only a slight undervote.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.