How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms

[pstokely]

http://news.yahoo.com/how-hillary-clinton-won-the-2014-midterms-075943434.html

"

Let’s start with the map. Sure, the GOP won a remarkable number of races last night. But take another look. How many purple states did Republicans actually pick up? There was Cory Gardner’s victory in Colorado — more on that later. There was Joni Ernst’s victory in Iowa. And there was Thom Tillis’s victory in North Carolina. The rest of the GOP’s Senate flips (Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, West Virginia) and gubernatorial flips (Arkansas, Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts) were in states that won’t really be contested in 2016. The Democrats flipped the governorship of Pennsylvania as well.
The GOP’s relative underperformance in swing states is a problem going forward because the 2016 landscape is a lot less favorable for Republicans than the 2014 landscape was. Sixteen of this year’s 20 contested Senate seats were held by Democrats heading into the election — and six of those Democrats were from states that Obama lost in 2012. This gave Republicans a huge advantage. The map was already red.

But that map will be upended in 2016, when 23 of the 33 seats at stake will be held by Republicans. Six of them will be in states that Obama won in 2008 and 2012 (Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Wisconsin). Two will be in states Obama won in 2008 (Indiana, North Carolina). Two are held by senators who may be retiring (John McCain in Arizona, Chuck Grassley in Iowa). And two are held by senators who may be running for president, which means they can’t run for re-election (Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky)."

Can Rubio and Paul run in the Repuke primaries and then run for Senate elections if one (or both) isn't the nominee?

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. The very bad sign for Clinton, however, were the dismal outcomes for Democratic women candidates

Specifically, Grimes, Hagan, and (to a lesser extent) Davis. Granted, each of these women faced very tough odds in Red states during what was obviously a pro-GOP sentiment election. But the idea - and it's an idea that has attached itself to Clinton's campaign scenarios - that women will come out and vote for women seems to be less than solid. Even Sheehan faced a tight race in New Hampshire. So, yes, I agree with the OP by and large. This was going to be a tough sale election for Dems either way. But there's a bit of a downside for Clinton when she and her people analyze the election from a gender angle.

[Seeking Serenity]

2. And yet the Clinton brand couldn't save

any candidate in Bill's home state or ALG in KY. Hmmm.

[pipoman]

3. Geezuz christ on a pogo stick, this kind of lemons to lemonade

Bullshit is why Dems lose and why the reds are likely to win next '16.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Portman suits Ohio. Dems won't pick up his seat in 2016 unless they field a

damn good candidate, who has strong messaging and really believes in Dem principles. Basically, it would have to be another Sherrod Brown to oust Portman.

[GeorgeGist]

5. ffs

[hrmjustin]

6. This was not about the Clintons.

This does not tarnish them at all.

[earthside]

7. "The Clintons"

The message this debacle sends to me, however, is that center-right, risk averse, "let's be friends with big business/Republicans" and micro-targeting/pandering to narrow voter groups is a path to defeat.

Which means "the Clintons" are most decidedly not the answer to the Democrats presidential ambitions in 2016.

[hrmjustin]

8. Well that is what the primaries are for and candidates will make their case.

My point was the loss can not be pinned on them.