When The Polls Fail

By: Alison McEnearney

Mark Warner appeared to have everything going for him heading into the midterm election: he was an incumbent facing a relatively unknown opponent, he had out-fundraised and outspent his opponent, and he was favored to win by a significant margin across all polls.

So it must have come as a huge surprise to him on Election Night when he found himself behind his opponent Ed Gillespie for several hours as more and more precincts reported their results. Warner managed to barely scrape by Gillespie in the end to reclaim his Senate seat, but one question still lingers: How could the polls have miscalculated voter sentiment so drastically?

Polling is a complicated process, and the results should never be viewed as definitive. Still, there is an expectation that they should accurately capture the result more often than not, at least within some margin of error. But the Virginia Senate race seems to have confounded pollsters across the board. Most polls had Warner up by double digits in the weeks leading up to Election Day. One survey in the week before November 4^th, conducted by Christopher Newport University, did show that Gillespie was closing the gap between himself and Warner, but even this one still had Warner ahead of Gillespie by a comfortable 7%.

Lessons learned: Kentucky Senate

In the past, I have written for the high school newspaper and for my academic classes, but I had never had to keep up with a blog. It was fun to look around sites like Politico, CNN, RCP, and the local newspapers of Kentucky to see what the political story of the day was. Choosing a topic was an intense process for me. The longer I took to choose a topic the more stressful I became, after a while I found that it was good to write about certain niches like advertising, polling, debates, issues, the campaign message/theme and more.

The first thing I learned by covering this race is that all politics are local. McConnell had interesting ads that featured him with Kentucky Fishermen and Grimes even made fun of McConnell for when he thought Kentucky basketball won the national championship when it was actually Duke. The biggest local issue in this race was Kentucky Coal, which also led to the issue of the economy as a whole. McConnell was great at tying the sour economy to Obama. He made the national concern of Obama’s policies the local concerns of Kentuckians.

The second thing I learned is that experience can pay off, even if it is an unpopular candidate. Alison Grimes was half the age of Mitch McConnell when she ran for Kentucky Senate. Even I saw her as someone who could bring a new face to Kentucky politics and maybe bring down McConnell, who had approval ratings in the 30s. I quickly learned that McConnell’s connections in Kentucky and around the country helped pay dividends in November. He used quotes from newspapers and cable news pundits that talked about the positive things he did in DC, which helped the voters gain confidence in him over Grimes.

The last thing I learned is that political waves are rapid and can be unpredictable. The final RCP average had McConnell up by 9 points, but he ended up winning by 15. There were other Senate Governors races around the country that were projected to be close, but heavily ended up going the way of the GOP. I was surprised to see Maryland and Illinois receive a GOP governer, Thom Thillis winning in NC and Pat Roberts crushing Greg Orman when the pundits thought it was neck and neck. Presidents always do badly in the second midterm election of their tenure, but Obama has left the Democratic Party “hollow”. I will also add that voter attitudes can change very fast at the end of an election. Many voters don’t pay attention till the final weeks, which is why I think Ed Gillespie almost pulled of a win in VA. Finally, voter turnout was down this midterm cycle and with the approval of both parties and the federal government at all time lows, we could see a grim 2016.

Expen$ive Vote$

By: Daniel Martinez

In today’s day and age it is hard to get voter attention. Not many people go and personally watch these candidates speak live in front of people throughout their campaigns. That means the campaign’s job is to then target the voters that aren’t involved. This includes anything from pickkett signs to expensive television ads. Money doesn’t grow on trees, but if you kept up with this years senate election you might think otherwise.

According to Realclearpolicy.com, totaling more than $111,000,000.00, the 2014 North Carolina Senate contest between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis is the most expensive Senate election in the nation’s history. It cost them $16.25 per voter. Colorado wasn’t that far behind totaling a whooping 97,100,000.00 and each voter cost them $27.40.

Campaign spending is more complex than just throwing money at television ads. The money from campaigns must be used strategically to help the candidate get his name out their with the issues he/she stands for. A good amount of the money does indeed go to television ads, especially attack ads. It has been proven that people respond better to an attack ad than a positive ad of the candidate.

The most expensive cost per voter was Alaska, with an incredible $120.59. This was more than double the cost for the second most expensive cost per voter, New Hampshire with $50 per vote. This was due to the fact that Alaska’s saw high competitive spending between outside support groups and the candidates themselves. All in all, outside group and candidate spending totaled just over a billion dollars in Senate races in 2014.

What’s Next for The United States?

Embed from Getty Images

By Callahan Kilgore

Republicans have taken over the Senate and the House. What does this mean for the future of the United States?

Compromise. With Republicans in control of the House and the Senate, compromises will have to be made between the two parties. In what many are calling a mandate against Democratic policies, Republicans are under the watchful public eye and expected to pass through legislation and end the recent gridlock. This means legislation is going to need to be more moderate if Republicans want to keep public support for the 2016 midterms.

Republican Senator John Barrasso met with President Obama and other Senate leaders to discuss the future relationship between the President and Congress.

In an interview with Fox News, Barrasso says Obama is responsible for future relations with Congress. “Well, I believe it will hurt cooperation on every issue, Chris. What the President does over the next two months is really going to set the tone for the next two years in Washington”

Barrasso is referring to Obama signing Executive Orders on Immigration when he says it will “hurt cooperation”. An action that the President says he’s willing to take if he can’t get reform passed in a  Republican senate .

Another sensitive subject between Republicans and Obama is the confirmation of Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Republicans want Obama to wait until January to begin the confirmation process, rather than trying to confirm Lynch before Congress is in the hands of Republicans.

Only time will tell how relations between Obama and Congress will progress. However Barrasso’s response to his meeting with the President wasn’t exactly promising.

“ As the President said, his policies were on the ballot each and every one of them. We have now elected I think we will end up with nine new Republican senators, his policies have been rejected by the voters, and not just because they’re unpopular, because they don’t work.”

Lesson Learned From Thom Tillis

After the elections, there are many lessons that I learned from North Carolina midterm election. Before going into election, I actually predicted Kay Hagan expected to win versus Thom Tillis in my personal opinion, however Thom Tillis defeated Kay Hagan on Tuesday in Senate races.

Thorough out the campaign, North Carolina invested a lot of funds in advertising which includes expensive television topography, with several media markets and making it the first general election Senate race to pass the $100 million mark.

Moreover, the race was the most expensive in the country, especially in Hagan’s campaign. She spent $22 million, more than Tillis’ $8 million. Also, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, outside group spended more money than in any other Senate race before. Outside spending for Hagan was total amount of $43 million, compared to $38 million in favor of Tillis.

Tillis led a GOP to cut funding for substance abuse treatment centers by 12 percent in the past. Also, he cut unemployment benefits for 170,000 North Carolinians and eliminated the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit.

It was very interesting for me to see competitive midterm election and learned about how each candidate use their strategy to win their race. Coming from different county, I never watched midterm election in United States and did not have knowledge of process of midterm elections before.

After I watch midterm election of North Carolina, the most important thing I take away would be the bigger amount of fundraising money is not always lead to win the race, rather it is more important how candidate use their strategy effectively.

Reducing student loan rates?

In North Carolina, students are borrowing loans to pay for college like any other states. While many students are investing their time and money for better future in the long run, interest rates on undergraduate subsidized federal Stafford loans doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8 on July 1^st. It affects North Carolina students are now have extra $1,000 a year in their student loans amounts.

Hagan supports a bipartisan compromise to help the interest rates on student loans stay low in the coming years. So what is a bipartisan legislation? It basically ties undergraduate subsidized Stafford Loans to the rate of a 10-year Treasury note. In the past 2013, the rate was 3.86 percent as opposed the 6.8 percent now.

Hagan states that she will keep support this bipartisan bill to help millions of students in debt and she truly believes young people are the future of North Carolina’s economy. Since she is a member of the Senate Committee on Education, her top priorities has been increasing to higher education.

And as a college student myself, I am pleased to read this news article and hope to see House of Representatives to pass this bill near future.

Mitt Romney Endorses Thom Tillis For US Senate

Mitt Romney who was a former Massachusetts Governor endorsed Thom Tillis, conservative candidate for the United States Senate and current North Carolina House Speaker.

Romney said that “I am proud to support Thom Tillis for US Senate. Now more than ever, Americans need problem-solvers in Washington, DC. Thom is a conservative who has been solving problems in North Carolina as Speaker of the House and I am confident he will do the same in Washington…”

Tillis made a statement that he is very pleased and considered a privilege to have earned the endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney served the Massachusetts from 2003-2007. In addition, he was the Republican Nominee for President of the United States in 2012.

Hagan vs. Tillis

Sen. Kay Hagan gave a speech in Greenville, North Carolina to African-American audience on Wednesday, October 29.

She urged audience to get out and vote early in her election to showdown Thom Tillis.

She strongly said that “I will never back down,” She continued, “I can only win this election with your help”.

She urged people to take family and friends to the polls.

As of today, Hagan has 44.8% polling rate and Tillis has 43.9% which shows very tied race.

Before closing the speech, Hagan made a firm statement saying “Let’s show my opponent just how wrong he is”.

Approaching close midterm election as of today, it will be very interesting to see how their poling rates will be turn out, especially both candidates have very competitive polling rates.

Ed Gillespie Officially Concedes VA Senate Race

By: Alison McEnearney

One of the most unpredictable races of the 2014 midterm elections has officially come to an end. After maintaining a solid lead in the returns for most of election night, Ed Gillespie watched as his potential victory moved just out of reach when Mark Warner crept ahead.

Though many pundits hesitated to make an official projection of the results, Warner did not hesitate to claim victory late Tuesday night. Gillespie remained firm, however, refusing to concede until the Virginia Board of Elections confirmed the results. Gillespie finished just 16,000 votes behind Warner, making this race one of the closest of 2014.

In a statement on Friday, Gillespie congratulated Warner on his re-election, and thanked all of his supporters for their help. Though the margin is close enough that Gillespie could initiate a recount, he will not do so, saying that “It would be wrong to put my fellow Virginians through a recount, when in my head and in my heart I know that changing the outcome is not possible.”

What does this mean for Virginia politics?

Warner should take this victory with a grain of salt. He benefitted from his incumbent status and name recognition, but this might not be enough to get him through the next election cycle if he chooses to run for re-election.

Clearly, the landscape in this purple state is changing. Counties in the southern and western parts of Virginia that were blue in 2008, when Warner was first elected, are now red. Even parts of Northern Virginia, the Democratic stronghold in the state, went red this cycle. This is not a good sign for Warner.

Some Virginia Democrats have expressed their concern that Warner’s campaign was based on outdated strategies that he used in his 2001 race for Virginia Governor. During that race, he focused on courting the rural areas of Southern Virginia, and he was largely successful. But in this current political climate, many feel that he made a mistake in continuing to spend so much time campaigning in those areas.

Virginia is becoming a state where the voter base matters, and Warner may have erred in not paying enough attention to his own base. Rather than wasting time and resources on the more conservative parts of the state, he should have been making direct appeals to urban centers and African American voters.

The lesson to be learned here is not to take the voter base for granted. In places like Loudon County, more and more voters are distancing themselves from either party and becoming increasingly independent in an area that Warner has counted on for support in the past. These are exactly the kinds of voters that will matter in future elections. Any candidate who ignores them does so at their own peril.

It is difficult to predict which way Virginia will lean in the future. Where it was once considered a traditionally conservative state in the past, Virginia is now a thoroughly purple swing state, thanks to the largely liberal areas of Northern Virginia just outside of Washington D.C. If Northern Virginia were to ever go red, the entire state would as well.

One thing that can be said for certain after this race is that this loss does not spell the end for Ed Gillespie. His surprisingly strong showing impressed many in the GOP, and he would enjoy high levels of support from the party should he choose to run for office again. After working behind the scenes for so long, Ed Gillespie is now poised to become a prominent face for the Republican Party in the future.

Lessons Taken Away From the FL Gov Election

Embed from Getty Images

By Jessica McMahan

A week after the midterm election that reelected Rick Scott as governor, many lessons can be drawn from the campaign.

Going into the election, I predicted that the Democrat candidate Charlie Crist would take his governor’s position back due to Scott’s overly negative campaign. Scott spent millions and millions on an absurd amount of TV ad spots, all for negative ads. I thought that the Florida voters would have been weary over Scott’s campaign and throw their support for Crist.

But I forgot just how effective attack ads can be. One of Scott’s most common type of attack ad was talking about Crist changing parties, from Republican, to Independent, and most recently to Democrat. Scott was very smart to attack this part of Crist. The public does not usually like a flip flopper on issues; Scott loved to point out that Crist used to be against everything he currently stands for. That makes the public think and eventually mistrust. Add the fact that voters saw thees ads hundreds of times, you can see how they could be effective in turning voters against Crist.

I also thought that the debate’s were effective in showing Scott’s inability to relate to the normal voters when it came to wealth and issues. But the debate’s were ultimately not about issues and topics pertinent to Florida voters, rather attacking each other personally and most likely did not sway anyone to either side.

Also a trend I already knew about but was evident for this mid term election result: Libertarians take away votes from Democrats. Adrain Wyllie (L) took home 3 percent of the vote. Polls show that if not for Wyllie in the picture, the voters would have tipped their support to Crist.

The best lesson I learned from watching this election and staying up to date on the campaign movements is that when the public dislikes both the candidates, they resort to picking the lesser of two evils. And Scott was their choice (barely).

The Florida race was an interesting race to watch during this mid term year. The race involved a close race, millions of funds raised and one of the most negative and expensive campaigns in history. Only time will tell if this will become the normal campaign waged in the Sunshine State.