David Jolly (Republican) wins upset in Florida

no, it was held by a democrat

 

... and have had it for 30 years.

 

From the most recent edition of Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:

 

Well, perhaps because--as noted in post #19 in this thread--"the former incumbent--Bill Young--had held the seat for the past 42 years"; and it is incredibly difficult to defeat an incumbent congressperson running for re-election

Also--again, as noted in that same post--Barack Obama had carried that district in both 2008 and 2012. And it appears to be trending Democratic, due to some subtle changes in demographics.

Regardless of what happens in FL-13 in November--and that remains quite uncertain--to assert that the Democrats are likely to retake control of the House this fall is, well, downright ludicrous. In the sixth years of any president's incumbency, the party in power in the White House almost always fares poorly in the midterm elections. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that this year will be an anomaly. (Which is precisely why the DNC has largely abandoned any hope of retaking the House--or even making significant gains there--and is forcusing, instead, upon holding onto the Senate.)

If you believe differently, you might want to consult some serious political analysts (e.g. Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, or Larry Sabato), rather than merely regurgitating the latest left-of-center spin...

 

And a 42 year GOP lock on the district is a formidable one to overcome.

Thus, a 15 point margin of victory in 2012 dwindles to less that 2 in 2014.

As I have consistently maintained. Given the demographics and the enduring record-low public approval of Congressional Republicans, despite the very successful gerrymandering of districts that allowed them to maintain House control in 2012 even as Democratic House candidates received more votes nationally, I expect that 2014 will be the wacko birds' swan song. I would not be surprised if Turtle McConnell even finds himself majority leader for 2014-2016 if he can cling to power in Kentucky.

2016 will likely be a bad year for the GOP, and, after that, they'll pursue votes where they are to be found - back near the centre - by espousing moderate policies again.

 

If the dem had beat the repub then the dems would be calling this a big win and the repubs would be saying no big deal.If anyone thanks that most political cockroaches care about the people there so blind.

 

Some pollster thought she had a shot anyway. Lotta pollsters thought Mitt had a shot, too.

 

It's an upset because the entire Donk and pony show was displayed to save the seat for Sink, including the press. With big bucks attached.

Look who's Jolly now...

 

Yes ESPECIALLY for the Democrats. That already have encumbents threatened they need to win every open seat.

I know exactly who you are I'm a neighbor.

And this has scared them. Thus this new absurd OT thing he is pushing "Vote for me and I will make you boss pay you more" not realizing most people who make it to where they earn a salary WANT to earn a salary and NOT work on the clock. Nor the upheaval it will cause.

 

The money the candidate spends directly is far more effective, it is what they use for ALL their campaign activity and they have to RAISE that money which is indicitive of their supposed strength. Sink out raised and out spent Jolley, by a wide margin 3-4 times as much, THAT is the key number.

You better accept the fact that this is rude awakening for the Democrats, they have the most up for grabs and they are losing incumbent seats which are hard to lose, they need every open seat they can get. The fact that this WAS a referendum of the Democrats strategy to save themselves from Obamacare and they lost only scares them more as Obama goes headstrong with the implementation and refuses to face the facts.

 

Yes history proves it is VERY hard to beat an incumbent. No matter what party.

And that is what scares the Dems so much. They are looking at losing incumbent seats quite a few because of Obamacare. They desperately need EVERY open seat as this one was. They lost throwing in everything they had.

 

Whatever.

Whatever.

The entire election process is owned and operated by non-citizen non-voting organizations thanks to Citizens United. Both Sink and Jolly didn't utter a word or campaign for the last three days leading up to the special election. Jolly is nothing more than a bagman lobbyist. He was the problem and now he's in office to perpetuate the problem. He didn't run against Sink, he ran against Obama and Obama wasn't even on the ballot. That speaks volumes as to what Republicans are about which is nothing.

 

and your demofarts want to control you cradle to grave....... socialists...they never take a lesson from history.

 

Whatever, this has scared the Dems.

So those groups are made up of robots or something?

And Sink ran on Obama and fixing Obamacare and the weak Republican candidate beat her, that's the point.

 

Whereas it is still too far out to make any predictions as regarding 2016 with any air of authority, I am guessing that it will be a challenging year for the Democrats. (Full disclosure: I am a Republican; so anyone who wishes to take my views with a grain of salt may certainly feel free to do so.)

The reason I say that is this: Historically, it has proven very difficult for either major party to win the trifecta. I was born in 1948; and only once within my lifetime--in 1980, 1984, and 1988--has the same party won the White House three consecutive times. (On the other hand, one-and-done is equally rare. That, too, has happened only once within my lifetime: in 1976, when Jimmy Carter was the victor.)

If Hillary decides to run on the Democratic side, the nomination is probably hers for the asking; any challenge from the hard left is likely to be rebuffed fairly easily. And she could very well prove to be a formidable candidate.

Still, I would expect the GOP to win, unless it should nominate an ideological purist who simply cannot capture many independents' votes. And that is probably unlikely.

 

Besides Carter, were not John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and George H W Bush each only elected to a single term (and Jerry Ford not even one)?

I believe that the American electorate remains centrist, and I believe that the GOP has lurched too far rightward in recent years. If it can scramble back to where the votes are to be found, they'll be more competitive, but, given their dearth of viable candidates for '16, I can't see them managing to do so in time.

If they capture the Senate as well as the House in '14, with their 22% approval/72% disapproval, it's difficult to see some now-obscure popular presidential candidate transcending that Party affiliation.

If precedents were immutable, America would never have elected a non-White president once, let alone twice.

The changing demographics that made that possible (with a big assist from Bush/Cheney) continue to change, causing a concerned Republican senator to observe the reality:

 

Although I expect 2014 to be a good year for Republicans, I think 2016 is another matter, regardless of the situation with health care or the economy. As a general rule, these off year elections attract people who are more or less informed and engaged in the process. The Presidential years pique the interest of the general public and as we saw in 2012, several normal rules were broken: Independents didn't carry the day and unemployment made no difference.The Democrats have a good ground game and can get out the vote. Republicans don't have anything comparable. But the big advantage is that the Dems own the media. They'll bark when the dems tell them to, so it's really hard to beat that kind of combination. Real world events are mattering less and less when you have the equivalent of the DNC running the news rooms of every major paper and TV News station in the country.

 

No this was a big loss to the progs.

Sink was supposed to win easily. This was supposed to be a slam-dunk for her, a big time lib with deep pockets and deep relationships with progs and big business, running against a weak Repub who was a DC lobbyist (!) and had to go through an expensive primary, and with a third party candidate (libertarian) to siphon off conservative voters.

Sink lives in District 11 (Hillsborough) not District 13. Last December (just before the deadline, and when it looked like she was a certain win) she rented a condo in District 13 so she would be eligible.

This was a big, big loss for the "progressives".

 

Really? What objective source predicted such a thing? Surely, no rational person expected Sink to pull off a Romney Landslide!

I always though it would be to close to call and come down to turn out, and Democrats traditionally vote in greater numbers in presidential years.

Of course, Democrats had hoped to grab a seat in a special election that had been Republican for so many decades, and they'll have to find solace in a margin of victory of 15% last time being reduced to less than 2%, and hope the trend continues until the next shot at it in November,

 

here is what MSNBC Chuck Todd tweeted on 26 Feb 2014 at 6:47 a.m.: [MENTION=53083]Chuck[/MENTION]todd on FL special election, 'If Democrats can't win a seat like this, then they can't win seats, period.'

The polls and predictions backed up Todd:
http://polls.saintleo.edu/new-poll-sink-leads-jolly-46-37-in-fl-13-special-election/

You can play the idiotic game of "she lost but it was really a win because the margin of the loss was lower than expected" (just like Wasserman is saying), but you cannot change the fact that Sink was expected to win and when she did not it was a big upset.

 

A single tweet from one guy who works for a left-leaning television network and one poll from some obscure pollster = "Sink was supposed to win easily. This was supposed to be a slam-dunk for her, a big time lib"

Laughable.

I agreed with most reputable sources that predicted it would be close, and less than 2% was clearly close.

 

My exact words were as follows:

George H.W. Bush was a part of the single trifecta that has occurred during my lifetime (1980, 1984, and 198.

JFK and LBJ, on the other hand, together comprised the typical scenario: the same party's winning the White House exactly two consecutive times (in 1960 and 1964, in their case).

 

That, I believe, is a reasoned analysis; and I certainly agree that the electronic news media (with the single exception of FNC) lean leftward, as do the major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

It is also true that the GOP tends to fare better during midterm elections, when the voter turnout is lower; which is to say, when there are fewer low-information voters (who tend to favor the Democratic Party).

And it is also true that 2012 saw the breaking of some (previously ironclad) rules; foremost among these, I think, being that most undecideds break against the incumbent; therefore, an incumbent with less than a 50 percent approval rating is in serious trouble.

Still, I would tend to favor the GOP in 2016, for the reason previously stated.

But my opinion plus 50 cents will get you a newspaper; so it is probably best to wait another 32 months (yes, the election is still that far away!), and see what happens.

 

My misunderstanding. I was addressing your "one-and-done is equally rare. That, too, has happened only once within my lifetime: in 1976, when Jimmy Carter was the victor" as to presidents elected to one term rather than party continuity.

In any event, I would expect the demographic trend to trump such historical patterns. The GOP, despite "outreach" gestures, espouses too many unpopular positions - re: comprehensive immigration reform, gender equality in marriage law, universal gun purchase background checks, minimum wage increase, etc. - and is unlikely be able to move sufficiently to the centre before 2016. If the nation experiences two years of McConnell and Boehner running Congress, it will only make it harder for a popular Republican candidate to emerge and challenge Clinton. How can a candidate escape such an association and disavow his party's legislative record? Who is there that could try?

If they continue to merely mewl about the President and kvetch about the Affordable Care Act without being able to articulate a superior proposal that retains its popular provisions, where will that put them? A candidate needs to run on something, not just against. McConnell's stated priority - denying a popularly elected president a second term - was demonstrably not a big hit with the American people.

"We'll let the health insurance cartel revoke coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions. We'll let them cap your benefits and let providers seize your property for the excess. We'll give them license to drop your otherwise uninsured kids up to age 26 from your family's plan. We'll put all those folks and millions of others back on the public dole for their health care."

No, I don't think Americans will rally to that.

 

The portion of the ACA that allows adult children (no, that is not an oxymoron) to stay on their respective parents' plans until age 26 is, indeed, fairly popular; although it is probably not a matter of such intensity as to swing many votes one way or the other.

And most Americans, I think--myself included--believe that citizens should not automatically be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. After all, this is not always--or even usually--the result of questionable lifestyle decisions. One ought not be penalized severely for having had the bad fortune to be born with an infirmity, or having contracted a disease (later in life) from someone else. And I believe that most Republicans agree with this position.

I further agree that it is seldom enough to just be against something; that is certainly a good start, but one should also stand for something. (There are several Republican counter-proposals that have been offered; but it would be a very good idea for the GOP to coalesce around just one of these, and set it forth as the alternative to ObamaCare.) And this, I believe, is likely to happen.