Advertisement
Tommorrow Americans will get their first concrete clue as to what the mood of Americans is toward the Obama administration. Obama has been out all weekend trying to pull out a victory in the NJ Gubernatorial race. New Jersey is a blue state that the race is said to be "neck and neck", so either way it goes, it doesn't look good for the dems. The Virginia gubernatorial race has already been conceded by almost everyone, another one for the rebublicans. And although this is traditionally a red state, Obama won the state by a good margin.
The most watched race is of course the congressional one in NY between. This race is very interesting. The republicans, rather than hold a primary, picked their candidate behind closed doors. And what do you know, they tried to push a liberal pro death, pro sodomite candidate forward. Palin and other conservatives came out in support of a conservative independent candidate, who quickly moved past the republican candidate in the polls. Finally, the republican "RHINO" stepped down and endorsed the democrat. Now, as I type this, the indepedent conservative Hoffman has pulled ahead of the democratic candidate Owen. This traditionally republican district also went to Obama, Clinton etc.. And it is a referendum on the direction of the republican party nationwide. We republicans continue to compromise their values as Michael Steele is contending, or will we see a real conservative party emerge which is representative of the general public at large (which is 40% conservative and only 20% liberal)? Time will tell, but you can bet that Tuesday the Obama administration will be spinning this to say that "this is no reflection on our policies" such as the presidents unpopular health care boondoggle.
Strap yourselves into your chairs ladies and gentleman, it is going to be an interesting Tuesday, November 2, 2009!
The most watched race is of course the congressional one in NY between. This race is very interesting. The republicans, rather than hold a primary, picked their candidate behind closed doors. And what do you know, they tried to push a liberal pro death, pro sodomite candidate forward. Palin and other conservatives came out in support of a conservative independent candidate, who quickly moved past the republican candidate in the polls. Finally, the republican "RHINO" stepped down and endorsed the democrat. Now, as I type this, the indepedent conservative Hoffman has pulled ahead of the democratic candidate Owen. This traditionally republican district also went to Obama, Clinton etc.. And it is a referendum on the direction of the republican party nationwide. We republicans continue to compromise their values as Michael Steele is contending, or will we see a real conservative party emerge which is representative of the general public at large (which is 40% conservative and only 20% liberal)? Time will tell, but you can bet that Tuesday the Obama administration will be spinning this to say that "this is no reflection on our policies" such as the presidents unpopular health care boondoggle.
Strap yourselves into your chairs ladies and gentleman, it is going to be an interesting Tuesday, November 2, 2009!
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 12:22 PMA weak Dem candidate is certainly not a referendum on Obama. -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 12:53 PMIt was just one year ago at this time that people like Dan were posting how it was totally impossibe that Obama would be elected. -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 4:19 PMdan;
The Virginia gubernatorial race has already been conceded by almost everyone, another one for the rebublicans. And although this is traditionally a red state, Obama won the state by a good margin.
since 1977 virginia has not voted for a dem. gov. if the president is a dem...nor have they voted for a rep gov.. if the president was a rep.
so they just keep up with their trend .
NJ, well.....corzine is not very popular and should get creamed...but he and christie are neck on neck ( both at 42%)
NY-23 special election also can go eitherway since a large number of Scozzafava voters were quite literally released back into the electorate overnight. -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 6:56 PM"since 1977 virginia has not voted for a dem. gov. if the president is a dem...nor have they voted for a rep gov.. if the president was a rep.
so they just keep up with their trend ."
Obama won the state and campaigned for Deeds and it didn't help. But what is interesting here is how much it hasn't help. Deeds is double digits down in the polls and will likely come out that way in the election tomorrow. This is still a referendum on Obama. If his policies were more popular this race would likely have been much closer.
"NJ, well.....corzine is not very popular and should get creamed...but he and christie are neck on neck ( both at 42%)"
If there is a weak candidate in this race it is Christie. Obama has flexed all of his political muscle here because he knows that a loss here will hurt him politically. It is too close to call right now, with Christie having a 2 pt lead currently, well within statistical error.
"NY-23 special election also can go eitherway since a large number of Scozzafava voters were quite literally released back into the electorate overnight."
The gap is widening here in favor of Hoffman, it is a five point spread now and looking very good for this true conservative. This race is deadly for the dems, who put a full court press on Scozzafava Saturday to get her to betray the republicans. She did, and it hasn't helped!
-
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 6:57 PM"It was just one year ago at this time that people like Dan were posting how it was totally impossibe that Obama would be elected. "
What is a "people like Dan" exactly? I never stated such a thing and fully expected Obama to win, so unless you can find a post to the contrary, you are just making a fool of yourself here. There is no one out there like "Dan", and I know, because I am him.
-
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 6:37 PM"A weak Dem candidate is certainly not a referendum on Obama."
Let the spin begin Jeff!:-) -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 10:20 AMIn reality it is you that are spinning. ie putting forth the idea that state level issues don't matter in these cases, that it is all about Obama. For a reasonable comparison I give you the example of Reagan. Reagan won because of what are known as "Reagan Democrats", turning blue states red on the national level. But that did nothing to change how they voted on the local level. In the case of Corzine, he is a weak candidate...... and to ignore this while in the midst of the Conservatives grasping for a rope to pull them out of the abyss is simply disengenuous. The Repugs are going to win a few here and there, but it will do nothing to change the fact that the party is fractured, purging the party of those that are not on the extreme far right (much like the Communist party did in places like the USSR), and eating their own. -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 2:04 PM"The Repugs are going to win a few here and there, but it will do nothing to change the fact that the party is fractured, purging the party of those that are not on the extreme far right (much like the Communist party did in places like the USSR), and eating their own."
It is the conservatives who are winning. That some come under the banner of "republican" is irrelevent. What is just as interesting is who is losing. And yes, there is a referrendum here on Obama, which is why Obama has compaigned so vigorously to prevent this from happening. This referendum has been acknowledged by many in the media including Politico and others. Yes, there are local politics involved and yes, there are candidates own weaknesses or strengths at play in all elections. But Carzines policies have gotten him into trouble and Obama praised him before his supporters! -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 4:04 PM<<And yes, there is a referrendum here on Obama, which is why Obama has compaigned so vigorously to prevent this from happening.
Bullshit. It is standard practice for a President to campaign for those Dems that are engaged in tight races. It is what is expected of him as leader of the Democratic party.
<<Yes, there are local politics involved and yes, there are candidates own weaknesses or strengths at play in all elections.
That is the core of it bro, you can't read an obama referendum in to that which is primarily local.
-
-
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 4:28 PM<Let the spin begin Jeff!:-)>
Are you really trying to convince anyone that the thread's very title and intent is not spin? -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 5:23 PMDan, Andrew is right. Exit polls do not bear out your wishful thinking, Obama was a non-factor, as I predicted.
Exit Polls in Va. and N.J.: The Obama (Non) Factor?
As voters in Virginia and New Jersey headed to the polls today to elect their governors, Americans across the country were watching these off-year races for implications about the nation's mood heading into 2010.
In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell and Democrat R. Creigh Reeds are battling to succeed the term-limited sitting governor Tim Kaine in what is widely viewed as a potential swing state in the future. In New Jersey, Democrat Jon Corzine is the only incumbent governor in the country to face a re-election challenge this year against Republican Chris Christie and independent Chris Daggett.
A majority of voters in both states said they are worried about the direction of the nation’s economy over the next year. 85 percent of Virginia voters said they are worried, as are 90 percent of voters in New Jersey. These percentages were similar on Election Day in 2008.
In both states the economy topped the list of issues that mattered most to voters in their choice for governor – in Virginia health care was second, while in New Jersey the second choice was property taxes.
And what about the Obama factor? President Obama campaigned for both the Democratic gubernatorial candidates, even visiting New Jersey as recently as Sunday to stump for Jon Corzine.
Still, majorities of voters in both states (55 percent in Virginia and 60 percent in New Jersey) said President Obama was not a factor in their vote today. Those who said Mr. Obama was a factor in New Jersey divided as to whether their vote was a vote for the president (19 percent) or against him (20 percent). In Virginia, slightly fewer voters said their vote was for Mr. Obama (18 percent) than against him (24 percent).
Among Corzine supporters in New Jersey, 38 percent said one reason for their vote was to express support for Mr. Obama, while 39 percent of Christie voters said it was to express opposition to Mr. Obama.
In Virginia, among backers of the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, 38 percent said their vote was in part to support the president, while 42 percent of McDonnell voters said their vote was in part to oppose the president.
This campaign cycle has seen its share of negative advertising in both Virginia and New Jersey.
In Virginia, Deeds is viewed more as the attacker – 65 percent said he has attacked McDonnell unfairly. 53 percent thought McDonnell attacked Deeds unfairly.
Over in New Jersey, the Democrat is also seen as more on the attack. 72 percent of voters said Corzine has attacked Christie unfairly; though 62 percent viewed Christie as attacking Corzine. Corzine has spent approximately $24 million on his campaign, compared to Christie’s $12 million.
About half the voters in each state (56 percent in Virginia and 49 percent in New Jersey) said campaign advertising was a factor in their vote for governor today.
A third of New Jersey voters saw their vote today as a vote against the other candidates rather than in support of the person they cast a ballot for. 20 percent of Corzine voters and 42 percent of Christie voters said they were voting more against their candidate’s opponents than voting for their candidate.
Most voters in both states decided on their choice for governor some time ago. In New Jersey, 57 percent made their decision before September, while in Virginia 51 percent made their decision that long ago. Still, about one in five voters in each state made their decision within the past week.
www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009...14455.shtml
-
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:18 PM"Exit Polls in Va. and N.J.: The Obama (Non) Factor? "
This is not true Jeff. Exit polls in Virginia showed that 24% cast an opposition vote to Obama! This is significant! It looks like most republicans are going to win by this margin! -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:01 AMWhere exactly do you get this 24% number? Newsflash for you, 75% is a much larger number than 24%. The polls indicate the following, which don't back up your 24% number.
"Still, majorities of voters in both states (56 percent in Virginia and 60 percent in New Jersey) said President Obama was not a factor in their vote today. Those who said Mr. Obama was a factor in New Jersey divided as to whether their vote was a vote for the president (19 percent) or against him (19 percent). In Virginia, slightly fewer voters said their vote was for Mr. Obama (17 percent) than against him (24 percent).
Among Corzine supporters in New Jersey, 38 percent said one reason for their vote was to express support for Mr. Obama, while 39 percent of Christie voters said it was to express opposition to Mr. Obama.
In Virginia, among backers of the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, 38 percent said their vote was in part to support the president, while 42 percent of McDonnell voters said their vote was in part to oppose the president."
Now, how about that Palin factor? Seems she was poison after all. : ) -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 1:57 PM<Where exactly do you get this 24% number?>
Jeff - he got it from Fox...
-
-
-
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:10 PM"Are you really trying to convince anyone that the thread's very title and intent is not spin? "
The thread title is a question. I have stated what I think and the reasons why. Clearly if Obama had swept Virginia his administration would have sent out talking points on how this is a confirmation of his administrations policies. But it didn't happen. Virginia was swept by republicans and by large margins. While I type this it is beginning to look good for Christie in NJ also. If the republicans take New Jersey very few will deny that there is a message for Obama in this! -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:05 AM<<Clearly if Obama had swept Virginia his administration would have sent out talking points on how this is a confirmation of his administrations policies.
How could Obama sweep Virginia when he was not running for office? Regardless of the 2008 election, Virginia IS a red state and will vote conservative on local issues regardless.
-
-
-
-
-
Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 7:32 AM"A Republican sweep in Tuesday's key contests would at minimum show that Democrats face much tougher political terrain than they did a year ago. GOP victories would also help the party's fundraising and candidate recruitment for 2010, providing backing for arguments that Republicans have the momentum, and that voters are turning against the Obama agenda."
online.wsj.com/article/SB...924171.html -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 10:42 AMKey bits that you left out of your own article, bits that contracdict your theory that these elections are a referendum on Obama.
"But isolated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators of what will happen in the wider federal and state races held in even-numbered years."
"But it can be difficult to draw broader conclusions from off-year contests, which often turn on local issues."
In other words, this article supports the idea I have put forth (reference the Reagan analogy and the difference between how voters may react in national elections versus local. The Republican parties problems are much bigger than isolated elections can fix. Republicans have giant divisions over over how to move forward, they lack a national leader and are facing a shrinking base in a nation that is changing.
-
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 10:55 AM<<<While local factors influenced all three races, the weak state of the U.S. economy was an overarching issue that played a role in each state.
In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell was leading Democrat Creigh Deeds by double digits in opinion polls as Virginians went to the polls -- an opportunity for Republicans a year after Obama became the first Democratic presidential nominee to win the state since 1964.
Two appearances on Deeds' behalf by Obama appeared to have little impact, as Democrats suffered from a lack of enthusiasm without Obama on the ticket and Republicans were energized by the chance to take back the governor's seat, held by Democrats the past eight years. Voting ends at 7 p.m. EST (0000 GMT) and the winner could be known a few hours later.
OBAMA CAMPAIGNS FOR CORZINE
In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie has been running neck-and-neck with Democratic Governor Jon Corzine, the former Wall Street executive who has pumped $23 million of his own money into his campaign. A poll released on Monday gave the Republican a slight lead.
Independent candidate Chris Daggett trailed, and a key question concerned how many of Daggett's supporters would abandon him for Christie or Corzine and sway the race.
Obama campaigned with Corzine on Sunday and made a last-ditch appeal for the Democrat.
"We will not lose this election if all of you are as committed as you were last year," he said. "So I want everybody in this auditorium to make a pledge that in these next 48 hours, you will work just as hard for Jon as you worked for me."
New Jersey polls close at 8 p.m. EST but it could be some hours before the outcome is clear.
While a Virginia loss for the Democrats could be considered fairly predictable in a state long considered a Republican stronghold, a defeat in New Jersey would be seen as a bigger blow to the party because the state leans Democratic. Obama won it by 16 points last year.
"If the Democrats win New Jersey and lose Virginia, I would basically say, no harm, no foul," said Democratic strategist Doug Schoen. "The only real adverse impact is if the administration loses two campaigns, especially one they're heavily invested in New Jersey.">>>
www.reuters.com/article/to...0QL20091103
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 2:07 PMJeff: "But isolated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators of what will happen in the wider federal and state races held in even-numbered years."
"But it can be difficult to draw broader conclusions from off-year contests, which often turn on local issues."
In other words, this article supports the idea I have put forth (reference the Reagan analogy and the difference between how voters may react in national elections versus local. The Republican parties problems are much bigger than isolated elections can fix. Republicans have giant divisions over over how to move forward, they lack a national leader and are facing a shrinking base in a nation that is changing."
The article made my point as well. And I don't disagree that there are other issues at play. I also agree that the republicans are in dissarray. Not being a republican, I really don't care. The issue here is that their wins are due to a backlass on Obama and liberalism in general, whether it be from Dems or republicrats. Conservatives (and constitutionalists) are benefiting from all of this and this will be born out in the next election cycle. Stay tuned. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 4:00 PM<<The article made my point as well.
Not really. What it did do was indicate that these elections could be used to back Republican arguments (ie people like Dan can try and infer that it is a referendum on Obama), but then immediately indicated that these conclusions are difficult to make from these kinds of elections because they "often turn on local issues". Just because you can use the argument (which is all they said), does not mean it is accurate or cut and dry.
"A Republican sweep in Tuesday's key contests would at minimum show that Democrats face much tougher political terrain than they did a year ago. GOP victories would also help the party's fundraising and candidate recruitment for 2010, providing backing for arguments that Republicans have the momentum, and that voters are turning against the Obama agenda.
<<Conservatives (and constitutionalists) are benefiting from all of this and this will be born out in the next election cycle.
Bring it on, I welcome the fact that radicalized wingnuts are taking over the conservative name. While they may gain traction in certain areas of red states, it will do nothing but harm to the conservative movement in general.
But it can be difficult to draw broader conclusions from off-year contests, which often turn on local issues."
Take note that the sentence above is immediately after the paragraph that you think supports your theory. They indicated that these elections can be used for argument sake, but then immediately indicated that it is not a foregone conclusion by any means.
<<The issue here is that their wins are due to a backlass on Obama and liberalism in general,
Republicans ARE eating their own in the wake of their shrinking demographic AND their shrinking membership in general. What this demonstrate is the radicalization of the right in the wake of their shocking loss to Obama. This is more about a reaction to losing the election than it is anything else..... Well, that and the fear mongering by the extreme radicalized right wingers. They learned fear mongering quite well from Cheney and Bush, and are now employing it to try and gain political traction once again. This only works for short term gain, but hurts conservatives in the long run as people become better informed. Case in point, Bush had something like 80% approval to invade Iraq. He convinced Congress and the American public by way of fear mongering (ie non-existent WMD). Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s or 30s by the time he left office, in part because of the American public becoming aware of his deciept, of him using the backs of 3,000 dead Americans to push a war of choice. What Conservatives are doing with bullshit such as "death panels" and the like is no different. The idea of trying to indicate that Obama is going to kill your grandma is disgusting Dan, and right or left should join with me in condemning such statements. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:16 PM"Republicans ARE eating their own in the wake of their shrinking demographic"
The republicans NEED to eat their own because there are a bunch of wolves in sheeps clothing that have hijacked the party. If conservatives are successful at taking it back this will be a huge gain. Conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1 in this country and moderates will go toward conservative principles if they see that they follow through on those principles. Bush 1 and 2 didn't, Reagan gets a B-. Clinton was elected as a conservative democrat and was physcally conservative. Had he kept his zipper shut he may have gone down as a good to great president. Obama stinks. He is a one term loser whose core supporters are on the far far far left. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:10 AM<<The republicans NEED to eat their own because there are a bunch of wolves in sheeps clothing that have hijacked the party. If conservatives are successful at taking it back this will be a huge gain.
I am not sure how you can spin shrinking your demographic as a gain, but have at it buddy.... LMFAO!!!
<<Conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1 in this country and moderates will go toward conservative principles if they see that they follow through on those principles.
This is a false claim being that you are putting moderates in the conservative corner, this is dishonest.
<<Had he kept his zipper shut he may have gone down as a good to great president.
History clearly indicates that sexual proclivities will have no impact on how history judges a President.
<<He is a one term loser whose core supporters are on the far far far left.
And yet this core got him elected, I guess the country is not nearly as conservative as you are indicating. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:15 AM<<The republicans NEED to eat their own because there are a bunch of wolves in sheeps clothing that have hijacked the party. If conservatives are successful at taking it back this will be a huge gain. >>
Odd political tactic thinking you're going to attract moderates if you purify the party by kicking out moderates. But by all means, don't let me discourage you. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 12:00 PM"Odd political tactic thinking you're going to attract moderates if you purify the party by kicking out moderates. But by all means, don't let me discourage you."
someone who supports abortion on demand, gay rights, government health care etc. is not a moderate, they are a liberal. If kicking these folks out offends moderates let them form a "moderate party" then. They certainly will not gravitate toward the far left policies of Obama, who has moved the leftward playing field all the way to the goal post. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 1:48 PM<<someone who supports abortion on demand, gay rights, government health care etc. is not a moderate, they are a liberal.
Some moderate Republicans are fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. But please, continue with your efforts to divide the Republican and Conservative vote, this will help to ensure the Dems win.
<<They certainly will not gravitate toward the far left policies of Obama, who has moved the leftward playing field all the way to the goal post.
What a crock of shit. The record clearly indicates that Obama is moving forward slightly to the right of his campaign rhetoric. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 3:48 PM"Some moderate Republicans are fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. But please, continue with your efforts to divide the Republican and Conservative vote, this will help to ensure the Dems win."
My pleasure, and this is another one of your over used lines btw. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 4:15 PM<<My pleasure, and this is another one of your over used lines btw.
As far as I know, this is the first thread I have referenced the conservative vote being split. Previously I had only spoken in regards to Conservatives turning off swing voters. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
-
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 3:50 PM"What a crock of shit. The record clearly indicates that Obama is moving forward slightly to the right of his campaign rhetoric. "
Can always tell when you get mad:-) But you miss the point. Obama took liberalism to the goal posts, then brought it back "slighly" to the goal line, and you feel this is a refutation of what again? -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 4:17 PM<<Can always tell when you get mad:-)
Wow, someone used the word "shit" and you think that = angry? I thought divination was a sin Dan? LOL~!
<<Obama took liberalism to the goal posts, then brought it back "slighly" to the goal line, and you feel this is a refutation of what again?
You said "They certainly will not gravitate toward the far left policies of Obama, who has moved the leftward playing field all the way to the goal post." The obvious translation of your words is that Obama went further left than what his campaign indicated, and now voters are not going to vote for Dems. But in reality Obama has not gone as far left as his campaign indicated. In other words, it was a direct refutation of your words. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 6:38 PM"Wow, someone used the word "shit" and you think that = angry? I thought divination was a sin Dan? LOL~!"
I believe it "what a crock of ..." Definitely angry tone. But living in denial suits you.
<<Obama took liberalism to the goal posts, then brought it back "slighly" to the goal line, and you feel this is a refutation of what again?
"You said "They certainly will not gravitate toward the far left policies of Obama, who has moved the leftward playing field all the way to the goal post." The obvious translation of your words is that Obama went further left than what his campaign indicated, and now voters are not going to vote for Dems. But in reality Obama has not gone as far left as his campaign indicated. In other words, it was a direct refutation of your words."
He has gone further left then he indicated if you count nominating commie and loonie Czars, and lieing about not raising taxes on the middle class, his talk about tough military actions in Afganistan etc.. Democrats always run like conservatives until elected, then they generally act like democrats. -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 11:56 AM<<I believe it "what a crock of ..." Definitely angry tone. But living in denial suits you.
Not sure about your world, but I can certainly indicate something is a crock without being angry.
<<But living in denial suits you.
I most certainly deny falsehoods, hence the reason I responded to Corsi's false claims that the shooter advised the Obama transition team. It is par for the course that you, WND, and Teabaggers will use fear mongering to make people be afraid. Why is it that fear tactics are the core of the conservative strategy? You do realize that this sort of fear mongering is the tried and true tactic of those with dictatorial leanings? Hitler would have fully endrosed these tactics.
Goebells:
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
SAME TACTIC.
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 12:02 PM<<He has gone further left then he indicated if you count nominating commie and loonie Czars,
Now that is a stretch.... your inability to demonstrate ANY policies that are further left than he campaigned on demonstrates a profound failure on your part. This makes it clear that you just repeat Fox and WND claims without any critical analysis of your own.
<<and lieing about not raising taxes on the middle class
Yet another false claim you can't demonstrate, watch Fox......and repeat....in your ears and out your mouth without any idea as to reality. I am certain you will come back with supposed proof of this, but it won't be proof, it will be you doing a 6 degress of separation from Kevin Bacon type of thing...... as usual.
<<his talk about tough military actions in Afganistan etc..
He already increased troops to Afghanistan over and above what Bush had there..... and he most likely is going to send more, and you think that is leftist? -
-
Re: Republicans Are Poised for Gains in Key Elections
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 1:25 PMBump
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 2:35 PMthis election may be another referrendum, on Sarah Palin. Palin bucked the republican powerhouse to back the independent candidate in New York. Result, he wins by a landslide. Looks like Sarah is not "political poisen" after all. She also did phone calls for the Virginia republican gubenatorial candidate, Result? He wins also. 2 for 2. -
-
Re: NY, NJ, VA Referrendum on Obama Presidency?
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 4:07 PMAs I said, wingnuts are taking over the Republican party and conservative states. Have at it, it will only help the dems.
-
-
Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:06 PMRepublicans Sweep Virginia taking back the governor's seat for the first time since 1997. These were not just wins, but wins by large margins and in the Presidents front yard. Those who say "ho hum" this is a red state anyway are missing the lesson here. 1 year ago they declared the state "purple" and said republicans may be on the downswing for years to come. No indication of this here tonight.
Was it a referendum? Depends of course on how you define it. But exit polls showed that 1 in 4 voted against Obama so clearly there was a reactionary vote and a large one! -
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:20 PM<Was it a referendum? Depends of course on how you define it.>
Or spin it, 'eh?
<But exit polls showed that 1 in 4 voted against Obama so clearly there was a reactionary vote and a large one!>
Care to quote these exit polls?
<The thread title is a question.>
This thread's title is the forum version of a push-poll. If you do not know this, then you don't know when you yourself are being manipulated. It's an obviously manipulative threat title meant to plant the IDEA of this election being a referendum.
<Clearly if Obama had swept Virginia his administration would have sent out talking points on how this is a confirmation of his administrations policies.>
"Clearly"? Did they do this in ever election where a Dem won? Please cite the information that makes this "clearly" relevant.
<Virginia was swept by republicans and by large margins.>
Quite honestly, I believe that some of this is in fact an Obama-driven result, but any intelligent person has to take more into consideration than just the Obama factor. Any intelligent person... -
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:25 PM"Care to quote these exit polls?"
www.foxnews.com/inc/electi...rginia.html
Was one reason for your vote for governor today: McDonnell Deeds
To express support for Barack Obama (18%) 6% 93%
To express opposition to Barack Obama (24%) 97% 3%
Barack Obama was not a factor (56%) 55% 44%
-
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:42 PM<Barack Obama was not a factor (56%) 55% 44%>
Hmm. Was not a factor WON. How do you like THAT!?
So, 55% of the Republican votes said that President Obama was not a factor. Got it.
A majority said that Obama WAS NOT a factor. Sure - 44 said that it was, but do we know how to put this in context? We DO know that more Republican voters DID NOT make this a factor...
<Andrew, you spend most of your post attacking my credibility>
Name ONE thing that I have said to attack your "credibility". Please do. Asking for cites is not attacking anyone's credibility.
<you conclude with an acknowledgment that I was right all along:>
No. Read it again. I do not at all concede that the results were resultant on the sitting president, as I wrote, "I believe that some of this is in fact an Obama-driven result,..." How much? We'll never know. It'd be crazy to suggest that there was no Obama-fatigue, but it's disingenuous to suggest that this is the reason for the win. If there was a 2-1 turnout for the Rep candidate, how much of that was in response to Obama's presidency?
<I don't care what you think of my intelligence.>
Good. I'd feel badly if your self-esteem was based upon my opinion. For that matter, I have not questioned your intelligence, I just pointed out that an intelligent person would take MORE into consideration for this win than JUST Obama...which is what this thread 'suggests'.
<There is definitely an anti-obama factor to tonights results.>
No question, and if the poll was within 5%, you may have a good and relevant point. But, the poll is not close - and since 55% of respondents said that President Obama had no relevant to their vote... It's kinda tough to call this an Obama referendum with any sense of reality at this point.
Don't you think? -
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 7:01 PMNo, you don't "got it". Your article claims Obama was not a factor, that statement doesn't comport to reality. 24% said it was a factor to them. The republican governor won by 20%! That is a factor a spin doctor would deny!
"Name ONE thing that I have said to attack your "credibility". Please do. Asking for cites is not attacking anyone's credibility."
asking for my citations would not alone be construed as an attack. But the whole tenor of your rebuttal was an attack on me personally, including your statement implying that I am not intelligent, that my provacative post was somehow intentially deceptive etc etc etc. If you don't see this as an attack, you are willfully ignorant.
"No. Read it again."
Not necessary, I read it twice already and I stand by my comment that you are basically admitting my point is valid.
"How much? We'll never know."
actually, we do know. Exit polls indicate the backlash on Obama was 24%. What is not to know? This figure is sufficient to elect the governor who won by 20%.
"It'd be crazy to suggest that there was no Obama-fatigue"
It isn't Obama fatigue. The really interesting thing here is that Obama remains popular in the state of Virginia. The people like the President while rejecting many of his policies. This is a very interesting phenomena.
"but it's disingenuous to suggest that this is the reason for the win. If there was a 2-1 turnout for the Rep candidate, how much of that was in response to Obama's presidency?"
about 24% according to exit polls.
It is not hard to call this a referendum on Obama with an exit polls showing 24% voted AGAINST OBAMA and the margin of victory was 20%! That is what I think.
-
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:23 AM<<Exit polls indicate the backlash on Obama was 24%.
Indicating that Obama was a FACTOR does not indicate that Obama was the primary reason for their vote. Do you know what a FACTOR is Dan?
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 1:20 PM<<"Name ONE thing that I have said to attack your "credibility". Please do. Asking for cites is not attacking anyone's credibility.">>
<asking for my citations would not alone be construed as an attack.>
A laughable assertion. It's common practice to cite one's sources and back up one's beliefs with the relevant citations.
<But the whole tenor of your rebuttal was an attack on me personally>
Speaking of tenors, you're obviously in this context tone deaf.
<including your statement implying that I am not intelligent,>
No. I was saying that someone that DID NOT pay attention was not intelligent. It's YOUR choice whether or not to do something intelligent. I have no control over your actions nor am I suggesting that you are not intelligent - I have no idea of any relative intelligence of anyone here beyond what I read.
<that my provacative post was somehow intentially deceptive etc etc etc.>
I believe that it has the POSSIBILITY to be "deceptive". What I wrote was, "Are you really trying to convince anyone that the thread's very title and intent is not spin?" There's every chance that the title is spin. Are you trying to say that it is not? It's a QUESTION that is like a push-poll, "Do you think that President Obama is a Muslim?" The people that sent out a poll with questions such as that one were just asking a question too, 'eh?
<Exit polls indicate the backlash on Obama was 24%. What is not to know? This figure is sufficient to elect the governor who won by 20%.>
Absolutely. Well - if one did not take any other considerations as relevant. We do not know if this 24% made their choice ONLY because of Obama's actions, NOR do we know what they did LAST TIME or what they would have done OTHERWISE if Obama was wholly successful.
We don't know. That 24% is just a number.
<The really interesting thing here is that Obama remains popular in the state of Virginia. The people like the President while rejecting many of his policies. This is a very interesting phenomena.>
Very much so...
The problem is how to come up with a % of voters that voted AGAINST the Dem ONLY BECAUSE of this "Obama fatigue"? We don't know. We will probably NEVER know. AND, since the total ratio of vote was 2/1 against the Dem, do you really think that such a large number represents a fundamental reason for the loss? If the loss was within even 10%, I'd be happy with allowing this to be a possibility. But, it won't be 10%, will it?
<<"but it's disingenuous to suggest that this is the reason for the win. If there was a 2-1 turnout for the Rep candidate, how much of that was in response to Obama's presidency?">>
<about 24% according to exit polls...It is not hard to call this a referendum on Obama with an exit polls showing 24% voted AGAINST OBAMA and the margin of victory was 20%! That is what I think.>
I KNOW that's what you think. My point is that if you think HARDER, you will maybe allow that OF THAT 24%, to be right, MORE than 4% of them would have had to been Obama people... We don't know that, and MORESO, it would have to be that AT LEAST 20% of them having BEFORE liked Obama voted AGAINST OBAMA this time for this number to be relevant. Otherwise, it's just the same % of people that don't like Obama... Follow me?
Again, I do not doubt that there is SOME Obama-related effects, but in THIS case, this 20% margin was a mix of all of the options above - some surely being Obama-effect.
You'd agree with that, I am sure?
-
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 3:47 PM"I believe that it has the POSSIBILITY to be "deceptive". What I wrote was, "Are you really trying to convince anyone that the thread's very title and intent is not spin?" There's every chance that the title is spin. Are you trying to say that it is not? It's a QUESTION that is like a push-poll, "Do you think that President Obama is a Muslim?" The people that sent out a poll with questions such as that one were just asking a question too, 'eh?"
It is just a way to pull in a reader, nothing more. If you are decieved by provactive subject lines, this might say more about you than it does me Andrew.
<Exit polls indicate the backlash on Obama was 24%. What is not to know? This figure is sufficient to elect the governor who won by 20%.>
Andrew: Absolutely. Well - if one did not take any other considerations as relevant. We do not know if this 24% made their choice ONLY because of Obama's actions, NOR do we know what they did LAST TIME or what they would have done OTHERWISE if Obama was wholly successful.
Point taken. It is likely that a percentage of them would have come out and voted republican anyway. Yet it is a factor. Referendum or not. My feeling is the totality of the result are a referendum. I think many democrats are feeling the same thing. I have heard some admit to it. You are free to draw your own conclusion.
"We don't know. That 24% is just a number."
No, it is not "just a number". It is a group of people who were provoked by Obama's policies and voted against him in an off year election.
<The really interesting thing here is that Obama remains popular in the state of Virginia. The people like the President while rejecting many of his policies. This is a very interesting phenomena.>
<about 24% according to exit polls...It is not hard to call this a referendum on Obama with an exit polls showing 24% voted AGAINST OBAMA and the margin of victory was 20%! That is what I think.>
I KNOW that's what you think. My point is that if you think HARDER, you will maybe allow that OF THAT 24%, to be right, MORE than 4% of them would have had to been Obama people... We don't know that, and MORESO, it would have to be that AT LEAST 20% of them having BEFORE liked Obama voted AGAINST OBAMA this time for this number to be relevant. Otherwise, it's just the same % of people that don't like Obama... Follow me?"
Yes, but that isn't the only option. They may also be people who don't particularly favor Obama, but would not have voted in this election at all had they not be provoked into doing so by what they feel are far left policies. This was borne out by other polls I heard. This is born out by the tea party crowd.
"Again, I do not doubt that there is SOME Obama-related effects, but in THIS case, this 20% margin was a mix of all of the options above - some surely being Obama-effect."
I agree that there were many effects and that the 24% of angry voters did not necessarily swing the election. But it was a factor and one Obama had better take notice of. If he doesn't, there will be no fillibuster proof majority in late 2010.
"You'd agree with that, I am sure?"
I agree with that, including my additional comments.
-
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 8:26 PM<It is just a way to pull in a reader, nothing more. If you are decieved by provactive subject lines, this might say more about you than it does me Andrew.>
What it says is that my experience with hardcore Republican Foxwatchers makes me very suspicious of you. I expect you to be duplicitous, and I expect you to not know the forest from the trees. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong.
<My feeling is the totality of the result are a referendum.>
I think that to some degree you are right. I never doubted. I'm just saying that it's not some macro referendum. I'm saying that there is a % of those that voted either for Obama during the general election or didn't vote for anyone but voted this time that SURELY reacted to Obama. For instance, there are probably a lot of republicans that didn't get off their ass during the General that now feel badly about that and are reacting. THIS is a very real possibility. Would this be a "referendum"? Perhaps, but not as intended.
<I think many democrats are feeling the same thing. I have heard some admit to it. You are free to draw your own conclusion.>
I think that this would be another strong causality factor to your argument. There are a lot of further-Left Dems that are upset at Obama, and they didn't come out to vote. But, by what %?
<I agree that there were many effects and that the 24% of angry voters did not necessarily swing the election. But it was a factor and one Obama had better take notice of. If he doesn't, there will be no fillibuster proof majority in late 2010.>
To that much we both agree.
See? A reasonable conversation between reasonable people is possible.
<the most important race was the NY-23.........and this race kicked the birthers, teabaggers , right wingers in the balls ( first dem. elected congressman in 138 years)>
Dan, I do congratulate you that your personal integrity for your beliefs is greater than your interest in who gets into office. That you support the more far-Right candidate even though it HAS and perhaps again WILL cost Reps elections? That is impressive, to be honest.
A
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 7:01 PM<It is just a way to pull in a reader, nothing more. If you are decieved by provactive subject lines, this might say more about you than it does me Andrew.>
A: What it says is that my experience with hardcore Republican Foxwatchers makes me very suspicious of you. I expect you to be duplicitous, and I expect you to not know the forest from the trees. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong.
No, I think you would be happy if your unfounded prejudices were actually true. But I am not republican. I am a member of the constitution party. And the term "hard core foxwatchers" is laughable. Would you feel better if I were a hard core MSNBC watcher? Would you feel better if Foxes ratings were not better than the sum total of all of the other cable news networks?:-)
<My feeling is the totality of the result are a referendum.>
"I think that to some degree you are right. I never doubted. I'm just saying that it's not some macro referendum."
And I am willing to meet you here. I might have gone a little further had there been a clean sweep in all 3 areas, but that didn't happen. I think that Obama will ignore the results and downplay them as he has an agenda and he doesn't want reality to get in the way.
" I'm saying that there is a % of those that voted either for Obama during the general election or didn't vote for anyone but voted this time that SURELY reacted to Obama. For instance, there are probably a lot of republicans that didn't get off their ass during the General that now feel badly about that and are reacting. THIS is a very real possibility. Would this be a "referendum"? Perhaps, but not as intended."
There is a sleeping giant of conservatism out there and some are registered Democrats. Hard core liberalism is a small minority in this country and every democratic politician knows this. They are waking up and I feel will be heard next November. This was the rumbling, earthquake to follow.
<I think many democrats are feeling the same thing. I have heard some admit to it. You are free to draw your own conclusion.>
"I think that this would be another strong causality factor to your argument. There are a lot of further-Left Dems that are upset at Obama, and they didn't come out to vote. But, by what %?
<I agree that there were many effects and that the 24% of angry voters did not necessarily swing the election. But it was a factor and one Obama had better take notice of. If he doesn't, there will be no fillibuster proof majority in late 2010.>
To that much we both agree.
A: See? A reasonable conversation between reasonable people is possible.
Of course it is possible, but don't tell Jeff I can be reasonable. I do have a reputation....
<the most important race was the NY-23.........and this race kicked the birthers, teabaggers , right wingers in the balls ( first dem. elected congressman in 138 years)>
"Dan, I do congratulate you that your personal integrity for your beliefs is greater than your interest in who gets into office. That you support the more far-Right candidate even though it HAS and perhaps again WILL cost Reps elections? That is impressive, to be honest."
Thank you for the kind words.
-
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 9:37 PM<No, I think you would be happy if your unfounded prejudices were actually true.>
No, I hope for the best in people, actually.
<But I am not republican. I am a member of the constitution party.>
Shit. We're going to have to start to figure out how to differentiate between all of these new parties. The Constitution Party, the Conservative Party, the Teabag Party...
<Would you feel better if I were a hard core MSNBC watcher?>
Yes. I find MSNBC to be the best of all the big news channels to say the least.
<Would you feel better if Foxes ratings were not better than the sum total of all of the other cable news networks?:-)>
Yes, it would mean that there are less stupid people out there.
<This was the rumbling, earthquake to follow.>
I wonder. The trend in your favor is that the economic conditions will be very, very difficult to fix. There are a lot of people, and there's only so much money to move around between all of these people. A world-wide economic issue hurts us more than it hurts the developing countries, since money will move to them while we struggle to keep 300 million people in fleece and lattes.
<Of course it is possible, but don't tell Jeff I can be reasonable. I do have a reputation....>
As do I - and I am sure that we'll blow any chance of ever again being accused of being "reasonable" quite soon.
-
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 12:04 PM<<Would you feel better if I were a hard core MSNBC watcher
At the very least diversify your news sources. Repeating Fox and WND claims does not = critical thinking or analysis. -
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 3:35 PMJeff: At the very least diversify your news sources. Repeating Fox and WND claims does not = critical thinking or analysis.
I am 51 years old Jeff and you are 39. I was around when only NBC, CBS and ABC were the only choices. I am well acquainted with liberalism and need no primer. The issue here is not my ability to think, it is yours. You might do well to watch fox and read WND as it might expand your horizens and open your mind. You're caught in a pile of political spin you feel you are a 'critical thinker" because of it. But there is only one person you are fooling, and that is yourself. -
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 1:24 PM<<I am 51 years old Jeff and you are 39.
Idiocy knows no age limit.
<<You might do well to watch fox and read WND as it might expand your horizens and open your mind.
Unlike you, I don't rely on reporting that agrees with my world view. I read and watch all viewpoints, you might want to try the same so that you can become a more informed citizen. -
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 7:03 AMJeff: "Idiocy knows no age limit."
I am not an idiot Jeff.
<<You might do well to watch fox and read WND as it might expand your horizens and open your mind.
Jeff: Unlike you, I don't rely on reporting that agrees with my world view. I read and watch all viewpoints, you might want to try the same so that you can become a more informed citizen.
I find this unlikely since you agree with nothing which I present from WND or Fox and completely distrust these sources out of hand. You also assume that I do not read or listen to alternative news sources and this is false. But there is nothing wrong with listening to news sources which are ideologically similar to me. It is in fact sensible to do so. On any given day it is possible to get all viewpoints on most major issues on Fox news.
-
-
-
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 11:06 AM"Shit. We're going to have to start to figure out how to differentiate between all of these new parties. The Constitution Party, the Conservative Party, the Teabag Party... "
(whispering now) they are all front organizations of the vast right wing conspiracy. Now that is a conspiracy jeff can believe in.
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 11:09 AM"Yes. I find MSNBC to be the best of all the big news channels to say the least."
You chose foolishly grasshopper, they are among the most liberal of them all. Fortunately, it appears that you Jeff and Rodent are the only listeners. You must buy a lot of stuff from their adverstisers or they also promote their wares on Fox news so they can go pro bono on MSNBC.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Republicans Sweep Virginia!
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 6:30 PMAndrew, you spend most of your post attacking my credibility (like that was necessary on a forum where nearly everyone is in your camp already). You doubt my exit polls were factual (and no doubt will discount them now because they didn't come from your biased source), then you conclude with an acknowledgment that I was right all along:
"Quite honestly, I believe that some of this is in fact an Obama-driven result, but any intelligent person has to take more into consideration than just the Obama factor. Any intelligent person..."
And I can see through you like Superman sees through buildings. I don't care what you think of my intelligence. There is definitely an anti-obama factor to tonights results.
-
-
-
Christie Projected as the Winner in New Jersey!
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 7:27 PMBlue State New Jersey never elects republicans, but they did tonight! Chris Christie won in a deep blue state! This is monumental as even some here will admit. Obama made 5 stops, Biden came through. Democrats spent 30 million, republicans only 5 million. This is being accurately touted as a major comeback for republicans. But it is also a message of discontent toward democrats! -
-
Re: Christie Projected as the Winner in New Jersey!
Tue, November 3, 2009 - 7:31 PMExit polls indicated 19% voted against Obama in the NJ election:
www.foxnews.com/inc/electi...jersey.html -
-
Re: Christie Projected as the Winner in New Jersey!
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 2:44 AMDan: Blue State New Jersey never elects republicans, but they did tonight!
what are you talking about? Nj had several republican govenors in the last 25 years, like whiteman ,kean, di francesco etc.etc.
on the other hand NY-23 had no dem. congressman in 130+ years.......well they got one now......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
-
-
-
.GOP sweep: Big governor victories in Virginia, NJ
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 4:57 AMWASHINGTON – Independents who swept Barack Obama to a historic 2008 victory broke big for Republicans on Tuesday as the GOP wrested political control from Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a troubling sign for the president and his party heading into an important midterm election year.
Conservative Republican Bob McDonnell's victory in the Virginia governor's race over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and moderate Republican Chris Christie's ouster of unpopular New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was a double-barreled triumph for a party looking to rebuild after being booted from power in national elections in 2006 and 2008.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, Maine voters rejected a state law that would allow same-sex couples to wed. If supporters had prevailed, it would have marked the first time that the electorate in any state endorsed gay marriage.
And Democrat Bill Owens captured a GOP-held vacant 23rd Congressional District seat in New York in a race that highlighted fissures in the Republican Party and illustrated hurdles the GOP could face in capitalizing on any voter discontent with Obama and Democrats next fall.
California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, also a Democrat, won a special election to a vacant congressional seat, Ohio voters approved casinos and a slew of cities selected mayors, including New York, which gave Michael Bloomberg a third term.
The outcomes of Virginia and New Jersey were sure to feed discussion about the state of the electorate, the status of the diverse coalition that sent Obama to the White House and the limits of the president's influence — on the party's base of support and on moderate current lawmakers he needs to advance his legislative priorities.
His signature issue of health care reform was dealt a blow hours before polls closed when Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid signaled that Congress may not complete health care legislation this year, missing Obama's deadline and pushing debate into a congressional election year. Democrats in swing-voting states and moderate-to-conservative districts may be less willing to back Obama on issues like health care after Virginia and New Jersey showed there are limits to how much he can protect his rank and file from fallout back home.
The president had personally campaigned for Deeds and Corzine, seeking to ensure that independents and base voters alike turned out even if he wasn't on the ballot — and voters still rejected them. Thus, the losses were blots on Obama's political standing to a certain degree and suggested potential problems ahead as he seeks to achieve his policy goals, protect Democratic majorities in Congress and expand his party's grip on governors' seats next fall.
Interviews with voters leaving polling stations in both states were filled with reasons for Democrats to be concerned and for Republicans to be optimistic, particularly about independents — the crown jewel of elections because they often determine outcomes.
Independents were a critical part Obama's victory in Virginia, New Jersey and across the country. But after more than a year of recession, they fled from Democrats in the two states, where the economy trumped all.
The Associated Press exit polls showed that nearly a third of voters in Virginia described themselves as independents, and nearly as many in New Jersey did. They preferred McDonnell by almost a 2-1 margin over Deeds in Virginia, and Christie over Corzine by a similar margin.
Last year, independents split between Obama and Republican John McCain in both states.
In Virginia, McDonnell won by big margins in rapidly growing, far-flung Washington, D.C., suburbs — places like Loudoun and Prince William counties — that Republicans historically have won but where Obama prevailed last fall by winning over independents and swing voters. Republicans swept all three statewide Virginia offices up for election: governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.
"Bob McDonnell's victory gives Republicans tremendous momentum heading into 2010," declared Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association. "His focus on ideas and pocketbook issues will serve as a model for Republicans running next year."
Said Tim Kaine, the Democratic National Committee chairman and the term-limited Virginia governor: "We are disappointed."
In both states, the surveys also suggested the Democrats had difficulty turning out their base, including the large numbers of first-time minority and youth voters whom Obama attracted. The Virginia electorate was whiter in 2009 than it was in 2008, when blacks and Hispanics voted in droves to elect the country's first black president.
Democratic victories in both Virginia, a new swing state, and New Jersey, a Democratic stronghold, in 2005 preceded big Democratic years nationally in 2006 and 2008.
Tuesday's impact on Obama's popularity and on the 2010 elections could easily be overstated. Voters are often focused on local issues and local personalities.
Yet, national issues, like the recession, were clearly a factor, with voter attitudes shaped to some degree by how people feel about the state of their nation — and their place in it.
And, voter attitudes — particularly among independents — could bode ill for Democrats in moderate districts and in swing states like Ohio, Colorado and Nevada, should they remain unchanged when the party seeks to defend its turf next fall. In 2010, most governors, a third of the Senate and all members in the House will be on ballots.
It's also difficult to separate Obama from the outcomes after he devoted a significant chunk of time working to persuade voters to elect Deeds in Virginia and re-elect Corzine in New Jersey.
More than four in 10 voters in Virginia said their view of Obama factored into their choice on Tuesday, and those voters roughly split between expressing support and opposition for the president. People who said they disapprove of Obama's job performance voted overwhelmingly Republican, and those who approve of the president favored Deeds, the Democrat.
The Obama factor was similar in New Jersey, though there were slightly more voters who said the president did not factor into their choice. -
-
Re: .GOP sweep: Big governor victories in Virginia, NJ
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 4:58 AM
-
-
What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 5:09 AMLooks like Bush can no longer be blamed for the economy. Obama's campaigning days are over and it is time for him to actually govern. this means he becomes a man who takes responsibility for his actions, rather than the blame shifting. Unless the economy gets remarkably better over the next 12 months, we can expect a major shift again toward republicans.
Furthermore, it is time to stop trying to jam legislation through such as health care reform, without input from the Republicans in the House and Senate. If they ignore this advice, they will pay with their jobs next year. Right now Reid is acknowledging that he likely will not get health care prior to the first of the year. But next year the campaigning begins for those "blue dog democrats" and they will be in no mood to stick their necks out! -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:13 AMDan is grasping on to a life raft....LOL~ He is basically saying 'see, we conservatives are not drowning', LOL~ Experts agree that these elections swung on local issues, and the polls support this. Palin was poisoin in NY, and now Bachman can't even get the ball rolling for her latest invade the halls of Congress protest proposal. This very well may signal the beginning of the end of the Tea Baggers.
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:18 AMreally dan
how is the economy going to get better
is there some product america is making
besides weapons
that anyone wants to buy......
what are you selling dan................america needs to quit bleeding our boys blood fighting wars overseas...........
and we get to work on making a green future......and products people will buy
and what i find interesting about these elections is the increasing # of folk who gave up on both dems and repukians -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 2:29 PMHey Stephen, ever hear of Hollywood? Silicon Valley?
America makes plenty of fine products that the world buys. -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 9:42 PMyeah but they can all be fit on a bootleg cd / dvd so thats a fail....
-
-
-
It's Clinton's fault!
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:18 AM<<Looks like Bush can no longer be blamed for the economy. >>
Really? Why not?
If George W. Bush spends eight years smashing a wall with a sledgehammer, and Obama is told to come in and fix that wall, is it realistic to expect that the broken wall will be fixed in a matter of months?
I remember when Bush was President, happily turning a surplus into a deficit, starting two unnecessary wars based on obvious lies, and dismantling the Constitution, all while the economy sank like a tyrannosaurus in the tar pits. This happened for the whole EIGHT YEARS Bush was in office.
Almost a whole decade of decay, watching surplus turn to deficit, and for these eight years, what was the cry from these gargantuan beasts with the walnut sized brains?
"IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT!"
"IT'S CLINTON'S FAULT!"
Yet now, with the horrendous Bush administration behind us, we are being told to completely forget the ineptitude, lies and destruction of the past eight years which has led to the current economic and political disaster, and to lay the blame completely on the new President instead?
doublethink doupleplusgood. -
-
Re: It's Clinton's fault!
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 11:25 AM<<Looks like Bush can no longer be blamed for the economy.
The numbers indicate a significant downward trend during the Bush years, Obama has already succeeded in holding those numbers relatively steady and staving off the Bush sinking.
-
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 1:57 PM<Looks like Bush can no longer be blamed for the economy.>
Of course he can. The problem was a hand-off from the Bush admin. It's disingenuous to say that this is now only an Obama situation. IF Obama is out after 4 years and the economy is STILL bad, then it'll be a Bush/Obama issue for the next president, because there's NO way that the next President can blame Obama and not Bush also.
<Furthermore, it is time to stop trying to jam legislation through such as health care reform>
Wait, didn't you JUST write, "Obama's campaigning days are over and it is time for him to actually govern." Choosing to do the right thing, the NECESSARY thing and "jam legislation through such as health care reform" is governing, Dan. EXACTLY what you just said that you wanted him to do.
<without input from the Republicans in the House and Senate.>
A laughable assertion. They have derailed the process and now have designed the actual bill at this point. Your point is either disingenuous, dishonest or at best ignorant of how this process has worked. If Obama has been able to "jam" anything, he'd have a bill done and done by now.
-
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Wed, November 4, 2009 - 7:09 PMAnyone who has an lager IQ than their Hat sice knows that elections of governors ( local issues and no real national impact) isn't that important..........their names will be forgotten within a month or two.
the most important race was the NY-23.........and this race kicked the birthers, teabaggers , right wingers in the balls ( first dem. elected congressman in 138 years)
not only did they lose the election ....... scozzafava might jump the boat.
what you hear right know on TV is the right demonizing the obama admin. and claiming a waterloo victory..( laughable)......the left does the same to force Obama to solve problems............problems caused by the bush admin......and we gave this moron 8 years to destroy the USA but expect Obama to correct every single issue within 8 months.
PATHETIC. -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 6:48 PM"Anyone who has an lager IQ than their Hat sice knows that elections of governors ( local issues and no real national impact) isn't that important..........their names will be forgotten within a month or two."
Talk about wild spin. Your point might be well taken were it not for the fact that Obama made it a personal by holding 5 rallys on Corzines behalf. You can spin around till you fall down, but this was a major hit for democrats.
"the most important race was the NY-23.........and this race kicked the birthers, teabaggers , right wingers in the balls ( first dem. elected congressman in 138 years) "
This race was fascinating in how it played out. Repubs there don't have primary's so they just through out a republicrat. She was repudiated by her constituents and a full scale revolt ensued. Gingrich comes to Scozzafava support, Palin to the independents support. Both lost, but Scozzafava had no chance in hades of getting elected so no harm no foul. Small district, interesting circumstances, but not near as significant as New Jersey.
"not only did they lose the election ....... scozzafava might jump the boat."
And she should. I cannot figure out what values the lady holds that are in the republican platform, can you?
"what you hear right know on TV is the right demonizing the obama admin. and claiming a waterloo victory..( laughable)......the left does the same to force Obama to solve problems............problems caused by the bush admin......and we gave this moron 8 years to destroy the USA but expect Obama to correct every single issue within 8 months."
When do you suppose that your president should be responsible for his own problems Jay? When he runs in 2012 will he still be running against Bush do you think? Or himself?
PATHETIC. -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Thu, November 5, 2009 - 9:43 PMheh....its gonna be fun watching the beck / limbag / teabagger faction tank the rethugs. -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 11:10 AMcDub, so glad to here you watch Beck. There is hope for you yet. Keep watching,and learning. Soon enough we can advance you to human events and the national review. -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Tue, November 10, 2009 - 9:07 PMyes with luck one day i'll be intellectually sophisticated enough to grok jonah goldberg and k-lo... -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 7:07 AMwell, I don't want you to have unrealistic expectations now.
-
-
-
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 12:10 PM<<Your point might be well taken were it not for the fact that Obama made it a personal by holding 5 rallys on Corzines behalf.
As was pointed out, and as you ignored, this is standard practice for a President...... There is nothing personal about the leader of the Democratic party campaigning for Democrats that may be in close rases, it is part of his job and is standard practice. -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Sat, November 7, 2009 - 3:38 PMJeff: As was pointed out, and as you ignored, this is standard practice for a President......
Name 3 examples of Presidents who spent this much time and money in an off year election to help a govenor get elected. -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Mon, November 9, 2009 - 1:36 PM<<Name 3 examples of Presidents who spent this much time and money in an off year election to help a govenor get elected.
Speaking about $$ is a red herring, it speaks nothing of the ever increasing amount of $$ needed for elections, and it speaks nothing of simple inflation (in regards to historical comparisons). In regards to how much time Obama spent, you would first have to tell me that number (as it seems you think you know). Now, as I indicated, it is standard practice for a President to campaign for his parties candidates, in particular if he has the political capital to help and not hurt. This case is demonstrated by Bush himself, who had high approval ratings after 9-11 and campaigned for the Repug candidates through the off-year elections. In this case, the Repug won despite Obama's help, not because of it being that Corzine was highly unpopular. -
-
Re: What was the number 1 issue in these elections? The Economy Stupid
Wed, November 11, 2009 - 7:04 AMI see you evaded the challenge. Coudn't find any examples huh?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-