The 115th Congress Senate Races: Rs Lost Two Seats; Final Result is 48 D - 52 R

It Is Over

THE REPUBLICANS MANAGED TO RETAIN CONTROL OF THE SENATE but by a smaller margin than before. The Question is ... can Sen McConnell keep the monolithic voting block together (he can afford to lose only three R votes instead of five) with such an unpredictable President in office? There are still a few moderates left in the GOP camp but it remains to be seen if they can stomach Trump enough to not go rogue.

IT IS NOW TIME TO FOLLOW THE 2016 US SENATE RACE where the outcome is as uncertain as it was in 2014. Just to memorialize the title of the previous version of this hub, I'll repeat it here

The 114th Congress and 2014 Mid-Term Election, My Esoteric Thinks Democrats Keep Senate 51-47 w/2 run-offs

and the Summary said:

Just as the 2008 Presidential election was historic in breaking the color barrier for the U.S. Presidency, so 2014 may be with the demise of the Republican Party. Political pundits don't think so, but I have my doubts.

I couldn't have been more wrong!

Obviously, I won't have to change the title much, will I.

Predictions

12/28/2015: Democrats will win back the Senate majority in 2016

8/19/2016: 50/50 split with Vice President breaking ties and that both Independents continue to caucus with the Democrats.

11/2/16 : With six days to go, here is how the race to control the Senate stacks up where Democrats need to pick up four seats over what they have now to take official control:

  1. Democrats/Independents have 36 out of 50 not up for election.
  2. There are 10 States which are solidly in Blue hands giving the a total of 46 as the minimum number of States that the Ds will win. They need 5 seats to take back the Senate.
  3. Republicans have 30 out of 50 States not up for reelection.
  4. Republicans have 15 States certain to go their way giving them 45 Senate seats they will win. They are Short 6 seats to maintain control.
  5. That leaves 9 contested seats and five more to keep control of the Senate.
  6. It will be these ten that make the difference:

Let us take a look:

  1. Arizona - McCain up 13 points: Republican (5 more to go)
  2. Florida - Rubio up 5 points: still a toss up leaning Republican (4 more to go)
  3. Indiana - Bayh up 3 points; still a toss up leaning Democratic (4 more to go)
  4. Louisiana - Rs up by 13 points but there will be a run-off between an R and a D; leans R (3 more to go)
  5. Missouri - Blunt up 1 point; still a toss up.
  6. Nevada - Heck up 1 point; still a toss up.
  7. New Hampshire - Ayotte up 2 points; Still a toss up.
  8. North Carolina - Burr up 2 points; Still a toss up
  9. Pennsylvania - McGinty up 3.5 points; probably Democrat (3 more to go)
  10. Wisconsin - Feingold up 5 points; probably Democrat (2 more to go)

As things stand now the Ds need to win only 2 out of the 4 toss ups to gain control while the Rs need to win all three.


See TABLE 5 for State-by-State breakdown.

Your U.S. Senate - 111th Congress

Source

Kicking the 2016 Senate Race Off

I AM A POLITICAL JUNKIE AND I SPENT a lot of computer bits analyzing the 2012 Presidential election. I think I did a good job predicting the size and the outcome of the Presidential and Senate races. I feel that I beat most of the TV pundits on TV and many of the individual polls. You rewarded me with some pretty high readership numbers, thank you.

I did the same for the 2014 Midterm election of the 114th Congress ... and failed miserably. This time around, for the 115th Congress, the 435 House seats and 34 Senate seats are up for grabs. It is very problematic that the Democrats can take back the House, but the odds are in their favor for the Senate. Why? Because of the 34 Senate seats in play, only 10 are held by Democrats and 24 by Republicans (the reverse of 2014), most are far-Right winners from the massacre of Democrats in the 2010 Mid-Term blow-out. The table below describes the sea change in Senate seats in 2010.

RESULTS FROM 2010 MID-TERMS

(click column header to sort results)
STATE  
PARTY  
   
CALIFORNIA
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
OREGON
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
WASHINGTON
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
NEVADA
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
IDAHO
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
UTAH
REPUBLICAN HELD
TEA PARTY
ARIZONA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
COLORADO
DEMOCRATIC HELD
 
NORTH DAKOTA
REPUBLICAN WIN
TEA PARTY
SOUTH DAKOTA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
KANSAS
REPUBLICAN HELD
TEA PARTY
OKLAHOMA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
LOUISANA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
ARKANSAS
REPUBLICAN WIN
TEA PARTY
MISSOURI
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
IOWA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
WISCONSIN
REPUBLICAN WIN
TEA PARTY
ILLINOIS
REPUBLICAN WIN
 
INDIANA
REPUBLICAN WIN
 
KENTUCKY
REPUBLICAN HELD
TEA PARTY/LIBERTARIAN
OHIO
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
ALABAMA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
GEORGIA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
FLORIDA
REPUBLICAN HELD
TEA PARTY
SOUTH CAROLINA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
NORTH CAROLINA
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
WEST VIRGINIA
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
MARYLAND
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
DELAWARE
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
PENNSYLVANIA
REPUBLICAN WIN
TEA PARTY
NEW YORK
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
VERMONT
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
CONNECTICUT
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE
REPUBLICAN HELD
 
HAWAII
DEMOCRAT HELD
 
ALASKA
INDEPENDENT WIN
CAUCUSES WITH Rs
TABLE 1 THESE SEATS ARE UP FOR GRABS AGAIN IN 2016

The Starting Point

THERE ARE 54 REPUBLICAN, 44 DEMOCRATIC, AND 2 INDEPENDENT SENATORS (who caucus with the Democrats) in the 114th Congress. Of those, 34 are up for grabs; 24 Republicans and 10 Democrats. To return Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to the Minority Leadership (assuming he remains in the leadership position), the Democrats need to win 15 of the elections (in 2010, Republicans needed 21 wins, and they got it). That means the Democrats need to hold all 10 of their current seats and take 5 away from the Republicans.

At this moment in time, with 3 months before the election, the Democrats are guaranteed 4 wins in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island because there are no Republican challengers; that leaves 17 "vulnerable" positions. 5; HI, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington which appear to be extremely safe. That leaves 12 for which there may be some doubt.

Now, consider the following table created from an analysis of the exit polls from the 2012 Presidential elections.

2016 Senatorial Race Predictions

STATE (no contest)
DEMOCRAT - 36 (Ds + Is)
REPUBLICAN - 30
COUNT (WIN / Total)
13 (49) 11-Safe, 2-Lean
20 (50) 15 Sale, 4 Lean, LA
ALABAMA (Crumpton - Shelby)
 
SAFE R
ARIZONA (Kirkpatrick - McCain)
 
SAFE R
ARKANSAS (Eldridge - Boozeman
 
SAFE R
ALASKA (Metcalf - Murkowski
 
SAFE R
CALIFORNIA (Ds only running)
SAFE D
 
COLORADO (Bennett - Glenn)
SAFE D
 
CONNECTICUT (Blumethal - Carter)
SAFE D
 
FLORIDA (Rubio - Murphy)
 
Up by 4 points - OMOE
GEORGIA (Barksdale - Isakson)
 
SAFE R
HAWAII (Shatz - Hanabusa)
SAFE D
 
IDAHO (Sturgill - Crappo)
 
SAFE R
IOWA (Judge - Grassley)
 
SAFE R
ILLINOIS (Duckworth - Kirk)
SAFE D
 
INDIANA (Bayh - Young)
Up 3 points - OMOE
 
KANSAS (Wiesner - Moran)
 
SAFE R
KENTUCKY (Gray - Paul)
 
SAFE R
LOUISIANA (? - Kennedy)
 
Leans R
MARYLAND (Van Hollen - Szeliga)
SAFE D
 
MISSOURI (Kander - Blunt)
 
Up 1 point - IMOE
NEVADA (Cortez - Heck)
 
Up 1 point - IMOE
NEW HAMPSHIRE (Hassan - Ayotte)
 
Up 1.9 points - IMOE
NEW YORK (Schumer - Long)
SAFE D
 
NORTH CAROLINA (Ross - Burr)
 
Up 2.0 points - IMOE
NORTH DAKOTA ( Glassheim - Hoevan)
 
SAFE R
OHIO (Strickland - Portman)
 
SAFE R
OKLAHOMA (Workman-Lankford)
 
SAFE R
OREGON (Wyden - Callahan)
SAFE D
 
PENNSYLVANIA (McGinty - Toomey
Up 4.7 points - OMOE
 
SOUTH CAROLINA (Dixon - Scott)
 
SAFE R
SOUTH DAKOTA (Williams - Thune)
 
SAFE R
UTAH (Snow - Lee)
 
SAFE R
VERMONT (Leahy - Milne)
SAFE D
 
WASHINGTON ( Murray - Vance)
SAFE D
 
WISCONSIN (Feingold - Johnson)
Up 5 points - OMOE
 
AMOE - At The Margin of Error OMOE - Outside Margin of Error IMOE - Inside Margin of Error BOLDED Rows are SAFE seats TABLE 5

2012 Presidential Exit Poll Analysis

DEMOGRAPHIC
RED STATES - D
RED STATES - R
-
PURPLE STATES - D
PURPLE STATES - R
-
BLUE STATES - D
BLUE STATES - R
GENDER
47% - MALE
53% - FEMALE
 
48% - MALE
52% - FEMALE
 
47% - MALE
54% - FEMALE
MALE
40%
58%
 
47%
50%
 
52%
45%
FEMALE
49%
50%
 
55%
44%
 
62%
37%
TABLE 2 (2014 exit polls aren't used because mid-term election demographics are quite different due to lower turn-out)

The Gender Gap

ONE REASON PRESIDENT OBAMA WON A SECOND TIME is very obvious once you understand this table - Women. Because I am trying to stuff multi-dimensions of information into a 2-dimension table, it can get a little obtuse; so let me try to unpack it a little bit.

  • One dimension is looking at the Red, Blue, and Purple-leaning States, they run across the top.
  • Another dimension is political party; those also run across the top with each State color divided into Ds and Rs.
  • Then we have the percentage of Males and Females that voted in each State Group, and
  • Finally we have the percentage of Males and Females that voted by Party in each State group.

So, what do we see?

  • That the percentage of Males and Females who votes in each State group is basically constant at 47% for Males and 53% for Females; giving Females the louder voice in this election
  • There is a distinct bias between political parties between genders and State groups. As you move from Red to Purple to Blue, it is easy to see 1) the switch from a Republican to Democrat bias and 2) that this is true in all cases, Females are more Democratically biased than Males
  • Given the predominance of the Female voter in the 2012 election, you can easily see the bias toward Obama.

Now, let's consider this 2016 Senate race.

The Young and Old See Things Differently

 
RED STATES - D
RED STATES - R
PURPLE - D
PURPLE - R
BLUE - D
BLUE - R
AGE
 
 
 
 
 
 
18 - 29: R-16%, P-20%, B-19%
56%
41%
63%
35%
67%
30%
30 - 39: R-16%, P-17%, B-15%
49%
48%
52%
44%
58%
39%
40 - 64: R-48%, P-48%, B-49%
43%
57%
47%
51%
55%
44%
65 +: R-20%, P-15%, B-17%
37%
63%
46%
55%
54%
45%
TABLE 3

Youth Favors Democrats

YES, THE YOUNGER YOU ARE, THE MORE LIKELY you are to vote Democratic. The older you are, however, the more likely you are to vote and to vote Republican. Even so, the two trends do not tend to cancel each other out, but instead, worked to Obama's advantage.

There were initially six age stratifications but they were reduced to four after combining ones with similar results, to wit: 18 - 24 with 24 - 29, and 40 - 49 with 50 - 64. As you can see, the youth vote, 18 - 39, comprised from a low of 32% of the vote in Red States to 37% in Purple States. The more mature votes (that is me), on the other hand, dropped from a high of 20% in the Red States to a low of 15% in the Purple States. Roughly 48% of the vote was made of "transitional" voters between the ages of 40 and 64 (remember, this is an average as there were only a total of 31 States which had exit polls).

Because the size of the youth vote overwhelmed that of the mature vote,combined with the fact that it was lopsidedly in favor of President Obama; it was more than enough to off-set the less impressive advantage Romney had with the "transitional" and mature voter.

The 2016 Presidential and Congressional races can't necessarily rely on a repeat of this demographic. It was Barack Obama who energized the youth vote in 2012; in 2016 it was Senator Bernie Sanders. But Bernie lost the nomination battle to Hillary Clinton, so the question is ... how many of those currently energized young voters can Clinton retain and how many will matriculate to the Green Party or simply drop out again?

Do we find the same to be true if the vote is look at along racial lines?

Did Whites Vote for a Black Man? (2012) OR Will White Men Vote for a White Woman? (2016)

 
RED STATE - D
RED STATE - R
PURPLE STATE - D
PURPLE STATE -R
BLUE STATE - D
BLUE STATE - R
SELF-IDENTIFIED RACE
 
 
 
 
 
 
WHITE: R-76%; P-74%; B-75%
32%
66%
42%
56%
48%
51%
BLACK: R - 18%; P-10%; B-15%
94%
6%
94%
6%
95%
5%
LATINO: R-8%; P-11%; B-9%
76%
23%
68%
30%
77%
22%
OTHER: R-6%; P-6%; B-6%
74%
23%
60%
38%
72%
28%
TABLE 4

SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK; is there a racial bias in American politics? Table 4 would be the first clear evidence it may be true. When we consider all the tables together in combination with some other knowledge, it becomes even more evident. But, a true picture can't be developed until you look at say the Clinton (a white Democratic victory) and Bush 43 (a white Republican victory) exit polls in the same manner and do a statistical comparison. Nevertheless, it is not an unreasonable hypothesis to make given America's history of racial intolerance.

Let us see why. First consider some racial demographics for the U.S. According to a PEW Research analysis of eligible voters in 2016:

  • White Alone - 69.1% (Down from 71.1%)
  • Hispanic - 12.1% (Up from 10.8%)
  • Black - 12.1% (Up from 12%)
  • Other - 6.7% (Up from 6.1%)

This demographic shift clearly favors the Democrats in both the 2016 Presidential and Congressional races. This is especially true for Hispanics who not only have a higher percentage in eligible voters but, because of Donald Trumps anti-Hispanic rhetoric, are more likely to vote.

For the Exit Polls, those sampled self-identified themselves as follows:

  • White Alone - 75% (White Alone w/Hispanic included for Population is 77.9%)
  • Hispanic - 9%
  • Black - 14%
  • Other - 7%

From this, one can see that people vote probably vote relative to their proportion of the population. Most likely that includes the White/Hispanic group which is problematic because Hispanic is an ethnic group while White is a race and many Hispanics identify themselves as White. I was rather curious if this was going to be the result because I have heard pundits say Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented at the ballot boxes; which may have been true in past elections, but not in this one.

Consider that if it were up to those who identified themselves as "White" in America, at least in the Exit Polls, Obama would not be President. Nevertheless, that is not the way it came down in 2012. What did present itself is that White's rejected Obama with only 32% voting for him in Red States, 42% in Purple States, and a paltry 48% in Blue states; remember around five of those percentage points are probably Hispanic in ethnicity to boot.

Once we turn our attention to the other two groups plus the catch-all "Other" do we understand the Great Divide in America and the problem the Republican Party faces in 2014 and on. Romney was, relative to other Republicans, a moderate; yet the best he could do was pick up 38% in the "Other" category in the Purple States. That simply doesn't bode well for any State-wide candidate and if the Republicans keep further alienating the Hispanic community as it seems they are dead set on doing, things are only going to get worse for them.

Now let's turn our attention to a final demographic captured in Table 4, gender-tiy-race; a key statistic in my analysis.

What Do Race and Gender Together Tell Us?

 
RED STATE - D
RED STATE - R
PURPLE STATE - D
PURPLE STATE - R
BLUE STATE - D
BLUE STATE - R
WHITE - MALE: R-37%; P-36%; B-46%
28%
70%
38%
59%
46%
52%
WHITE - FEMALE: R-40%; P-38%; B-41%
36%
64%
45%
53%
56%
43%
BLACK - MALE: R-9%; P-5%; B-6%
94%
6%
93%
7%
97%
3%
BLACK - FEMALE: R-11%; P-7%;B-9%
96%
4%
96%
4%
95%
5%
HISPANIC - MALE: R-5%; P-9%; B-6%
65%
34%
71%
26%
88%
12%
HISPANIC - FEMALE: R-6%; P-10%; B-7%
66%
33%
73%
23%
90%
10%
OTHER: R-4%; P-6%; B-6%
66%
33%
61%
37%
93%
24%
TABLE 4

The Most Illuminating of All

TABLE 4 STRATIFIED TWO TO THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS in the election at the same time, Gender and Race; the next level of detail would have been to produce information stratified by Gender-Race-Age, but, unfortunately, they didn't crank out those numbers. Nevertheless, this table says a lot all by itself!

As you scan the table left-to-right and top-to-bottom, you will see where I bolded certain numbers. These percentages are ones where more than 50% voted for President Obama. Notice the one lonely bolded 56% for White Women in Blue States; that is the ONLY instance where a Black President garnered more than 50% of the vote from White People ... what does that suggest to you? I know know what it tells me, especially when I combine with these two other points:

  • other studies have shown that Gen X youth seem to have begun to turn the corner regarding racism because they are more focused on Individuals than, unlike previous generations, Groups. As a result, when their "different strokes for different folks" tolerance level is measured, it is much higher than for the generations between theirs and mine (the almost-dead generation)
  • the results of the youth vote from the exit polls across the Red, Purple, and Blue States clearly bear these findings out.

Add those to the fact that Obama couldn't win the majority of the White vote in States that are supposedly heavily Democratic suggest strongly to me racism is a factor. But, as I said before, until put up against similar polls for Obama's first election, Clinton and Bush 43; one can't be certain, You can't tell anything from the Red or Purple State results, by the way because you would expect similar results with or without racism involved; maybe not to such a degree, but it would had to discern.

That 56% from White Women, however, along with the minority vote, especially the Hispanic vote since it leaned more Democratic than normal, is what kept Obama in the White House.


Consider that around 5% of the White vote, as previously mentioned, is Hispanic, and the current numbers which self-identified Hispanics are voting Democratic already, the damage Republicans can do to themselves if they continue to ignore the fact they are truly frustrating the Hispanic community. How much closer to the Black voting percentages will the Hispanic voters climb to as they attempt to elect Congressman that will enact laws to benefit them?

HOW AMERICAN'S VIEW OBAMACARE AND THE STATE OF THE NATION

METRIC
8/31/2016
2015
3/2014
10/22/2013
FAVOR OBAMACARE
40%
43%
47%
46%
OPPOSE OBAMACARE AS TOO LIBERAL OR NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH
42%
55%
51%
49%
OPPOSE OBAMACARE AS TOO LIBERAL
est 35%
48%
44%
39%
OPPOSE OBAMACARE AS NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH
est 7%
7%
7%
10%
NO OPINION
17%
2%
2%
5%
 
 
 
 
 
FAVORABLE OPINION OF OBAMA
53%
47%
46%
46%
UNFAVORABLE OPINION OF OBAMA
44%
47%
49%
48%
 
 
 
 
 
RIGHT DIRECTION
27%
27%
29%
28%
WRONG TRACK
66%
66%
63%
64%
TABLE 5

So, Can the Republicans Do It?

DO YOU THINK THE REPUBLICANS CAN KEEP CONTROL OF THE U.S SENATE THIS YEAR?

  • YES
  • NO
  • NOT SURE
See results without voting

DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY IF THE REPUBLICANS KEPT CONTROL OF THE SENATE WHILE RETAINING CONTROL OF THE HOUSE?

  • YES
  • NO
  • NOT SURE
See results without voting

DO YOU WANT THE REPUBLICANS TO KEEP CONTROL OF THE SENATE THIS YEAR?

  • YES
  • NO
  • NOT SURE
See results without voting

Demographic Question #1

DO YOU THINK YOU WILL VOTE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS?

  • YES
  • NO
  • NOT SURE
See results without voting

Demographic Question #2

DO YOU FEEL YOU POLITICALLY LEAN TO THE

  • RIGHT MOST OF THE TIME
  • LEFT MOST OF THE TIME
  • SOMETIMES LEFT, SOMETIMES RIGHT, DEPENDING ON THE ISSUE
  • SOME OTHER DIRECTION
See results without voting

Demographic Question #3

ARE YOU

  • MALE
  • FEMALE
See results without voting

© 2014 My Esoteric

More by this Author


Comments 23 comments

Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago

Wow! this is great, I can only hope you are right about the 2014 elections.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Only time will tell.


Aunt Jimi profile image

Aunt Jimi 2 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

This is very interesting. I hope we can get rid of the Tea Baggers especially.

Most Americans are barely getting by in this country and barely paying their bills. That will have to change in order for the rate of savings to go up. Even $10-$12 an hour doesn't go very far nowadays. Seems like everything has gone up, food prices, rent, medical expenses, energy, etc., but not salaries and wages. Lots of people are still unemployed, too, not just underemployed.


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago

I just read a post on fb about the abduction a female student by Rand Paul when he was in college. I think it is about time to end his political escapades in 2014. Just in case you had not heard about this.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No I hadn't. Has it been verified by reliable sources or is just Democratic pranks.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I hope so too, Aunt Jimi. I don't begrudge them their viewpoint, but when implemented as policy, it does terrible things to American lives.


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/09/rand-paul-abducted-female_n_675766.html here is the link.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Lol, it is all very strange. GQ is a fashion magazine which is an interesting venue to break such a story and I am guessing because they are a fashion magazine that ipso facto makes them a liberal rag and a good target for a Libertarian lawsuit. GQ says they checked their sources so let's see how this plays out.

President Bush met his problems head on and was honest about them, and in doing so made them a non-issue as they should have been. It doesn't look like Rand Paul is going to do the same, however.

Thanks for the link.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

How do we know if the people that vote are US Citizens?

Wouldn't the country be better off if we voted for the best candidate without regard to party affiliation, than the current scheme of voting for the lesser of two evils?

Whether you agree with their choice, the Republicans did put a woman on their presidential ticket, while the Democrats tossed Hillary Clinton aside for an old man. I guess they believe in age before beauty.

Partisan control only represents a simple majority in recent times, and that means that the voters of the non controlling party has less effective representation in congress, and the presidency.

Wouldn't the better voting scheme be to move towards bipartisan representation and if not equal in strength, equal in representing as much of the nation as is possible.

One of the problems of partisan politics is that when the US sends the military to put their lives on the line in the past they have not been fully supported by the congress. The other problem is that it has prevented us from winning any war, including WWII.

Just a few thoughts.

Thanks

bradmaster

Thanks

bradmaster


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

53-45 Republicans.

Is it possible that many Democrat voters don't see the same view as you of the current conditions in the US?

If you want to use mathematics to guess the likelihood of human nature, then the closest would be the data, and hence the statistics involved in the stock market. This would be graphically representative of how humans deal with buying and selling.

We can usually see that drop in buying or selling in the stock market as a change in direction from the last surge or fall. This I believe is buyer's remorse, or at least a loss of confidence in their previous position.

Apparently, this concept is transferable to a smaller effect in politics. The difference is the personal versus the objective. The stock market investing is more objective than that of the voting for a personal pick of the candidates.

The real difference is the speed with which the direction will change. It may take the two years, or four years of the election cycle, but sometime twice around the cycle.

The only reason for the Democrat loss is that the majority of voters, or a significant number of them are not happy with the current course of congress and the president. Even the Democrat candidates, and incumbents thought about whether it would be better to distance themselves from the president.

That alone confuses the herd, and they are left to follow the strongest path, and this time it was the Republicans.

The path of US politics is not a straight line, it is serpentine with loss of forward movement.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You more or less correctly observed "Is it possible that many Democrat voters don't see the same view as you of the current conditions in the US?"

-- I am in the process of analyzing the Exit Poll data. Currently, I am in the process of transferring data to a spreadsheet for each State that had one. But, preliminarily these thing appear to be popping out.

1) - More Latinos didn't vote compared to 2012

2) - Latinos voted more Red than last year

3) - Women in Red states (say NC) did not support the D candidate has much as they have in past elections.

4) - Young people, less than 29, barely showed up at the polls in Red states, didn't do much better in Blue and Purple states either. They turned out in large numbers in 2012

5) - Ds in general didn't turn out out to vote

6) - The perception of a bad economy brought on by growing inequality was a major factor with Independents

7) - The anti-Obamacare propaganda campaign by the Rs ... worked.

(The screwed up roll-out didn't help either even though that was eventually solved as far as the applicant was concerned)

I think a pundit I heard had it right when he said something to the effect of "we are going to see Congress switching hands (especially the Senate) every two years until the People are satisfied government is working again."


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

You more or less correctly observed "Is it possible that many Democrat voters don't see the same view as you of the current conditions in the US?"

-- I am in the process of analyzing the Exit Poll data. Currently, I am in the process of transferring data to a spreadsheet for each State that had one. But, preliminarily these thing appear to be popping out.

1) - More Latinos didn't vote compared to 2012

bm:

Maybe they don't care unless it is a presidential election.

--------

2) - Latinos voted more Red than last year

bm:

Interesting, but puzzling

------------

3) - Women in Red states (say NC) did not support the D candidate has much as they have in past elections.Sts

bm:

Strange as kissing up to women was the Democrat poison pill against the Republicans.

----------------------

4) - Young people, less than 29, barely showed up at the polls in Red states, didn't do much better in Blue and Purple states either. They turned out in large numbers in 2012

bm:

The young as well as many others only show interest in presidential elections would be my quess.

------------

5) - Ds in general didn't turn out out to vote

bm:

I suspect that they didn't care about supporting president Obama after many D candidate ran away from him in this election.

----------

6) - The perception of a bad economy brought on by growing inequality was a major factor with Independents

bm:

In my opinion, inequality is the major product of the income tax system, and the tax system in general. The Income Tax system produces results directly opposite of what it has been formulated to accomplish.

Insanity can be defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results.

7) - The anti-Obamacare propaganda campaign by the Rs ... worked.

bm:

In my opinion, it is more fact than propaganda. The social venue is not the arena where politics are the reason of the focus. Social issues and socialism are not within the province of politics.

As I have said the 10,000 pages of PPACA is not any more helpful than the thousands of pages found in the Internal Revenue Code.

Kiss it simple would be a better axiom to apply to any pursuance of social issues, or even abstinence.

FDRs intentions may have been honorable, but his legacy left the country needlessly in debt.

In both of these cases a simpler more direct approach to the problem would have been more successful.

--------------

(The screwed up roll-out didn't help either even though that was eventually solved as far as the applicant was concerned)

bm:

In my opinion, if they couldn't meet the easy part of the Act, then what will happen to deciphering the 10,000 pages?

Then there is the question of the PP part, and how privacy will be protected when the information will be on the Internet?

---------------

I think a pundit I heard had it right when he said something to the effect of "we are going to see Congress switching hands (especially the Senate) every two years until the People are satisfied government is working again."

bm:

The people will never be satisfied because congress is incapable of moving the country forward. It has historically on moved the country from side to side. Much like a drunk trying to run in place.

----------------

Congress by virtue of the presence of two antagonistic political parties could be the poster child of the phrase irreconcilable differences.

The divorce of people in marriage is akin to the same root cause we see in the failure of congress. For marriage the solution is dissolution, but what can we do to solve the condition of the parties within congress?

What would you suggest for the solution to that problem?

-------------

Education as well as voting is a farce in the US today.

In working on large software development projects, I know for a fact that throwing money to solve a problem after the design has been implemented doesn't provide a real solution to the problem.

The real solution is to make the necessary changes when in the design and Alpha Testing. Once the product gets out to customer, it is impossible to make any meaningful changes, so the fixes are a series of gludges that mask the detection of the problem. So, ostensibly the problem has been fixed, but in reality the problem is hiding somewhere else in the program. If it doesn't turn up, then no one is wiser, and if it does show up, it looks like a totally different problem.

It is this point that upper management throws money at finding the solution. This is ineffective because the program design cannot be changed to any measurable extent. Had the management spent more money in the design stage, there would be less design flaws, and anomalies would be minor.

The same is true of the education system that was designed by the early Greek Civilization It should be evident from the decline in the effectiveness of the current system that the design is flawed. And these designs cannot be changed to make them effective.

So how do we redesign the current antiquated education system?

My view of education has always been for the purpose of getting a better job. I also felt that 12 years of grade school was too long for the purpose of getting a comprehensive education.

The last two years of high school, grades 11 and 12 should be geared to going to further education, or to join the work force.

This is a very technical era, and even auto mechanics need to be skilled in technology. My point is that the times have changed, but the education system is still rooted in the past.

I also believe that for technology much more can be learned at work, than in the classroom. The options in the technology field are too numerous to cover in academia. A good school work program with companies can be synergistic to both of them.

The problem today is that our schools are pseudo babysitters, and free meals. This is more a parent function than an education function.

Just a thought.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You said "The people will never be satisfied because congress is incapable of moving the country forward. It has historically on moved the country from side to side. Much like a drunk trying to run in place." - Assuming you agree we have moved forward from 1776 to 1980 (I think we have been moving backward since then), if Congress and the President wasn't the implementor with the necessary laws, who was?

BTW, 1st results appear above.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

By this "The problem today is that our schools are pseudo babysitters, and free meals. This is more a parent function than an education function." to which I agree, but are you suggesting it is better to let the kids starve while a solution is found? The school is the most efficient method of getting nutrition to these kids; assuming they are made to feed them wholesome food.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Sorry, the post-mortem is at http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/The-144th-Congr... the one on the House elections.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

You said "The people will never be satisfied because congress is incapable of moving the country forward. It has historically on moved the country from side to side. Much like a drunk trying to run in place." - Assuming you agree we have moved forward from 1776 to 1980 (I think we have been moving backward since then), if Congress and the President wasn't the implementor with the necessary laws, who was?

bm:

Actually, the country stopped moving forward in the 1970s, when the government lied about the two oil shortages, and then did nothing to rescue us from OPEC.

I don't understand the implementor or what it relates to here.

----------


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

By this "The problem today is that our schools are pseudo babysitters, and free meals. This is more a parent function than an education function." to which I agree, but are you suggesting it is better to let the kids starve while a solution is found? The school is the most efficient method of getting nutrition to these kids; assuming they are made to feed them wholesome food.

bm:

The best way to handle nutrition for the children is in the home, and if the home is the problem, then work on its solution. The government needs to allow people to become self sufficient instead of treating adults like children.

As for the solution for education, as I have stated a new paradigm needs to replace the Greek originated current system. Technology has made education more than just the 3 Rs.

The usefulness of college is also tenuous as a necessary bridge to getting a good job. And the current system only uses a college degree as a filter for sifting through the thousands of candidates to hire.

The quality of a college education is poor today, and there needs to be a split in goals. The comprehensive education should stop at the end of high school. Non technical degrees should be limited to people that want to teach, as that is the only valid use for these degrees in the world of today. With the exception of curriculums that can be used in world problems, like learning languages, religions, and other social issues. However, these tools can be learned outside of college, as they have been taught by various federal government agencies since WWII.

Today, the students need to be able to use education to get the skills and experience to compete in a very small job arena where the pay scales are high enough to afford to at least be in the middle class, before it disappears.

Every student needs to be able to work the new technological devices regardless of whether it will be necessary for their employment, but most likely it will be required.

Basically, the education paradigm today is stuck on ancient, and there needs to be a new paradigm for the 21st Century and beyond.

---------


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

I forgot to include the period from 1913 until WWII. This was the period that started the empirical rise of the Federal Government, where today it has engorged itself with most of the duties of the states.

The closest that the US came to prosperity was in the 1950s and 60s. Then it started its slow but steady decline, and continuing today increasing its rate of decline.

Your concern about the school children having to be government fed is an example of that decline.

WWI was our first example of how to militarily win a battle but lose the war. It was a lesson that went unheeded for WWII, and the undeclared wars since then.

The rise and scope of the Income Tax System is another backward action for the country. The main purpose of this tax was to increase the size and scope of the federal government. This is still an insatiable quest by both parties, but more so of the left.

The invisible goal of the Income Tax and the use of the SS number is for tracking people, and invading their privacy. While the Roe v Wade SC case of the 70s was decided based on privacy, today we are no longer afforded the full protection of the 4th Amendment.

The probable cause of search warrants has been minimized to almost non existence. Take some high profile criminal cases in Los Angeles, like the Michael Jackson case. There the police took almost one thousand items under the warrant, yet none if any of them showed any relation to the crimes they were alleging against Jackson. This is common today, and it is akin to a fishing expedition.

The prosperity of the 50s broke the steady decline of the US, but this was the result of WWII, not any real impact from actions of government.

The federal government has failed to keep up the resources for the exploding US population. And if there is any truth to the global warming then it rests on the heads of the federal government for not doing anything to prevent it after the oil shortages of the 70s.

Just think what over three decades of R&D on alternative energy could have done to improve the energy demands, and pollution.

It was the advent of the computer and its Moore's Law increases that have been misused by the government, mostly by the political parties to send messages to the locals that are customized for them alone. This is misleading, if not wrong. as they cannot really support these variants made throughout the country.

The use of Television and the Internet has negatively impacted the voting process. It makes voters in areas that especially in the West Coast feel that their vote is no longer important, as projections show their Federal Candidate is not going to win.

There are numerous examples.

Losing the right of way for thousands of miles of RR tracks sounded like a good idea fifty years ago, but they could have been very useful today.

Rail is the number one source of transportation for goods across the country.

The Interstate Highway System created by president Eisenhower hasn't kept up with the exploding population.

Neither have the Dams, Electrical Grid, or Refineries (which wouldn't be needed if we had developed alternative energy decades ago)

Today, the biggest and fastest growing Industry is Healthcare, while the US defense, and Military are wavering with no real direction apparently as a goal. People don't have any idea on how pathetic the US defense was for 911. Many people think that it was a fluke and nothing could have prevented it from happening. But, the truth is that it was the failure of the president, and those before him to ensure that we had a viable defense system post Cold War.

There is no excuse for the Capital to be without adequate military defenses. One has to wonder what the second Capital target would have been if the plane had not gone done.

It seems to me that the Pentagon building was not a worthwhile target to send a real message to the US. One has to believe that the WH was the other intended target. And the Capital Building should have been in place of the Pentagon. The structure of the Pentagon Building doesn't lend itself to any extensive damage compare to these other two.

My point is why is the federal government becoming such a behemoth when it fails to even protect itself?

The 16th Amendment was not in and of itself the mechanism of one path of federal government decline, but that decline is the result of how congress implemented it through the Internal Revenue Code.

That is the reason that we have income inequity today, and we continue to make it worse everyday.

Just some thoughts.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

my fourth comment

You wrote

one on the House elections.

bm:

This link said that that hub is no longer

comment 5

I just read an article on the Internet

One of the main creators of President Barack Obama's "signature legislation," the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACU) Obamacare, admitted to colleagues at (MIT) that Obama and he lied to the American people. Dr. Jonathan Gruber, who appeared on national television selling Obamacare to Americans conceded that in order to gain support for a government takeover of healthcare insurance and distribution it was necessary to avoid transparency, according to officials with a public-interest group who discovered the YouTube video of that professor's comments and released it on Monday.


bradmasterOC 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Looking at your recent hubs and how far behind you are in the comments, it would seem a new hub updating the current events of the election would be in order.

I would write one, but I don't have hubber status, and can't get one.

Just a thought.

bradmasterOC


Shyron E Shenko profile image

Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago

My Esoteric, This is a great hub and it is saved to favorites as I said 9 months.

Voted up ++++ and shared.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks Shyron, I appreciate that.

@Brandmaster, already in the process although it is not a new hub, but an update to the House version of this Hub. It is at http://hubpages.com/politics/The-144th-Congress-It...


Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 2 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

The amount of work that went into this hub is overwhelming. HP is enriched by writers who make this kind of effort - the few of you! Only wish the young and minorities had turned out to vote in numbers that would have made a difference. But the pendulum swings, as it always does. I'll keep an eye on your predictions going toward 2016!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working