It actually means next to nothing. 2014 the "big whoop" the election.

[SwimExpert]

The 6th year election during a Presidency will pretty much always go in favor of the non-Presidential party. This is a well worn and understood fact of politics. So we know that the GOP were bound to come out favorably compared to the Democrats. That it happened doesn't really say anything favorable about the GOP's relationship with the American people, nor anything damning about the Dem's in that sense.

We also know that midterm elections typically have higher turnout for the GOP base voters. This year was no different. Again, that it happened says nothing in favor of the GOP, nor damning for the Dems. Though understanding this should underscore the above even more.

What is perhaps more interesting is that even with a higher GOP voter turnout, and GOP gains in the House, Senate, and Governorships, all the results prime results seem to be nothing more than political science fodder. They're either textbook examples of the same old cycles, or they're discombobulated expressions of disconnected uncertainty.

Let's look at Illinois as an example. The Governorship flipped red, with Rauner carrying nearly every district across the state. But the Senate race went to the Democrat. Eight out of 18 Congressional districts were won by the GOP. More interestingly, ten districts elected Democrats for Congress, yet most still supported the GOP gubernatorial candidate. Illinois other statewide elections are equally hodge-podge. Illinois' AG and Secy. of State went Dem, while the Comptroller's race when GOP, and the Treasurer's race is leaning GOP (though it's still too close to call). All in all, there's alot of multi-directional voting going on, and at the end of the day neither party can claim any substantive victory. While the GOP gains in the state's congressional caucus might seem like substantial signals against the backdrop of Illinois' heavily gerrymandered districting, it becomes instantly impossible to maintain such a view in light of ballot measures that supported a raise in minimum wage and constitutional amendments to mandate birth control coverage in all health care plans, and increasing taxes on millionaires.

Another example is the state of Maryland, where the Governorship also flipped red, yet the rest of the state's results demonstrate similar patterns. Republican Larry Hogan won the Governorship in a state that almost never elects Republican governors. Ever. Hogan carried almost every district in the state, including Democratic stronghold Baltimore County. Yet once again, several of these same districts picked Democratic Representatives to Congress, while other state offices were split.

The message is clear: The only special message to be had is that voters are less engaged than ever, and their voting behavior has more to do with predictable patterns than it does enthusiasm for the Republican brand. As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as an opportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Uhhhh hahhh. Well, thanks for sharing.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ahhahahahaha

Liberal salt is precious.

 

[Roadrunner]

The 6th year election during a Presidency will pretty much always go in favor of the non-Presidential party. This is a well worn and understood fact of politics. So we know that the GOP were bound to come out favorably compared to the Democrats. That it happened doesn't really say anything favorable about the GOP's relationship with the American people, nor anything damning about the Dem's in that sense.

We also know that midterm elections typically have higher turnout for the GOP base voters. This year was no different. Again, that it happened says nothing in favor of the GOP, nor damning for the Dems. Though understanding this should underscore the above even more.

What is perhaps more interesting is that even with a higher GOP voter turnout, and GOP gains in the House, Senate, and Governorships, all the results prime results seem to be nothing more than political science fodder. They're either textbook examples of the same old cycles, or they're discombobulated expressions of disconnected uncertainty.

Let's look at Illinois as an example. The Governorship flipped red, with Rauner carrying nearly every district across the state. But the Senate race went to the Democrat. Eight out of 18 Congressional districts were won by the GOP. More interestingly, ten districts elected Democrats for Congress, yet most still supported the GOP gubernatorial candidate. Illinois other statewide elections are equally hodge-podge. Illinois' AG and Secy. of State went Dem, while the Comptroller's race when GOP, and the Treasurer's race is leaning GOP (though it's still too close to call). All in all, there's alot of multi-directional voting going on, and at the end of the day neither party can claim any substantive victory. While the GOP gains in the state's congressional caucus might seem like substantial signals against the backdrop of Illinois' heavily gerrymandered districting, it becomes instantly impossible to maintain such a view in light of ballot measures that supported a raise in minimum wage and constitutional amendments to mandate birth control coverage in all health care plans, and increasing taxes on millionaires.

Another example is the state of Maryland, where the Governorship also flipped red, yet the rest of the state's results demonstrate similar patterns. Republican Larry Hogan won the Governorship in a state that almost never elects Republican governors. Ever. Hogan carried almost every district in the state, including Democratic stronghold Baltimore County. Yet once again, several of these same districts picked Democratic Representatives to Congress, while other state offices were split.

The message is clear: The only special message to be had is that voters are less engaged than ever, and their voting behavior has more to do with predictable patterns than it does enthusiasm for the Republican brand. As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as an opportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.

Means so little, that after days of libs telling us it means nothing, you are compelled to regurgitate the week's garbage in a six paragraph screed.
Ass hurt much?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The 6th year election during a Presidency will pretty much always go in favor of the non-Presidential party. This is a well worn and understood fact of politics. So we know that the GOP were bound to come out favorably compared to the Democrats. That it happened doesn't really say anything favorable about the GOP's relationship with the American people, nor anything damning about the Dem's in that sense.

We also know that midterm elections typically have higher turnout for the GOP base voters. This year was no different. Again, that it happened says nothing in favor of the GOP, nor damning for the Dems. Though understanding this should underscore the above even more.

What is perhaps more interesting is that even with a higher GOP voter turnout, and GOP gains in the House, Senate, and Governorships, all the results prime results seem to be nothing more than political science fodder. They're either textbook examples of the same old cycles, or they're discombobulated expressions of disconnected uncertainty.

Let's look at Illinois as an example. The Governorship flipped red, with Rauner carrying nearly every district across the state. But the Senate race went to the Democrat. Eight out of 18 Congressional districts were won by the GOP. More interestingly, ten districts elected Democrats for Congress, yet most still supported the GOP gubernatorial candidate. Illinois other statewide elections are equally hodge-podge. Illinois' AG and Secy. of State went Dem, while the Comptroller's race when GOP, and the Treasurer's race is leaning GOP (though it's still too close to call). All in all, there's alot of multi-directional voting going on, and at the end of the day neither party can claim any substantive victory. While the GOP gains in the state's congressional caucus might seem like substantial signals against the backdrop of Illinois' heavily gerrymandered districting, it becomes instantly impossible to maintain such a view in light of ballot measures that supported a raise in minimum wage and constitutional amendments to mandate birth control coverage in all health care plans, and increasing taxes on millionaires.

Another example is the state of Maryland, where the Governorship also flipped red, yet the rest of the state's results demonstrate similar patterns. Republican Larry Hogan won the Governorship in a state that almost never elects Republican governors. Ever. Hogan carried almost every district in the state, including Democratic stronghold Baltimore County. Yet once again, several of these same districts picked Democratic Representatives to Congress, while other state offices were split.

The message is clear: The only special message to be had is that voters are less engaged than ever, and their voting behavior has more to do with predictable patterns than it does enthusiasm for the Republican brand. As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as an opportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.

You'd be singing a different tune had the Dems kept the Senate and retook the House.

Shut the fuck up

 

[S.J.]

More rationalization. This is very entertaining.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This thread brought to you by

sour grapes.

 

[Care4all]

It does mean something, it means the republicans won the majority in the Senate...

And in 2006, in that mid term election, the Democratic Party won seats in the house, and the majority.... if it meant something with Nancy, then it means something with Mitch as well....

the only good thing for Democratic members, is that in 2016 the Senate Democrats only have 10 seats up for reelection, and the Republicans have 23 seats up for reelection.... so more chances for the Dems to take the senate back.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It does mean something, it means the republicans won the majority in the Senate...

And in 2006, in that mid term election, the Democratic Party won seats in the house, and the majority.... if it meant something with Nancy, then it means something with Mitch as well....

the only good thing for Democratic members, is that in 2016 the Senate Democrats only have 10 seats up for reelection, and the Republicans have 23 seats up for reelection.... so more chances for the Dems to take the senate back.

And if the Republican Party follows the advice of some of the morons around here, those 10 seats and the Presidency will go D in 2016.

 

[Ernie S.]

The 6th year election during a Presidency will pretty much always go in favor of the non-Presidential party. This is a well worn and understood fact of politics. So we know that the GOP were bound to come out favorably compared to the Democrats. That it happened doesn't really say anything favorable about the GOP's relationship with the American people, nor anything damning about the Dem's in that sense.

We also know that midterm elections typically have higher turnout for the GOP base voters. This year was no different. Again, that it happened says nothing in favor of the GOP, nor damning for the Dems. Though understanding this should underscore the above even more.

What is perhaps more interesting is that even with a higher GOP voter turnout, and GOP gains in the House, Senate, and Governorships, all the results prime results seem to be nothing more than political science fodder. They're either textbook examples of the same old cycles, or they're discombobulated expressions of disconnected uncertainty.

Let's look at Illinois as an example. The Governorship flipped red, with Rauner carrying nearly every district across the state. But the Senate race went to the Democrat. Eight out of 18 Congressional districts were won by the GOP. More interestingly, ten districts elected Democrats for Congress, yet most still supported the GOP gubernatorial candidate. Illinois other statewide elections are equally hodge-podge. Illinois' AG and Secy. of State went Dem, while the Comptroller's race when GOP, and the Treasurer's race is leaning GOP (though it's still too close to call). All in all, there's alot of multi-directional voting going on, and at the end of the day neither party can claim any substantive victory. While the GOP gains in the state's congressional caucus might seem like substantial signals against the backdrop of Illinois' heavily gerrymandered districting, it becomes instantly impossible to maintain such a view in light of ballot measures that supported a raise in minimum wage and constitutional amendments to mandate birth control coverage in all health care plans, and increasing taxes on millionaires.

Another example is the state of Maryland, where the Governorship also flipped red, yet the rest of the state's results demonstrate similar patterns. Republican Larry Hogan won the Governorship in a state that almost never elects Republican governors. Ever. Hogan carried almost every district in the state, including Democratic stronghold Baltimore County. Yet once again, several of these same districts picked Democratic Representatives to Congress, while other state offices were split.

The message is clear: The only special message to be had is that voters are less engaged than ever, and their voting behavior has more to do with predictable patterns than it does enthusiasm for the Republican brand. As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as an opportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.

Care for some cheese with that?

 

[tinydancer]

To the OP. You should really read this HuffPo piece. Maybe it will open your eyes to the historic firsts that happened. Including a Democratic candidate Alma Adams becoming the 100th woman in the 113th Congress after her victory in the special election to replace Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) on Tuesday.

Bloody fools trying to run from a loss you can't even appreciate some of the historic moments of this election. Even dismissing your own victories.

Idiots.

How The 2014 Midterm Elections Made History

How The 2014 Midterm Elections Made History

 

[Vigilante]

OP, look behind you.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as anopportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.”

Correct, because it is in fact not a 'mandate.'

And most of the work that needs to be done involves working with democrats to pursue responsible governance, and to neutralize the TPM and other extremists on the right hostile to that goal.

 

[S.J.]

“As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as anopportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.”

Correct, because it is in fact not a 'mandate.'

And most of the work that needs to be done involves working with democrats to pursue responsible governance, and to neutralize the TPM and other extremists on the right hostile to that goal.

Whatever you say, Jake.

 

[ninja007]

“As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as anopportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.”

Correct, because it is in fact not a 'mandate.'

And most of the work that needs to be done involves working with democrats to pursue responsible governance, and to neutralize the TPM and other extremists on the right hostile to that goal.

WOW.

 

[Ernie S.]

“As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as anopportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.”

Correct, because it is in fact not a 'mandate.'

And most of the work that needs to be done involves working with democrats to pursue responsible governance, and to neutralize the TPM and other extremists on the right hostile to that goal.

Whatever you say, Jake.

Whatever Clayton says is inevitably wrong.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Isn't it amazing how many excuses, deflections, forced-nonchalant airs, screams that conservatives are horrible, outright lies etc., the resident USMB liberals have been coming up with since the Tuesday nationwide blowout of their heroes?

 

[Unkotare]

The OP fell out of a boat in Egypt. These frustrated lefties are gonna get a tummy ache if they keep gorging on sour grapes like this.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as anopportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.”

Correct, because it is in fact not a 'mandate.'

And most of the work that needs to be done involves working with democrats to pursue responsible governance, and to neutralize the TPM and other extremists on the right hostile to that goal.

Ya cause after all the people elected a republican majority to start working with Obama right? I mean really? Where do you retards get this stuff from?

 

[AntiParty]

“As Republicans, we need to be careful to avoid seeing this as a mandate, and instead see it as anopportunity to build upon first steps. There is a great deal of work to be done.”

Correct, because it is in fact not a 'mandate.'

And most of the work that needs to be done involves working with democrats to pursue responsible governance, and to neutralize the TPM and other extremists on the right hostile to that goal.

Ya cause after all the people elected a republican majority to start working with Obama right? I mean really? Where do you retards get this stuff from?

I see you lost your debate on the other thread and ran

I also notice you have no substance here either, simply using attacks on others and no substantial information.