|
|
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:
374
Registered:
6/9/08
|
|
(102 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 8:46 AM
|
> > Actually, using your logic only the Democrats
> are in
> > trouble because the trends say that the party of
> a
> > first term President loses seats in Congress
>
> Oh, I never said that. No, as with most things --
> you assume. Actually there are statistics regarding
> seats won/lost after VA/NJ governor loss and they are
> probably not what you think they are.
>
> Your new question is the predictive value of these
> elections? The House of Representatives midterm
> election the following year is probably the best
> metric since Senate elections are full of big names
> and partisan identification doesn't play as big a
> role there as in the House. So, what happened in
> the House election in the year following the Virginia
> and New Jersey gubernatorial races..... We know that
> since 1982, the Democrats have swept both
> gubernational elections three times (1981, 2001, and
> 2005). In the House elections the year after, the
> Democrats experienced a small win, a small loss, and
> a big win. The Republicans also swept the two
> gubernatorial elections three times (1993, 1997, and
> 2009). In the midterms a year later they won big and
> lost small once each. So all told, sweeping the two
> governor's race gives you a 60% chance of picking up
> House seats the next year, hardly a sure thing. In
> short, the only pattern that seems constant over the
> years is the President's party doing badly in the two
> gubernatorial elections and, of course, that's all we
> were discussing. My sense is that the mid-terms will
> turn into a wash, perhaps a small win by Republicans
> but not enough to change the Democratic numerical
> superiority in both houses.
>
> Now, you can pursue the media hype as much as you
> want, but history shows that NJ and VA always change
> governors and it really doesn't make much difference
> in the end.
>
> --
> Edited by RapidCreek at 11/05/2009 3:53 AM PST
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 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. 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.
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 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.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,542
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(101 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 8:13 AM
|
You know, "what have you done for me late," really says a lot off things. things
You tent say I saved a million jobs to the unemployed.
You also can't say, "hope and change," to though who REALLY hoped for change for a year because of the obvious usual XYZs and ABCs.
Lets nut even go in to the examination of the SELECTIVE REAL RECIPIENTS of bailouts and reforms.
---
There are more,
but to sick to talk. Talk later.
--
Edited by infoseek at 11/05/2009 5:13 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
10,191
Registered:
7/2/07
|
|
(100 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 7:05 AM
|
> > Too embarrassed to post in my thread????
>
> You own your own thread? How charming. Do you buy it
> dinner and take it to movies too?
And tuck it in at night.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,011
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(99 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 7:04 AM
|
> Too embarrassed to post in my thread????
You own your own thread? How charming. Do you buy it dinner and take it to movies too?
|
|
|
Posts:
10,191
Registered:
7/2/07
|
|
(98 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 7:02 AM
|
> > Actually, using your logic only the Democrats
> are in
> > trouble because the trends say that the party of
> a
> > first term President loses seats in Congress
>
> Oh, I never said that. No, as with most things --
> you assume. Actually there are statistics regarding
> seats won/lost after VA/NJ governor loss and they are
> probably not what you think they are.
>
> Your new question is the predictive value of these
> elections? The House of Representatives midterm
> election the following year is probably the best
> metric since Senate elections are full of big names
> and partisan identification doesn't play as big a
> role there as in the House. So, what happened in
> the House election in the year following the Virginia
> and New Jersey gubernatorial races..... We know that
> since 1982, the Democrats have swept both
> gubernational elections three times (1981, 2001, and
> 2005). In the House elections the year after, the
> Democrats experienced a small win, a small loss, and
> a big win. The Republicans also swept the two
> gubernatorial elections three times (1993, 1997, and
> 2009). In the midterms a year later they won big and
> lost small once each. So all told, sweeping the two
> governor's race gives you a 60% chance of picking up
> House seats the next year, hardly a sure thing. In
> short, the only pattern that seems constant over the
> years is the President's party doing badly in the two
> gubernatorial elections and, of course, that's all we
> were discussing. My sense is that the mid-terms will
> turn into a wash, perhaps a small win by Republicans
> but not enough to change the Democratic numerical
> superiority in both houses.
>
> Now, you can pursue the media hype as much as you
> want, but history shows that NJ and VA always change
> governors and it really doesn't make much difference
> in the end.
>
> --
> Edited by RapidCreek at 11/05/2009 3:53 AM PST
Too embarrassed to post in my thread???? No need to be, we all make mistakes. 
|
|
|
Posts:
21,011
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(97 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 5, 2009 6:06 AM
|
> Actually, using your logic only the Democrats are in
> trouble because the trends say that the party of a
> first term President loses seats in Congress
Oh, I never said that. No, as with most things -- you assume. Actually there are statistics regarding seats won/lost after VA/NJ governor loss and they are probably not what you think they are.
Your new question is the predictive value of these elections? The House of Representatives midterm election the following year is probably the best metric since Senate elections are full of big names and partisan identification doesn't play as big a role there as in the House. So, what happened in the House election in the year following the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races..... We know that since 1982, the Democrats have swept both gubernational elections three times (1981, 2001, and 2005). In the House elections the year after, the Democrats experienced a small win, a small loss, and a big win. The Republicans also swept the two gubernatorial elections three times (1993, 1997, and 2009). In the midterms a year later they won big and lost small once each. So all told, sweeping the two governor's race gives you a 60% chance of picking up House seats the next year, hardly a sure thing. In short, the only pattern that seems constant over the years is the President's party doing badly in the two gubernatorial elections and, of course, that's all we were discussing. My sense is that the mid-terms will turn into a wash, perhaps a small win by Republicans but not enough to change the Democratic numerical superiority in both houses.
Now, you can pursue the media hype as much as you want, but history shows that NJ and VA always change governors and it really doesn't make much difference in the end.
--
Edited by RapidCreek at 11/05/2009 3:53 AM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
31,307
Registered:
9/5/01
|
|
(96 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 10:33 PM
|
> > You got problem with Ebonics?
>
> She gots nahh problems wiff ebonix, why do ya ax,
> pink-toe? what 'chew trippin foo' Gladys?
>
> click
Sa Dah Tae
|
|
|
Posts:
11,165
Registered:
3/25/08
|
|
(95 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 9:44 PM
Rate this post:
|
> 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 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
|
|
|
Posts:
374
Registered:
6/9/08
|
|
(94 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 9:19 PM
|
> > Neither is divorce. Let the Catholics choke on
> their
> > hypocrisy.
>
> Never point the finger at just one particular
> religion.
>
> All religions have something to say against same sex
> marriages.
>
> That is if everything must be in absolute terms.
I don't think it is all religions, but isn't just the Catholic religion. Besides there are just ignorant people out there who think that if their kids go to school and their buddy has two dads that their kid will grow up to be gay because they were exposed to a gay couple. That has nothing to do with religion.
|
|
|
Posts:
374
Registered:
6/9/08
|
|
(93 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 9:13 PM
|
> > Personally, I still believe it is incumbents who
> are
> > trouble, but you apparently believe it is just
> the
> > Democrats.
>
> No, my belief is that no one is in trouble. There is
> no indicator in this off year election that would
> display anything of the sort. Except NY-23, where
> political stupidity of some gave away a seat. They
> keep doing that, they're in trouble.
Actually, using your logic only the Democrats are in trouble because the trends say that the party of a first term President loses seats in Congress in the first mid-term election. As you pointed out, trends are the only indicator that matters.
|
|
|
Posts:
21,011
Registered:
4/11/05
|
|
(92 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 5:32 PM
|
> Personally, I still believe it is incumbents who are
> trouble, but you apparently believe it is just the
> Democrats.
No, my belief is that no one is in trouble. There is no indicator in this off year election that would display anything of the sort. Except NY-23, where political stupidity of some gave away a seat. They keep doing that, they're in trouble.
|
|
|
Posts:
14,532
Registered:
3/22/06
|
|
(91 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 5:28 PM
|
> I'm just trying to lump things together because I
> can't speak too long without pretty painful coughs.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure I have the H1N1 flu.
get thee healed soon, buddy
|
|
|
Posts:
13,542
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(90 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 5:24 PM
|
> Neither is divorce. Let the Catholics choke on their
> hypocrisy.
Never point the finger at just one particular religion.
All religions have something to say against same sex marriages.
That is if everything must be in absolute terms.
|
|
|
Posts:
854
Registered:
9/1/08
|
|
(89 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 5:18 PM
|
> I have some very liberal friends who support abortion
> under almost any circumstance and teaching birth
> control in high school, but are torn about gay
> marriage because they are Catholic eventhough they
> have gay friends who are married. I just don't get
> how you can support abortion and teaching birth
> control, but have a crisis of faith with gay
> marriage. All three are not condoned by the Catholic
> Church.
Neither is divorce. Let the Catholics choke on their hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Posts:
13,542
Registered:
2/5/06
|
|
(88 of 132)
Re: Do the 11/04/2009 election results mean anything
Nov 4, 2009 5:13 PM
|
I'm just trying to lump things together because I can't speak too long without pretty painful coughs.
I'm pretty sure I have the H1N1 flu.
|
|
|
|
|
