2009 Election Discussion & Results

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 17, 2009 11:26:32 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

This is fine when the only thing that is happening are demonstrations and town hall protests and Democrats can claim that "the majority of people support the President and his plans". It won't work in November, where they are two major races (CT and VA governor) and the Democrats look to get trounced - especially in Virginia, which is supposedly the harbringer of a red state turning blue.

At that point, Democrats' assertions that everybody's really on their side and that the people who are demonstrating represent more than a lunatic fringe are going to come crashing down. At that point, I'm wondering if the Democrats will blame latent racism from people who they think were scared of a black president, or if they'll blame Virginians for being idiots who don't realize that health care reform is really for their benefit.

As opposed to, you know, Congress and the White House being both largely unable to find their posteriors with four hands and a Tom Tom.

Leaving out the self-congratulatory and gratuitous preface to the above remarks from another thread, the topic of the upcoming elections in VA and NJ has been raised.

I guess there are two issues at play. One is that of expectations, and the second is that of the relationship between these two state elections and Obama/national issues.

1. If the expectation is that these elections will be trouncings, which I think we can safely determine to be a margin of 10-20%, the Republicans will be disappointed. For the purpose of this discussion, let's use the latest Rasmussens, which lean to the right. The Virginia Governor's race is a "toss-up" with margin of 2% favoring the Republican, albeit within the MOE. The margin had once been 9%, before Mr. McDonnell's scholarship received attention.*
In New Jersey, the margin is 8% among LV after leaners. Other models are far tighter, and some even show the Democrat, upside-down approvals Corzine, ahead. It should be noted that Corzine has been turning down debates, which typically you would not do while noticeably behind.

In any event, the margins had earlier been well into the double-digits. Both races are tightening and could be turnout elections within a 2-4% range. The evidence right now is more suggestive of a nail-biter than a trouncing.

2. The NJ race is a classic incumbent election, and Christie is running against Corzine's record. Nowhere on his website is there any reference to where he stands on the public option, for example. Indeed, the term "Republican" is hard to find on his website, and I have not found it. Major issues are corruption and allegations thereof, tax structure, and the like. A chucklehead or two will say this is a referendum on Obama, but chances are they know nothing about the race.

As to Virginia, I am removed from the scene. I don't get the sense, however, that McDonnell is running against Obama as much as a continuation of Warner-Kaine. I may be wrong, so I defer.

In any event, the point is that any attribution of results, positive or negative, to Obama on the basis of these two elections would be tortured and the reflection of a political effort rather than an analytical one.
* * * * *
The side-point that VA is not turning blue on the basis of a potential McDonnell victory is curious. Blue/red typically denote who wins state-wide. Nobody would dare call NJ purple if Christie wins, as the first Republican in a long time to win a state-wide election there. Whitman would be the last.

In the case of VA, the last state-wide Republican win was Bush in 2004. Warner and Obama both soundly defeated whomever ran against Warner and McCain. In the presidential election, I believe McCain only polled ahead (during the general election campaign) in the week or two after the Palin pick. The legislature, obviously, to the extent that it ever figures into a red/blue analysis, would weigh in your favor here. To make the leap into calling VA red, however, requires a little wishful thinking at this point.
* * * * *
The discussion of blame is troubling in light of what it reveals about how one analyzes party politics. I have not seen any evidence of a systematic or even wide-spread blame of racism for things like opposition to health care, opposition to stimulus, and the like. We can leave that discussion in the other thread. My only suggestion is that accusing someone of accusing a group of racism absent some showing of evidence is not easily distinguishable from racism itself. I don't mean to suggest here that Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck count as reputable sources.

*Having seen some of the reports of McDonnell's calculated and time-consuming research, I feel confident in saying that they are the Republican equivalent of something like the "whitey" video actually existing. There are some truly astonishing remarks in his paper that do not merit defense among intellectuals.

[Elvado]

And in NJ, Corzine is still trotting out the anti-GWB commercials. Of course, if I had Corzine's record to run on, I'd be aiming at a bogeyman too.

The Democrat machine in NJ makes Chicago look clean.

[strummer8526]

Sept 19, 2009 7:29:05 GMT -5 Elvado said:

And in NJ, Corzine is still trotting out the anti-GWB commercials. Of course, if I had Corzine's record to run on, I'd be aiming at a bogeyman too.

The Democrat machine in NJ makes Chicago look clean.

So there you go. You just supported the argument that Corzine's defeat, should it come to pass, is a referendum on Corzine and his poor performance as NJ's governor. I hope you remember this if/when he loses and don't try to turn it into a sign that "NJ is against Obama."

[Elvado]

I do not believe Corzine's defeat will have anything to do with Obama, save for the possibility that some basic anti-incumbent feelings may be tangentially related. John Corzine made his own filthy bed and will have to lie in it.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Why has the McDonnel-Deeds race tightened up? I know Deeds tends to come from behind in these races like he did in the primary, but I really can't believe the thesis is hurting McDonnell this much.

[Bando]

There are also Canadian elections this year! Woo-hoo! Since the liberals won't form a coalition with the NDP for some reason (and no one will form a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, of course), it looks like we're in for another Conservative minority government.

[theexorcist]

Ambassador - Obama won a pretty convincing victory with about 8-10% difference. McDonnell has consistently been ahead, and looks ready to win since Deeds can't campaign his way out of a paper bag (he won the Democratic race because the Post endorsed him last time - their coverage up to now has not been favorable, and I'd doubt that happening again). Virginia's close enough down the middle that no one is winning by 20%. If the past trends continue, McDonnell will have led the entire time and won a pretty safe victory.

Given that the Democrats set up a massive machine in Virginia a year ago, and given that they've had a hot streak that now includes two senators and two governors, and given that Virginia went blue for the first time in a while, a Deeds loss is a big thing.

And McDonnell's running on Obama - he's running on the economy, big-time (lots of his signs say "A Jobs Governor", with the insinuation that the stimulus hasn't helped (Kaine's absence working for a Democratic position hasn't helped much).

StPete: Races have a tendency to tighten up as election time gets closer. The timing for this one is really strange, since Deeds made lots of errors in a Chamber of Commerce debate discussing his proposal on raising taxes. Some polling seems to indicate that the thesis stuff is beginning to take hold on NoVa female voters, but they trend Democratic anyway, and unless they turn out against McDonnell en masse, which I doubt, he's safe.

[Boz]

I didn't see it, but the word also is that Deeds did really well in the most recent debate (until he got out and failed at answering any reporter's questions about taxes...that part I did see), and McDonnell did not do so well.

I don't know if that has effected the most recent numbers or not. Probably not, since that debate didn't get a lot of coverage.

The ad spending that I've seen has been pretty even, it seems.

My feeling is that, if the election were held today, even though the numbers have been tightening, McDonnell would still probably win fairly comfortably. What happens between now and the election is anyone's guess.

As for this being a referendum on Obama, well, it's not going to be good for him if the Democrats lose both NJ and VA elections, I don't think that's really deniable.

Should that happen, I think you are going to have Republicans come out and say that the voters of Virginia and New Jersey have given the President a vote of no confidence. You are going to have Democrats come out and say that Virginia is normally a red (-ish) state anyway and that Corzine is a flawed incumbent and that neither has anything to do with Obama.

Both sides might have some merit, but honestly, I don't know that there is a whole lot of value in that discussion. The more interesting discussion will be how much of a bellwether these races will be for the 2010 midterms.

[EasyEd]

The race for governor in Virginia tightened up due to one thing only: the thesis McDonnell wrote and the Washington Post's continual harping on it. Fred Barnes said "By one count, the Post published 40 stories, blog postings or cartoons on it in just 13 days" online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574418831128891434.html
Whether that number is accurate or not, the Post has concentrated on it mightily. In addition, every Deeds TV spot is based on that thesis with almost nothing about what Deeds stands for.

As for the most recent debate, according to two Washington Post articles Deeds did horribly. He contradicted himself on the subject of whether he would raise taxes and showed he had no plan on solving the Northern Virginia transportation problems, an area the Post puts great stress on. McDonnell raised his 17-page transportation in one hand and a blank sheet of paper signifying Deed's plan in the other.

Despite all this, the Washington Post is almost certain to endorse Deeds. I have never seen a significant election where the Post did not endorse the Democratic candidate. And the Post endorsement exerts a great impact on elections. Deeds would probably not have gotten the Democratic nomination except for the Post's endorsement. I suspect the Post's endorsement of a candidate is worth about 10 points in an elections because there are a very large number of people who know next to nothing about the candidates and they just follow the Post's lead.

I expect a very close election.

[theexorcist]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/19/AR2009091902552.html has a comment on the Deeds gain.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091702879.html has a summary of the debate, which was pretty frank on Deeds' numerous miscues.

[jerseyhoya34]

Although this does not pertain to an election, it should be noted that the Washington Post largely bought into the Bush-Cheney rationale for the Iraq War, and its editorial board endorsed the war - one of the most significant Congressional votes since Vietnam. I suspect the passage of time has allowed some people to forget the misguided or factually inaccurate nature of most of this position in favor of war. In fairness, perhaps the Post is still getting it wrong with some of its endorsements. I suspect that there are papers out there that have never endorsed a Democrat (or at least not in recent memory), but we do not see the principled opposition to the Post attacking these papers for whatever reason.

Apart from that, I think we're looking at a late night in both VA and NJ. Although the Democrats have superior machinery in both states for turnout, their effect does not show up in the polls because it is directed at turnout. I don't think any reliable poll had Obama by 6 in 2008. It was more in the 2-4 range, and the volunteer apparatus in the state gave him another point or two at the margin while perhaps adding to his 53% coalition. It, however, was not the kind of thing that makes the difference between 55 and 60 or 40 and 45.

As to theexorcist's points, the margin in 2008 in VA was 6.29% according to the State BOE. McDonnell indeed trailed after the primary in at least 1 polling cycle. A Deeds loss is a big thing in the sense that a Republican will have won something statewide for the first time since 2004, but I do not think McDonnell would be entitled to receive some sort-of ticker tape parade for it. It strains the imagination to think he will have defeated the full-on volunteer apparatus that canvassed the state in 2008. Indeed, most pollers acknowledge that there is an intensity gap right now, and Democrats are less likely to turn out than Republicans, and, regardless, turnout is depressed in an off-year election. No doubt that this affects your phone-banking, response to direct mail, daily volunteer work, etc.

I am less able to cipher through the Republican signs/sloganeering than most. Perhaps the passage of time has allowed issues with the past administration to recede from memory. Nonetheless, I agree that Republicans appear to be enthusiastic toward McDonnell.

[EasyEd]

Another Post article that says Deeds lost the debate:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704433.html

[Boz]

Sept 21, 2009 18:44:33 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Another Post article that says Deeds lost the debate:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704433.html

Huh. OK. I didn't actually see the debate, just heard that he did a lot better than his opponent. Guess I didn't have a good source on that one.

Anyway, here is a clip of Deeds talking to reporters (read: bombing with reporters) after the debate, which I referenced in my earlier post:



This is almost right up there with Nixon's "secret plan to end the war." (or Josh Lymon's "secret plan to fight inflation.")

[AustinHoya03]

A really, really minor election issue that is nonetheless interesting to me is the potential "people's veto" of Maine's new law allowing same-sex marriage.

I don't want to debate the issue of same-sex marriage, which has been been hacked to death on this board and numerous other Internet forums.

I find this issue interesting because I think it is further proof that while it is difficult to get Americans to care about the workings of a representative democracy, it's very simple to get them to turn out en masse to vote directly on a hot social issue that will ultimately have very little bearing on the life of any voter. Undoubtedly, many of those frothing at the mouth to vote both for or against gay marriage did not vote for the representatives that enacted the law. It would be interesting to compare this year's turnout to a year in which state elections were held with no people's veto.

Sometimes I think Ralph Nader's "teaching citizenship" idea wasn't so bad.

ON EDIT: That should say "passed the law later enacted by the governor." Maybe I need a remedial citizenship course myself.

[jerseyhoya34]

One turnout wrinkle in NJ is the new "vote by mail" feature, whereby registered voters can make use of mail-in ballots irrespective to absentee status. In theory, it is not much different than rules in VA that make VA-DC commuters more able to vote absentee, but it goes farther than that obviously.

I am unaware of other states that have a "vote by mail" option, but such an idea has been bandied about for a while as an electoral reform.

[theexorcist]

Sept 21, 2009 20:09:04 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

A really, really minor election issue that is nonetheless interesting to me is the potential "people's veto" of Maine's new law allowing same-sex marriage.

I don't want to debate the issue of same-sex marriage, which has been been hacked to death on this board and numerous other Internet forums.

I find this issue interesting because I think it is further proof that while it is difficult to get Americans to care about the workings of a representative democracy, it's very simple to get them to turn out en masse to vote directly on a hot social issue that will ultimately have very little bearing on the life of any voter. Undoubtedly, many of those frothing at the mouth to vote both for or against gay marriage did not vote for the representatives that enacted the law. It would be interesting to compare this year's turnout to a year in which state elections were held with no people's veto.

Sometimes I think Ralph Nader's "teaching citizenship" idea wasn't so bad.

I kind of disagree. It's easier to get people to turn out because it's a yes or no question. There's a big difference between that and voting for a representative who usually agrees with you on some issues and disagrees with you on others. There's also a perennial assumption on many people's minds that the entire system is kind of designed to produce the same type of person, no matter who wins, so you never get real change.

As opposed to this, even if you're voting on something that doesn't mean a lot in the big picture, your vote is still pretty basic on a yes/no basis - you're not voting for Rep. Smith, who may or may not vote for something in which you believe.

[SFHoya99]

Sept 21, 2009 21:20:45 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

One turnout wrinkle in NJ is the new "vote by mail" feature, whereby registered voters can make use of mail-in ballots irrespective to absentee status. In theory, it is not much different than rules in VA that make VA-DC commuters more able to vote absentee, but it goes farther than that obviously.

I am unaware of other states that have a "vote by mail" option, but such an idea has been bandied about for a while as an electoral reform.

California has a liberal absentee policy, but the most liberal on this is I believe Oregon, where a significant majority vote absentee.

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 21, 2009 22:27:31 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Sept 21, 2009 21:20:45 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

One turnout wrinkle in NJ is the new "vote by mail" feature, whereby registered voters can make use of mail-in ballots irrespective to absentee status. In theory, it is not much different than rules in VA that make VA-DC commuters more able to vote absentee, but it goes farther than that obviously.

I am unaware of other states that have a "vote by mail" option, but such an idea has been bandied about for a while as an electoral reform.

California has a liberal absentee policy, but the most liberal on this is I believe Oregon, where a significant majority vote absentee.

It looks like CA now has vote-by-mail available for all registered voters irrespective to absentee status. www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm

[Bando]

Sept 21, 2009 22:27:31 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Sept 21, 2009 21:20:45 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

One turnout wrinkle in NJ is the new "vote by mail" feature, whereby registered voters can make use of mail-in ballots irrespective to absentee status. In theory, it is not much different than rules in VA that make VA-DC commuters more able to vote absentee, but it goes farther than that obviously.

I am unaware of other states that have a "vote by mail" option, but such an idea has been bandied about for a while as an electoral reform.

California has a liberal absentee policy, but the most liberal on this is I believe Oregon, where a significant majority vote absentee.

Oregon is all by mail, I believe. No one votes at a polling place.

[theexorcist]

Sept 22, 2009 2:16:42 GMT -5 Bando said:

Sept 21, 2009 22:27:31 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

California has a liberal absentee policy, but the most liberal on this is I believe Oregon, where a significant majority vote absentee.

Oregon is all by mail, I believe. No one votes at a polling place.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Oregon