Election day has passed and the results are in. Only a year out from the 2016 general election these results could offer some signs of things to come and may affect some presidential candidates campaign strategies.
The Republican party had a major victory in Kentucky as Republican Matt Bevin was elected governor. He defeated Democrat Jack Conway by a margin of 53% to 44%. Central to Bevin’s campaign was the promise to dismantle the state’s successful Obamacare. This could spell disaster for President Obama’s signature initiative. One Republican consultant, Liz Mair, said that Bevin’s win is a sign that any attachment to the controversial program could be detrimental at the polls. However Bevin had already begun to soften his rhetoric about dismantling Obamacare towards the end of the campaign.
The Republican party also managed to keep control of the state Senate in Virginia and thus retaining its ability to stop the Democratic administration from continuing its political agenda. This Democratic agenda includes stricter gun-control laws which are a staple of Hillary Clinton’s presidential platform. Despite the Republican win, in Virginia’s 29th district the Democratic party did find victory. Here voters elected Democrat Jeremy McPike who was backed by $1.5 million in advertisements. Some of these advertisements include gun violence victims and their families. Everytown for Gun Safety (a new gun-control movement) president John Feinblatt said the win is "just the latest example of how candidates are paying the price for being out of step with Americans who demand that their leaders take action to prevent gun violence."
These are two major results from the election and show that the Republicans won the most notable contest of the year. They also won in Houston where voters decided ended an ordinance that had expanded nondiscrimination protections to LGBT people. However Democrats did win some smaller, but still significant victories through ballot initiatives. Democrats won in Seattle and Maine to boost initiative to raise public financing of elections. Plus, in Kentucky the attorney general position went to Democrat Andy Beshear who is major champion of Obamacare. How do you think that these results will affect the presidential campaign? Based on the Virginia elections do you think gun control will be a dead end for Democrats (especially Hillary Clinton)? Do you think that these elections are a good indication of what is to come in the general election?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/04/politics/election-results-president-2016/
6 comments:
With the large amount of Republican victories that have taken place, this may indicate that the American people may be leaning more towards voting for the Republican Party in the Presidential elections. This is a big blow to the Democratic Party and my impede some of their initiatives such as Obamacare and strengthening gun control laws. Obamacare, to many republicans and conservatives, is an unsuccessful establishment and healthcare should be regulated by state laws, not federal laws. With respect to gun control, there are those who believe strengthening the laws is an oppressive act from the central government, and others would go as far as to think that the Democratic party is tying to repeal the Second Amendment all together (which is another argument in itself). Are the results of the elections any of indication for the presidential elections? Probably, but only time will tell.
I believe that these results will have little affect on the presidential campaign as they are more minor elections that do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the general public. Local elections and state elections have a lower voter turnout and are not directly reflective of the view of the American people at this time. I disagree with Kyle that this is a big blow to the Democratic Party as in Kentucky the attorney general was elected as a Democrat who is a major supporter of Obamacare. It is almost impossible to say how these results will necessarily affect the presidential election. I do not believe that gun control will become a dead end for candidates because it has risen to the top of the political ladder as a major issue and create a division among party lines. Gun control and the issues associated with it, especially in areas where families have been personally affected by gun control it is unlikely to be so easily forgotten. The presidential campaign is far from over and how the voters will sway on issues of gun control and Obamacare is to be determined. Furthermore, there are multiple other pressing issues, such as foreign policy and financial policies, that are not seen as prominently in state elections as they are in presidential campaigns. Therefore these issues may certainly change the way the electorate votes. On the other hand, the Washington Post believes that these elections show more divided states. Overall, although these elections are an indicator of how some of the population views certain issues it is far from a definite way of predicting the results of the 2016 presidential election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/off-year-elections-reveal-a-2016-map-with-sharper-borders/2015/11/04/31b834a8-831a-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html
I agree with Gwen in that these votes are not representative of public opinion. Citizens are not completely serious about the candidates yet. The positions of the candidates are still changing. Just now CNN stated that Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee will join Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum in the undercard Republican presidential debate. After all, Trump is still in the game, and high in the polls, too. Once November 2016 approaches, citizens will start to realize who needs to be taken seriously. A Huffington Post chart showing the share who said they were following news about presidential candidates "very closely" in election cycles from 1988 through 2016 only spikes about 5 months before the election actually takes place. Both the Republicans and Democrats had significant victories signifying that the election will be very close. New issues will continue to arise and shape public opinion on the candidates such as Ohio’s voting down of legalizing marijuana and Houston’s rejection of LGBT rights.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/primary-polls-problems_55cb5b80e4b0f73b20bb3f02
http://www.cnn.com/politics
The push for gun control will not mean the end for the Democrats, considering that they have the support of a major portion of the American population. However, Americans who support gun control often believe it should be instituted in different manners, with some advocating a strict approach and others being in favor of more lenient measures. Thus, if a Democrat like Clinton does receive the nomination, she will have to move more to the right on gun control issues if she is to win the general election. A large portion of the American population owns guns (30-40%), and so it is critical to her campaign that Clinton does not vilify gun owners. However, most Americans (55%) are in support of more extensive gun purchase procedures, and so Clinton could potentially appeal to this portion of the American electorate.
I do not necessarily believe that these elections are good indications of what will occur on a national scale in 2016, but they may serve as accurate gauges of the political inclinations of various states. The election of a Republican governor in Kentucky who is very vocal in his opposition to Obamacare is a sign that Kentucky may very well prove to vote Republican in this coming election. However, more local elections such as Republican victories in Houston are not the best indicators, because these represent the interests of towns or counties, not states as a whole, which are what matter in a presidential election (though this example is probably not the best, since Texas is consistently a red state).
Sources:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
I agree with Gursimar that these results are unlikely to be a direct indicator of how the the Presidential Election will pan out next year. As Gwen stated, opinions of the candidates are constantly changing, therefore the approval rates of those who may lead in the polls now have potential to take a plunge within the next year. Recently, it was reviewed that Candidates Christie of New Jersey and Huckabee of Arkansas would not be participating in Tuesday nights Fox Business/Wall Street Debate because neither of them surpassed the 2.5% approval rate needed to participate. In all prior debates both had been allowed to participate on the main stage, however this demotion is just one example as to how opinions can change in just a short amount of time - what could change in a full year can be even more significant. Furthermore, Christie's eloquent response to being demoted, "It doesn't matter the stage, give me a podium and I'll be there to talk about real issues," may eventually sway more votes in his favor. Additionally, Christie bring up a good point in saying in this minor debate he will be talking about "real issues" because at past GOP debates there has been a problem with the questions and answers not actually being about policy. Therefore, it's possible that Christie and Huckabee will not only get more screen time, but potentially more opportunity to express their opinion of problems that actually matter, not just whether or not Trump resembles a cartoon.
Even so, if these local elections are an indicator that states such as Kentucky and Virginia were to vote Republican, this would not be much a surprise because the Republican Party as been dominate in these states for years. As to gun control, I think that within the next presidential election this dispute will have to be put to rest. It is likely that by the time of the elections next year, candidates, such as Clinton, will become more moderate on their opinions in order to gain more votes. Bevin subduing his stance on Obamacare by the end his campaign is but one example of how politicians try to appeal to the majority in order to be elected into office; proof that there is potential for something similar to happen with opinions on gun control by candidates running for the Presidential Election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/05/christie-huckabee-bumped-off-the-main-stage-for-fox-businesswsj-debate/
Although I agree with Gwen, that these elections are more minor and do not necessarily dictate the outcome of the presidential election, I still believe that they will have some baring. They do indicate the current mode of people. Many people are not currently happy with the Obama administration, and there is a significant amount of voters who vote depending on how the country is at the time. They will vote either republican or democrat based on if they like how the country is currently being run. Therefore, with the unhappiness that has followed the Obama administration it is only natural that we see some turn around. This was also seen when the election took place in 2014 and we gained a divided government as the Republicans took the majority. These small elections allude to a desire for change in the government, sweeping towards the Republican side. Especially the one in Texas which is a reversal of previous democratic legislation. Therefore I believe that despite these elections not having a large impact on the presidential election, they do indeed indicate that the general population is desirous of a change. Therefore, I believe that they could show a potential party change in the upcoming presidential election.
Post a Comment