Last Night's Recap
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
I won't write a recap of last night's elections results, because Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com always does a better job.
He agrees with the assessment of Mr. Furious that "all politics are local."
Of course the MSM will enter into horserace mode and have to interpret the results for all us simpletons, while the right wing intelligentsia will continue full force in their 48 hour circle-jerk.
Special thanks to Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson for blowing it for the Republicans in NY-23.
9 comments:
Mr. F had a great breakdown. I really wish people would remember the NJ guv lost in part because he is a Goldman Sachs exec.
I wish people would see the VA guv lost in a really horridly-run campaign.
I wish that the MSM, since they spent so much time going on and on about NY-23 would now pay attention to the LOSS there and what THAT means for the future of Congress instead of 2 Guv races.
Look at this list at wikipedia. Since 1970, pretty much every other governor has been a Republican. There have been four different Democrats elected, alternating terms with, now including Christie, four different Republicans.
And this is somehow due to Obama?
And in Virginia, no coverage I've seen mentions the fact that the incumbent was term-limited out of office. This wasn't a rejection—it was an open seat.
McConnell was the stronger candidate, ran the better race, and though he is a paleo-conservative, he ran away from his record and pretended to be moderate.
Special thanks to Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson for blowing it for the Republicans in NY-23.
Since Obama "helped" in NJ and Virginia, I suppose thanks is due there. I watched some conservatives try to spin GOP losses and just shook my head, but it is funny to see you guys do the same. You really don't see losing in NJ and Virginia as even a little bit negative ? You don't think this is a reflection on Obama at all?
Of course the MSM will enter into horserace mode and have to interpret the results for all us simpletons, while the right wing intelligentsia will continue full force in their 48 hour circle-jerk.
Not that I have much faith in the MSM, but I think some of you have your heads in the sand. If Dems would have won in NJ and Virginia, I am sure the left would have hard ons for "this show of support".
Lest I be accused of being some shill for the GOP, I wanted to point out that I don't mean they are on the back and (if they listened to me) I would tell them to not get too excited. Voters seem to have a short attention span when it comes to supporting or punishing the party in power.
My point was that I also don't think it is impossible to completely ignore what this means for Democratic and progressive policies. I wouldn't say it is a rejection by any means, but I also think it would be foolish to ignore these loses. I can't find the article, but there was a compilation of some state results that showed the GOP did well in many areas. I think the refusal to recognize gay marriage in Maine was sad, especially considering that Maine is pretty moderate, and also can't just be written off.
FWIW, I have been just as harsh towards exuberant republicans. Just call me Captain Contrary.
"I am sure the left would have hard ons for "this show of support"."
Dude, thanks for calling us hypocrites, but I guess that's your job here.
I see the influence of Palin and Thompson different because they funded a third party who knocked out the Republican who would have surely won without interference. There was no impact due to the polices of either Obama or Palin on defeating the R other than funding a far-right candidate.
If I said that the Democrat won because it was a repudiation of Palin or in support of Obama, I would deserve the hypocrite label, but no one here said that. I think Owen won by luck and because of unique, third party dynamics, not because everyone flocked to support Obama.
Lest I be accused of being some shill for the GOP
Too late. Red meat.
but it is funny to see you guys do the same. You really don't see losing in NJ and Virginia as even a little bit negative ?
We do. it is always negative to lose any race. Our point is that to connect races with their own very specific political baggage to some rejection of Obama is farcical on the GOP side. "I VOTED AGAINST CORZINE BECAUSE I HATE OBAMA!!!" Um, maybe a couple of the nutters did. But Corzine is also a Goldman Sachs exec, and there's no lvoe lost. Plus, Corzine has other corruption shit he's been fighting for a while now. But a Guv is chosen largely on state-specific issues. Voters don't have the wherewithall to say "I will vote for Christie because doing so will hurt NJ's chances of choosing to opt-in to Obamacare."
Since Obama "helped" in NJ and Virginia, I suppose thanks is due there.
Exit polls showed that while voters rejected the Dem Gubernatorial candidate in NJ and VA, the still showed favorable numbers towards Obama; 57% and 51% respectively. "We like Obama OK, but not Corzine/Deeds." Kinda undoes that argument, eh?
I am sure the left would have hard ons for "this show of support".
The only hard-ons we had were for the fact that NY-23 went Dem for the 1st time in 150 fucking years. 75 elections have all gone R. That's because the nutters showed up, and the voters said "I'd rather vote Dem, thanks."
If you want a "bellweather" for next year's all-important CONGRESIONAL mid-term elections, it's not the Guv races. IT'S THE FUCKING CONGRESSIONAL RACE. You know, the race that pitted the new hard-core Conservative types against a traditional Dem? AND LOST. It wasn't repudiation of Palin, as Bob puts it, as much as it was moderates/indies looking at a 3rd party brand of conservative they can't pallate, no moderate R to get behind, and deciding to go D this once.
Palin, Beck et al obviously hurt that race. Maybe people are sick of national figures telling them how to vote locally. I don't know. My point was that it seemed you were ignoring all the opinions that didn't go with what you wanted to believe. I honestly don't know, as people vote for all sorts of reasons.
But Corzine is also a Goldman Sachs exec, and there's no lvoe lost.
True, but do you think the average voter knows what Goldman Sachs is? Most probably think it is a line of designer purses.
I am not calling anyone hypocrites...or at least that wasn't my intention. I just thought there was a teensy bit of denial going on, or maybe just trying to look at the positives.
If you want a "bellweather" for next year's all-important CONGRESIONAL mid-term elections, it's not the Guv races. IT'S THE FUCKING CONGRESSIONAL RACE. You know, the race that pitted the new hard-core Conservative types against a traditional Dem? AND LOST. It wasn't repudiation of Palin, as Bob puts it, as much as it was moderates/indies looking at a 3rd party brand of conservative they can't pallate, no moderate R to get behind, and deciding to go D this once.
This tells me a few things:
1. The third party thing will hurt them in states that are moderate. This may have been a better strategy in Idaho, Alabama or some other "conservative" state.
2. I don't see how you can expand the results of Congressional District and make them apply to the whole country and ignore the voters in an entire state. Yes, they are two different elections, but I don't see that first is any more relevant than the second, once you step outside of that district.
If I had to make a pull it out of my ass prediction, I would guess that it may be a little early to say the GOP is dead and that if Obama is seen in a negative light by more and more independents, that will hurt some Democrats that are running.
do you think the average voter knows what Goldman Sachs is?
Rest assured that the number of people in New Jersey (and elsewhere) has gone up exponentially in the last year.
I don't think Corzine has cracked 45% in a year, so I'm not sure it was Obama that did him in.
Did Obama help in those two races? It doesn't look like it. But I don't think the results say all that much about him or his policies.
Post a Comment