When Josh Marshall refers to "the quality of the race [Hagan] ran," what exactly does he mean?

The endless negative ads that left even supporters weary?

The failure to veer from the DC playbook and take a stand on something other than "Kochs bad, er, War on Women!"?

The inability to tap into the very real dismay with Raleigh that has motivated many North Carolinians for two years?

Because those are the qualities I saw in the race she ran.

It's possible that Kay had almost no shot last night, given the way things broke across the country. But she damn sure wasn't winning with that campaign. 

I read TPM for outside-the-bubble thinking. This analysis I could get from network teevee.

Comments

[Hartzman]

I think the commercial with Kay and Obama pictures getting switched back and forth made a pretty big difference.

Hagan won Guilford County 60 40.

[Andrew Brod]

The urban-rural divide across the state is clear when you go here. You can zoom in as well and find your favorite precinct.

[Hartzman]

The winners were the media the donor money ended up with.

And the big donors.

I would think the two sides will easily compromise on the best interests of the interests who funded both sides simultaneously.

Japan will provide the funny money this go round.

Either way, the 1% won.

The most effective form of authoritarianism is what isn't labeled as such, and the subsidized population goes along with it.

The most powerful union in the country, the AMA, isn't called a union.

The world's most powerful empire goes by the "democracy" massage.

Athens debased to spend in excess with copper...

Here's to Dow 30,000 and gated communities.

[Alex]

The urban areas are home to blacks and college students. No surprise they are blue. Most of the suburban areas whose taxes are funneled into the urban areas are red. I don't think the urban voter is any more enlightened or sophisticated than the rural/suburban voter, they're just a different demographic.

[Fred Gregory]

"The inability to tap into the very real dismay with Raleigh that has motivated many North Carolinians for two years?"

What dismay ? You mean the Rev. Barber and his band of protestors ?

The GOP maitained a veto proof majority in the General Assembly.

So there.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Analyze this, Mr. Cone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i98QrSSHxo4

The county made a right turn back towards the center, that's all. Not rocket science.

P.S. George, the notion that the AMA is a "union" in any sense of the word is ludicrous.

Carry on as per usual . . .

[Hartzman]

union - noun

1. the action or fact of joining or being joined, especially in a political context.

synonyms: unification, uniting, joining, merging, merger, fusion, fusing, amalgamation, coalition, combination, synthesis, blend, blending, mingling

2. an organized association of workers formed to protect and further their rights and interests; a labor union.
.
.
ludicrous - adjective

so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous.

synonyms: absurd, ridiculous, farcical, laughable, risible, preposterous, foolish, mad, insane, idiotic, stupid, inane, silly, asinine, nonsensical;

informal "crazy"

"a ludicrous idea"
.
.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled
was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."

The Usual Suspects

[Roch]

Hagan and Fjeld deserved to lose for their lack of effort in making an affirmative argument. Instead of being tarred with vague insinuations about Obama's "bad policies," they should have cut to the chase, explained the benefit of the policies they supported and drawn a distinction on policy between them and their opponents.

For example, on Obamacare, which both Hagan and Fjeld neither rejected or defended, here is Paul Krugman. Hagan and Fjeld should have advanced this clear, concise explanation and asked the voters to decide: Do you want someone who supports these policies or someone who rejects them?

"To understand the issue, you need to understand the structure of health reform. The Affordable Care Act tries to establish more-or-less universal coverage through a “three-legged stool” of policies, all of which are needed to make the system work. First, insurance companies are no longer allowed to discriminate against Americans based on their medical history, so that they can’t deny coverage or impose exorbitant premiums on people with pre-existing conditions. Second, everyone is required to buy insurance, to ensure that the healthy don’t wait until they get sick to join up. Finally, there are subsidies to lower-income Americans to make the insurance they’re required to buy affordable."

[Spag]

You forgot to add "and for those who saw their premiums go up or had to freeze hiring or fire people because of the coming employer mandate, why shouldn't they vote for more of that?"

It could be that the electorate was quite informed about Obamacare- passed on a party-line vote that caused Democrats to lose the House in 2010- and decided that no amount of polishing will make that turd shine and thus voted accordingly.

This is just more of the "people are too stupid to understand how great Democratic policies are" theme. At some point Democrats need to consider that quite possibly it isn't the electorate, it's them. They preached that to the GOP for the past 6 years and as a result, Democrats are weaker now all across the nation than they have been since the 1920's. Perhaps they should take their own advice.

[Roch]

Well, with Fjeld and Hagen having declined to mount an affirmative campaign, we'll never know.

We'll have to leave it at Krugman vs. Spagnola.

[Foreclosure attorney]

I love political blowhards of all stripes on TV and other punditry sources. Two years ago the Republican party was left for dead and it's only hope was survival as a regional (southern) party. Now it's the other side that's dead. I'm beginning to think the pundits and analysts have motivations other than accuracy for what they say. Sort of like "momentum" in football commentator speak; you have it until you don't.

[Jim Buie]

The Tillis victory may have come down to making it more difficult for people to vote. He won by 50,000 votes. "Nearly five times as many voters in 2010 used the voting reforms eliminated by the North Carolina GOP — 200,000 voted during the now-eliminated first week of early voting, 20,000 used same-day registration and 7,000 cast out-of-precinct ballots," Ari Berman writes.

NC African-American voters turned out at 71.9% in 2008, and 70.3% in 2012. But in both midterm elections of 2010 and 2014, it dipped below 40%.

Nationally, voter turnout was lowest in 70 years. Just 36.4 percent of eligible voters turned out. Click.

GOP Surge or Theft?: "How dark money and voter disenfranchisement combined in a toxic brew that resulted in the lowest voter turnout in more than 70 years, hampering whatever chance Democrats had to win."

[Andrew Brod]

"Nationally, voter turnout was lowest in 70 years."

Feature, not bug.

[Spag]

"people are too stupid to understand how great Democratic policies are". Hmm, I wrote that before the Grueber story broke. Maybe I've been on to something for a long time.

[Andrew Brod]

When Republican Sen. Warren Rudman admonished Col. Ollie North in 1987 for trying to justify the Iran-Contra end-run around Congress, he said, "Col. North, the American people have the right to be wrong." He didn't say the American people (via Congress) were right about Iran-Contra. I've always thought that was profound. Democracy doesn't depend on the people being smart or right, just on their right to be heard and make decisions, right or wrong.

There are a great many programs that are bad for the people but are supported by them nevertheless, and vice versa. And there are programs that the voters get right. For good or ill, that's democracy and it always has been.

In the category of good-for-you-but-not-understood I'd place Obamacare. People hate it but like what it does. I don't care to characterize that as stupid or not, but it's hardly the American electorate's shining hour.

[NitWitCharmer]

"Nationally, voter turnout was lowest in 70 years."

For an election in which the presidency was not at stake the turnout was one of the highest in years.