2009 Election Discussion & Results

[Boz]

To bando:

1. Yes, there is a NY-23 election in 2010, but I don't know about the re-districting.

2. I'm not sure staking your hopes on people dying is a great strategy. While I have no problems with equal rights, I do have some qualms about using the name and institution of marriage (as does our current President, I'll remind everyone). It does make me highly suspicious about the real motives, as rosslyn has described above.

3. I don't think the degree to which the House got "more liberal" is all that significant. Tauscher may have been a moderate, but as far as I know, she wasn't opposed to any of the administration's domestic agenda, was she? As for NY, again, we'll see if Owens votes as he campaigned (i.e. - an opponent of public option health care). But one or two seats in the House -- right now anyway -- is not all that significant. The real fight in the House will be waged in 2010. Pelosi will most likely remain Speaker, but she may find herself with a lot less power.

4. Interesting take on the conservative and liberal strategies. Personally, with respect to Florida, I don't think there's a chance either Crist or Rubio loses the general election. As for other places, we'll see.

5. I have no thoughts on NYC. I try never to have any thoughts on NYC. I'm much happier that way. Buncha' pimps & C.H.U.D.s up there. ;D

[TC]

Nov 4, 2009 10:43:00 GMT -5 Boz said:

To bando:
2. I'm not sure staking your hopes on people dying is a great strategy. While I have no problems with equal rights, I do have some qualms about using the name and institution of marriage (as does our current President, I'll remind everyone). It does make me highly suspicious about the real motives, as rosslyn has described above.

I think it's likely Owens will be corralled in and whipped much like Cao was for the stimulus vote. Kinda doubt either will survive 2010.

In Hoya news, it looks like Amber Waldref won a Spokane City Council seat last night.

[hoyawatcher]

Redistricting happens based on the 2010 elections. Owens runs in the same territory in 2010.

The real test of whether Congress got more liberal is whether the center/blue dog democrats continue to support the liberal initiatives in health care/second stimulus/etc. In particular whether pubs can strip off a couple for cloture votes in the senate based on those at risk dems not liking what they see in this election. Liberman already has said he will filabuster the health care bill. Swings like that are much more profound that the 2 house seats which may or may not change the votes from those specific districts.

I don't have anything really for or against Bloomberg in NY but I do think that changing the law to allow yourself to run for terms beyond established term limits strikes me of Chavez type activities that at some level make me root for the other guy.

[Bando]

2. I'm not sure staking your hopes on people dying is a great strategy. While I have no problems with equal rights, I do have some qualms about using the name and institution of marriage (as does our current President, I'll remind everyone). It does make me highly suspicious about the real motives, as rosslyn has described above.

I'm not rooting for people to die, just noting the demographics. Old people are against SSM, young people are for. This seems to portend that SSM will eventually win.

Lieberman already has said he will filabuster the health care bill. Swings like that are much more profound that the 2 house seats which may or may not change the votes from those specific districts.

Didn't he back off that, though? I feel if push comes to shove, the Dems are willing to use the big stick of committee assignments and seniority against him.

[Elvado]

Lieberman already has said he will filabuster the health care bill. Swings like that are much more profound that the 2 house seats which may or may not change the votes from those specific districts.

Didn't he back off that, though? I feel if push comes to shove, the Dems are willing to use the big stick of committee assignments and seniority against him.

[/quote]

Good to see Mr. Obama and his ilk are working so hard to "change the tone", "listen to good ideas" and "end this partisan bickering".

Imagine if they were into conflict, partisanship and petty backlash...

[rosslynhoya]

Nov 4, 2009 11:47:45 GMT -5 Bando said:

Lieberman already has said he will filabuster the health care bill. Swings like that are much more profound that the 2 house seats which may or may not change the votes from those specific districts.

Didn't he back off that, though? I feel if push comes to shove, the Dems are willing to use the big stick of committee assignments and seniority against him.

I think the bigger concern is that the party leaders will issue the order to rank-and-file Dems to fall on their swords and take one for the team, preferably before the landslide of November 2010.

How dare those moderates selfishly put their own re-election prospects ahead of the historic opportunity that comes from controlling the White House and both houses of Congress?

[hoyawatcher]

Lieberman did waffle between voting for cloture but not the bill and voting for a filabuster - but I thought his final Jeopardy answer was filabuster. Regardless - Reid is now saying there will not be a health care bill this year. That is a major retreat. And if someone wants to bet a case of good beer that this version of health care reform can get through the congress in an election year I am all over it Health Care and cap and trade is not a ticket to success next year with the current job situation.

[TC]

Nov 4, 2009 11:47:45 GMT -5 Bando said:

Didn't he back off that, though? I feel if push comes to shove, the Dems are willing to use the big stick of committee assignments and seniority against him.

There was a report last week that Reid and Lieberman had a reached a private deal, and then hours later Lieberman's office denied it and Reid's office denied they had reached any understand yet.

So who knows. Lieberman has a lot of reasons to vote with the party, not a whole lot to go against it.

[EasyEd]

One of the biggest losers in the election yesterday was the Washington Post. In the Virginia race the Post dragged Creigh Deeds from relative obscurity and endorsed him in the Democratic primary thereby dissing Terry McAuliffe and Brian Moran, both Northern Virginians, and Deeds was nominated. They then wrote the script for Deeds' campaign by advertising, day after day, Bob O'Donnell's thesis of 20 years ago and Deeds took the bait and proceeded to harp on this to the detriment of anything positive until almost the end. The Post also repeatedly stressed the importance of transportation to the candidates and touted the plan of Deeds which was "I will appoint a bipartisan committee to come up with one" and which included raising taxes which, not surprisingly, the Post agreed with. The Post also, about two days before the election had an op-ed piece implying strongly that the Republican Attorney General nominee, Ken Cuccinelli, was an outright bigot. Then the Post endorsed the Democratic candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general. In the end they all lost and exit polls showed that only 7% of voters considered transportation to be the number one thing influencing their votes, the economy and health care being tops on the list. Of course now they will claim the election had nothing to do with President Obama and the Democratic Congress and they will tell everyone how Deeds was a terrible candidate. How I love it.

[kchoya]

Nov 4, 2009 20:04:14 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Of course now they will claim the election had nothing to do with President Obama and the Democratic Congress and they will tell everyone how Deeds was a terrible candidate. How I love it.

Yes, but Hoffman's skills as a candidate in NY-23 played no factor in the race.

(BTW, aren't their any better pictures of that guy than what the networks were running last night? I'd be scared to vote for him just based on that.)

[jerseyhoya34]

A couple of thoughts on the election ---

1. Michael Steele may have been the biggest winner of the bunch considering the state of the Republican Party when he was elected chairman. It remains a troubled party, so to pull out a couple of elections is an accomplishment. For him, he must also be feeling a sense of relief since he had not been a large part of a winning campaign for more than 6 years.

2. It is hard to make a generalization to encompass the major races yesterday and the outcomes. One that is fitting is that "all politics is local." Folks in NJ and VA are still hurting from the failing economy and have not yet seen spillover from the current recovery. Fair that they would want to hold someone accountable as they did in 2008, so Corzine, I think, was largely caught up in a mess over which he had some, but not significant, control. The voters in NY-23 also rejected a transplant candidate in Hoffman and his handlers, who suggested that a local editorial board was "parochial" or something to that effect. Had Dick Armey known anything about that part of NY, he would have realized the degree to which such a characterization would be off-putting at best.

3. There is no room for comfort for the insurgent-style Republicans in yesterday's result. Christie is a purported moderate who certainly did not welcome overtures from Sarah Palin and like-minded individuals. Likewise, McDonnell appears to have tacked closer to the center than his record and academic work would otherwise suggest. In NY-23, voters rejected endorsements made of both Republican candidates by Michael Steele and others as well as the endorsements by Sarah Palin et al. of the second Republican candidate. The fact remains that this brand of politics is volatile in New England and Mid-Atlantic, and campaigns will continue to distance themselves from these figures.

4. Can any Republican remember worrying about the Bush mandate in 2001 when Jim McGreevey and Mark Warner won governors races?

5. In the long run, I think this will be seen as more of a mixed result. The Tea Party, insurgent-style Republicans* seem to be enthusiastic today to spread their message in California, Florida, and elsewhere. However, there does not seem to be a recognition that their approach and ideological screenings would be more effective when nuanced and targeted to moderate Republicans in red states. The competitive primaries that may occur as a result may divide the party for 2010.

6. I can see a situation where Owens wins in 2010, particularly if he stays active in the district, but he admittedly has a tough road to hoe.

*So named for their Town Hall tactics, apparent effort tomorrow to disrupt activity in the Capitol Building, and adoption of rhetoric of a rebellion.

[TC]

Ambassador, I laughed today when I saw that they were going to challenge Carly Fiorina from the right.

[Boz]

Yes, by God, don't ever have primaries!

I think Hillary Clinton wishes this was so.

[jerseyhoya34]

For every Hillary, there is a Jimmy Carter, Hubert Humphrey, etc.

[TBird41]

Nov 4, 2009 21:07:27 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

A couple of thoughts on the election ---

1. Michael Steele may have been the biggest winner of the bunch considering the state of the Republican Party when he was elected chairman. It remains a troubled party, so to pull out a couple of elections is an accomplishment. For him, he must also be feeling a sense of relief since he had not been a large part of a winning campaign for more than 6 years.

2. It is hard to make a generalization to encompass the major races yesterday and the outcomes. One that is fitting is that "all politics is local." Folks in NJ and VA are still hurting from the failing economy and have not yet seen spillover from the current recovery. Fair that they would want to hold someone accountable as they did in 2008, so Corzine, I think, was largely caught up in a mess over which he had some, but not significant, control. The voters in NY-23 also rejected a transplant candidate in Hoffman and his handlers, who suggested that a local editorial board was "parochial" or something to that effect. Had Dick Armey known anything about that part of NY, he would have realized the degree to which such a characterization would be off-putting at best.

3. There is no room for comfort for the insurgent-style Republicans in yesterday's result. Christie is a purported moderate who certainly did not welcome overtures from Sarah Palin and like-minded individuals. Likewise, McDonnell appears to have tacked closer to the center than his record and academic work would otherwise suggest. In NY-23, voters rejected endorsements made of both Republican candidates by Michael Steele and others as well as the endorsements by Sarah Palin et al. of the second Republican candidate. The fact remains that this brand of politics is volatile in New England and Mid-Atlantic, and campaigns will continue to distance themselves from these figures.

4. Can any Republican remember worrying about the Bush mandate in 2001 when Jim McGreevey and Mark Warner won governors races?

5. In the long run, I think this will be seen as more of a mixed result. The Tea Party, insurgent-style Republicans* seem to be enthusiastic today to spread their message in California, Florida, and elsewhere. However, there does not seem to be a recognition that their approach and ideological screenings would be more effective when nuanced and targeted to moderate Republicans in red states. The competitive primaries that may occur as a result may divide the party for 2010.

6. I can see a situation where Owens wins in 2010, particularly if he stays active in the district, but he admittedly has a tough road to hoe.

*So named for their Town Hall tactics, apparent effort tomorrow to disrupt activity in the Capitol Building, and adoption of rhetoric of a rebellion.

I think it's a little much to say that voters "rejected" Hoffman. He didn't win, but he only lost by four points and the winning candidate didn't even get a majority of the votes. Considering how badly the Republicans/Conservatives shot themselves in the foot, Hoffman did pretty well. It wasn't an affirmation of his conservative views by any means, but getting 45% of the vote as the Conservative Party nominee and considering that he was running a very, very distant third when he started is by no means a "rejection".

[AustinHoya03]

Nov 4, 2009 20:04:14 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

They then wrote the script for Deeds' campaign by advertising, day after day, Bob O'Donnell's thesis of 20 years ago and Deeds took the bait and proceeded to harp on this to the detriment of anything positive until almost the end.

ed, I hope you didn't waste your vote on this Bob O'Donnell character. I don't think he won...

Nov 4, 2009 20:04:14 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Of course now they will claim the election had nothing to do with President Obama and the Democratic Congress and they will tell everyone how Deeds was a terrible candidate. How I love it.

So far, the media seems to be saying the following: McDonnell and Christie didn't talk much about social issues, instead focusing their campaigns on economic issues. It was then Democrats turn to (stupidly) play up social issues. Deeds and Corzine basically said to voters: yeah, our opponents have interesting ideas about taxes and the economy, but all they really care about is handing out free guns, forcing women to have illegal back-alley abortions, and sharing a nice, tall glass of puppy blood with their buddy Dick Cheney.

I don't disagree with this theory. In fact, I think both parties would do well to learn that playing up social issues worked when it was new, but doing it now just alienates independent voters (including this one). Most independents care more about roads being built than a gubernatorial candidate's (mostly irrelevant) position on abortion.

In other words, someone needs to gag Dick Armey now.

[Boz]

Nov 4, 2009 21:22:26 GMT -5 TC said:

Ambassador, I laughed today when I saw that they were going to challenge Carly Fiorina from the right.

Also, Chuck DeVore announced that he was running for Senate a year ago, so in point of fact, Fiorina is challenging him for the nomination.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

I really think the Rep-Dem and Referendum on Obama angles were way over played by the media and pundits in this year's election. I think it came down to the candidates and their constituencies, not party labels or national politics. In other words, the way it should be.

[kchoya]

Nov 5, 2009 10:44:14 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

I really think the Rep-Dem and Referendum on Obama angles were way over played by the media and pundits in this year's election. I think it came down to the candidates and their constituencies, not party labels or national politics. In other words, the way it should be.

I think that's partly right. I don't think the votes were a direct referendum on Obama. But I do believe they were in response to the programs and approach being pushed by Obama/Pelosi/Reid/etc. It's hard to say this wasn't at least somewhat of a rejection of the Democrats when there were 20 to 25 point swings in Virginia and New Jersey.

[EasyEd]

Nov 5, 2009 10:44:14 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

I really think the Rep-Dem and Referendum on Obama angles were way over played by the media and pundits in this year's election. I think it came down to the candidates and their constituencies, not party labels or national politics. In other words, the way it should be.

Except in Virginia where the main issues (from exit polls) were (1) the economy and (2) health care which, in my humble opinion, show a distinct reaction to high unemployment and the Democratic agenda of cap and trade, health care "reform", etc. To me Virginia's results showed it was, in fact, a referendum on the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.