News US Midterm Elections - Predictions and Post-mortems

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Midterm
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on predictions and analyses surrounding the US Midterm Elections. Participants share their forecasts for Senate and House outcomes, with some expecting a Republican gain in the House while Democrats might retain the Senate. There is a notable focus on voter turnout, with many expressing concern over low engagement and the influence of organized groups like the Tea Party. Candidates such as Bob Inglis and Rick Snyder are highlighted as preferred choices among some voters. Overall, the sentiment reflects a mix of anticipation and disappointment regarding the election results and their implications for future political dynamics.
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
7,207
Reaction score
25
Use this thread for all discussion relating to today's midterms.

Until 4:00pm ET today, you can put in your predictions for the makeup of the Senate, House, and Statehouses, as well as for any individual races that you might find interesting (e.g., Senate: NV, CA, CO, WA).

Also feel free to share names of candidates you'd like to see win (irrespective of their odds right now).

After results start coming out this evening, we can switch to post-analysis mode.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Some predictions:

Senate D:51, R:49

I think Murkowski will lose AK by more than 5%, and Boxer will win CA by less than 5%. I'd have liked to see Boxer go, but would have preferred she lost to someone else. I expect NV to go to Angle, and I'll be happy for that, though again, I might have liked to see a different kind of candidate win that race. I will be relieved when O'Donnell loses DE. I'm not sure about CO and WA, so I'm splitting them equally: one D, one R.

More predictions later ...
 
Voters carry anxiety, disappointment to the polls
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_america_votes

I would like to see people like Bob Inglis (Robert Durden "Bob" Inglis, Sr.) of S. Carolina in the running for Congress, Senate or President.

Rep. Bob Inglis On Republican 'Demagoguery'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128516243

This comment of his caught my attention when I first heard it.
The other thing, just to pick up an example, what I’m supposed to do as a Republican is just echo back to you Anne that yes, CRA was the cause of the financial meltdown in October of 2008. And if I said that to you I’d be clearly wrong because if you think about it, CRA had been around for decades. So how could it be that it caused the problem suddenly in October of 2008? The problem was over borrowing in our individual lives, in our corporate lives and in our country. That’s what created the problem, along with interest rates being kept too low, too long by the Fed. Those kinds of things are what created the financial meltdown in October of 2008. It was not CRA. But I know that as a Republican, what I’m supposed to say is, “Yep, Anne, that’s exactly right. It’s CRA.” Because you see we conservatives don’t like that program. So therefore we can just establish it as a scapegoat. Democrats like it and we can of course put the racial hue on that and that makes it even more powerful. But if we do that, we go further away from the solution, the solution is to deal with those fundamental things, not pick up on scapegoats and run with it.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/15/inglis-vitter-boehner-cantor/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one else biting?

For the House, I like D=205, R=230
 
Haven't really followed much of the Gubernatorial races. One person I really like though, is Rick Snyder (MI), and I think he'll win quite easily!

Edit: Just found this - now I like him even more!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Early analysis and races to watch
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/the-races-to-watch-not-necessarily-the-races-you-have-been
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone I've spoken with (in person) today has indicated they voted against incumbents and tax issues.
 
Do you think Media Matters will retract?
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009300004

"Latest absurd Morris prediction: GOP will pick up "60 to 80" House seats, but "it could go as high as 100""
 
WhoWee said:
Everyone I've spoken with (in person) today has indicated they voted against incumbents and tax issues.
Did they actually have good, well thought out reasons, or just knee jerk reactions?
 
  • #10
Here is an ignorant immigrant comment : the constant winner in US elections seems to be abstention. I read that 50% voter turnout is high. Why ? Should not the american citizens take the duty which comes with their freedom more seriously ? My underlining thought is the poor information they receive, but maybe I am wrong.
 
  • #11
humanino said:
Here is an ignorant immigrant comment : the constant winner in US elections seems to be abstention. I read that 50% voter turnout is high. Why ? Should not the american citizens take the duty which comes with their freedom more seriously ? My underlining thought is the poor information they receive, but maybe I am wrong.
Trends and variations in voter turnout has been extensively studied - plenty of references listed in the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#International_differences
 
  • #12
Many voters are discouraged.

It's not yet 10 pm on the east coast, and the networks seem to be indicating that the republicans have retaken the House.

Apparently, Republicans have captured nine seats previously held by Democrats and are leading in more than two dozen seats around the country in Congressional elections.

Conservative Democrat Joe Manchin won the Senate seat in W. Va. GOP hopes he'll switch parties after the election. I would hope he goes independent if he wishes to change party affiliation.
 
  • #13
Sadly for midterm elections, it's more likely that voters with an agenda to push will be the ones to vote. Organized groups (think Tea Party) will bus people to the polls in order to push their agendas. Those without agendas are unlikely to be as well organized or as motivated.

IMO, is this kind of thing bad for the country overall, yes.
 
  • #14
humanino said:
Here is an ignorant immigrant comment : the constant winner in US elections seems to be abstention. I read that 50% voter turnout is high. Why ? Should not the american citizens take the duty which comes with their freedom more seriously ? My underlining thought is the poor information they receive, but maybe I am wrong.

That's a really good question.

I think for many Americans, there's a feeling that politics doesn't affect daily life. For much of the country, Washington DC feels a long, long way away. The problems and issues that the politicians deal with are nothing like the problems and issues the common people face.
 
  • #15
In South Carolina, Jim DeMint (R) has of course handily won re-election to the Senate against his virtually nonexistent competitor Alvin Greene (D).

Right now, with about 70% of the vote counted, a Columbia TV station shows DeMint with 62%, Greene with 29%, and 10% for the Green Party candidate, Tom Clements.

I consider 10% to be an amazingly high figure for a minor-party candidate in SC (probably in most other places in the US, in a race for national office). This probably comes from people who normally vote Democratic but can't stomach voting for either Greene or DeMint.
 
  • #16
And with that, one hopes the Alvin Green anomaly will resolve itself and vanish in a puff of sanity.
 
  • #17
Evo said:
Did they actually have good, well thought out reasons, or just knee jerk reactions?

Maybe they just like term limits?
 
  • #18
Evo said:
Sadly for midterm elections, it's more likely that voters with an agenda to push will be the ones to vote. Organized groups (think Tea Party) will bus people to the polls in order to push their agendas. Those without agendas are unlikely to be as well organized or as motivated.

IMO, is this kind of thing bad for the country overall, yes.

This is the first report I've heard of the Tea Party busing people to the polls.
 
  • #19
WhoWee said:
This is the first report I've heard of the Tea Party busing people to the polls.
I know church groups that routinely do it, I've been to church groups that were organizing the busing (some of my old high school friends are born again christians and would insist that I come to prayer meetings to show me they weren't what I thought, that backfired). :-p I have no reason to believe that they have suddenly stopped. They were also organizing letter writing campaigns that were pure fraud. They said that studies showed that every person that is compelled to write represents 10,000 like minded individuals. they handed out templates for the letters and asked that everyone write as many as they could and then turn them in because they had volunteers that would drive around and deposit them over a wide area so that it didn't look so obvious. Swear to god, I'm not making this up.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Evo said:
I know church groups do it, I've been to church groups that were organizing the busing (some of my old high school friends are born again christians and would insist that I come to prayer meetings to show me they weren't what I thought, that backfired). :-p

Are you saying you were nearly "Bush Whacked"? LOL
 
  • #21
jtbell said:
In South Carolina, Jim DeMint (R) has of course handily won re-election to the Senate against his virtually nonexistent competitor Alvin Greene (D).

Right now, with about 70% of the vote counted, a Columbia TV station shows DeMint with 62%, Greene with 29%, and 10% for the Green Party candidate, Tom Clements.

I consider 10% to be an amazingly high figure for a minor-party candidate in SC (probably in most other places in the US, in a race for national office). This probably comes from people who normally vote Democratic but can't stomach voting for either Greene or DeMint.

Oh I hope you're right, jt...I'd hate to think that they thought they were voting for Greene and ended up voting Green :rolleyes:!
 
  • #22
My wife and I both voted for Clements, ourselves, not because we thought he had any chance at all of winning, but hoping enough people would do likewise to register a visible "protest" against Greene.

A local TV station just showed a report from the ballroom that was Greene's headquarters for tonight. There were just two or three supporters there, and a few TV reporters. Greene didn't make any kind of speech, just wandered around the room with the TV cameras chasing him, eating munchies from the buffet table, and making noncommital, sort of off-the-wall remarks to reporters. Really weird, and kind of sad.
 
  • #24
Feingold has been moving farther and farther left in recent years. A few months ago, he was the only Dem that didn't vote for the Financial Reform Bill. His argument: it didn't do enough.

I'll miss him too! He fought some good fights.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Um, wow. Things are looking really red.
 
  • #26
The latest projection: The Dems have retained control of the Senate. Also, Reid is leading by 7% so far.

That's about all I cared about tonight. The bloodbath of red was obviously expected, but I am still very sad for the country.

On the up side, the just-say-no party won't be able to get away with that anymore, so this does help to secure Obama's victory in 2012.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
WhoWee said:
Do you think Media Matters will retract?
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009300004

"Latest absurd Morris prediction: GOP will pick up "60 to 80" House seats, but "it could go as high as 100""
I'll make a small bet the GOP does not win over 70 seats, and a very, very large bet they do not win 100.
 
  • #28
Ivan Seeking said:
The latest projection: The Dems have retained control of the Senate. Also, Reid is leading by 7% so far.

That's about all I cared about tonight. The bloodbath of red was obviously expected, but I am still very sad for the country.

On the up side, the just-say-no party won't be able to get away with that anymore, so this does help to secure Obama's victory in 2012.

Obama won't have a victory in 2012. :wink:
 
  • #29
stinkbomb12 said:
Obama won't have a victory in 2012. :wink:

Sure he will. Just ask Russ! :smile:
 
  • #30
The real bloodbath is not in the Senate or the House, but in the Statehouses.
 
  • #31
Gokul43201 said:
The real bloodbath is not in the Senate or the House, but in the Statehouses.

Eh, local stuff.

Wyden won in Oregon [yay!] Also, Brown won in California [Moonbeam is back!]. It was expected that the get-out-the-pot vote would benefit the Dems. Brown and Boxer won, but I haven't heard about their pot amendment yet.
 
  • #32
I know that I'm the minority here, but I feel that it's good to be in a country that's not so "blue." HAHA
 
  • #33
Remember 1994, when Clinton had been in office for two years, health care reform ("Hillarycare") had also been a big issue, and the Republicans made big gains in the midterm elections?

Clinton got re-elected in 1996 anyway and handed Bush II a nice budget surplus in 2000.
 
  • #34
jtbell said:
Remember 1994, when Clinton had been in office for two years, health care reform ("Hillarycare") had also been a big issue, and the Republicans made big gains in the midterm elections?

Clinton got re-elected in 1996 anyway and handed Bush II a nice budget surplus in 2000.

This election pattern was also seen with Reagan.
 
  • #35
Wow! Murkowski appears to be winning handily in Alaska.

I don't recall a write-in candidate ever winning a Senate seat before. Is this a first [assuming she wins]?
 
  • #36
Still a little early in the day for AK, but it's probably also a first time that the ballot was allowed to list the names of write-in candidates.
 
  • #37
Gokul43201 said:
It's probably also a first time that the ballot was allowed to list the names of write-in candidates.

I don't understand. Her name isn't on the ballot, and write-ins have always been allowed.

Or are you saying they provide some list?
 
  • #39
Ivan Seeking said:
Or are you saying they provide some list?
Yup they provide a list of all the write-ins' names. First time it's been allowed in AK. Was some wrangling in the courts about it in the last couple weeks.

Edit: From the wiki:
Early voting began in mid-October. On October 20th, a voter in Homer noticed that a list of write-in candidates was posted inside the voting booth. The voter took a picture of the notice and reported the incident to both the City of Homer and the Alaska Democratic Party. While city workers maintained that posting the list in the booth was a misunderstanding, there was soon more attention on the broader issue of whether the state should be providing such a list at all, and a lawsuit was filed alleging that the Alaska Division of Elections was violating the law, specifically AAC, 25.070,which reads in part: "Information regarding a write-in candidate may not be discussed, exhibited or provided at the polling place, or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place, on election day." Both Republican and Democratic spokespersons decried the lists as electioneering on behalf of Murkowski, while representatives of the Division of Elections maintained that the lists were intended merely to assist voters. On Wednesday October 27 a judge issued a restraining order barring the lists, noting in his decision "If it were important 'assistance' for the Division to provide voters with lists of write-in candidates, then the Division has been asleep at the switch for the past 50 years, the Division first developed the need for a write-in candidate list 12 days ago." Later on the same day the Alaska Supreme Court issued a new ruling that the lists could be distributed to those who asked for them, but that any ballots cast by voters based on information on the lists be "segregated." The Division of Elections responded that they had neither the manpower nor the time to implement such a system by Election Day. By close of business on Thursday, October 28, over 60 new write in candidates had submitted their names for the race, encouraged by an Anchorage talk radio host.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Alaska,_2010#Candidates_3
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Gokul43201 said:
25% of precincts reporting, and pot is losing by double digits.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/ballot.measures/#

Yes, I saw that. It was about 14% I think...? [Ah 11% so far] Interestingly but not surprisingly, one of the groups that was coming out against the law were... the growers!

I guess it suddenly dawned on them that this may not be too good for their bank accounts. :smile:

It should pass in several States in 2012 [a younger electorate and a bigger turnout], but is too bad for now. Chalk up another one for the Mexican cartels.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Post to subscribe to thread on PF mobile.
 
  • #42
Interesting to look at ballot measures in AZ. Strong rejection of affirmative action and support for secret ballots for union membership, but medical marijuana is split right down the middle with 80% of precincts counted.
 
  • #43
stinkbomb12 said:
I know that I'm the minority here, but I feel that it's good to be in a country that's not so "blue." HAHA

Were it not for the extremism of the tea party and their influence on the Republican party, and the extremism of the party itself, I would normally agree. But most of the big tea names went down - O'Donnell, Fiorina, Miller, Angle. In addition to Paul, those were the biggest on my list.

At least Paul is an accomplished person. It is the know-nothings like O'Donnell an Palin that really scare me.

Edit1: Fiorina is contesting the call for Boxer saying it's a dead heat. Presumably she ignores district considerations.

Edit2: Holy crap, she is indeed trailing by five points! A good example of why I can't stand her! She is a snake.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Ivan Seeking said:
Wow! Murkowski appears to be winning handily in Alaska.

I don't recall a write-in candidate ever winning a Senate seat before. Is this a first [assuming she wins]?

Last I saw, it was all write-in candidates, which there are quite a few running this year in alaska.
 
  • #45
Gokul43201 said:
Interesting to look at ballot measures in AZ. Strong rejection of affirmative action and support for secret ballots for union membership, but medical marijuana is split right down the middle with 80% of precincts counted.

Always amusing to look at the "think of the children" results. My property taxes just went up, and a horribly ineffective bureacracy created by voters a few years back was retained, both by overwhelming margins.

I'm pretty confident your average person will vote for anything that says "kids" or "schools" somewhere in its description.

Other than that, I couldn't be happier with the results of the AZ elections tonight. I did vote for the medical marijuana prop myself, which is far more conservatively crafted than that passed in CA and OR. Assuming passage, it won't turn into the rubber stamp between pot heads and pot observed elsewhere. But, yeah, clearly the average voter in AZ is still pretty conservative, even as the state dances on the edge of west coast libertarianism.
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking said:
Wow! Murkowski appears to be winning handily in Alaska.

I don't recall a write-in candidate ever winning a Senate seat before. Is this a first [assuming she wins]?

The last time it happened, Strom Thurmond was still a Democrat!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate
 
  • #47
So far this morning:

Senate: 51 D, 46 R, 3 undecided
House: 183 D, 240 R, 12 undecided

Next two years will be interesting.

Boehner now has the toughest job in Washington
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101103/el_yblog_upshot/boehner-now-has-the-toughest-job-in-washington

Reid (D-NV) was re-elected to the Senate. So much for ousting incumbents. DeMint (R-SC) and Schumer (D-NY) were both re-elected to the Senate. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
Ivan Seeking said:
That's about all I cared about tonight. The bloodbath of red was obviously expected, but I am still very sad for the country.

On the up side, the just-say-no party won't be able to get away with that anymore, so this does help to secure Obama's victory in 2012.

In 2012, Obama will most likely (still be running against Bush and) cite gridlock. However, this time around, he will also be faced with nearly 6 years of his own words - the accumulated sound bites and broken promises that define Obama.
 
  • #49
talk2glenn said:
Always amusing to look at the "think of the children" results. My property taxes just went up, and a horribly ineffective bureacracy created by voters a few years back was retained, both by overwhelming margins.

I'm pretty confident your average person will vote for anything that says "kids" or "schools" somewhere in its description.
Aha! I hadn't read the actual text of the measures (just the summary provided by CNN), so didn't notice the tactical wording. Add to that list: "patriot" and "security".

I've only been following a handful of Governors' races and they all went roughly the way I was hoping. Rick Snyder (R-MI) won handily by 20 points or so. Patrick (D-MA) held off Charlie Baker a little more easily than expected, with Tim Cahill(I) sadly dropping into single digits. If Scott Brown's election was to be read as a rejection of by the MA electorate of Obama's policies (as has been suggested by the punditocracy, and some posters here), I wonder how we should interpret the re-election of Obama's closest friend and virtual political doppelganger. And in RI, Lincoln Chafee (I) won, and will likely be the only Independent in a statehouse.
 
  • #50
Another interesting tidbit about a specific group of ballot measures:
CNN said:
Voters in several states defeated major anti-tax measures on Tuesday, acknowledging that their financially-strapped governments need revenue to provide services.

A trio of controversial tax initiatives in Colorado failed, as did an effort to slash sales taxes in Massachusetts, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This comes amid a wave of anti-incumbent fervor that swept Republicans to victory in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Voters are not willing to go so far as to start to disassemble state government," said Jennie Bowser, an elections analyst for the conference. "They recognized there are programs and services they benefit from and they want them to continue."

At the same time, voters were not eager to raise taxes. A high-profile bid to tax millionaires in Washington state failed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/02/news/economy/ballot_measures/index.htm
 

Similar threads

News Obama Signs DADT Repeal: A Tribute to GOP Senators & Reps
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
News What Impact Will Mark Sanford's Baggage Have on Today's Special Election?
Replies
5
Views
3K
News A Novel Reform Proposal of the National Election Process
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Who Will Win the US Presidential Election?
Replies
20
Views
5K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
News Iranian Elections: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wins by Landslide
5
Replies
232
Views
25K
News Is Hillary's Third Place Finish in Iowa a Sign of Trouble for Her Campaign?
2
Replies
61
Views
10K
News Who was Andrew Breitbart and what impact did he have on the media landscape?
Replies
13
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top