• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

USA Election Night 2009

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Virginia has been voting for the opposite party in off-year elections for many years straight now. When Clinton was in office, they voted for Republicans, and when Bush was in office they voted in Democrats, etc.

It wasn't some huge victory for the Republicans; a Republican vote was guaranteed.
 
Virginia has been voting for the opposite party in off-year elections for many years straight now. When Clinton was in office, they voted for Republicans, and when Bush was in office they voted in Democrats, etc.

It wasn't some huge victory for the Republicans; a Republican vote was guaranteed.

Not anything is guaranteed, just because they voted for a said party in a off year election does not mean it was a guaranteed victory, especially by that large of a percentage. Especially when the seat has been held by Democrats for the last two terms, and when the Republican name has taken such a beating for the last year. There is no magical "If you are in the other party you win the Governorship by a humongous margin" law in Virginia, or atleast one that I know of.
 
Posing sort of a counterfactual (although I think it's factual): The people who say this is a massive reflection on Obama, if you disavow that premise for a second and just say that these elections are local events, does that change your opinion of the standing of Republicans/Conservatives at all in 2010?

Because I actually don't think we know anything more about 2010 today than we knew on November 1st. But I'm curious to hear what other people think.
 
Republicans gained a significant amount of momentum over the election, and subsequently Democrats lost a lot of their momentum. The question is, how far will that momentum go?

You can't say you don't know more about 2010 after this because you know where the political energy lies - at the moment, it lies with the Right. The NY-23 election could make the case that it's not as big a shift in energy as you might think, but the situation was rather strange in that district - should the Conservative candidate won, it likely wouldn't have meant much either.
 
You can't predict what is going to happen in a year in political terms, just ask Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. They both went from the top of the world to down in the dumps in a year ( Late 2007 - Late 2008 for Hillary, Late 2008 to Late 2009 for Obama ). Right now alot of power is with the Republicans and the Conservatives, will it stay that way? I don't know, I doubt anyone knows. The large victory in Virginia did give Republicans a bit more clout and seems to have bettered their chances for a big win in 2010. Did anything change toward the Republican's chances? Well the Blue Dogs are asking for the Democrats to not push for any Liberal or Controversial bills for the next year:

Vulnerable House and Senate Democrats want their leaders to skip the party’s controversial legislative agenda for next year to help save their seats in Congress.

In the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, they don’t want to be forced to vote on climate change, immigration reform and gays in the military, which they say should be set aside so Congress can focus on jobs and the economy…


Just that alone tells you there has been some shift in opinion toward Republican's chances next year, especially when the Democrats are getting killed on trust with the Economy, and is one of if not the biggest reason they lost last night.
 
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.
That's what the leadership wants to do. However, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and their supporters have been push right-wing nuts. That's what happened in NY-23 and the Republicans paid a price for it. Hopefully for the Republican party, this will give their real leadership enough ammo to tell these people to screw off because their brand doesn't sell.
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.
There are also candidates that are doomed to fail like Corzine. Corzine won election in '05on several promises failed to keep. He's also seen as part of the Wall Street crowd who are very unpopular with the general public at the moment. Then he ran a bitter, negative campaign that delved into the realm of the petty with jabs about his opponents weight.

That doesn't erase the fact Christie won by distancing himself from Palin and company. Republicans are crowing about this win but it came at the expense of their supposed rising stars.
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.
Virginia has gone against the party holding the White House since Reagan. Add in a Democratic candidate they literally pulled out of the boonies who said he'd opt out of the public option and McDonnell had it made in the shade.

The message Democrats should be getting is "You're not safe in '10. You need to put some feathers in your caps to give people a reason to vote for you. Get stuff done and get it done now."
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.
Considering the district elected the Republican representative by 30 points last year, you don't know what you're talking about. I also have to laugh when you say he had no support from the Republican establishment when Palin and others were supporting him over the Republican. If he was so screwed, why was it Scazzafava who withdrew?
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.
Yay! The rural hicks came out to follow in the footsteps of California.
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.
Keep telling yourself that. Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and their followers have egg on their face so I'm happy.
 
That's what the leadership wants to do. However, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and their supporters have been push right-wing nuts. That's what happened in NY-23 and the Republicans paid a price for it. Hopefully for the Republican party, this will give their real leadership enough ammo to tell these people to screw off because their brand doesn't sell.

Did they pay a price for it? They got the Liberal Republican out, put a Center to Right Candidate in, and got a Conservative to a near victory. That doesn't sound like they paid much of a price.

There are also candidates that are doomed to fail like Corzine. Corzine won election in '05on several promises failed to keep. He's also seen as part of the Wall Street crowd who are very unpopular with the general public at the moment. Then he ran a bitter, negative campaign that delved into the realm of the petty with jabs about his opponents weight.

I wouldn't say he was doomed to fail, he did his best to be Obama's best buddy and the White House devoted alot of time and effort into what is essentially a very blue state. Granted he lost, but with everything against him the race was still considered tight until the final votes started coming in.

That doesn't erase the fact Christie won by distancing himself from Palin and company. Republicans are crowing about this win but it came at the expense of their supposed rising stars.

So what? There are states in which being near Palin and others will not help you, there are states in which it will. Christie going near Palin would be about as stupid as Chet Edwards ( D-TX ) going near Nancy Pelosi. It's just political reality and you are trying to make more of it than it actually is.

Virginia has gone against the party holding the White House since Reagan. Add in a Democratic candidate they literally pulled out of the boonies who said he'd opt out of the public option and McDonnell had it made in the shade.

Well for one he was smart to say he would opt out of the Public Option as Obamacare isn't polling so well. Also it is insane to say that just because Virginia has a trend in electing candidates against the party in the White House that it would happen here, or to the massive extent that it did happen.

The message Democrats should be getting is "You're not safe in '10. You need to put some feathers in your caps to give people a reason to vote for you. Get stuff done and get it done now."

Is that why Democrats are running scared from every single Liberal bill for 2010?

Considering the district elected the Republican representative by 30 points last year, you don't know what you're talking about.

They also elected Obama by what 52-47 (which by the way was the same difference that Hoffman lost), and that one of the factors into Obama picking the guy for the first place was because the White House thought it would be a easy pick up, I believe I do know what I am talking about.

I also have to laugh when you say he had no support from the Republican establishment when Palin and others were supporting him over the Republican. If he was so screwed, why was it Cazzafava who withdrew?

Scozzafava withdrew because her poll numbers were sinking, Hoffman had a chance, Scozzafava didn't have a chance in hell. All of his supporters began to jump on in the final two weeks before the election, before that he had no one. And even then the NRCC would not support him with funds, and continued to attack him until Scozzafava dropped out.

Yay! The rural hicks came out to follow in the footsteps of California.

Win is a win.

Keep telling yourself that.

Keep telling yourself that Republicans are disappearing, I wonder, how did that work out for you last night?

Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and their followers have egg on their face so I'm happy.

Do they? They got the Liberal Republican to drop out, and would most likely would have won except her endorsement gave Owens her district and a few others that were polling for her. Besides that they took a candidate that came in late and no one knew about, and nearly had a huge coup going. Egg on their face? Don't make me laugh. But hey: Keep telling yourself that.
 
Last edited:
I think in trying to make this a referedum on Obama, conservatives really...well, they want it to be that. They want to translate a 1-seat loss in the House, with another House seat going to a much more liberal Dem, and two gubernatorial wins as some sweeping election victory. But it isn't!

That's all right, you can wait until November 2010.

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.

That's a nice fiction. It's not an analysis, it's just a spin.

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.

That's called extrapolating from a single data point. It's like reading from the last sentence of a 1,000 page book and proclaiming that one sentence as history.

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?)

There is a difference between the area where the district is and the district itself. Districts are constantly gerrymandered (Or as some people prefer to call it, 're-drawn').

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).

Nice spin. There are lots of different polls to look from. If you select the polls that prove your pre-selected ordainance, great. Wait until November 2010 if you want further proof that the grassroots movement is taking effect. Polls, by nature, are limited, and starting by cherry-picking polls that support your beliefs is not starting with the facts. It is starting with your conclusions.

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.

Something important to remember is that people who are energized and excited vote more. In 2008, for example, Democrats were energized. When people are outraged about things like the economy or the debt, they're more likely to vote than those who aren't really outraged.

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.

First, that's an analysis, it's not a fact. Second, recent polls show that 40% of Americans identify as Conservatives, only 20% identify as Liberal. Third, Republicans have been moving to the left since 2004. The huge increases in spending, the moderate presidential candidate for 2008, the bailouts, and the battle for the Republican party's soul are all examples of this.

Virginia has been voting for the opposite party in off-year elections for many years straight now. When Clinton was in office, they voted for Republicans, and when Bush was in office they voted in Democrats, etc.

It wasn't some huge victory for the Republicans; a Republican vote was guaranteed.

It wasn't just the Governor's seat that was won; Republicans won the Lieutenant Governor's seat and the Attorney General's seat as well. The lead for the Governor's race was also above 15%.

You can't claim that a Republican vote was guaranteed, as no one can predict the future. Anything could have theoretically happened. What happened was a Republican sweep.

That's what the leadership wants to do. However, Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and their supporters have been push right-wing nuts. That's what happened in NY-23 and the Republicans paid a price for it. Hopefully for the Republican party, this will give their real leadership enough ammo to tell these people to screw off because their brand doesn't sell.

I would say that the price was paid when the original Congressman took the job offer from Obama. Anyways, the main race in NY-23 was between Scozzafava and Hoffman, which Hoffman won. Hoffman lost to Owens, who swore to be a Reagan conservative. That doesn't sound like it taught the Republicans a lesson. If anything, it tells the Republicans that choosing Scozzafava (the RINO) and other moderates is the WRONG thing to do. Hoffman performed much better than her, and their civil war weakened both performances in the general election.

The message Democrats should be getting is "You're not safe in '10. You need to put some feathers in your caps to give people a reason to vote for you. Get stuff done and get it done now."

So the Stimulus, TARP, the bailouts, government control of GM, Chinese Tire tarrifs, et al aren't enough action to judge the Democrats on? (I understand that not all of it was done by Democrats, but it was all supported by Democrats.)

Yay! The rural hicks came out to follow in the footsteps of California.

>_<

Keep telling yourself that. Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and their followers have egg on their face so I'm happy.

Go watch some Glenn Beck before you complain about him so much.
 
The Big Al said:
Yay! The rural hicks came out to follow in the footsteps of California.

That's enough of that, come on. Just because a state votes in a way you (and I) don't like doesn't make them all backwater hicks.
 
I was making hyperbole that crowing about Maine voting the way it did is not that groundbreaking because California did the same.
 
I was making hyperbole that crowing about Maine voting the way it did is not that groundbreaking because California did the same.

It was still a pretty big win for the Social Conservatives, which was my whole point against the whole "Well two tax reforms failed"
 
Two tax bills failing tells you more about the mindset of America, however. All 31 states that have put gay marriage on the ballot have voted against it. It's nothing new.

The tax proposals failing is something interesting. The right wing has been yelling and screaming about how evil taxes are. However, it's not registering with people.

As for Democrats running for the hills, the house just pasted a bill to move up the activate date for credit reform to the first of next month. Expect some more progressive/populous measures moving through congress to put feathers in caps. They need something to take back to their districts.
 
Two tax bills failing tells you more about the mindset of America, however. All 31 states that have put gay marriage on the ballot have voted against it. It's nothing new.

And how many Tax Bills have succeeded in the last ten years? I mean you are doing a unfair comparison using 31 bills over the time span of many years, versus two tax bills from this year. Not to mention you have not even told us which districts they are in or what the bills were. You have been incredibly vague as to what the bills were so far.

The tax proposals failing is something interesting. The right wing has been yelling and screaming about how evil taxes are. However, it's not registering with people.

As is Gay Marriage failing in this state. The Governor, the Newspapers, and most of the Political Leaders in Maine if I am hearing this correctly came out for Gay Marriage as did the fund raising and it was still struck down. Now if you want to talk about wings of a party, the Left Wing has been yelling and screaming about how not allowing Gay Marriage is unfair, including a massive rally in DC just a few weeks ago. 'However, it's not registering with people.'

As for Democrats running for the hills, the house just pasted a bill to move up the activate date for credit reform to the first of next month. Expect some more progressive/populous measures moving through congress to put feathers in caps. They need something to take back to their districts.

Just don't expect anything like Cap and Trade, Illegal Immigration, Financial Reform, or anything potentially dangerous to be put up within the next year in either the House or the Senate. Hell at this point the Blue Dogs are starting to look very scared on Health Care.
 
Last edited:
Several gay rights proposals did pass last night, however. Gay marriage is just something that can't seem to get over the hump.

I don't know what your definition of financial reform is. I thought reforming how companies can apply credit rates and penalties was part of financial reform. 88 Republicans even joined the Democrats. Hell, after the backlash against Wall Street last night, I'd suspect "financial reform" would be the new buzz phrase in the coming year. I doubt many would shed tears if Obama went Ma Bell on these too big to fail banks.
 
Several gay rights proposals did pass last night, however. Gay marriage is just something that can't seem to get over the hump.

Just as several tax freezes passed last night. I am still wondering which districts or states those tax bills failed in.

I don't know what your definition of financial reform is. I thought reforming how companies can apply credit rates and penalties was part of financial reform. 88 Republicans even joined the Democrats. Hell, after the backlash against Wall Street last night, I'd suspect "financial reform" would be the new buzz phrase in the coming year. I doubt many would shed tears if Obama went Ma Bell on these too big to fail banks.

It is actually Financial Regulatory Reform, but I did get the quote wrong, the Democrats are asking to put off Gays in the Military. So yes got the quote wrong there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom