Friday, November 14, 2014
Democrats Argue Their 2014 Ground Game Worked
Regarding the most recent midterm election, Democrats say, although they lost by a pretty big margin, their ground game worked. What do you think about this view the Democrats have? Do you think it worked in the long run? Do you think the long run outcomes matters more than the actual current results?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The current results definitely matter more, because now democrats have to wait until the next election to (hopefully) succeed. The boost in turnout was nice compared to 2010, but not good enough. Democrats need to continue with the hard efforts, and work even harder, in order to achieve success. Yes, the efforts were pretty successful, but the actual definition of success needs to be seen through democrat candidates throughout the U.S. Destroying republican candidates.
ReplyDeleteUh, I diffidently don't think their ground game worked. If their game plan was to try to lose their seat in the House than yeah I guess their plan did work! However, I do believe that since now the Republican's control the house and senate, people will be able to agree on a lot issues and MAYBE get stuff done. President Obama could be able to compromise with them and maybe the both parties could somewhat agree on basic issues. I agree with Peachez, the Democrats still need to continue to work hard and to be motivate. They shouldn't lose hope and hopefully next election they will succeed.
ReplyDeleteA quote in the article says that the ground game and the election results "aren't mutually exclusive." I have mixed feelings about this. The election results are directly connected to the ground game, but it does seem like the ground game was fairly successful this election. The article referenced many victories that were a direct result of the ground game; however, it also referenced many very close losses that would've been worse losses. Here, I agree with Maria that the ultimate goal to gain/keep houses in the senate was not met.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the ground game was to increase turnout - yes, it worked. However, the Democrats still lost a huge majority of the swing states thus losing seats in the senate, so I wouldn't call that a total win. I look forward to seeing what the Senate will accomplish until the next election. Hopefully, with some new faces and a Republican majority, some changes will be made to decrease the level of political dysfunction America is dealing with.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, DSCC Deputy Executive Director Matt Canter states that "the ground game can work and we can still lose. The two aren't mutually exclusive". Even though their ground plan worked and they were about to increase voter turnout, Democrats should have been working to increase voter turnout and win elections.
ReplyDeleteI find it pretty sad that the democrats had to spend 60 million dollars to even get some of their party followers to the polls. I can think of a lot more productive ways ( paying off national debt etc) in which to spend 60 million dollars. Canter basically saying his plan still worked even though they lost the election is bogus because if you come in second in this case, you are truly the first and only loser. I think these mid terms showed that many people in America are not exactly happy with Obama at the moment. Some think that while the economy is growing, the jobs that are being created are largely low paying/ marginal jobs at best. Many also think that Obama isn't taking a strong enough stance on foreign relations.As for my own opinion, I am going to wait and see how Obama responds to aggressive moves by Putin (he has been puffing his military chest) and ISIL (another beheading) in the next couple of months before deciding on the foreign affairs issue.
ReplyDeleteThings were always looking bad for the Democrats with Congress' and Obama's low approval ratings.Mr. Danson said that after two years into a term, the president usually does enough to anger the public and sway them towards voting for the opposing party. That is most likely what has happened here. However, while the Democrats did not do well, they did increase their voter turnout in many cases, which will be helpful come next midterm elections when everyone is down on the Republican majority Congress who was unable to accomplish anything. It was always going to be an uphill battle for the Democrats. They got their small victories where they could, even if those victories would not impact the immediate future.
ReplyDeleteLike Marie said, if the plan was to increase voter turnout yet lose seats in the Senate then it worked. However, they now have to wait until the next election to push through and win those seats back. I do wonder how things in Washington are going to work considering we have a Democrat president and a majority Republican Congress. I guess they were looking long term not the immediate future.
ReplyDeleteI think that the ground game for the Democrats was largely a success, as it did indeed increase turnout in the battleground states. However, the entire election was stacked against Democrats. Democrats had to defend Senate seats in traditionally red states due to retirements and well as incumbents up for reelection. There was also the deep dissatisfaction felt by many Americans over the dysfunction in Washington as well as continued worry over the state of the economy. Even though Democrats' ground game was a success, the national mood was against them and there was little they could have done to overcome this.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the democrats ground game attack worked at all. Losing the senate will cripple president Obama's last 2 years in office. I think the claim by Democrats that there ground game was actually a success is merely an attempt to regain some semblance of strength after an embarrassing loss on November 4th.
ReplyDelete