Political Discussions
Election Day
Posted by NewBlogger2008 • 11/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: elections
So there are some big races going on today. Governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey and a congressional seat in upstate New York. There has been a lot of talk about these elections sending a message to Obama and the Democrats regarding their policies.
How do you all weigh in on the elections today?
User Comments
-
I'm not in a voting region. I tend to think this election is more about conservatives and the GOP.-
I agree. While Dems are in trouble if unemployment rates do not drop nationally before 2010, this election in New Yorks 23rd is showing how divided the Republican party is as to what their platform is going to be. I think if the Conservative party takes over the GOP in 2010 and they nominate an extreme conservative in 2012, then Dems will have an easier time in 2010 and 2012. However, this all depends on the state of the economy. -
What will be interesting in the GOP response, especially if conservatives non-republicans win. There will be an awful lot of moderate republicans up for re-election in 2010 and 2012. Right now the republican "leaders" are trying to keep the conservatives in the party. If I were a moderate republican officeholder, I would start to get nervous.
-
The long term effects will be interesting and the party split could even be a boost to progressives. I know several moderate Republicans who do not agree with the narrow and extremest views coming from some conservatives.
Even Newt Gingrich recognizes the possible pitfalls:
...the architect of the "Republican Revolution" warned that the Conservative candidate's ability to drive the official Republican pick from the race could mean tough times to come for the GOP.
"This makes life more complicated from the standpoint of this: If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we'll make [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee [President] Obama's re-election," Gingrich told the New York Times hours after Scozzafava's exit. "I think we are going to get into a very difficult environment around the country if suddenly conservative leaders decide they are going to anoint people without regard to local primaries and local choices."
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/02/new.york.23/index.html
-
-
The elections today are more about local issues and the division of the Republican party. Will the party move forward by embracing more centrist views or will it recoil and become more extreme.
-
I'm not in a voting district but I'm hoping the ones most conservative win. Actually, I'm looking for representative who will uphold the Constitution and work to reduce the debt and reduce the size of the federal government. -
Well, dems lost in Virginia and New Jersey. I haven't found anything worth noting on New York District 23. Maine same sex marriage ban is still close. Hmmm...very interesting indeed. Although voters in Maine said that President Obama was not a factor in their decision either. So very interesting indeed.
-
Well, I'm very surprised by New York 23, and I am deeply disturbed by Maine. I do not understand why Maine voters have voted the way they did. I do not understand why people buy into the stupidity of the arguments that are made against same-sex marriage. However, people buy into a variety of ridiculous things so I guess that it's not that surprising. At the moment, all I can do is pity the voters in Maine. They have shown how independent they truly are. To the citizens of Maine who are most affected by this, all I can say is that I am so sorry that you are subject to such illogical misunderstanding. So very sorry indeed.
-
Rene- The Maine vote for same sex marriage is not as ridiculous as it may seem to you. Remember, most Americans still do hold traditionalist values which includes supporting traditional marriages. Americans have clearly spoken in numerous states on how they feel about the subject. Also, just because a view is different from yours may not necessarily mean it is illogical and misinformed.
-
When a person votes based off of religious intolerance, then yes it is illogical. When scientific fact is ignored and replaced with religious dogma, then yes it is illogical. Just because a majority of Americans support this kind of discrimination does not make it "okay" or correct. There was a point where interracial marriage was illegal and supported by a majority of Americans. However based off your logic here, I guess that would be okay wouldn't it?
What is traditional marriage but a farce? These people fight so hard to protect that very thing they demean with their Vegas weddings, divorce within 15 years, and the rejection of that oath, "till death do us part..." Oh yes, I get it now. That is something worth defending. -
New: The difference is the gay/lesbians were not voting to limit traditionalists' right to live how they want. the traditionalists voted to limit others right of "pursuit of happiness".
-
-
I think the election results will send a huge message to the Democrats whether they publicly admit it or not. New Jersey will especially sting the Democrats. The state has not elected a GOP governor since 2002 and has overwhelmingly voted for democratic presidents since 1992 when Clinton was elected for his first term. The fall out of this race will certainly be interesting to watch as Congress plans to vote on Pelosi's beast on Friday. Virginia should also be a shock to the democrats. Obama carried the state by huge margins last year and the GOP essentially laid the smack down on them winning the three big seats. The message sent from both elections should be how much Obama's influence over the American voters has dropped in just one year. That should be alarming to not just other democrats up for re-election next year, but more importantly the White House.
-
The Democratic losses two governorships should not be interpreted as a significant blow to President Obama.
While the economy and jobs were the chief concern for voters in both states, 26 percent of New Jersey residents said property taxes was also a major issue, while another 20 percent mentioned corruption, according to CNN exit polling. In a similar CNN survey taken in Virginia, health care was the most important issue for 24 percent of the voters, while 15 percent named taxes and transportation was mentioned by 7 percent.
Further proof that this election was not solely focused on Obama, 56 percent of Virginians said that the president was not a factor when it came down to their vote. In New Jersey, that number increased to 60 percent of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday.
Perhaps this was the problem for Virginia Sen. Creigh Deeds and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. Neither Democratic candidate was Obama; neither was a great spokesman for "change;" and Democratic strategists and grassroots activists said each candidate failed to give independents a reason to support them.
www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/election.analysis/index.html -
I bet any issues with Corzine are that may be people finally realize that perhaps this guy can't be trusted.
He was a Goldman Sachs partner and CEO for multiple years. Goldman Sachs isn't exactly the most trusted financial institution on the block anymore. Bill Clinton treasury secretary Bob Rubin co-chair, etc for over 2 decades, Bush had 2 from Goldman Sachs - including Paulsen. Goldman Sachs has not been heavily criticized for this but over 12 bil of lost funds from AIG (that people were ticked off about) were funneled out from AIG into Goldman Sachs so the funds could not be returned.
May be with Corzine they finally got this picture. He was a super delegate last election who initially supported Hillary Clinton. When he changed his vote to Obama, Obama's total campaign funds from Goldman Sachs alone more than tripled totaling to almost 1 mil. Oh and when Obama publicly supported Corzine for re-election there is obviously no cause and effect correlation involved here.
But anyway - there's surely no way any of that could be related. Surely no one in New Jersey is fanning away the pleasant perfume of rotting carp carcasses. Yeah that guys is as clean as can be. Nothing fishy about him or Washington's response at all. -
The results are interesting. Would think that the democrats are the happier though. It is one thing losing two governors (Democrats) it is entirely another when a party (GOP) looks like it might split.
It looks increasingly likely that there will be three candidates for the next Presidential election. Obama, GOP and Conservative/ Independent. Palin maybe?
If that happens Obama could start wearing a dress, get married to Michael Steele and still win. -
"If that happens Obama could start wearing a dress, get married to Michael Steele and still win."
This is true. On the other hand, if he married a white man... -
"The Democratic losses two governorships should not be interpreted as a significant blow to President Obama."
No, he only campaigned extensively for Corzine, sent one of his top advisers to run Corzine's campaign. The Democraps even made robo calls in favor of the independent to try and split the anti-Corzine vote.
Nah, it's not the American people speaking out that they are sick and tired of the liberal agenda. Not at all.
What is interesting is all the libs on this board frantically trying to claim that the GOP wins means that the GOP is splitting, fracturing. LOL Yeaaaahhhh, riiiight.
I wonder if in 2010 when the Democraps lose the majority in Congress will that mean that the GOP is on life support?
*snicker* -
No, when they take majority in 2010, we just haven't realized how insignificant we are.
And of course in 2012, when Obama loses, it will be racism and extremists that make up 50%+ of the vote..
-
-
Obama has been campaigning in Jersey 5 times for Corzine.
Only a democrat could claim that his loss isn't a referendum on Obama.
What's worse is that Bloomberg won, spending 100 million to get 500.000 votes AND changing the law so that he could get another term just proves that this joker needs to go take a cold bath.-
The election is not necessarily a referendum on Obama's policies. What the elections should do is send a warning to democrats, especially ones that came from states McCain carried last year. Obama has clearly lost his ability to motivate the public like he did for his presidential campaign. The 2 governer's races are certainly not a death blow to any democratic policies because they are still more about state's issues than anything else. However, as you mentioned, Obama did make 5 stops to New Jersey and Corzine outspent Christie 5:1 and still lost. If the democrats don't moderate and begin listening to the public, something very unpleasant could certainly be in store for them next year.
-
Well, to be fair here, the exit polls did show that voters were not thinking about Obama when they were voting, they were just thinking about the economy. Most political analysts are saying that the Republican won because Corzine ran such a poor campaign not because Republicans ran such a good one. I mean, look at New York 23. That shows the current state of the Republican party more than the races in New Jersey and Virginia.
-
Rene- To a point you are right about New Jersey. Neither candidate ran a particularly good campaign, but that independent probably took enough votes away from Corzine to give Christie the win. Also, Corzine tried focusing too much on irrelevant matters like Christie's weight rather than what was really at hand. Republicans do look pretty divided in upstate New York but in Virginia it is quite a different story. McDonnell won over 65% of the independents, not to mention his whole campaign will probably be a model for the 2010 mid-terms which will be the real test of Obama's policies. So the GOP may not be in as much disarray as you may want to think Rene.
-
The exit polls show....
Let's assume for a second that people would gladly admit that they cast their vote not based on the ballot, but based on their feelings about something else.
And while we're at it, let's assume pigs fly...
-
-
Can someone explain this??...
- Republican VOTERS pick a MODERATE (John McCain) to represent them in the 2008 presidential election.... thus signaling that MOST of those on the right want the party to move more towards the CENTER.
- The Republican candidate choses a FAR RIGHT running mate (Sarah Palin).
- The Democratic candidate (Barack Obama) easily WINS the election.
- A large percentage of the Republican party thinks picking a FAR RIGHT running mate with very little experience was a huge mistake. Many suggest the party is being damaged by an extremest fringe.
- The remaining, very loud percentage thinks the party should move further right and works to promote candidates with ultra-conservative views.
If the majority of Republican voters AND INDEPENDENTS wanted a more centrist candidate last presidential election, what makes the far right think it's ultra-conservative strategy will win in the big elections that truly matter??
I think polybore is onto something with his comment: "It looks increasingly likely that there will be three candidates for the next Presidential election. Obama, GOP and Conservative/ Independent. Palin maybe."
Seems like a risky strategy given the facts:
- Dems largely approve of Obama and his policies to date. Those on the left who are unhappy are usually upset that he's not further left.
- Currently, only 20% or so of voters identify with the Republican party.
- Young voters are more likely to vote Democrat and do not like the divisive pundits motivating the far right.
- Latinos/Latinas are a rapidly growing voter population, but some on the far right think Sotomayer is racist and we should close our borders.
And what will become of moderate Republicans?? Will they move further right or change parties??
The way I see it... Republicans lost because of Palin and the move further right after choosing a moderate candidate. Obviously, some noisy conservatives being cheered on by Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and FNC see it differently.
- Dems largely approve of Obama and his policies to date. Those on the left who are unhappy are usually upset that he's not further left.
-
2010 has to happen before 2012. I think we will see a fair number of three party heated contests, especially in the south. IF conservatives, whether part of the conservative party or independents, win some seats we could have a very interesting three party race in 2012. Then, if you are the republicans, do you field a moderate to stay away from the conservative or do you go pretty far right to battle the conservative. Could be interesting.
-
Palin contributed to the loss because she was INSANELY uneducated about how national government works - look at the classically referred tv interviews with a you know her: she looked like an absolute moron! And the first time wasn't enough she went back on to look even better the next time around. That is - she discredited herself and thus also discredited the Republican party and McCain because of their lack of good judgment. If they can't make a good choice about the running mate what other good decisions will they make once they are in?
I know multiple people who brought Kersey back up in regards to this. If McCain would associate himself with Kersey in the past and now Palin he is clearly a bad judge and manager of people. This hugely discredited McCain to them and they were worried about what the rest of his cabinet would look like.
And the other things is that the Republican party won't go more Centrist. Financial backing in both party's lies primarily in the extremes. Election and esp. re-election is about press and presence, and that is largely accomplished with a barrel full of money. They may tweak a few things to appease the moderate public here and there, but until we change how our election system works - this is how it works.
The most likely change in the Republican party which may happen but more than likely not any time soon, is Libertarians merging with the republican party. Libertarians consider themselves true conservatives and are more closely related to the democratic party on social issues albeit handled in different ways. This gives the republican party more pull on democrat voters who place a lot of importance on social issues and they can still claim to be conservatives differentiating themselves from the democratic party. If any evolution occurs in the party that is more than likely the most likely to occur. However like I said it is not likely to happen any time in the near future. -
You go right on ahead thinking McCain lost because of Palin. McCain lost because he ran an ineffective campaign, didn't stand on the issues at hand, handled the, at the time emerging economic crisis poorly and did not resonate with enough voters.
"A large percentage of the Republican party thinks picking a FAR RIGHT running mate with very little experience was a huge mistake. Many suggest the party is being damaged by an extremest fringe."
George Stephanopoulos said this, ""We know why she was picked. The campaign was looking for someone to solidify the Republican base, excite the Republican base and reach out to some voters in the middle, women and men who might be attracted to a reform candidate. She's the first female GOP candidate for vice president with working-class roots."
David Plouffe did not think she was a good pick, but I wonder why? Oh yeah. It was because he was Obama's campaign manager. Big surprise there that he didn't like her.
Karl Rove said it was a brilliant decision because she ignited the Republican base.
Like it or not, the strength of the GOP lies not in moderates, but in Conservative candidates. The left calls conservatives "far right" to denigrate them and to try and marginalize them.
Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans identify, not with Democrats or Republicans, but rather as conservative in their ideology. That being said, why would picking more conservative candidates fracture the GOP? That makes no sense unless you look at it from a far left, ideological viewpoint. In other words, that is what the far left hopes will happen. -
Sarah Palin was neither far right nor contributed to McCains destruction. McCain got annihilated because he was so weak on the issues of the day (mainly economics and welfare) that he literally had not one word to say back to Obama on any of it.
Sarah Palin is a right-populist, meaning she actually is a little bit more liberal on some traditional labor union and civil rights type economic issues, as you would see if you looked at her tenure as Governor of Alaska and her strong support of economic rent taxes on oil producers, her actions to aid Native peoples in her home state (including the infamous use of aircraft to hunt wolves), her succesful corporate crime-fighting against Shell Oil, and her loud and clear verbal confirmations of Tile VII (especially for women in the workplace) and even some limited Affirmative Action type policies.
She would be kind of a kooky mixture of CSI, MadameX and Agit8r. Of any single person, she'd probably be closest to Faithful. -
"kooky mixture of CSI, MadameX and Agit8r."
um... what about Palin's stance on social issues? o_0 -
No that's MadameX. It's more the economic issues that she's like you on. And then she'd be a little bit like CSI all around.
-
I'll let MadamX argue on her own behalf.
Palin does dip into the economic populism a bit, but she is no William Jennings Bryan... well, maybe on social issues and civil liberties
- Republican VOTERS pick a MODERATE (John McCain) to represent them in the 2008 presidential election.... thus signaling that MOST of those on the right want the party to move more towards the CENTER.
-
I'm really disappointed Lisa Borders didn't win the Atlanta Mayors Race.
-
Over the stretch of the campaign Palin did hurt McCain, at first she did spark a fire but then everyone got to see just how inexperienced she was and there are polls to prove that too.
Dow that mean that McCain lost because of Palin alone or primarily? Absolutely not. McCain lost because of McCain. I have to agree with jeremy on that one.
Anyone who has watched McCain in the media or seen him in person prior to the election could tell McCain was not the same. Once out of the primaries he lost his fire. Youtube the McCain Obama roast video to get a good idea of that.
He was weak on issues but I think that is primarily because he almost always seemed disinterested or at least less interested than he did in the past. It was almost like the Republican party probably increased his support in the nomination if he played their gameplan. As if the way he was campaigning was something he wasn't enjoying.
With that he was a boring old fart. He didn't ignite the campaign base though palin did temporarily. Obama hurt him on that. Things are rough and many wanted to be inspired, Obama gave them that not McCain.-
McCain is such a moderate that on some issues he may just be to the left of center. That is why the MSM loved him so much. He was a candidate they could embrace, but (in their opinion) did not pose a threat to their darling Obama.
-
@lc1: The polls correspond to the deteoriation in the economy and the shift from an election about War, Peace, and Oil to an election about the Economy and Societal Welfare. On these issues, McCain was either completely ignorant (the Economy) or completely contradictory (Societal Welfare). Further, the Palin following created an interest among a certain passionate group in McCain even after this point that allowed his fundraising in those final months to attain almost Obama levels.
Just like with Bush 41 in 1988, if McCain had been competent in these issues, he would've 1) been forgiven by the people who disliked Palin, just as Bush 41 was forgiven for Quayle and 2) that small passionate group would've continued to give him real campaign stopping power that before then he completely lacked. It's just like with the enivronmentalists and the Democrats. While even many democrats don't trust the greens especially in the North, among the Blue-Collar Midwesterners, Pennsylvanians, et cetera, they form a small passionate base that is useful for grassroots work, just like the Palin bunch. -
I think the polling shows that while Palin did pick up a lot of votes for McCain on the right, they did lose votes in the middle. True, McCain was weak on too many issues but many of us in the middle saw Palin as an example of McCain's poor judgement. Even if he was stronger on the issues, I don't think I could have votes for a ticket with Palin on it.
In net, I don't think Palin cost McCain the election because she probably picked up as many votes as she lost. -
If McCain would have ran against Obama the same way he ran against George W. Bush during the primairies, he would have won. Plain and simple. Hell, I would have voted for him. He just went to conservative for my taste and he has remained that way since.
-
If McCain would have ran against Obama the same way he ran against George W. Bush during the primairies, he would have won. Plain and simple. Hell, I would have voted for him. He just went to conservative for my taste and he has remained that way since.
-
The MAJORITY of Republicans chose a MODERATE for their presidential candidate. The moderate candidate, who was seemingly pressured by the FAR RIGHT leadership within the party, then selected a running mate that was neither moderate nor qualified for the job. It was obvious very quickly that McCain had been thrown off his game by having to take a more extreme stance and flip flop on some issues. A rift grew between the two candidates and it didn't even seem like McCain was calling the shots in his own campaign. These events motivated a percentage of MODERATE Republicans to skip voting or cast their votes for Obama. Many Independents shared these views and did the same.
- Palin cost McCain votes
- Then McCain cost McCain votes
- McCain was pressured to move further right and reverse some views
PS: You gotta laugh when you see small town conservatives demonize the mainstream media (MSM). It is, after all, the media that shares the views of the mainstream - the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional by most individuals. Meanwhile these same people champion a political organization trying to pass for a 'fair and balanced' news source while there is plenty of evidence to support otherwise. No, all these independent news sources regarded as the MSM have conspired to support candidates and ideas that will purposely destroy our country. Meanwhile, a singular cable news source claims they are the ONLY ones telling you the truth and some people fall for it and defend it viciously. -
maybe the term RFM (Radical Fringe Media) should become popularized, or--get this--MAINSTREAMED
-
@concrete...you say, "It is, after all, the media that shares the views of the mainstream - the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional by most individuals."
Are you saying that MSNBC shares the views of the majority of Americans?
NBC?
CBS?
The New York Times?
The Washington Post?
CNN isn't as left as the others, so I actually don't think of it as the MSM.
This UCLA study shows that most, if not all media leans to the left.
Among other findings, the study cited:
"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found."
The plain fact is that the majority of Americans are not liberal. In fact, only 21% identify as liberal. 40% identify as conservative and 35% consider themselves moderate. So I don't see how a MSM that is left in it's delivery of the news can be seen as sharing the views of the majority of Americans.
No, I think that what concrete said, is just so much far left baloney. -
LOL, I guess it would help if I provided the link...
newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx -
@RR: "Mainstream" in Mainstream Media refers to "Mainstream" for the Media, not the American people.
-
There are two separate studies going on here. One is the measurement of the media and one is individuals self-identifying. They are not using the same yard stick. I'm not claiming that media is aligned with the population or not. I am claiming comparing the two studies and drawing conclusions is not going to lead to rational results.
-
@xmarks...The study showing Americans self identifying goes to the study about MSM being left can bring results. It shows that the MSM does NOT relate to the majority of American values. Hence their atrocious ratings and in the case of far left newspapers, poor circulation.
-
I know what you are trying to say. Using two separate studies with different measurements of what "conservative" is defined as lacks meaning.
-
"It shows that the MSM does NOT relate to the majority of American values"
I would say that mainstream media is liberal to moderate. Corresponding to 56% of those responding to the poll you cite.
MSM is not far left. The Daily Worker is far left. PBS/NPR is center-left. Mainstream Media is center to center-right. MSNBC representing the "radical center" -
Then we must agree to disagree on this. There are more left and far left media outlets then centrists or right ones.
-
@Agit8r: MSNBC's fascist?
-
"Third Way" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)
not "Third Position" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_position
-
-
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," (circa 2005)
wow... I'd be really interested in seeing the full study. o_0 -
@anticsrocks It's interesting that you bring up the 40% of Americans being conservative. Keep in mind that while 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative, less than 20% consider themself republican. Just an interesting thought.
-
it is also worth noting that "conservative" means different things to different people
-
This is true as well. For some it is focused on economic issues, others social issues, foriegn policy, or any combination of them.
-
There are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, but it is true that the vast majority of Americans identify with a value system rather than a party. I do not even identify as a Republican. I am a Conservative, and proud of it.
-
-
@jason
Link here the data of a legitimate poll showing mccain's poularity increasing to the end of the campaign that is NOT Fox News or Opinion Dynamics. I can give at least a dozen that contradict that, all I'm asking is that you give me one other. That is something that is a research or academic institution - not media.-
Here I'll give one myself to help. Pew. Pew shows increases in McCain after a MAJOR drop that never really recovers, but it does increase at the end. Pew is legit. Andrew Kohurt the president is a long time pollster and has done work with NPR in the past.
-
-
Excellent video that pretty much sums up the recent election cycle and opines on possible problems ahead for the right:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q547CzWJv7Y-
Yeah, those elections that Obama campaigned hard for and the one he sent one of his minions to run had nothing to do with him. The more he campaigned the better for the GOP and Conservatives. Hell, I only wish El Presidente had campaigned for Owens! *snicker*
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
