USA Election Night 2009

[Fig]

As did the fact that the most succesful Republicans candidate distanced themselves as much as they safely could from the Republican brand, which is every inch as toxic as the dems one.

It woudl be foolish to reduce last night's elections to a single factor. Certainly, it shows there are still way for Republicans to score big and surprising wins; but it doesn't show that the Republican Party brand image problem are over - very far from it. And it also shows that radicalizing to the right doesn't win you elections, and that it loses you seats you've held for 130 years.

 

[evkl]

Do you actually...know anything about New Jersey Republicans and New Jersey Democrats, Jon Corzine in general, or that race? Because if you did you'd know that Christie wasn't some far-right conservative, he was really pretty much running the same campaign as Corzine. But there was the perk of him not being Corzine, who was a Goldman Sachs exec and was deeply unpopular in NJ (approval hovering under 40% some of the time.) Misty just provided statistics showing that voters generally didn't even consider national implications when they were voting.

All politics is, in fact, local. Creigh Deeds was a really shitty candidate. He ran a crappy campaign and stood for very little, going after McDonnell for a pretty sexist thesis he wrote 25 years ago, and not saying much in the way of substance. That isn't a way to win an election. Corzine had this weird situation where he was unpopular, so was Christie, and the election was fundamentally a referendum on him--and he couldn't eke it out. People did not go to the polls in New Jersey and say "A vote for Christie is a vote repduiating Obama." They went and said "A vote for Christie is a vote against Corzine," and by all accounts they should've done that--Corzine did not do a good job. (I think Christie has his own issues, but I'm glad to be on the Pennsylvania side of the border.)

I think when you completely eschew local politics as..."parochial," to steal a turn of phrase from other Republicans, you really shortchange what's going on state-to-state. I'm living in DC now, and McDonnell and Deeds ran these outrageous ads all the time about their transportation policy. Now I don't know a whole lot about Virginia, but clearly this was an issue that was very important to Virginians--or campaigns wouldn't run massive ad campaigns in the expensive DC market about it.

Of course, given all this evidence, it's probably still just this massive up/down vote on Obama.

If only we had a way to measure how popular Obama actually was...

 

[Big Lutz]

It woudl be foolish to reduce last night's elections to a single factor. Certainly, it shows there are still way for Republicans to score big and surprising wins; but it doesn't show that the Republican Party brand image problem are over - very far from it. And it also shows that radicalizing to the right doesn't win you elections, and that it loses you seats you've held for 130 years.

Okay you were right in the first half and then slowly moved toward being absolutely wrong. The idea that the Republican has held the seat for 130 years is wrong in and of itself as the district has continued to be changed over the years. So much so that Democrats held the seat between 1979 to 1993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York's_23rd_congressional_district

Second the candidate had numerous problems, the least of which was "radicalizing to the right".

Are the Republican's problems over with? No but this election showed some major problems heading the way with Democrats, turn outs for young and black voters being one, independents being the other.

Of course, given all this evidence, it's probably still just this massive up/down vote on Obama.

If only we had a way to measure how popular Obama actually was...

Did you actually read my post or gloss over it? Because you seem to be neglecting the part where I talked about the personal popularity of Obama, versus the toxic polices coming out of Washington. Now why don't you look at the polls showing that Obama's agenda actually polls much much lower than his personal popularity.

 

[Fig]

Ah. My apology then, I was clearly misinformed.

(Unless this is an issue of two different things, where the district numbered "23" and the region the present NY-23 covers are two different things?)

 

[Big Lutz]

(Unless this is an issue of two different things, where the district numbered "23" and the region the present NY-23 covers are two different things?)

The way I understand it is that NY-23 the actual seat that we have, continues to be redistricted over the years. That is same for pretty much any seat, you will have lines drawn, and redrawn and redrawn again. The seat has moved in and out of Republican hands for years. The typical spin has been that the seat has been held by Republicans since the Civil War, that the region hasn't elected a Democrat since then. That is fuzzy math at best due to redistricting, and a outright lie at worst because the NY 23 seat in and of itself has been held by a Democrat for those years, and the area did elect Obama last year.

 

[evkl]

Did you actually read my post or gloss over it? Because you seem to be neglecting the part where I talked about the personal popularity of Obama, versus the toxic polices coming out of Washington. Now why don't you look at the polls showing that Obama's agenda actually polls much much lower than his personal popularity.

But Obama's policies are actually...also quite popular. The public option polls very well. Health reform on the whole polls somewhat worse, but still not in the tank or anything. He does well in his polls on foreign policy (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/-jobapproval-presobama-foreignpolicy.php), but his handling of the economy is polling roughly even (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-presobama-economy.php) as is his health polling (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-presobama-health.php).

Adding, this wasn't a national election and I'm sure there are state and regional breakdowns in that data that aren't represented. It isn't like you pick 100 people in each state and 46 disapprove and 44 approve, just that a random 100 people across the nation will feel that way. So it's hard to extrapolate those national numbers to specific states which may have very different opinions on Obama.

 

[Big Lutz]

But Obama's policies are actually...also quite popular. The public option polls very well. Health reform on the whole polls somewhat worse, but still not in the tank or anything. He does well in his polls on foreign policy (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/-jobapproval-presobama-foreignpolicy.php), but his handling of the economy is polling roughly even (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-presobama-economy.php) as is his health polling (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-presobama-health.php).

You do realize what even means right? Of those three you listed only two are domestic policies, Health Care and the Economy. He is underwater with both, in Health Care he has 46% disapproval 44% approval, in the Economy it's even worse: 48% disapproval with 44% approval.

Now if we were to take that favorability rating you posted he has 56 approval, and 37 disapproval, now do I need to make a chart for you to show that his policies are polling far far lower than his favorability rating? I would think on this one even YOU could have figured that out.

Adding, this wasn't a national election and I'm sure there are state and regional breakdowns in that data that aren't represented. It isn't like you pick 100 people in each state and 46 disapprove and 44 approve, just that a random 100 people across the nation will feel that way. So it's hard to extrapolate those national numbers to specific states which may have very different opinions on Obama.

Well lets look at that for a second, beyond Obama's approval and disapproval he has around a 4 point difference in his handling of the economy in general. With only a 44/45% approval rating, which again I believe is high but what ever. Now what drove people to the polls? Well in Virginia where the Republican won by nearly 20%, the answer was the economy, with almost half of Virginia voters going to the polls strictly for that. Now are you honestly going to tell me, that the economy having that high marks, and Democrats and Obama having such low marks for their handling of the economy had no correlation? Especially in a state in which the Republican won by a larger number than was expected?

 

[evkl]

Remember that his criticisms on things like healthcare and the economy come from both directions--conservatives because they hate him and liberals because he isn't doing enough. If somebody asked me if I approved of how Obama was doing on healthcare, I'd say no. Because he can do better. But I do support his overall goal. An average 2% or even 4% gap between approval and disapproval is not some massive indictment of your policy initiatives.

Anyway, yes, I can say they're uncorrelated, because you're comparing incompatible samples. The true feelings of Virginia on Obama's economic approval might be 30% approve, 70% disapprove. We don't actually know the underlying Virginia sample. We only know the national sample, which says that on the whole he's polling roughly even (only slightly in the red) on both the economy and healthcare. So it's very possible that Deeds did better in Virginia because of Obama, not in spite of him...you don't know the underlying distribution of Virginia citizen opinion.

 

[Big Lutz]

Remember that his criticisms on things like healthcare and the economy come from both directions--conservatives because they hate him and liberals because he isn't doing enough. If somebody asked me if I approved of how Obama was doing on healthcare, I'd say no. Because he can do better. But I do support his overall goal. An average 2% or even 4% gap between approval and disapproval is not some massive indictment of your policy initiatives.

Yes but also remember that Liberals did not show up to the polls last night. Republicans and Independents did, both of which disapprove of the Democrats handling on the economy as noted in the Washington Post story. Also note that while the gap for the approval disapproval of his handling is between 2 and 4% the gap between his personal popularity and his handling of those policies is around 12%.

I will also point you to this week's CNN Poll: Fifty-four percent of respondents to the latest CNN poll disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance on the economy

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/02/rel16a.pdf

Anyway, yes, I can say they're uncorrelated, because you're comparing incompatible samples. The true feelings of Virginia on Obama's economic approval might be 30% approve, 70% disapprove. We don't actually know the underlying Virginia sample. We only know the national sample, which says that on the whole he's polling roughly even (only slightly in the red) on both the economy and healthcare. So it's very possible that Deeds did better in Virginia because of Obama, not in spite of him...you don't know the underlying distribution of Virginia citizen opinion.

Thats true we do not know what Virginians feel about Obama's economic policies. We do know that the approval rating for Obama is much lower than the 56% you posted, but as I said his true approval is around 50%, which is where it is in Virginia. That being said the exit polls did show one thing that proves my theory:

A vast 90 percent in New Jersey and 84 percent in Virginia said they’re worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year; 55 percent and 50 percent, respectively, said they’re “very” worried about it

Voters who expressed the highest levels of economic discontent heavily favored the Republican candidates in both states

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/P...sey-exit-polls-obama-economy/story?id=8984551

Like it or not, economic discontent drove Republicans and Independents to the polls, if voters were happy with how the nation's economy was going under Obama, that would not be the case and the victories would have been much smaller.

 

[evkl]

Correlation and causation again...you're conflating the opinion of voters with the opinion of all citizens (voters may be the ones 'who matter', but they don't comprise public opinion, and who votes changes year to year). Yes. People who are concerned about the economy right now did tend to vote Republican. But are Republicans in general more concerned about the economy? Are people who are concerned about the economy always more likely to be Republicans? These are questions that are very important and that the polls don't disentangle.

 

[Big Lutz]

Correlation and causation again...you're conflating the opinion of voters with the opinion of all citizens (voters may be the ones 'who matter', but they don't comprise public opinion, and who votes changes year to year). Yes. People who are concerned about the economy right now did tend to vote Republican. But are Republicans in general more concerned about the economy? Are people who are concerned about the economy always more likely to be Republicans? These are questions that are very important and that the polls don't disentangle.

Well in this case those that were concerned about the economy trended Republican, is that the case nationally? Rasmussen says yes, by a difference of 35 - 49% Republicans are trusted more than Democrats on the Economy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by_the_numbers2/by_the_numbers

 

[evkl]

But that's not the same question. Trust on the issue =/= whether or not people concerned with that issue are more likely to vote, and if so, how. Maybe I trust Republicans a lot on the economy but in New Jersey I'm really concerned with education, because I've got two school-age kids. And, again, that poll is a national one; state results aren't the same.

 

[Big Lutz]

But that's not the same question. Trust on the issue =/= whether or not people concerned with that issue are more likely to vote, and if so, how. Maybe I trust Republicans a lot on the economy but in New Jersey I'm really concerned with education, because I've got two school-age kids. And, again, that poll is a national one; state results aren't the same.

Except you are forgetting that in both Virginia and New Jersey the economy was the number one issue for voters. In Virginia where Republicans had a major sweep it was the top issue for nearly half. In New Jersey it ranked in around 36 I believe but was far above any other issue. Like it or not the economy was what drove people to the polls in both races, and distrust in Democrats handling of the economy by both Independents and Republicans is what gave the Republicans their win.

 

[evkl]

All politics is local...blaming Obama for Corzine's loss is not an accurate assessment of New Jersey in my opinion. Blaming Corzine for Corzine's loss, on the other hand...

 

[Big Lutz]

All politics is local...blaming Obama for Corzine's loss is not an accurate assessment of New Jersey in my opinion. Blaming Corzine for Corzine's loss, on the other hand...

Except Virginia and New Jersey do not live in a bubble, saying all politics is local is true only to a extent. The economic situation in this country, and the anger over Government spending and the anger over the Democrats seeming indifference to the economy on Capital Hill does effect Virginia and New Jersey voters, it does make Independents more distrustful of Democrat party name even on a local level. Just as Bush's handling of the economy and the Iraq War made Independents more distrustful of the Republican name in the past two elections.

Is Corzine horrible record partly to blame for his loss? Yes. But of the three races, his was also the one most managed by the White House, his was the one in which he was most attached to the hip of Obama.

You cannot blame Corzine's loss for one thing, but you can say that distrust over Democrats with the economy drove Independents and Republicans to the polls in both states. And unless New Jersey and Virginia some how do not get any news outside of local news, the national distrust and anger of Democrats for their handling of the economy in Washington played a part in that.

 

[Misty]

Don't paint independents with a single brush; in fact, many "independents" are actually former Republicans who became disillusioned during the Bush years. It's much more useful to look at self-described moderates.

 

[Big Lutz]

Don't paint independents with a single brush; in fact, many "independents" are actually former Republicans who became disillusioned during the Bush years. It's much more useful to look at self-described moderates.

That's true but you are going to find that almost every analyst and news source will paint independents with a broad brush. Yes many of them are former Republicans, but that does not make the loss any easier for Democrats. If anything it means that the actions of the Democrats over this economy is causing them to lose the Republicans who's move away from the Republican party helped sweep them into office in 06 and 08.

 

[The Big Al]

I watched Morning Joe today and the analysts they were talking to made a very interesting point. This was a good night for Republicans, but a horrible night for conservatives. The two Republican winners won because they ran to the middle instead of the right, the right wing candidate lost, and two anti-tax proposals were struck down soundly. It basically says what the Republican leadership has been doing for the past four years is wrong. America is not the conservative bastion they claim it is the move to the right will kill the Republicans off.

 

[Misty]

Actually, that's... exactly what the Republican leadership has been doing. If anything, they've been vindicated by the events of yesterday, by pushing sensible conservative candidates.

 

[Big Lutz]

I watched Morning Joe today and the analysts they were talking to made a very interesting point. This was a good night for Republicans, but a horrible night for conservatives. The two Republican winners won because they ran to the middle instead of the right, the right wing candidate lost, and two anti-tax proposals were struck down soundly. It basically says what the Republican leadership has been doing for the past four years is wrong. America is not the conservative bastion they claim it is the move to the right will kill the Republicans off.

Well lets break this down shall we?

New Jersey: It is one of the bluest of the blue states, there was not a chance a Conservative would have won here, and pretty much every Conservative knows that. That isn't a indication that America is a conservative baston or not, that is just political reality. There are some places Conservatives can win, and some places Conservatives can't win. Just as there are some places Liberals can and cannot win at.

Virginia: This was a Purple state leaning blue after last year's election. Now due to the giant size of the victory that was won there, the Republican candidate could have gone more Conservative and won, he would have shaved off a few more votes from independents that went to him at a 2 - 1 advantage but he could have still won. But, even as a Conservative, I would rather have a massive victory of nearly 20 points by a center right moderate, than a 10 point victory of a dyed in the wool conservative. Why? Because it sent a message to Blue Dogs and even some Liberals "You guys are not safe come 2010" and if the Politico piece this morning was any indication, they got the message loud and clear.

NY 23: In a district that was purple after last year's election, the leading Liberal Candidate was kicked out. You had a choice between a Center to Right Democrat and a Conservative. Does that mean the Conservative didn't have a chance in winning? No, the man came in late in the race, had absolutely no support from the Republican Establishment, had to have a bloody fight with the Republican candidate, had the Republican candidate endorse his rival, and he still came within 4 points. It's a loss granted but looking at the conditions that made up that loss there is no way you could say it is a loss for Conservatives.

Bills: Granted you had two tax reforms fail, but at the same time you had a Anti Gay Marriage bill pass in Maine. In terms of power, and prestige, that is a massive net win for Social Conservatives.

So is it a loss for Conservatives? No not really, you could try to make the statement but the facts do not really bare you out. Infact you could have a easier time making the argument that it was a even worse night for Liberals than it was for Democrats.