Friday, November 9, 2012

The Senate Moves by Personalities

In my last post I sort of patted myself on the back for having made accurate predictions of how this election would go. My predictions were in my book The Candy Store Generation, published in July 2012. They were based on my belief that the Baby Boomers, the generation now in control of almost everything in America, was addicted to candy from the candy store and would vote for whoever promised them the most goodies from the government.

I predicted Barack Obama would narrowly win re-election, which he did. I predicted the House would remain in Republican control, though with a lower margin, which it did. The Republicans lost a net of six seats, retaining what could be called a comfortable majority.

It was in the Senate where I missed. My prediction was that the Republicans would gain ground, and possibly, though not probably, take it over, or that it would be evenly divided. Before the election the Democratic-Independent coalition had a 53-47 seat edge over the Republicans. I expected that to become either 50-50 or 51-49 one way of the other. Instead, the Democrats increased their majority to 55-45.

So where did I miss it? First of all, maybe I shouldn't be terribly concerned about missing one out of three when I was so exact on the other two. Still, I missed it. The Republican losses in Missouri and Indiana are, it seems to me, the key to what happened in the Senate races.

The Republican candidates in those two states were ahead in their races in the spring and early summer. McKaskill (D) in Missouri seemed particularly vulnerable and the most likely incumbent Democratic senator to be defeated. But then the idiot Republican made his statement about "legitimate rape", and the party was over. From that moment on he was a goner.

In Indiana, the race turned from the Republican's to lose to a sure Democratic victory when the idiot Republican candidate made his statement that a pregnancy resulting from a rape was God's will. From that point on, he was a goner too.

Then, I think these two statements dragged down Republican candidates elsewhere. The media reported them so widely, with disdain to the max, that voters in Montana and North Dakota thought, perhaps subconsciously, that the Republicans were the party of legitimate rape and rape-caused pregnancies, and turned away from them in sufficient numbers that the Democrats won those seats.

Let's be clear about one thing: There's no such thing as a rape that is legitimate. Trying to figure out what Aiken meant, all I can assume is that he meant "actual rape" rather than sex that was acquiesced to but really wasn't wanted, but which later the woman said was rape. I don't know if that's what he meant or not. But if that's what he meant, it's still a stupid comment. Rape is a serious matter, as is men forcing themselves on women. Our over-sexualized culture and media is doing its best to get women to give in to sexual urges rather than retain their natural reticence. Given all that, male candidates just need to shut up about those issues. Rape is rape.

Part of Aiken's comments was about the stress of a rape causing a woman's body to do something—maybe secrete a hormone?—that would prevent a pregnancy from happening. I had actually seen something written on that long before Bozo Aiken made his remark, but have never researched it. I don't know where it was I read that, if it was a medical piece backed up by research or a fluff piece, if it was speculation or science. But it doesn't matter. It was a stupid remark to make in any context, it didn't need to be made, and it sunk Aiken and helped to sink at least two other of his party's candidates.

Concerning rape-caused pregnancies being God's will, or, that wasn't the exact remark. It was more that the fetus conceived and growing as a result of a rape was a life created and thus was God's will. Actually, I need to research the exact quote. Plus, that is a different issue that I want to spend the next post on. Plus, this post is long enough already.

I'll just conclude that it seems to me that senatorial races turn more on personalities than on issues. House races, for the most part, are settled on issues. Senate races are settled with personalities making much more of an impact. That's something for me to consider in future election predictions—if I ever make any more.

P.S. This morning The Candy Store Generation is #99 in its genre list at the Kindle store. Woo hoo!

No comments: