Democrats lost control of the state senate because of the gun safety legislation.
There's no doubt about it.

I live in one of the recall senate districts and the recall-leader won defeating the Democrat.

I, personally, am in favor of stricter gun control, but politically it always hurts Democrats because it conflicts with the values of regular working folks, union members, sports shooter, etc. Sorry, at least out here in the west that's the way it is.

my congressman lost, and lost big time last night for suggesting some gun control measures.
Gun control in the western states, with a few exceptions, CA, is a losing proposition to the electorate.

The logic is pretty simple. People that don't own guns and that aren't going to don't feel the effects, the burdens, that the laws impose on gun-owners. Or, worse yet, they ENJOY putting that burden on gun-owners because it's "hitting back at the NRA/Republicans/gun culture/gun nuts/ammosexuals".


So, the law passes, there is some temporary positive good vibes, and maybe some reelection fodder, and then the non-gun-owner moves on with life.

In the mean time, it's the gun owner that now has to travel to the police station and register their guns. Swear out an affidavit in front of a notary public about how many "large capacity magazines" they own. Go to the state police (time and money) to get a special license just to buy ammo, much less buy a gun.

And then, it's an ongoing issue. Oh, look, the latest issue of a gun magazine comes in the mail, full of nice guns that YOU CAN'T BUY because of some pandering "assault weapon" ban. You go online, you're in a gun discussion group, and many people there express their sympathies that you live in State X that fears protruding pistol grips.



It fades, and fades fast, for non-gun-owners. For gun owners, it becomes a constant factor in their lives, and a constant irritant. Ignorant or spiteful voters were used by pandering politicians to create a diversionary issue. Student loan reform? Assault weapon ban! Progressive tax reform? Gun-show-loophole! Etc.

... it cost several upstate Democratic legislators their seats. Terry Gipson and Cecilia Tkaczyk in my area, and possibly others elsewhere -- I haven't scanned the entire results.

Andrew Cuomo's SAFE Act galvanized gun-owning voters to come out and vote Republican. Although Cuomo was re-elected governor on the strength of his downstate support, the Republicans regained the majority in the State Senate.

didn't play a major factor in the elections is ludicrous.

(technically one resigned instead of face the recall election)

The recalled Senators had a 6-to-1 spending advantage & still lost.
This happened in districts that voted for Obama by 20 points less than a year earlier.

33% of registered Dems polled said they supported the recalls of Democratic incumbents specifically because of gun control.

Gun control loses voters, particularly in the Midwest & Mountain West.
When a party loses the Midwest & Mountain West, it is, for all intensive purposes a regional party.

originally replied. My reference was only to the Minnesota legislative elections.

Down in Texas, Wendy Davis supported open carry - and still got an F rating from the NRA. Nobody has ever gotten an F rating from the NRA that I'm aware of if they supported open carry.

I was happy to support Wendy, but I know that she angered a lot of Dems in my state who support gun control - and some of them openly stated they would boycott the election. Cowards.

Seems to remind me of 1994, a few of us were around when that happend, and remember it vividly.... Some of the "lesser learned" people around will harp on the ballot measure passing, and Hickenlooper barely hanging on to his job as proof that gun control is a winner...But look at the pro gun control senators, that just got replaced by pro-gun ones... Not to mention the "adjustments" in congress, and in statehouses...

BTW Everytown for Gun Safety, is patting themselves on the back with the defeat of Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor....You know those that spend Repuke Bloomberg's 1%er money, on defeating a democrat...

http://everytown.org/press/everytown-statement-on-election-loss-of-u-s-senator-mark-pryor-of-arkansas

They are idiots... In Arkansas, we democrats may as well close up shop and turn out the lights...

Some of us saw this coming, many of us, tried to warn others...all of us, were ignored...

Well, guess who is getting ignored now.

So locked in is this issue, a Republican is in the game for free: Some Democrat has ponied up the ante without asking.

Dem Senate candidate Gary Peters who supports more gun control and has an F rating from the NRA crushed NRA endorsed and A rated Repub Terri Lynn Land

They stand by their faulty data, yet when the real data comes in at the polls, they go into denial.

I'll give them this much: surveys that result in fewer people self reporting possession of guns is significant.

It indicates that fewer people self-report gun possession, and who can blame them?

The gun control team thinks it means that fewer homes have guns.

There is, of course, no way to really study that question because people are not inclined to put targets on their backs.

any news on how bloomies money bought seats/positions?

He probably just likes pushing the "gun control" agenda to help his fellow Republicans increase their numbers in state and local races.

I doubt he really cares about guns that much either way at all. It's not like he minds all his bodyguards packing heat or anything, so why should he care if the "little people" get disarmed?

Just posted an article on this exact issue, noting that VA Democrats lost a crucial race because the Dem candidate accepted money from Bloomberg's group.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/did-gun-control-cost-mcauliffe-and-democrats-the-virginia-election/2015/11/04/fa5dfdfa-830d-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html

Jeremy McPike won, but Democrat Dan Gecker, who was outspent by his Republican opponent, lost his race.

Dems expected to win this seat and didn't. In swing districts gun control is typically not a winning issue because it doesn't motivate controllers but will certainly motivate those who support the Second Amendment. Here's a quote from the article:

Other observers were blunter in ascribing blame. A Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial said Gecker “made a massive mistake” by accepting the ads from Bloomberg. “A campaign focused on guns redounded to Gecker’s despair,” it said.

Typical gunner mentality.

It was close, the RTD editorial also says Gecker may have lost anyway.

McPike won it by only 54 percent even though Bloomberg spent $1.7 million, gun control wasn't part of the campaign and the pro rights side did not push back or even bother. BTW, it is a solidly Democratic district.
Gun control supports don't turn out like opponents do because the former has nothing to lose or gain. The latter, on the other hand, does.

The small number of one-issue voters have the ability to sway elections where the turnout is small. Their influence is negligible in elections with large turnouts.

and neither side mentioned guns. I don't think Bloomberg's money made a difference either way in that race. Of course some would simply vote against Bloomberg.

McPike's seat had previously been held by 89-year-old Democrat Charles Colgan, the longest serving state senator in Virginia history, who opted not to run for re-election.

McPike's seat was held by Democrats for almost 40 consecutive years. I'm sure Bloomturd was a big part of keeping that seat...yeah right.