|
|
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:
11,142
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(117 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:56 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. More
> like brain dead. It?s a miracle any of them get
> elected. The Conservative party has a lot of
> influence and for any Republican to get elected, you
> have to climb in bed with the Conservative party and
> do what they say. If not, they withhold their
> endorsement and you are dead in the water ? as
> Sasserfraz (or whatever her name was) found
Scozzafava was leading by a lot in every poll against the Democratic candidate until Palin and Armey showed up. They propped up a teabagger who could never win and didn't. The Republicans lost a seat they've held since the Civil War as a direct result.
And Armey has stated he intends to do the same thing anywhere the Republican party dares run a moderate.
You, as a moderate Republican, are not concerned about that?
>
> If anything, this should serve as a wake-up call for
> the GOP.
A big one...but I'd rather see them keep snoozin'.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,799
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(116 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:55 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.
|
|
|
Posts:
374
Registered:
6/9/08
|
|
(115 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:53 AM
|
> Actually, if I remember right, I am the one that told
> you that VA/NJ was a trend to begin with. And I told
> you why.
Yeah, you said because of who is in office. You never coorlate the economy or any other factors.
> Now, you pull back. I don't disagree that seats will
> be lost, all is that it won't make any difference.
> There is no data that indicates that incumbency is
> s an issue.
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.
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.
> What do we know? We know that NRSC and the NRHC has
> already stated that they will not put any money into
> their primary candidates. This is a change due to
> the limited amount of campaign money they really have
> available. If you are going to run in a Republican
> primary, you have to do it on your own dime and those
> dimes are hard to come by these days.
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. The Reps outraised the Dems in August and September. The the trend continues, the Reps could catch up or even out pace the Dems in campaign contributions.
> Where do you get this stuff? Turnouts were dismal.
> Republicans turned out in droves and Democrats went
> t fishing.
>
Wow! Making my point for me. The Dems went fishing in a hotly contested race?!? And you think the elections meant nothing?
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.
Last year, independents split between Obama and Republican John McCain in both states.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6701600.html
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 and look at how the Independents are cooling on both and their favorabilty ratings are going down. Sorry if you have had your head in the ground the last six months, but that is well documented. Go look yourself:
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
The Republicans are still not popular, but the popularity of Dems and Obama have dropped quite a bit with Independents.
> 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 except for Obama who they are split. The Independents have been the biggest shift in the unfavorabilty of the Dems and Obama.
> That is true, but what is more true is that Democrats
> stayed away in droves. Mid-terms won't be that way.
> This is the difference between local races and
> d nationalized races.
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 turnout. Presidential elections are one thing, but midterm elections are another. Besides there are 14 states without Senate elections. You really think people care less about voting for their governor than their Representative in the House? Many people can't even name their Rep in the House.
I expect the 2010 election to have a low turn out. People aren't happy with the economy. That means that people from the party of the sitting candidate will be less likely to turn out. It also means the people looking for change will.
> You can blame all you want, but you have no data to
> support it.
I do I have plently of exit poll and general polling data to support it. You just choose to ignore it.
> No, as I said before, it seems pretty clear that the
> voters in NJ/VA tend to show their disappointment by
> voting for the other party, no matter which party
> controls the White House. This could be due to high
> expectations, or it could be a contrary nature of the
> population, but it always happens.
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.
> As you said yourself, and I concur, the voting public
> that normally vote for
> Democratic candidates didn't show up.
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.
> But, there is a difference. In one case you have a
> party trying to remain relevant and gain power,
> whereas on the other hand you have a party that is
> actually governing. The Democratic party has always
> been about herding cats, the Republicans march in
> lock step -- only right now they disagree which foot
> to use and will remain in place until they do.
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.
> So here you are on to policy making. I agree that
> there will be a difference because representatives
> from conservative districts will get antsy (though
> polls from their districts actually favor some
> progressive measures) due to Tuesday's results. But,
> that will have no play in Health Care since the House
> will pass this measure on Saturday. And it will have
> no affect on Cap and Trade, because that has already
> passed in the house. Then there is the other side of
> the coin. If the DNC nationalizes the mid-term
> races, with the Obama GOTV machine, the blue dogs can
> either be contrary or be there to shake a hand when
> Air Force One arrives.
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.
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.
Healthcare will go through in some form, but I still believe it will be a bill that no one will really like.
|
|
|
Posts:
11,142
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(114 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:48 AM
|
> > > Can you really see Scalia, Thomas, Alito,
> or
> > Roberts
> > > s voting in favor of gay marriage? I
> can't.
> >
> > Neither can I. But I can see the other five
> voting
> > in favor of it, and that's all it takes.
> >
> > --
> > Edited by prettywitty at 11/04/2009 6:48 PM PST
>
> A few things:
>
> The idealogical make up of the Court won't change any
> time soon barring an unexpected illness or death.
> None of the Conservative Justices are going to step
> p down willingly while Obama is in office. The
> Justices that might retire while Obama is in office
> are Ginsberg and Stevens and both are left leaning
> and support gay marriage already.
Yes. The four conservatives will remain outnumbered.
> I can't see all of the five non-conservatives voting
> to support gay marriage, but I could be wrong since
> the one Justice who does usually side with the
> conservatives (Kennedy) is a supporter of gay
> marriage.
Only the four conservatives have come out against it.
> This is a weird issue where
> sometimes even some of the most left leaning liberals
> are scarily conservative.
Which might explain why they are hesitiant to hear a case. But when it comes to making a decision, I think at least 5 of them will follow the Constitution.
> I am a contrarian and skeptic by nature (if you can't
> tell by my posts). I see the last two Democratic
> candidates for President (Obama and Kerry) unwilling
> to support a gay marriage amendment based largely on
> their faith.
That's why we appoint SCOTUS Justices for life. They don't have to run for anything and they don't owe anybody anything.
> Every opinion poll done in the US has
> the majority against gay marriage.
The majority matters not to the SCOTUS, nor should it ever.
> That makes me
> believe that there has to be at least one of the
> moderates and liberals on the court who feel the same
> way. I hope I am wrong.
Me too, and I think you are. *fingers crossed*
|
|
|
Posts:
21,005
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(113 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:39 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.
.
|
|
|
Posts:
11,142
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(112 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:32 AM
|
> I never said the Dems would lose either house.
You didn't? It looked like you said Dems were in trouble if they didn't heed some warning from Tuesday. You weren't saying that?
Or do you think maintaining a majority but losing a few seats is "in trouble?"
> I
> said they will lose seats because the incumbents are
> in trouble and the polling data around the country in
> individual races support me on this.
Around the whole country, or just cherrypicked in some purple places? I think what RC is saying is that there just aren't enough seats that could be in real danger to matter.
Look at the Senate, for example. Each party is defending 18 seats. If your incumbent theory is correct, nothing will change. But of course, most of the incumbents will be re-elected, particularly in the states they are in.
Of the 36 seats up for election (each party defending 18 seats), only 6 are a tossup...Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, Connecticut and New Hampshire. If the incumbent party is thrown out in each of those 6, The Dems will actually pick up a seat.
CQ Politics projects the Senate make up to be 57 seats for Dems, 37 for Republicans, and 6 are tossups. If the Republicans somehow manage to win all 6 (more than doubtful), the Dems will have a 57-43 majority.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,799
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(111 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:29 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. More like brain dead. It?s a miracle any of them get elected. The Conservative party has a lot of influence and for any Republican to get elected, you have to climb in bed with the Conservative party and do what they say. If not, they withhold their endorsement and you are dead in the water ? as Sasserfraz (or whatever her name was) found out.
Interesting to note: even though she withdrew from the race, her name was on the ballot and received 5.5% of the vote. More than enough to swing the outcome the other way.
If anything, this should serve as a wake-up call for the GOP.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,005
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(110 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 11:00 AM
|
> Except there are a lot of coincendences and reasons
> behind trends that make trends trends. You choose to
> ignore that.
Actually, if I remember right, I am the one that told you that VA/NJ was a trend to begin with. And I told you why.
> I never said the Dems would lose either house. I
> said they will lose seats because the incumbents are
> in trouble and the polling data around the country in
> individual races support me on this.
Now, you pull back. I don't disagree that seats will be lost, only that it won't make any difference. There is no data that indicates that incumbency is an issue.
> As for raising campaign money, the Republicans have
> been outpacing the Democrats in recent months.
> Another sign that supports my argument.
What do we know? We know that NRSC and the NRHC has already stated that they will not put any money into their primary candidates. This is a change due to the limited amount of campaign money they really have available. If you are going to run in a Republican primary, you have to do it on your own dime and those dimes are hard to come by these days.
> Funny, Independents in both VA and NJ who supported
> Obama over McCain voted in favor of the Republican
> candidate on Tuesday.
Where do you get this stuff? Turnouts were dismal. Republicans turned out in droves and Democrats went fishing.
> Most opinion polls show
> Independents are blaming the Democrats more and more
> and not all just the Republicans.
Cite the poll.
> There has been a
> pretty real and steady shift in opinions of the
> Independents over the last six months. Every poll
> from Zogby to Gallup to Ramassen has shown it.
No, they haven't. Single issue shifts, yes. But opinions on parties, no.
> Also, exit poll data shows that the bigger bases that
> strongly supported Obama in NJ and VA stayed home
> like African Americans under 30.
That is true, but what is more true is that Democrats stayed away in droves. Mid-terms won't be that way. This is the difference between local races and nationalized races.
> Again, I am blaming the economy for Tuesday's
> elections. I am not failing to realize the persuasive
> atmosphere the economy because I am blaming it.
You can blame all you want, but you have no data to support it.
> Again, you fail to look to find the reason why this
> trend happens.
No, as I said before, it seems pretty clear that the voters in NJ/VA tend to show their disappointment by voting for the other party, no matter which party controls the White House. This could be due to high expectations, or it could be a contrary nature of the population, but it always happens.
It isn't that people go to the booths
> and say that since Obama is in the White House, I am
> voting Republican. It doesn't happen that way.
As you said yourself, and I concur, the voting public that normally vote for
Democratic candidates didn't show up.
> Well, both parties are majorly disfunctional. The
> Republicans are bulled by the Religious Right
> faction. The Democrats are at Civil War between
> Progressives and Blue Dogs.
But, there is a difference. In one case you have a party trying to remain relevant and gain power, whereas on the other hand you have a party that is actually governing. The Democratic party has always been about herding cats, the Republicans march in lock step -- only right now they disagree which foot to use and will remain in place until they do.
> The
> recent trend has been that the Republicans have done
> it more, but Tuesday might have affected the Blue
> Dogs' attitude about how they will support healthcare
> and cap and trade which could seriously fracture the
> Democratic party. It has happened before.
So here you are on to policy making. I agree that there will be a difference because representatives from conservative districts will get antsy (though polls from their districts actually favor some progressive measures) due to Tuesday's results. But, that will have no play in Health Care since the House will pass this measure on Saturday. And it will have no affect on Cap and Trade, because that has already passed in the house. Then there is the other side of the coin. If the DNC nationalizes the mid-term races, with the Obama GOTV machine, the blue dogs can either be contrary or be there to shake a hand when Air Force One arrives.
--
Edited by RapidCreek at 11/05/2009 8:17 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
8,799
Registered:
6/12/07
|
|
(109 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 10:49 AM
|
Normally, these off-year elections don?t really mean much in the overall scheme of things, especially this year when there are only a handful of races to dissect.
Having said that, there is some truth the old saying ?All politics is local?. You can bet strategists from both sides are already looking for trends in the polling data and that will alter how the 2010 races play out.
A couple of things come to mind. The young, independent voters that energized the 2008 race and delivered Obama to the White House found little to be excited about this year and stayed home. Will this happen again in 2010 and how will it affect the races.
?It?s the economy, stupid? all over again. Will conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans and Independents back away from expensive health care reform and want to focus on job creation?
These questions have yet to be answered. I guess the most immediate effect is the moral victory for the GOP (slight as it may be) but it does show that they are not dead and buried as many people predicted a year ago. The base should be energized; fund raisers should be more successful, etc, etc?.
But if anyone is looking for a repudiation of the Obama administration, they?ll be disappointed. .
|
|
|
Posts:
11,142
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(108 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 10:38 AM
|
> Of course you never said that. Being a hypocrite,
> you only want to use data that suits your argument.
That doesn't make any sense.
> The fact that historical trends say that the party
> y of a first term Presidents lose seat at least in
> one house in the first term election when they
> control both houses is irrelevant to you because it
> hurts the Democrats.
Actually, he conceded the Republicans could win back some seats, just not so many that they would win back the majority in either House. It would be different if the Dem majority was small, but it's overwhelming.
> The votting trend the NJ/VA
> governorships mean something because you stick your
> head in the sand and not think the economy had
> anything to do with it and think that the voters of
> those two states do not think for themselves and just
> go in and vote for the opposing party of the
> President.
It's happened 10 straight times, regardless of the economy.
> This is why I am glad I am an Independent. I now see
> Democrats doing the same thing that Republicans did
> earlier this decade. Writing off warning signs for
> their party as anything else other than warning signs
> for the party. Tuesday was a shot against the bow at
> all incumbents. If the Dems or Reps or Inds up for
> re-election choose to ignore it and go about business
> as usual, I wish them luck.
I agree that incumbents are in a more tenuous position when the economy is bad. I think, and it looks like just about every economist I've read or heard agrees, that the economy will be better by the fall of 2010.
I also think what happened in NY's 23rd says more than those two gubernatorial elections. Even though his and Sarah Palin's actions are directly responsible for the Republicans losing a seat to a Democrat that's been Republican since the Civil War, Dick Armey has promised to do the same thing in any district where the Republicans decide to run a moderate.
> I have a feeling you will be here this time next year
> talking about trends saying this isn't a shift in the
> fortunes of the Republican party, but just typical
> for the party of the President to lose seats in the
> first term election.
The Dems probably will lose some seats. He said as much. Looks like you missed that part.
The Dems are bound to lose some seats...not just because the trend leans in that direction (though certainly not as definitively as the 10 straight gubernatorial elections referenced earlier), but because there are just so many more of them. But lose so many that they will lose their majorities? I don't think so...and ceratinly nothing that happened Tuesday indicates otherwise.
I think the biggest lesson for Dems is that they need to get their voters out...mobilize, energize. Midterms always have a smaller, older, whiter turnout, let alone off year elections...smaller, older and whiter still. The Dems did not lose the governerships because Obama voters voted Republican. (Obama is still popular in both states, overwhelmingly so in NJ). They lost because many Obama voters didn't vote. The Dems and Obama will need to mobilize and energize those voters again for 2010, even though it's a midterm.
Then again, if Dick Armey and Sarah Palin continue to take down every moderate Republican, and run their crazy teabaggers as a third party alternative like they did in NY's 23rd, the Dems may not have to.
|
|
|
Posts:
374
Registered:
6/9/08
|
|
(107 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 10:28 AM
|
> > First, I don't know if they would even take a
> gay
> > marriage case.
>
> That's what I said. The trick will be getting them
> to accept a writ in the first place. But they can't
> duck it forever, just as they couldn't with the
> anti-miscegenation laws.
>
> > Second, laws can be interpreted in many
> different
> > ways and even the Supreme Court has stretched
> > interpretations to support the majority's
> beliefs.
> > That is not exclusive to the current court.
>
> While I agree to an extent, we do charge them with
> interpreting the Constitution and hence, the law.
> But the Court has often acted against the majority
> y to protect the minority...the most obvious example
> being overturning the separate but equal doctrine in
> Brown v. Board of Ed. and the most on point
> example being Loving v. Virginia.
>
> > Third, there could be other federal law that
> > conflicts with the case law you cited that may
> allow
> > them to vote against gay marriage.
>
> DOMA could provide some cover, I suppose. But
> nothing trumps the Constutution. It's the "supreme
> law of the land."
>
> > The court's majority is still conservative.
>
> No, the plurality is conservative, not the majority.
>
> > The
> > conservatives on the court are not going to
> just
> > going to go against their values.
>
> Agreed, but they are outnumbered by the liberals and
> moderates.
>
> &t; They will find
> > case law that supports or their interpretation
> > supports marriage between a man and a woman.
>
> And we could see that, preferably in a dissenting
> opinion.
>
> There is no case law that I am aware of that could be
> relied upon to trump the 14th Amendment. And
> Loving emphatically states that marriage is a
> "basic civil right."
>
> > If they
> > don't think they can, they will not accept a
> case on
> > the issue.
>
> They already won't, because they don't want to touch
> it. But like I said, they can't duck it forever, and
> I don't think they will be able to Constitutionally
> justify ruling against it, particularly since
> precedent declares marriage to be a basic civil
> right.
>
> > I think you may be kidding yourself if
> > you think they will do otherwise.
>
> I prefer to think of myself as an optimist.
>
> > I will be shocked like I have never been shocked
> if
> > the current Supreme Court legalizes gay
> marriage.
>
> It may not be the current Supreme Court.
>
> > Can you really see Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or
> Roberts
> > s voting in favor of gay marriage? I can't.
>
> Neither can I. But I can see the other five voting
> in favor of it, and that's all it takes.
>
> --
> Edited by prettywitty at 11/04/2009 6:48 PM PST
A few things:
The idealogical make up of the Court won't change any time soon barring an unexpected illness or death. None of the Conservative Justices are going to step down willingly while Obama is in office. The Justices that might retire while Obama is in office are Ginsberg and Stevens and both are left leaning and support gay marriage already.
I can't see all of the five non-conservatives voting to support gay marriage, but I could be wrong since the one Justice who does usually side with the conservatives (Kennedy) is a supporter of gay marriage.
One thing we don't know is the religious beliefs of all the liberal and moderates. As I stated, I know several very liberal people who are torn on the issue because of their faith. This is a weird issue where sometimes even some of the most left leaning liberals are scarily conservative.
I am a contrarian and skeptic by nature (if you can't tell by my posts). I see the last two Democratic candidates for President (Obama and Kerry) unwilling to support a gay marriage amendment based largely on their faith. Every opinion poll done in the US has the majority against gay marriage. That makes me believe that there has to be at least one of the moderates and liberals on the court who feel the same way. I hope I am wrong.
|
|
|
Posts:
374
Registered:
6/9/08
|
|
(106 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 10:12 AM
|
> No, its an irrelevant concept because I have looked
> at the races and the numbers an drawn a conclusion.
> Not all mid terms are created equal, and in this
> s case there are not enough in jeopardy Democratic
> seats in the house to make a difference. There are
> other factors, such as the inability of Republicans
> to fill the middle ground and the raising of campaign
> contributions, but by and large, it can't happen
> because of the numbers.
Except there are a lot of coincendences and reasons behind trends that make trends trends. You choose to ignore that.
I never said the Dems would lose either house. I said they will lose seats because the incumbents are in trouble and the polling data around the country in individual races support me on this.
As for raising campaign money, the Republicans have been outpacing the Democrats in recent months. Another sign that supports my argument.
> I suppose what you fail to realize is the pervasive
> atmosphere the economy created. It is pervasive for
> both parties. All governors of all stripes have had
> their favorability numbers hit the floor. If th
> public blames anyone at this point, its the
> Republicans. This will change next year, of course.
> But, since they blame them now, the VA/NJ races were
> e not determined by the economy.
Funny, Independents in both VA and NJ who supported Obama over McCain voted in favor of the Republican candidate on Tuesday. Most opinion polls show Independents are blaming the Democrats more and more and not all just the Republicans. There has been a pretty real and steady shift in opinions of the Independents over the last six months. Every poll from Zogby to Gallup to Ramassen has shown it.
Also, exit poll data shows that the bigger bases that strongly supported Obama in NJ and VA stayed home like African Americans under 30.
Again, I am blaming the economy for Tuesday's elections. I am not failing to realize the persuasive atmosphere the economy because I am blaming it.
> Tuesday's results said little about incumbents. What
> you saw was the history of VA/NJ playing out once
> again.
Again, you fail to look to find the reason why this trend happens. It isn't that people go to the booths and say that since Obama is in the White House, I am voting Republican. It doesn't happen that way.
> The President's party can afford to lose seats in
> Congress. But, those that want them are going to
> have to fight for them and hope their party doesn't
> do something stupid like NY-23. Republicans are
> about as dysfunctional as they ever have been, and I
> don't give them much hope. Too bad.
Well, both parties are majorly disfunctional. The Republicans are bulled by the Religious Right faction. The Democrats are at Civil War between Progressives and Blue Dogs. Both parties have the ability to fuck themselves over pretty good. The recent trend has been that the Republicans have done it more, but Tuesday might have affected the Blue Dogs' attitude about how they will support healthcare and cap and trade which could seriously fracture the Democratic party. It has happened before.
Again, this is another reason, I stay Independent because both parties are screwed up.
|
|
|
Posts:
14,483
Registered:
3/22/06
|
|
(105 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 9:14 AM
|
> Oh, last thought, before I get gone in:
>
> Care of SELECTIVE geographical demographics won the
> election through selective allocation of resources.
>
>
> Yes, the president won the election and made changes
> but that's a lot of resources gone into SELECTIVE
> labor unions and financial cronies which Main
> Street Elsewhere aren't feeling.
>
> Lets all look forward to that recovery everybody will
> be paying through invisible taxation.
>
> 12.2% unemployment rate in CA, according to BLS Oct
> 2009 report, is lot of %, but we're really
> insignificant to the Dems. Maybe it was a good idea
> to have Schwarzenegger to tell us what the Federalis
> have done for us lately. Share the blames.
>
> There are tons of things the WH can say about
> direction not ambition, but none was said.
>
> --
> Edited by infoseek at 11/05/2009 5:57 AM PST
something to pass time with while you're in isolation
|
|
|
Posts:
21,005
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(104 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 9:11 AM
|
> Of course you never said that. Being a hypocrite,
> you only want to use data that suits your argument.
> The fact that historical trends say that the party
> y of a first term Presidents lose seat at least in
> one house in the first term election when they
> control both houses is irrelevant to you because it
> hurts the Democrats.
No, its an irrelevant concept because I have looked at the races and the numbers an drawn a conclusion. Not all mid terms are created equal, and in this case there are not enough in jeopardy Democratic seats in the house to make a difference. There are other factors, such as the inability of Republicans to fill the middle ground and the raising of campaign contributions, but by and large, it can't happen because of the numbers.
The votting trend the NJ/VA
> governorships mean something because you stick your
> head in the sand and not think the economy had
> anything to do with it and think that the voters of
> those two states do not think for themselves and just
> go in and vote for the opposing party of the
> President.
I suppose what you fail to realize is the pervasive atmosphere the economy created. It is pervasive for both parties. All governors of all stripes have had their favorability numbers hit the floor. If th public blames anyone at this point, its the Republicans. This will change next year, of course. But, since they blame them now, the VA/NJ races were not determined by the economy.
> This is why I am glad I am an Independent. I now see
> Democrats doing the same thing that Republicans did
> earlier this decade. Writing off warning signs for
> their party as anything else other than warning signs
> for the party. Tuesday was a shot against the bow at
> all incumbents. If the Dems or Reps or Inds up for
> re-election choose to ignore it and go about business
> as usual, I wish them luck.
Tuesday's results said little about incumbents. What you saw was the history of VA/NJ playing out once again.
> I have a feeling you will be here this time next year
> talking about trends saying this isn't a shift in the
> fortunes of the Republican party, but just typical
> for the party of the President to lose seats in the
> first term election.
The President's party can afford to lose seats in Congress. But, those that want them are going to have to fight for them and hope their party doesn't do something stupid like NY-23. Republicans are about as dysfunctional as they ever have been, and I don't give them much hope. Too bad.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,505
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(103 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 8:54 AM
|
Oh, last thought, before I get gone in:
Care of SELECTIVE geographical demographics won the election through selective allocation of resources.
Yes, the president won the election and made changes but that's a lot of resources gone into SELECTIVE labor unions and financial cronies which Main Street Elsewhere aren't feeling.
Lets all look forward to that recovery everybody will be paying through invisible taxation.
12.2% unemployment rate in CA, according to BLS Oct 2009 report, is lot of %, but we're really insignificant to the Dems. Maybe it was a good idea to have Schwarzenegger to tell us what the Federalis have done for us lately. Share the blames.
There are tons of things the WH can say about direction not ambition, but none was said.
--
Edited by infoseek at 11/05/2009 5:57 AM PST
|
|
|
|
|
