Can anyone explain what's going on in the election race?

[Matilda]

I'm seeing a lot of posts on Twitter coming from the States, and it looks as if the GOP is going to make a clean sweep of the Senate. It seems the Koch brothers are funding Repubs, but their agenda is dreadful - the elites will rule for themselves alone.

Does anyone know why - apart from Koch money - this is happening? Don't people want Social Security, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc?

Trust me, we have Tony Abbott pursuing a similar agenda, and you really don't want it. Even Abbott doesn't dare go this far in his first term.

[RKP5637]

1. Many Americans are clueless and fodder for propaganda. Those throwing around the most

money will win, because so many have no idea of the issues, just the propaganda they are fed. And we call this a democracy where money rules and not ideas for a better future for all. It is damn pathetic. And then many will still wonder why they are wandering in their ruts of life, deprived of a better life. I so fear America will be a failed democracy in my lifetime, and for many it already is.

[femmocrat]

2. The Senate isn't a lock for republicans.

Several democrats are making gains in recent weeks. It is very close though.

It is happening because off-year elections have low turnouts and the voters tend to tune out the mid-terms. Republicans traditionally turn out better because they are more motivated, I guess. Koch money funds republican campaigns and ads. And the republicans have gerrymandered the House congressional districts so they will maintain their majority. They have also tried to suppress minority voters through voter ID laws in some states.

People want their SS, Medicare and health care... they just don't want other people (like the poor) to have it.

[Matilda]

4. A lot of the Twitter threads are calling on Dems to get out and vote.

I guess that must play an important part.

But sometimes people are their own worst enemies; just not thinking.

[bigwillq]

3. Panic!! EBOLA! Benghazi!!!1111111111111111

[Proud Public Servant]

5. Sure, I'll try

First, remember the score: The Dems hold the Senate 55-45, which means they can't afford to lose more than five seats. With that in mind, note the following:

First, in midterm elections the GOP base tends to turn out in greater proportion than the Dem base, no matter what.

Second, the midterm elections of a president's second term almost always results in pick-ups for the opposition party. That's a near-constant.

Third, the Dems have a structural disadvantage this go-around because they have to defend more seats; of the 36 seats up this cycle, 21 are held by Dems, so they have more to defend.

Finally, 2008 was a once-in-a-generation wave year for the Dems, which means it carried some senators who otherwise might not have been elected, and who are now having a tough time justifying re-election.

So that's broadly what the Dems are up against. The more specific problems include:

1) Three Dems retiring in states that are now pretty red -- MT, WV, and SD. MT and WV are universally regarded as GOP pickups; SD was as well until the combination of a weak GOP candidate and a strong independent turned it into an actual race.

2) Several Dems are up for re-election in states that are somewhat or very red -- Landrieu in LA, Pryor in AR, Begich in AK, Hagan in NC. All are endangered; Hagan's probably got the best chance of hanging on, because NC is the least red of those four.

3) Dems are also having to defend in purple states, including IA and CO.

So that's the bad news; the GOP has a very reasonable shot at picking up 9 seats; they won't get them all, but then they don't need them all. So is there any good news? Possibly:

1) Dems stand a chance -- not a great chance, but a chance, of picking up KY and GA. Polling has shown them behind in those two states pretty consistently, but not outside the margin of error.

2) In addition to SD, KS is in chaos, and for the same reason (a surging independent), which means the GOP is having to play defense in states it never would have imagined were up for grabs.

So that's where things stand. I'm pessimistic, but I think the only guaranteed GOP pick-ups at this point are MT and WV; really, anything could happen in the other 11 races, making this a much tougher race to call than the press would have you believe.

Does that help?

[Matilda]

6. Thanks - that is helpful.

The posts I've been reading have really been sounding the alarm, and I wondered what on earth has been going on. I've certainly not read anything about it here.

It seems to be true everywhere that conservatives are more like to vote than liberals, so I'm very glad we have compulsory voting. The Tories every so often say it should be dumped, but there's always an outcry - even dummies seem to realise it's important.

Just one more thing - what is a purple state?

[CBHagman]

9. A purple state is neither predictably Democratic nor predictably Republican.

Results may vary.

Two more notes on the American electorate:

A lot of people don't pay attention to midterm elections. Some aren't even aware that they need to vote to fill a House seat every two years and not four.

The 2014 election includes some major retirements. Iowa's Tom Harkin, for instance, a strong liberal who actually ran for president back in 1992, is retiring, and this scary-ass woman named Joni Ernst -- the kind who claims she has special knowledge there were WMDs in Iraq -- has been polling ahead of the Democrat, Bruce Braley, and may pull this thing off. Remember that Iowa is a relatively small state and bucks demographic trends (Population is 92 percent white).

Jay Rockefeller is retiring in West Virginia, and Carl Levin Michigan. I think we'll keep MI in the Democratic column, but WV is another story.

[Proud Public Servant]

10. Two other things. (1) Purple state = swing state

or, as CBHagman pointed out, a state where each party can still win in statewide contests with some regularity. There are only a handful: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada. Of those, only CO and IA have races this cycle, and both Dems are defending in both. (The media likes to treat Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as swing states as well, but they're more reliably blue).

(2) 2016 will pretty much reverse the dynamic I outlined above: the GOP will be defending the vast majority of the seats in play (24 out of 34), will be trying to retain shake seats in Blue states they won in their wave election of 2010 (for example, Johnson in WI and Kirk in IL), and will be defending in two swing states (FL and OH). So even if the Dems lose the Senate this cycle, their prospects for taking it back two years later look promising, especially since 2016 is a presidential election year and thus the Dem base should be easier to turn out.

[Matilda]

11. Thank you both.

"Purple" is what we'd call swing - in our case, it generally refers to seats rather than states, as most states can swing either way most of the time, and some conservative states, like Queensland and Western Australia can swing to Labor from time to time (although usually they're so redneck they're like other countries).

I note what you say about electronic voting, which has been used in a couple of state elections in Queensland, but hasn't, to date, taken off anywhere else. I hope it doesn't - while there are some obvious rigged votes occasionally, we're talking a few thousand nation wide out of millions. I think our paper and pencils are much safer.

I imagine it would be frustrating for Obama (or any president) to lose control of the Senate in his last two years, because you'd think that once he doesn't have to worry about votes any more, he'd have a chance to push through some legislation that would otherwise not see the light of day.

[tgards79]

12. Iowa and Colorado, too

Dems are closest in Iowa and Colorado:
http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2014/10/election-2014-dashboard-gop-still-leads.html

Start making CALLS to GOTV!!!!!!!

[blkmusclmachine]

7. The vote "counting" machines are locked away from oversight or public scrutiny--proprietary

information--so who can know how people really vote? We have to accept some Corporation's word that they're not lying to us and that our people lost. And I can't go that far, because Corporations have vested interests in who wins, and in who loses...

[davidpdx]

8. One thing you can do is to encourage anyone you know who is an American there to vote

There is no way to tell how much one vote in one state will make a difference, especially the key states that people have been talking about on DU. Making sure they vote is the only way.