Not free, not fair: The folly of ‘finding meaning’ in the 2014 midterms

[HomerRamone]

http://essentialopinion.wordpress.com/2014/11/11/not-free-not-fair-the-folly-of-finding-meaning-in-the-2014-midterms/

While the pundits continue to debate what the Democrats did wrong – from failures in messaging to a breakdown in the party’s “ground game” – few would be willing to acknowledge that the problem may lie within the electoral framework itself, not only regarding the undemocratic influences of big money, gerrymandering and voter suppression, but also the very nature of the two-party system and its lack of genuine options for an electorate fed up, perhaps, with politics as usual.

The numbers of Americans identifying as “independents” are at record highs – far surpassing the numbers who are registered as Democrats or Republicans – but in many states, American voters were deprived of their right to hear from all ballot-qualified candidates due to media bias against “third parties.”...

So, for any number of reasons, it is clear that the 2014 midterms – and U.S. elections in general – are neither free nor fair, and therefore, the efforts among the pundit class to attach some “meaning” or “message” regarding the Democrats’ defeat are either disingenuous or ill-informed. One thing that should be taken as a truism is that they certainly offer the Republicans no “mandate” to carry out a reactionary, right-wing agenda, and that President Obama is under no obligation to compromise with such an agenda.

Further, it is key that the United States get serious about electoral reform so that future elections offer a genuine opportunity to change the governance of the country and provide meaningful input on the direction that the nation should take, which of course is what elections should be all about.

[simak]

1. It would appear that the author is in denial.

We've been having midterm elections for a long time now. And while a few voting blocs don't turn out for midterms, we got particularly trounced this time.

This is not a problem with the two party model. It's a problem of too many voters (myself included) thinking that the Democrats have gone full-bore socialist.

That is not popular talk here. But in case you didn't notice, the talk that is most popular here just got its ass kicked by a party that ran on two things: "repeal Obamacare" and "we're not the Democrats".

[malokvale77]

2. BS

Who do you think you are fooling.

[simak]

4. I'm not trying to fool anybody.

Maybe you should wake up. I was there on election day, and there wasn't even a Democrat on my ballot. I guess the party has just written off my district. They used to run here; they don't anymore. I'm not the one who changed.

[malokvale77]

5. What?

I apologize if I mistook your post. I've been bitching about the lack of Democratic challengers for over a decade.

It seems we agree on some things. The party is faltering.

My BS comment was for your dumping on the left.

[simak]

6. The reason there are no Dem challengers in my district

is because the party would rather run so far to the left that they couldn't win here. That's a recent change.

If the party continues to govern in the current direction it will never win another midterm, and it will win its presidencies only by turning out the youth vote.

[malokvale77]

10. I take it back

It seems we don't agree on anything.

[simak]

11. I'm a Democrat. I never said I'm liberal. I'm way more libertarian than that.

[malokvale77]

13. Good luck with that on DU.

Libertarian tends to be a dirty word here.

[HomerRamone]

7. You think the Democrats have gone full bore socialist?

Do you know what the term means? Do any of the voters who might say that but actually want more collectivist policies as long as you don't call them that (like the Affordable Care Act as opposed to Obamacare)?

[Odin2005]

8. As an ACTUAL Socialist, calling the Dems "socialist" is laughable.

Unless you are a Bircher who thinks Ike was a Communist sympathzier.

[malokvale77]

14. He/she is libertarian.

See the reply to me above.

[Kali]

9. you think we have gone socialist?

really?

[Yo_Mama]

3. But post-election polling seems to show that the country as a whole agrees with the election results

I've seen post-election polls that show Democratic support low, I think 17% more Americans wanting the GOP Congress to set the agenda, etc.

I just glanced at this this morning, but it seems to show that the election results do mean something about popular sentiment at this time. Now popular sentiment can shift quickly!

But I think we'd be better off finding out what people are really thinking and perceiving and addressing that, rather than claiming that this election is just an aberrant mistake.

Note: Gallup post-election:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179339/majority-gop-congress-set-nation-course.aspx
Pew post-election:
http://www.people-press.org/2014/11/12/little-enthusiasm-familiar-divisions-after-the-gops-big-midterm-victory/

It's clear that no one is too optimistic (including those who voted for Republicans) about the results. So there should be good opportunities for Dems.

And Independents voted skewed toward Republicans this cycle, which is the only reason we lost.

[sendero]

12. Ah horseshit

More and more excuses to minimize the culpability of a party that stands for nothing.

100% pure D bullshit excuses.