|
|
Before we have an outcome, I wanted to see what everyone thought.
Personally, I think the elections today have little if any meaning beyond the states they are in. I don't think it shows a national mood, I don't think it is a reflection of the president, and I don't think its going to matter in a year when congress is up for grabs again.
What do you think?
Do the results show any real indication of the overall national political trends?
|
Posts:
9,563
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(132 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 2:40 PM
|
> You mean, the point in the race, before anyone was
> paying attention, when name recognition means more
> than actual issues. She was viewed as being more
> liberal than her democratic opponent.
I don't think her opponent was endorsed by the NRA, and she was not for the strong pub;lic option the Dem campaigned on.
>
> Using this logic, Obama lost the governorship of NJ &
> VA. Are you sure you want to pursue this line of
> reasoning?
Sure, because I don't think they are analogous at all.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,791
Registered:
9/15/07
|
|
(131 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 2:32 PM
|
I voted straight Republican in NJ statewide elections, like I said I would. The Democrats have frigg'd up this state something fierce for the last 12+ years and it was time to change. Even in a Dem state like NJ, Republicans either won or came closer than normal in races throughout the state.
I still would not vote for a Republican for president or a long time though.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,555
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(130 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 2:14 PM
|
Isn?t Bill Owens considered a Blue Dog Democrat?
From what I read around here, they are considered Republicans disguised as Democrats. We?ll take it as a GOP win.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,555
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(129 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 2:12 PM
|
> > You mean, the point in the race, before anyone
> was
> > paying attention, when name recognition means
> more
> > than actual issues. She was viewed as being
> more
> > liberal than her democratic opponent.
>
> Actually, you are very wrong here. Dede was ranked
> as a alderwoman as leaning right in the NY
> legislature. She was by no means more liberal than
> Owens. For the sake of party purity, and a need to
> to get national attention Sarah Palin, et.all,
> decided that she needed to be purged. So, its one
> less House seat for Republicans, all because they did
> not respect local decisions.
>
I said it was how she was viewed
In the past, she has run on the very liberal Working Family Party line, plus her stance of many social issues - pro-choice, same-sex marriage - match up with Democratic values.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,555
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(128 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 1:58 PM
|
> > No Republican in New York gets elected without
> the
> > blessing of the Conservative party.
>
> The Conservative Party of Hoffman is a state
> organization that didn't exist two years ago. So, I
> don't know where you got that idea.
Are there 2 conservative parties on NY now or have we flashed back to 1964?
The one I speak of was started in 1962. Click under "history"
http://www.cpnys.org/
|
|
|
Posts:
507
Registered:
7/15/08
|
|
(127 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 1:38 PM
|
|
Every time I hear a conservative whine about taxes, I wonder what do they mean by taxes. How much tax is it to lose your home? How much tax is it to lose your car? How much tax is it to lose your job? All these taxes were caused by the Bush Administration and the Repugs. The greatest tax that we have ever seen came out of the Americans workers pockets by greedy CEOs supported by conservatives that funds them! Now these same bandits are calling giving Americans health care that they can afford, that would work for the benefit of patients and not CEOs with accountability with a push for wellness. The greedy do not help the needy, the greedy steals from the needy, which makes them crooks and that?s why they have to lie! The most important win for me is a new congressperson.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,768
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(126 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 1:26 PM
|
> You mean, the point in the race, before anyone was
> paying attention, when name recognition means more
> than actual issues. She was viewed as being more
> liberal than her democratic opponent.
Actually, you are very wrong here. Dede was ranked as a alderwoman as leaning right in the NY legislature. She was by no means more liberal than Owens. For the sake of party purity, and a need to to get national attention Sarah Palin, et.all, decided that she needed to be purged. So, its one less House seat for Republicans, all because they did not respect local decisions.
> Using this logic, Obama lost the governorship of NJ &
> VA. Are you sure you want to pursue this line of
> reasoning?
There is no line of reasoning in the above.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,881
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(125 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 12:49 PM
|
RC
You'rs so right. The election of two Republicans doesn't mean anything. Democrats have nothing to fear. You guys are just doing swell.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,881
Registered:
6/23/08
|
|
(124 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 12:45 PM
|
RD
>Using this logic, Obama lost the governorship of NJ & VA
Too much fun, isn't it....
|
|
|
Posts:
20,768
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(123 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 12:41 PM
|
> No Republican in New York gets elected without the
> blessing of the Conservative party.
The Conservative Party of Hoffman is a state organization that didn't exist two years ago. So, I don't know where you got that idea.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,768
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(122 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 12:34 PM
|
> Yeah, you said because of who is in office. You
> never coorlate the economy or any other factors.
Because those factors, as I have been telling you, are not provable or historically relevant.
> I am not pulling back at all. I have said from the
> beginning that incumbents could be in trouble and the
> Dems have more seats to lose. I have never said that
> the Dems would lose control of either house, just
> that they will lose more seats.
First you have no data, and then you assume a fact based on it.
> As for polling data, you look at every race in
> states/districts that are not firmly one political
> party or not and almost all the incumbents are either
> trailing or in a heated battle for their office in
> 2010. That is clearly polling data supporting my
> argument.
It is also bullshit. Democrats are leading Republicans in the generic congressional ballot, 48% to 41% with 6% undecided.
> According to the Wall Street Journal, the Reps have
> $125 million vs. the Dems $139.4 million raised for
> the 2010 campaign as of the end of September.
Do I really have to teach you how that money must be used?
> Wow! Making my point for me. The Dems went fishing
> in a hotly contested race?!? And you think the
> elections meant nothing?
Didn't mean too much unless you lived in VA or NJ.
> As for the independents. I found this:
>
> 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.
Sure, there are a lot of used to be Republican identifying themselves as independents after people like Sarah Palin came forward. What else is new.
> Last year, independents split between Obama and
> Republican John McCain in both states.
Obama wasn't on the ballot.
>
> I would have to dig deeper to find more numbers. I
> don't have the time now. Maybe later. This does
> support my arguement though.
>
>
> > Cite the poll.
>
> Go look at all the Obama or Congress opinion polls
No, either you have a poll or you don't. I am not going to research to find out you just assumed a cause and effect again or misinterpreted meaning.
> > No, they haven't. Single issue shifts, yes.
> But
> > opinions on parties, no.
>
> BS! The Dems have taken a huge drop in their overall
> opinion. The Reps have had a slight up tick although
> not nearly as much as the Dems' loss of favorabilty.
> Right now the country hates everyone in Washington
> n except for Obama who they are split. The
> Independents have been the biggest shift in the
> unfavorabilty of the Dems and Obama.
Again. No empirical evidence.
> LOL! You really kid yourself don't you. You really
> don't have a realistic view of the world. Do you?
> Midterm elections are notorious for low voter
> r turnout.
No. In 2002 they were nationalized. That playbook will open again. Is your memory bad, or are you too to young to remember?
> I do I have plently of exit poll and general polling
> data to support it. You just choose to ignore it.
If polls are only a photo of a horse race, exit polls are only one horse's legs. They do not show trends.
> Any then you agree that the Democrats will lose seats
> in Congress in 2010. Or are you admitting you are a
> hypocrite? You can't have it both ways. Either you
> believe in trends or you don't.
I am talking about cause and effect and you are all over the map.
> And that isn't a concern for 2010? If the Democrats
> don't show up to support their candidate for Governor
> doesn't that at least raise the possibility they
> won't show up for their candidate for the House
> and/or the Senate.
No, it really isn't a concern.
> And in 2002, the Democrats weren't in much better
> shape than the Republicans are now. They were
> irrelevant and in disarray. They rebounded. If you
> don't think the Republicans will rebound, you haven't
> followed politics.
Stop the jabs, you don't really do it well. Of course the Republicans will be back, but the question is when and what form they will take. I happen to believe in a two party system with vigorous, truthful and reasoned debate based on facts. So I wish they'd get their shit together. On the other hand, it doesn't look like that will ever become reality based on the dogma spouting ideologue rhetoric we hear on the national stage from them.
> Last time I checked these bills have to pass through
> both Houses and if if the Senate revises the bill
> after it passes the House, the revisions need to be
> approved by the House.
This is true, but the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader say who goes to committee, and the final bill must be voted on and is filibuster proof with only simple majorities needed..
> Cap and trade is likely to die or be weakened even
> more than it is or be postponed past the 2010
> election. The Blue Dogs in the Senate will do
> whatever they can to kill it along with the
> Republicans.
We shall see.
> Healthcare will go through in some form, but I still
> believe it will be a bill that no one will really
> like.
It shouldn't be too bad. Its a start, and sometimes that's all you need. No matter what happens to it, the spin machines will be running.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,555
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(121 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 12:24 PM
|
> > Bottom line - If the Conservative party had
> endorsed
> > Dede, she wins.
>
> Bottom line... Dede was beating the Democrat handily
> before Armey and Palin stuck their noses where they
> didn't belong. Now the Democrat has won a seat for
> which he had otherwise no chance of really competing,
> let alone winning.
You mean, the point in the race, before anyone was paying attention, when name recognition means more than actual issues. She was viewed as being more liberal than her democratic opponent.
Using this logic, Obama lost the governorship of NJ & VA. Are you sure you want to pursue this line of reasoning?
|
|
|
Posts:
8,555
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(120 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 12:12 PM
|
> >
> >
> > Bottom line - If the Conservative party had
> endorsed
> > Dede, she wins.
>
> Exactly. But they endorsed someone from outside the
> party. "They+ starting with Sarah Palin.
No Republican in New York gets elected without the blessing of the Conservative party. It can be a very uncomfortable dance at times in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 ? 1 or 3-1, whatever it is these days.
It?s been that way for a long time.
|
|
|
Posts:
9,563
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(119 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 12:07 PM
|
> Bottom line - If the Conservative party had endorsed
> Dede, she wins.
Bottom line... Dede was beating the Democrat handily before Armey and Palin stuck their noses where they didn't belong. Now the Democrat has won a seat for which he had otherwise no chance of really competing, let alone winning.
|
|
|
Posts:
20,768
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(118 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:58 AM
|
> > > As for NY-23, I wouldn?t put too much stock
> into
> > what
> > > is happening there either. To say the New
> York
> > state
> > > GOP party is dysfunctional is an
> understatement.
> >
> >
> > Really? Because their candidate would have won
> > handily. It was Sarah Palin, Dick Army, Tom
> > Pawlenty and the national party that lost that
> race.
> > .
>
>
> I'm sure Keith Blubberman or Huffington wants you to
> believe that. But I thought Pete Sessions was the man
> to blame?
>
>
> NY-23 and the blame
> game
>
>
> Bottom line - If the Conservative party had endorsed
> Dede, she wins.
Exactly. But they endorsed someone from outside the party. "They+ starting with Sarah Palin.
|
|
|
|
|
