(Mitch McConnell by Gage Skidmore)
In the aftermath of the 2014 midterm elections, it is relevant to ask the question; why did things happen the way they did? History dictates that the incumbent president's party losing seats in their sixth year is normal, but not unavoidable as proven by former President Bill Clinton. So what factors attributed to this years particular loss by Democrats and gain by Republicans? There are a few obvious answers such as gerrymandering, however a many more factors were at play in this election. As fellow Aragon blogger Cameron Jacobs
posted 46.7% of voters claimed that Obama played no role in their decisions made while voting. Despite this,
President Obama said himself that this loss was simply a "failure" of politics, with no mention of why Republican
policy may have actually been more appealing to voters. Demographic shifts seem to favor Democrats, so could it really mainly be a factor of
mobilization and campaigning? As asserted in this article by Aljazeera, the Democrats simply did not show any passion or connection with voters other than they are "not Republicans." This relationship is described as a function of being "tied to moneyed interests" rather than to the interests of some of their constituents who favor more progressive politics. We also cannot forget the monetary aid provided by
interest groups and PAC's. Of such money, the majority went to Republicans like Mitch McConnell, (pictured) who was endorsed by the NRA among others. With this reliance on unregulated donations through interest groups and PAC's to campaign, the possibility of reform has been limited in the coming years.
What do you think?
Do you agree with Obama that Democrats simply couldn't "sell" their policy? OR
Do you agree with Aljazeera's claim that Democrats are too tied to moneyed interests to be able to truly represent a more left leaning wing of their party?
What was the single most important factor to Republican victory in this election?
4 comments:
I think that the significant shift of Congressional and gubernatorial power to the Republican party is mostly due to the general public's opinion that Obama has not lived up to expectations. The President's current approval rating sits at 42% according to Gallup, and many are opposed to his controversial Affordable Care Act. In my opinion, the Democrats fared so poorly in the 2014 elections due to a lack of inspiration, and lower minority turnout. It seemed as if many Republicans were inspired to weaken Obama's final two years in office. Meanwhile, one of the Democratic's most crucial constituencies, minorities, voted far less than they did in Obama's reelection year.
I disagree with Obama here. I feel that rather than being unable to "sell" their policy, the Democrats were more sort of just lazy. Based on what's presented here, there's a lot of just claims, with Obama describing the whole thing as a "failure." This whole labeling of the switch in Congress is just like something easy to go to, not really having any substantial explanation or rational. I think the Democrats should focus more on policy and sort of reconnect with their party. Aljazeera makes a good point in highlighting these "moneyed interests," as a focus on them deters from actual dealings with policy. All together, this sort of Democratic laziness in terms of policy and campaigning, in conjunction with dissatisfaction with Obama nearing the end of his second term, helped propel a Republican victory here. However, it is still important to make clear that just because the Republicans took control of Congress, it doesn't mean that they automatically have an advantage for later elections. Though something like that may be true to an extent, such a loss could possibly mobilize the Democrats to a greater extent, which could overtake a possible sense of comfortableness that the Republicans may currently possess,following their victory.
I agree that Obama's unpopularity may have contributed to such intense Republican wins in this election but I think there are way more factors here that could better explain the results. One of these is turnout. Republicans did a very good job for this election and highly Republican voting groups such as whites and the 65+ had higher turnout in this election whereas Democratic voting groups like the under 25 had very low turnout this election season. Another explanation for the results are that there were many more Democrats up for reelection this year and since our country isn't the way that people might want it to be, it makes sense that people voted for something different.
Thanks for the comments! As many of you have mentioned turnout is a major factor in any election. It is also true that their was much lower minority turnout in the recent midterm elections. My question in response therefore goes back to the idea of "selling" policy.
Would you say that low voter turnout supports Obama's claim that they simply couldn't mobilize voters by selling policy to them?
If not, what might have attributed to the lower turnout among minorities?
In other words, is it a lack of connection via policy or mobilization that primarily contributed to Democratic losses?
Post a Comment