Advertisement
Seriously folks, when you start off arguing with fanatics it's alomst impossible to have a real discussion, because you have to spend so much time refuting all this junk that has no relation to reality. so maybe we can try again.
The GOP is of course trumpeting two wins in the state races as a huge resurgence and a sign that the country has turned on the Demos, while downplaying the fact than they didn't win any races that actually involved the federal government.
New Jersey really seemed like a no brainer - a socially moderate Republican beat a corrupt incumbant governor who made millions working for Goldman Sachs, probably one of the most hated names in the U.S. right now. The fact that Obama's approval rating in New Jersey is 57% is pretty good evidence that this election was NOT about Obama.
Virginia has moved from being a solidly GOP safe state to a swing state, and this time it swung to the Republicans. Even though Bo Mc Donnell is a social conservative, he campaigned on economic issues, and it's definitely true that a bad economy hurts the party in power.
I think that's what that Demos really have to worry about - they've been way too timid about taking real actions to make things better for regular Americans while the richest are still raking in insane amounts, as the latest uproar over the huge bonuses Goldman sachs just handed out demonstrate. If they've got any sense of self-preservation, once the health care debate subsides they'll turn their attention to the horrible unemployment situation - and let's face it, it's just the end of a trend that's been going on for decades as well-paying blue collar jobs went to Mexico, China, other "free trade partners" with no real labor or environmental regualtions, letting the corporations revert back to practices that haven't been allowed in the U.S. for 75 or more years.
The other big race of course was New york's 23rd Congressional District, where the far-rightwingnuts managed to give the district to a Democrat for the very first time in over a century, since the district was formed. Yeah, they were moderate republicans because tthis was rural New York, not rural Dixieland, but suddenly all these out of state far-righters like Palin and Bachmann decided the party's candidate wasn't pureenough for their tastes and gave a huge amount of money to the rightie 3rd party candidate Doug Hoffman, himself a carpetbagger who didn't actually live in the district. The actual GOP candidate Dierdre Scozzafava withdrew, and now the House is up one more Democrat.
I find THAT pretty fricking interesting and more indicative of a real trend. The fight in the GOP between the realists and the far-right could very well cripple them even more. And Beck, Malkin, and other shapers of wingnut philosophy are spinning this as a call for further attempts for the teabaggers to take over the GOP. Thre's already two big Senate races in California and Florida where the far-righties and the moderates will be lining up for a big showdown, and they'll probably get creaemed in both states with the wingnuts come out on top.
The GOP is of course trumpeting two wins in the state races as a huge resurgence and a sign that the country has turned on the Demos, while downplaying the fact than they didn't win any races that actually involved the federal government.
New Jersey really seemed like a no brainer - a socially moderate Republican beat a corrupt incumbant governor who made millions working for Goldman Sachs, probably one of the most hated names in the U.S. right now. The fact that Obama's approval rating in New Jersey is 57% is pretty good evidence that this election was NOT about Obama.
Virginia has moved from being a solidly GOP safe state to a swing state, and this time it swung to the Republicans. Even though Bo Mc Donnell is a social conservative, he campaigned on economic issues, and it's definitely true that a bad economy hurts the party in power.
I think that's what that Demos really have to worry about - they've been way too timid about taking real actions to make things better for regular Americans while the richest are still raking in insane amounts, as the latest uproar over the huge bonuses Goldman sachs just handed out demonstrate. If they've got any sense of self-preservation, once the health care debate subsides they'll turn their attention to the horrible unemployment situation - and let's face it, it's just the end of a trend that's been going on for decades as well-paying blue collar jobs went to Mexico, China, other "free trade partners" with no real labor or environmental regualtions, letting the corporations revert back to practices that haven't been allowed in the U.S. for 75 or more years.
The other big race of course was New york's 23rd Congressional District, where the far-rightwingnuts managed to give the district to a Democrat for the very first time in over a century, since the district was formed. Yeah, they were moderate republicans because tthis was rural New York, not rural Dixieland, but suddenly all these out of state far-righters like Palin and Bachmann decided the party's candidate wasn't pureenough for their tastes and gave a huge amount of money to the rightie 3rd party candidate Doug Hoffman, himself a carpetbagger who didn't actually live in the district. The actual GOP candidate Dierdre Scozzafava withdrew, and now the House is up one more Democrat.
I find THAT pretty fricking interesting and more indicative of a real trend. The fight in the GOP between the realists and the far-right could very well cripple them even more. And Beck, Malkin, and other shapers of wingnut philosophy are spinning this as a call for further attempts for the teabaggers to take over the GOP. Thre's already two big Senate races in California and Florida where the far-righties and the moderates will be lining up for a big showdown, and they'll probably get creaemed in both states with the wingnuts come out on top.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:27 PM"while downplaying the fact than they didn't win any races that actually involved the federal government. "
Come on. The fact that Obama himself personally got involved in those campaigns and campaigned for the Dems means that he clearly though that voters would connect the races with him and his federal policies. Dems can't consistently do that and then suddenly claim, after losing, that Obama was completely irrelevant to the elections.
Obama explicitly argued that getting Corzine reelected was necessary for his federal programs; he thus told the voters that a vote for Corzine was a vote for him. If he was right, then a vote against Corzine was in part a vote against Obama and his policies, at least for the people who thought Obama's reasoning was persuasive. -
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:38 PM<Obama explicitly argued that getting Corzine reelected was necessary for his federal programs; he thus told the voters that a vote for Corzine was a vote for him. If he was right, then a vote against Corzine was in part a vote against Obama and his policies, at least for the people who thought Obama's reasoning was persuasive. >
Well, it seems like Obama was wrong on this one - or at least the NJ voters didn't think agree with him; most stuff I've seen indicated that the young voters and minorities who were key to Obama's victory pretty much stayed home on this one, and in Virginia too.
I think this was a vote againt Corzine - and the Demos simply failed at trying to tie this race into the national picture. Really, it was their only possible hope of Corzine winning, but the NJ voters didn't buy into it - and even though I would have personally held my nose and voted for Corzine as the lesser evil if I was a resident, I can't say I blame them.
It seems that there's often a pretty wide gap between a state's gubernational politics and federal. Look at California - we've consistently sent out two Democratic senators and a majority of Democratic Reps, but keep electing GOP governors. -
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:49 PMWhat should also be noted is that the economy wreaks havoc on incumbents, and the incumbent lost in EACH of thse cases.
-
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:39 PM<< If he was right, then a vote against Corzine was in part a vote against Obama and his policies, at least for the people who thought Obama's reasoning was persuasive.>>
Except the exit polls stated the opposite. Only 20% of the people said their vote was about Obama. Rather they said it was about Corzine. I think the most you can say about an election where Democrats won traditional GOP districts and Republicans took the governor's seat in the blue state of NJ was that there was a strong urge to "throw the bums out". -
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 2:16 PM<I think the most you can say about an election where Democrats won traditional GOP districts and Republicans took the governor's seat in the blue state of NJ was that there was a strong urge to "throw the bums out". >
I actually don't think the two races have much in common at all. It's pretty safe to say that the GOP would have won in New York like all the other times if Palin and the other out-of-state extremists hadn't decided that they wouldn't tolerate a moderate republican being elected from a moderate district.
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Sun, November 8, 2009 - 1:05 AM"Except the exit polls stated the opposite. Only 20% of the people said their vote was about Obama. Rather they said it was about Corzine."
Go ahead! Throw data in my face!
O.K. Good point.
Of course, if the Dems won, Dem officials would claim it vindication of the Obama policies.
But your point is still valid.
-
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:48 PM<<Come on. The fact that Obama himself personally got involved in those campaigns and campaigned for the Dems means that he clearly though that voters would connect the races with him and his federal policies.
Campaigning for those in close races is standard practice for any sitting President, it is a Presidents job as head of his party and does nothing to demonstrate the how and why of how people voted. A better measure of determining how voters made their decisions are the exit polls, and exit polls clearly indicate that these elections were primarily decided by local issues.
Your premise seems to be that because Obama campaigned for Corzine, Voters must have made their decisions based on his endorsement (again, standard practice). Exit polls indicate otherwise. -
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 1:55 PMnever let the facts get in the way of supporting your own view.. -
-
Re: So, can we have a rational discussion about Tuesday's election?
Fri, November 6, 2009 - 2:12 PMHey Ron, what do you think about the New York race? I'd really like to hear the views of someone generally supportive of the GOP but not a complete wingnut.
-
-
-