Wednesday, November 05, 2014

GOP: landslide victories

iPhone, iPad: Apple users may try to play Lumo Deliveries. ;-)
Six years ago, Barack Obama was elected for the first time and, slightly surprisingly for me, he was also reelected two years ago. But six or eight years is a rather long time for a fad. So despite the very good condition of the current U.S. economy and other positive signs, the Democrats have decided that Barack Obama has become a liability and they tried to hide him in the basement.

I think it has become too self-evident that most Americans disagree with Obama on key domestic topics such as immigration and healthcare. But what do I know? Maybe Ebola-ISIS-Ukraine have played a role, too.



The map of 2014 House elections: Alaska is dark red and Hawaii is dark blue. Click for more BBC maps.

The hiding strategy wasn't too helpful, anyway: the gains of the Republicans are way too obvious. A pig claims that there was a huge gender gap – that Democrats would actually slightly win among women but their deficit among the men was just huge. This gender polarization of politics seems highly unfortunate to me (because the men-vs-women contest is not useful for selecting good ideas: their percentages will always be close to 50%) and I think it's the Democratic Party's policies that should be blamed for this asymmetry.




The GOP managed to win both chambers of the Parliament again – just to be sure, Obama isn't the first president who got beated six years after his first election. However, the majorities of the GOP have set a new post-war record (the map was similar in 1946). One could say that it seems that the years of Obama's government have had a similar impact on the electorate as the Second World War.

Most of the elected Republicans are "establishment" Republicans but the Tea Party voters were probably essential for their success.




One could discuss lots of individual Senate, House, and governor races. Massachusetts will have a Republican governor, to mention an example I cared about. The GOP succeeded in sending some interesting characters to politics. Folks in South Carolina are often presented as bigots and racists by the leftists. Well, they have elected an Indian female governor and a black senator. So much for the libels. Just to be sure, Democrats have elected blacks, too, e.g. Roger Freeman in Washington State. The only disadvantage of this politician is that he has died a week ago.

Well-known climate realist James Inhofe of Oklahoma was reelected to Senate with 68% of votes. He will hopefully be elected as the boss of the environmental committee of the Senate and insane plans of the climate alarmists will hopefully be dead in the U.S. politics at least for two years. Mitch McConnell of GOP should become the majority leader in the Senate.

Congratulations to those U.S. readers who think that the Tuesday elections were a success; condolences (and my advise for them to think in a fresher way) to those who think otherwise.

42 comments:

  1. Art Robinson did not win! :-(

    http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/peter_defazio_us_house_art_rob.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pleased to see Inhofe likely getting that position. A two-year delay in climate idiocy is at least a good start.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "A pig claims that there was a huge gender gap ..."

    That's nothing that newly elected Senator Joni Ernst couldn't handle.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A great night for America!

    This is off-topic, but Real Clear Science thinks string theory is dead:

    http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/10/lhc_outdone_by_tabletop_electron_experiment_108918.html



    Say it isn't so, Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It will be good to be rid of Harry Reid running the Senate. He did enormous harm there. I'm sorry Scott Brown lost in NH, but quite happy Charlie Baker defeated Martha Coakely for MA governor. Guess I'm not part of the 'female vote'. : )

    ReplyDelete
  6. Liberals tried to use climate change as a wedge issue in these midterm elections, thinking it would mobilize their environmentalist base while exposing unbelieving conservatives as anti-science.

    The spectacular lack of impact by this tactic suggests that the electorate is about as sensitive to alarmist scare stories as the climate is sensitive to CO2.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can't the results indicate that the sensitivity actually has the opposite *sign* than believed? (I mean at least in the political case.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. The gender gap narrowed because the Republicans started moving away from being anti-abortion and anti-gay. In more conservative districts they may continue to do so for a while not to lose their base, but they will have to ease up on these issues at least on average or they will never get enough women's vote and/or young people's vote. Societies change, and politics evolves with societal norms.

    The Republicans learned from 2010 and 2012 when they put forward a number of unelectably extreme candidates and lost a number of races they didn't have to lose. Somehow, they mostly prevented such candidates from winning the primaries this year, so they had a more electable set of candidates. Joni Ernst of Iowa seemed for a while a bit too "colorful" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-joni-ernsts-ad-about-castrating-hogs-transformed-iowas-us-senate-race/2014/05/11/c02d1804-d85b-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html ), but she turned out to be an able campaigner and won with a comfortable margin.

    I think, however, that foreign policy played a significant role. While Americans do care more about the economy and other "local" issues like healthcare and immigration, gross incompetence in foreign affairs that came to be seen more and more as having potentially dangerous consequences made them more and more nervous as the elections approached. Hopefully, this will translate into us having a president after 2016 who is wiser in foreign policy matters than either Bush junior or Obama have been.

    The biggest question is whether this election means that Republicans will be viable in the presidential election in 2016. Time will tell, but it looks less hopeless than before. Much will depend on how congressional Republicans comport themselves over the next two years.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lubos,

    Like Physics, a lot of seemingly different things turn out to be the same thing from different perspectives. Don't waste your breath on this crap. Rich people won last night as they do every election.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What does it mean that Ernst looked "too colorful", aside from the fact that she is attractive, brave (Kuwait veteran), and defending the right opinions about taxes, healthcare, abortions, cap and trade, gay marriage, minimum wage, and pretty much everything else?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Apologies, I've been immensely interested in politics since I was 8 years old or so. At least when it comes to my country and the world's most powerful country, I am damn interested in which "rich" people win.


    Like most dogs, you may be uninterested in these important things and fail to distinguish them from crap but sorry to say, there are also people in the world, not just dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I made this comment on Pigs blog already - it is not really a "gender gap", as the divide is not between men and women, but between married and single women. In 2012 election Romney was favored by married women by 19% and Obama was favored by single women by 33%. Married women are voting pretty much the same as men.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very interesting. Is that empirically proven or just your or someone's theoretical derivation?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Goodbye self-righteous vegetarians. Hello corrupt carnivores. When Al Capone ran Chicago one could always obtain a shot of booze, a wager, or a hooker. If you wanted morality, you went to church and traded value for promises.

    The Devil supplies up front. Capitalism works. Liberalism expensively sacrifices here and now - at gunpoint - so deserving entities are carried on golden palanquins. This works poorly when the deserving are the bottom 15% of your bell curve.

    (The Second World War had fewer casualties and cost a lot less than Obamanation. The next steps are rule by Executive Order, then impeachment or a military coup d'état.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Those are empirical data, I believe. I got it here
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/single-women-favor-obama-151713797.html
    But you see it all the time. They always try to explain the differences by gender, but avoid as a plague the money explanation. There is very real transfer of money through the state from men (and families) to single women. I think it is as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, I like people like her - I have always felt that common folks in the US often have a better instinctive understanding of freedom than the elites. I just wasn't sure if her folksy style would help or hurt her chances at winning the election. Our leftist elites aren't fond of gun-carrying women with experience in castrating hogs and a promise to put this experience to use on Washington politicians. :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. But your leftist elites don't have a constitutionally guaranteed leading role in the society, do they? So why do you apparently feel the urge to ask them for a permission?

    What I read in between the lines disturbs me. Republicans in the Tea Party wing are bad but Republicans who are almost Democrats are fine, right?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Because they control the main stream media and the message that most uninformed votes hear. If you repeat the lie often enough the uninformed end up believing it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What is even more important the results for the US House of Representatives pretty much guarantee that the republicans will control this chamber till at least the 2022 cycle.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OK, if the decisions ultimately depend on the media that are not controlled by the people, the country isn't a democracy.

    Also, if someone assumes that the powerful are inevitably powerful forever, he is a defeatist coward and a part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Of course the powerful people are not powerful forever. ;-) It is like a pendulum. Right wingers know how to make money, left wingers know how to spend money. And so once the money run out, left wingers lose till the time right wingers make enough of money to be worth steeling ... I guess it is defeatist, too, but in a different way. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Probally because social conservatives being team players and good soldiers don't immediately hop up and yell "science deniers" at the chamber of commerce cons. If only the chamber of commerce cons would reciprocate. Gay marriage still polls better than oppostion to global warming alarmism, which most Americans believe is happening, yet social conservatives like myself are just fine with chamber of commerce conservaties opposing green initiatives because we get politics is about trade offs. The chamber of commerce cons are more than willing to provide bit@h@ comments about SOCONS "attacking science" they better hope SOCONS don't decide to return the favor on issues like unions and green intiatives.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Trade-offs suck, but they are part of life, or at least of politics. You want a candidate who is as close to your views as possible, but who has some chance of being elected.

    I don't live in Iowa, so I was just a spectator anyway. If I lived there, I would have voted for her, and as a spectator, I was hoping she would win, but it just wasn't clear to me if she would or wouldn't win.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Haha, at some level, one only has to get used to the laws of Nature which isn't such a big sacrifice.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Absolute values are great in theory, but I can point to races where a couple of percent of the vote for a Libertarian candidate led to the Democrat winning over a Republican. So, if one is liberty-minded, should one vote for Libertarian candidates? I have never found a clear answer to this question.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You may want to compare costs and benefits, Swine flu!


    If a Libertarian makes a 10 times bigger difference for freedom than a centrist Republican, then even if the chance of her being elected is up to 10 times smaller, it's a good idea to pick her in the primaries!

    ReplyDelete
  27. You're flat out appalling wrong on abortion. Society is moving more in favor of gay marriage, the direction on abortion is in the opposite direction.

    But the gender gap is not due to social issues no matter how much you want it to be. Single woman are just more inclined toward socialism than men are.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You're on to something. I can't be the only one who was offended the US Sec. of State declared climate change to be a more serious threat than ISIS/ISIL. Just one example of sound bites that suggest the administration had taken leave of its sense. So yes, a turn-off for many.


    As for CO2, it does facilitate cooling at the TOA, so the sign there is also problematic

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am pretty neutral on the hot-button social issues other than gun control. So, it's not about me "wanting" anything, it's about me observing. And the number of single women isn't getting any smaller, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just for reference:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/360990/latest-statistics-out-wedlock-births-roger-clegg
    Preliminary data indicate that 40.7 percent of all 2012 births were out-of-wedlock, and there are vast differences among racial and ethnic groups. Among non-Hispanic blacks, the figure is highest, at 72.2 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, it’s 66.9 percent; 53.5 percent for Hispanics; 29.4 percent for non-Hispanic whites; and a mere 17.1 percent for Asians/Pacific Islanders.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Time to load up on some defense stock! We need to decommission old cruise missiles so we may as well throw them on somebody.

    That was half-serious joke, of course.

    As for the change despite US economy in 'very good condition', well, perhaps it is not in such a great condition and voting reflected that more than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I thought: 'there must be somebody who thinks more like me, did a little search and what do I find:

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/05/news/economy/voters-obama-economy-four-charts/?hpt=hp_t2

    According to CNN midterm election exit polling, seven in 10 voters said they were concerned about economic conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Note that Obama spent the last days of the election campaigning for the Governor candidates in Illinois, New York, and Maryland. The last two were not even considered close races. Audience members walked out of Obama's campaign speech, and the Republican won in Maryland and Illinois.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It is a deliberate strategy by Democrats. They push abortion and free birth control as issues. They put Sandra Fluke in primetime at their convention. Their Senator in Colorado ended up being mocked as Mark Uterus.

    ReplyDelete
  35. That is the opinion of Republican elites. They went out of their way to preserve their guys in primaries, spending millions to knock off Tea Party candidates. We were told that if Mississippi's senator lost, that all Republican nominees would be associated with the upset victor like Todd Akin in 2012. They took Pat Roberts over the finish line in Kansas, and he nearly lost the race.

    ReplyDelete
  36. John Kerry has recently made comments about how nothing the US does would matter, because China would cancel out everything.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Go Patriots!
    (that's the football team for you aliens)

    ReplyDelete
  38. It's a fact about American voters. Well known and proven.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Married with children vote Republican, single women/single mothers vote Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Way to go. Great answer. Too bad more Americans won't read this...

    ReplyDelete
  41. That's the big intra-party battle in the US.

    ReplyDelete