11.04.2009

What Happened and Why?

The outcome of all seven contests that we were tracking tonight appears settled, or very nearly so:

Virginia Governor: Republican Bob McDonnell wins by 17 points, toward the upper end of the range predicted by the pollsters, although not to anybody's great surprise. Democrats had major turnout problems here; exit polls show that the electorate which turned out in Virginia supported McCain in last year's election 51-43, almost exactly the opposite of the actual margin. But Deeds also appears to have been the weaker candidate. The electorate was roughly spit on approval of Obama, but 20 percent of those who approved Obama nevertheless voted for McDonnell, while just 5 percent of those who disapproved Obama voted for Deeds.

New Jersey Governor: Republican Chris Christie wins 49-45. We had (somewhat tentatively) characterized the race as leaning Christie on the basis of superior enthusiasm and the incumbent rule. Corzine never polled at better than 44 percent in any individual poll of the race. It looked for a time like 44 or 45 percent might nevertheless have been enough to win him the election, but support for the third party candidate Chris Daggett collapsed, leaving him exposed.

Obama approval was actually pretty strong in New Jersey, at 57 percent, but 27 percent of those who approved of Obama nevertheless voted for someone other than Corzine. This one really does appear to be mostly about Corzine being an unappealing candidate, as the Democrats look like they'll lose just one or two seats in the state legislature in Trenton. Corzine compounded his problems by staying negative until the bitter end of the campaign rather than rounding out his portfolio after having closed the margin with Christie.

NY-23: Democrat Bill Owens prevails in a result that will be regarded as surprising; the final tally isn't in yet but it appears as though it will be something on the order of 50-45 over Conservative Doug Hoffman. I don't think I've ever hedged more on predicting the outcome of a race; the main issue is that there was a rather large discrepancy between the polling, which heavily favored Hoffman, and what I perceived to be the facts on the ground. NY-23 is solidly Republican but not especially conservative (it voted for Barack Obama last year), and Hoffman was a relatively uncharismatic candidate with poor command of the local issues.

If New Jersey was a win for the incumbent rule, then NY-23 may have ben a win for the Median voter theorem, as Owens -- a conservative Democrat -- was actually much closer to the average ideology of the district than the capital-C Conservative Hoffman. It was also a reminder that all politics is local (sometimes). More than 95 percent of Hoffman's contributions came from out-of-district, and the conservative activists who tried to brand him as a modern-day Jefferson Smith never bothered to check whether he resonated particularly well with the zeitgeist of the district. In any event, this is a Democratic takeover of a GOP-held seat and they expand by one their majority in the House.

CA-10: California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi has been declared the winner. His lead as of this writing is 10 points, almost exactly matching the margin in the only poll of the race, but smaller than the margins by which retiring incumbent Ellen Tauscher had grown accustomed to winning. Both sides will breathe a bit of a sigh of relief here: Democrats for avoiding an embarrassingly close result -- although 10 points is closer than it "should" have been -- and Republicans for not having to second-guess themselves for their decision not to put money into the race.

Maine -- Question 1. Maine votes Yes on Question 1 -- which means no on gay marriage -- by a margin of about 52-48. Turnout was extremely high and should eventually surpass 500,000 voters, about where it was during the 2006 midterms. This fact was initially thought to favor the pro-gay marriage side -- but, obviously, it didn't. The results showed a very strong urban-rural divide, with the initiative being rejected by a margin of about 2:1 in Portland but racking up big margins in smaller towns and rural areas, especially in the north of the state.

We had given Question 1 about a 70 percent chance of being defeated based on a combination of an analysis of the polling and a statistical model. I don't know how much time I'm supposed to spend defending being on the wrong side of a 70:30 bet -- we build in a hedge for a reason -- but here comes a little self-reflection. As for the polling, I think we have to seriously consider whether there is some sort of a Bradley Effect in the polling on gay rights issues, although one of the pollsters (PPP, which had a very bad night in NY-23) got it exactly right. As for the model, I think I'll need to look whether the urban-rural divide is a significant factor in a state in addition to its religiosity: Maine is secular, but rural. At the end of the day, it may have been too much to ask of a state to vote to approve gay marriage in an election where gay marriage itself was the headline issue on the ballot. Although the enthusiasm gap is very probably narrowing, feelings about gay marriage have traditionally been much stronger on the right than the left, and that's what gets people up off the couch in off-year elections.

I certainly don't think the No on 1 campaign can be blamed; by every indication, they ran a tip-top operation whereas the Yes on 1 folks were amateurish. But this may not be an issue where the campaign itself matters very much; people have pretty strong feelings about the gay marriage issue and are not typically open to persuasion. There's going to be an effort by many on the left to blame Barack Obama for his lack of leadership on gay rights issues; I think the criticism is correct on its face, but I don't know how much it has to do with the defeat in Maine. A more popular Democratic governor, for instance, who had been a bit quicker on the trigger in his support of gay marriage, might have helped more.

Washington -- Referendum 71: Moreover, it actually wasn't all that bad an election for gay folks. Sources differ as to whether the race has officially been called or not, but it appears that Referendum 71, which expands domestic partner rights to an everything-except-marriage standard in Washington, will be Approved. The initiative leads by only about 22,000 votes right now, but about a third of the outstanding vote is from Seattle's King County, which supports it heavily. I wonder to what extent measures like Referendum 71, which is sort of a separate-but-equal compromise on the gay marriage question, will come to be seen as an acceptable alternative by either side.

New York City -- Mayor: Mike Bloomberg wins a third term, but the margin is stunningly close -- just five points over Democratic rival Bill Thompson. Looking at the exit polling, however, I actually think the interpretation of this race is relatively straightforward. Voters in the exit poll approved of Bloomberg's performance 70-29, but a quarter of those who approved of Bloomberg voted against him anyway. Why? Because 58 percent of voters said that Bloomberg's decision to change the city's term limits law to enable him to seek a third term was a significant factor in their vote, and those voters broke against him 2:1.

Everybody's talking about reverberations here in New York City, although it's not exactly clear what they'll be, since most people are perfectly satisfied with Bloomberg's job performance. One of the more obvious ones is that you may see a high profile Democrat, perhaps someone from the Congress, running for this seat in 2013.

391 comments

Nick G said...

HIGHLY, HIGHLY disappointed in Maine. Wow, that's really pathetic.

Maxwell said...

I find myself agreeing with Nick G....Very pathetic. I had more faith in New England than that. Sigh.

Geoff said...

Good post Nate.

Tough night for all my lefty friends here.

I think you're missing something, tho, Nate, regarding the results in NJ and VA. The swing counties pretty much uniformly moved 10-20 points to the GOP, and the rest of the counties moved some to them as well.

That's a real result, actual voters, not a computer, or an average of polls.

To blow it off as not relevant to Obama or predictive of 2010 is a ridiculous stance to take by someone who bases ALL of his models on voting patterns? Right?

The GOP wave in VA and NJ is extraordinarily relevant to your predictions moving forward for 10, and Rasmussen has been vindicated, once again, as the most accurate pollster, calling both the NJ and VA elections.

Ras = 3 point Christie win, reality, 4 point Christie win.

Lefty polls like the precious Carville Democracy Corp said Corzine by 5 - how ridiculous is there polling outfit?

How can you even post their results, ever? Its all cooked.
Just like the Dem Majority in 2010.

happycozy said...

I hope after tonight we can accept that PPP isn't as reliable a pollster as the "experts" say.

Jocelyn said...

I'm so upset. I'm originally from Maine and I truly believed that our live-and-let-live nature would win out. Have the "Yes" people never heard of separation of church and state? Believe in whatever religious precepts you want -- but there's no need to legislate that your beliefs be followed by everyone. There's no difference between that kind of attitude and the attitude of the people running Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan (under the Taliban).

I'm sorry for all the disappointed and heartbroken Mainers and gay rights supporters across the country. Nate, I wish you hadn't been wrong on this!

Smartypants said...

Great rundown of the races, but I would give a different interpretation to the results in Washington and Maine. Several years ago in Washington a group of GLBT supportive elected officials agreed on an incremental approach to securing civil rights protections with the ultimate goal of establishing marriage equality.

The first step was to pass basic non-discrimination protections and anti-bullying legislation to protect students from harassment in school. This was followed by gradual expansion of domestic partnership, the extension of benefits to domestic partners and now "everything but marriage".

There was a particularly canny decision to extend everything but marriage to heterosexual couples where at least one partner is over the age of 62. This provides protections for pension and social security benefits. The best evidence for the importance of this provision comes from Pacific County, a small fairly conservative county on the coast.

R71 currently trails in Pacific County by 131 votes with 49% reporting. It could well end up passing here. Why? I suspect it's because Pacific has the highest percentage of seniors of any county in the state.

Washington State's elected officials and glbt activists are demonstrating that a coordinated incremental approach to first securing, then consolidating various rights is a viable strategy for extending full rights over time without serious setbacks or repercussions from the electorate.

It's frustrating that it is taking so long, but in the grand scheme it seems more and more that "making haste slowly" could be the most effective path to victory.

Burt said...

The lesson here is obvious, if the Democratic leadership cares to learn it. They lost NJ and VA because Democratic base turnout was depressed. And with good reason - in the ten months they've been in power, the Democrats haven't done anything to give their voters a reason to turn out.

I don't always agree with Kos, but he said it best tonight. Abandoning Democratic principles and watering down reform until it's meaningless to please Republicans and Blue Dogs is not going to motivate the Democratic base to turn out. Off-year elections are about which side can turn out their base better. And if the Democrats keep on their present path, a big chunk of their base is going to stay home next year. And they aren't going to make those votes up on the right. Conservatives prefer Republicans, even when Democrats do everything they want.

Unless the Democrats want to lose big next year, they need to do something to motivate the base to show up for them, and fast. Hint: A shitty health care reform bill that panders to the big insurance companies isn't going to do the trick.

DCM in FL said...

nice try with you spin, GEOFF

but what #'s moved 10-20 points toward the GOP ???

are you comparing 2008 to 2009 or 2005 to 2009 #'s ?

you can't rationally try to compare raw off-year #'s like 2009 to the 2008 general election as the composition of the electorate is significantly skewed due to turnout.

history & turnout & a bad candidate in both VA & NJ doomed the DEM governor candidates - but as Nate pointed out, the NJ house will barely change so where is your red wave ???

yes, the GOP did extremely well this year in VA [as history predicted it would]

but they did not run as "vote for me, I am the GOP" did they ? even in their ads

Nate did better than Rasmussen & most others in his predictions, especially in regards to NY-23, eh ???

and if you hate it so much, go away

the national GOP got a HUGE smaqckdown tonight

and Palin, Beck, Rush & that entire gang of CON political terrorists got their comeuppance

snap

Nate Silver said...

Geoff,

Two quick things:

1) I haven't articulated this well, but I think you have to separate out Virginia and New Jersey. Virginia feels like it was more dictated based on national factors (although Deeds made a bad situation worse), New Jersey on local ones.

2) It was definitely a bad night for partisan pollsters -- both Democracy Corps (in New Jersey and Maine) and the Republican outfits who projected a big Hoffman win in NY23.

y2roby said...

"To blow it off as not relevant to Obama or predictive of 2010 is a ridiculous stance to take by someone who bases ALL of his models on voting patterns? Right?"

You keep hope alive that numbers will really be that bad in 2010, or that Obama had anything to do with them. Never mind the trend of opposition party governors in VA, or Corzine's personal unpopularity, which Obama had nothing to do with. *sigh*

JKBrooks85 said...

With all the focus on Palin's participation in the NY-23 race, you might be interested in the results of a race here in Alaska:

For the position of borough mayor in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the Democratic candidate won.

The Fairbanks North Star Borough is heavily Republican and even more heavily conservative -- it's why Palin chose to give her inauguration and resignation speeches here -- but for the highest office in the borough, voters went for the Democratic candidate. Something to ponder as you consider the results of NY-23.

CrankyOtter said...

Nuts. Although I'm not terribly surprised since in my experience, rural Maine votes more like Georgia than New England on a lot of things, while urban Maine is more progressive. Granted, most of my interaction with rural Mainers involved getting drunk in a rock quarry. Which doesn't seem like a bad response to the election results.

PorridgeGun said...

Bit of wishful thinking, eh, Geoff? If it was tough night, this place would be swamped by conservatrolls. I mean, where's the usual dittoheads (PeteKent) hailing The Quitter's game-changer in NY-23?


The FOX, FReeptard, Limbaugh, Beck teabagger brigade would trade Christie for a Hoffman victory in a heartbeat. This race, as the MSM kept reminding people for weeks, was the BLOCKBUSTER, the race everyone was talking about.

Sure Dems are disappointed about the governor races, but both candidates were trailing from the beginning. Creigh Deeds ran quite possibly the worst campaign I've ever seen. He actually tried to close the deal and GOTV by announcing he'd opt-out of healthcare, if elected. Genius move, dipshit! You're now the poster boy for what you don't do if your a Democratic candidate.

I said the moment Deeds had won the primary that he had to run a perfect campaign, and even then it would still be a squeaker. Fuck me, I should have lowered the bar a bit. I was using Scott Murphy's heroics against heavy favourite Jim Tedisco in Ny-20 as a reference.

As for Corzine, the guy was at 30% and had to go negative in to even get close. Corzine, like Deeds, also underperformed and failed to GOTV. He should have saved his millions and stepped aside for Booker, who'll wipe the floor with Christie in 2013.

If Maine had came through, this would have turned out to be a pretty good night for progressives. In fact, they would have been ecstatic. Like I said, the writing was on the wall weeks, if not months ago for Deeds and Corzine. Both were the wrong candidates at the wrong time. Fact is, Dems didn't have any good candidates to vote for. But thanks to Beck and The Quitter, they managed to pull the biggest one out the fire. At least according to the MSM, who funnily enough have been silent on Owens big victory. I wonder why?


From previous thread:

Palin Beck and Limbaugh got their smackdown and now cooler heads will prevail before there is a push to primary Republican officeholders.



I seriously doubt that, Crist possibly being the exception. I was skeptical before, but I think the Republicans troubles are just beginning. If you hinestly think the fringe FOX/FReeptard/Beck/Limbaugh/Palin wing of the party are gonna cool it now that's they've handed the Dems a congressional seat the Republicans have held since the days of Lincoln, you're delusional. They run the party now. If the party establishment don't give them whatver they want, HELLO third party!

Also, last I checked, McDonnell was nuttier than squirrel turds. The Dem bench in Virginia was cleared of any strong candidates in the Mark Warner, Jim Webb mould, and quite frankly, Criegh Deeds was the gift that kept on giving. I meant it when I said this guy was the worst I've ever seen. He was piss-poor beyond belief. Even Kos wanted to see this guy get his ass handed to him after his antics in the last two weeks. If for no other reason than to prove the point he's making right now.

Just John said...

Ref. 71 is a placeholder while we wait for the citizenry to slowly but surely accept SSM. But at least it passed.

Still, about 48-49 percent of us out here in Washington somehow voted to REMOVE existing rights from gay couples. (Oh, and from senior citizens involved in heterosexual domestic partnerships.) I'm discouraged by that result, especially when coupled with the Maine debacle. I'm ashamed for America, despite the inexorable trend toward equality.

Re: NJ and VA... not a good year for the incumbent party. Sucks to lose. But those were some awfully unappealing candidates running some pretty lame campaigns, so we'll get over it. Maybe learn a thing or two from it.

Re: NY-23... while a Hoffman victory would have been entertaining, I'm kind of relieved he didn't win. Wingnuts are best enjoyed as a sideshow. And I like having more House seats.

Jenny said...

*

What a great night!

The teabaggers blew a seat they held since the civil war! A seat they won a year ago today by 30 points!

Palin, Beck, Limbaugh put their full weight behind the teabagger and they ALL lost.

the republicans are now down to ONLY 2 congresscritters in the NY delegations

Another vote for Nancy Pelosi and health care.

Suck it Sarah!

Drowzee said...

As a Washingtonian, I'm glad for the success of 71 to keep the expanded rights, but I'm sure that there will be another one in the next election cycle.

I can only hope the same is true for Maine; that after this defeat, they push forward again, and try to make it happen. Possibly on the model that WA has used, but whatever works.


I have no doubt that Charles will come in crowing by tomorrow. Just let him be. His garbage morality won this time, but that crap won't last forever.

beavis said...

I don't mean to cross post, but I meant the post below to be in this discussion, not where I mistakenly placed it.

More than any modern "controversy", this issue really takes the hypocrisy of America and Americans and shines a bright light on it.

We are either equal or we are not.

In America, there has never been a time were every American has equal rights.

It is a travesty that people have to fight for equal rights, when it allegedly already exists. If one group of people, or even one person is being discriminated against and denied rights, then none of us are truly free.

The argument starts at equal rights, and is instantly settled at that point, or should be if we actually believed in freedom, pursuit of happiness, and equal rights. Instead, results in California last year, and Maine this year, show that the ideals of America are only a myth. Christian supremacists like Charles try to cloak their hate with twisting studies to fit their viewpoint( the reason suicides are higher is because of intolerant scum like you).

The referendum in Washington(I am a resident living in a mainly red area-the vile Cathy McMorris is our rep) is repugnant, but apparently necessary to baby step into equal rights.

Funny how the "freedom loving teabaggers" want to restrict freedom.

Geoff said...

Nate -

re 1

Take a look at the politico map of the counties for VA and NJ. The trend, irrelevant of quibbles about the Dem candidates, is strongly against Dem voting. Period.

The swing counties are the map the GOP now has in those states as a path to 50%, and they are undoubtably going to analyze the demographics of the districts which swung hard to the GOP and try to replicate that in other swing states.

But I see your point re NJ.

re2
I think it was a big night for PPP as well. They NAILED VA, NJ and Maine. they crashed and burned on NY...but that was a volatile race and i dont think PPP predicted more than 45% for hoffman right?

No reputable GOP outfit pollster got NY23 wrong - just small time hacks.

Also -

You have to admit Rasmussen numbers are looking much more predictive of election results, right?

NYT said Corzine wins by a couple, Ras says Christie wins by 3 - who's more credible now?

KB said...

Why should I be surprised? The anti-science, anti-fact, anti-education conservatives are looking past all the data and making this about Obama. Look, this shows 1 year makes a big difference. How can you now say this means Republicans will do well in 2010? I think any realistic person says the Dems in NJ and VA were bad candidates and Hoffman was a bad candidate and too conservative. The Dems need their base to turn out, they need our support, so they need to energize us. Counties that voted Obama by 15 points don't flip 30 points in 1 year based on a first year President. Sorry, its not like the 2006 elections.

P.S. Shame on Maine. Your libertarian enough to overwhelming allow medical marijuana but you still want the government to control marriage. Does that make any sense?

Drowzee said...

beavis:
Don't forget they want to ban a woman's ability to choose. As long as it's the freedom for white heterosexual christian males to do whatever the hell they want, they're for it. All others can get the hell out.

beavis said...

I have no doubt that Charles will come in crowing by tomorrow. Just let him be. His garbage morality won this time, but that crap won't last forever.

I see a better future, when I went to high school, guys would get beat up on just the rumor that they might be gay.

My kids have several friends who are gay and are treated equally in the high school, with the exception of a small handful of nutbags. But the vast majority of the school just sees them as classmates.

That is progress, but it still sucks for gay people fighting for what should be their birthright.

In the next 20 years it will be such a non-issue that most folks will wonder what the fuss was about.

Just John said...

KB said: "How can you now say this means Republicans will do well in 2010?"

This election is probably best viewed as the R's ceiling. It's safe to say that at no time between now and 2012 will conservatives have the chance to turn out and swamp the electorate like they did tonight, especially against the woeful D candidates. Unless the economy craters, that is... which is unlikely, given all the talk about how the recession has ended already.

It's no fun to lose two governorships, but if you think of tonight as the R's highwater mark, it removes the sting a little.

Just John said...

beavis said: "In the next 20 years it will be such a non-issue that most folks will wonder what the fuss was about."

I'll go one farther. In 30 years, we may well elect a gay president.

Sound crazy? In the 70s, electing a black president probably seemed pretty farfetched...

Geoff said...

PorridgeGun said...

Bit of wishful thinking, eh, Geoff? If it was tough night, this place would be swamped by conservatrolls. I mean, where's the usual dittoheads (PeteKent) hailing The Quitter's game-changer in NY-23?


The FOX, FReeptard, Limbaugh, Beck teabagger brigade would trade Christie for a Hoffman victory in a heartbeat. This race, as the MSM kept reminding people for weeks, was the BLOCKBUSTER, the race everyone was talking about.


WELL,

That's a nice rationalization of what just happened, but cold hard votes say otherwise as the GOP sits in two new governor mansions than they did yesterday.

Besides, the best thing that could happen for the GOP was what happened - the renegade Conservative got beat, and it proved to anyone with an IQ over room temperature that the grassroots arm (tea party douches) and the establishment arm (fat cat politician douches) have to work together to have a chance of beating the Democrats.

The result in NY23 proves that completely, and the winning elections in VA especially, and in NJ, show a path for the national GOP to follow in the runup to the 2010 elections, perhaps with a new Contract for America type 10 point list.

If Hoffman had won, all that may have been screwed up. Now, with the tea party douches cut down a peg, the GOP has a better chance of putting it all together in 10.

beavis said...

You have to admit Rasmussen numbers are looking much more predictive of election results, right?

Rassmussen is accurate 1 week out of the year.

The rest of the time he is a right wing outlier, especially on issue polls.

Geoff said...

This site appears to be bizarrely paranoid and marked by delusional thought when comments like this go unnoticed as the norm.

You do realize it is 2009, not the 1960's? or 80's?

Unbelievable.

Nobody's out to get you, dude, and that includes all heterosexual Christian males. We have better things to do, such as trying to get chicks. Sabe?


Drowzee said...

beavis:
Don't forget they want to ban a woman's ability to choose. As long as it's the freedom for white heterosexual christian males to do whatever the hell they want, they're for it. All others can get the hell out.

PorridgeGun said...

The only thing people are scratching their heads about is Maine. Progressives are like, WTF?!? Not this shit again. Everything else is pretty much cut and dried.

For the Dem establishment, particularly the WH and Senate, they need to get a grip, start acting like progressives and deliver real reform while they still can. Otherwise the base will either stay home or hold their noses when voting in 2010. Loons like Beck and The Quitter won't be there to bail weak Dem candidates out, which Owens kinda was.

DCM in FL said...

GEOFF

and your point is ???

apparently you have not been following this site for the past few weeks & months.

the right-wing haters have been spewing all over & gloating which is what BEAVIS was commenting on

because matter of fact, there are way too many 'out to get us' unles we toe their hardline

so go pick up chicks, mate

you put your own spin on life, but we do not have to swallow the bull

Smartypants said...

Let me be clear. I HATE that we're having to take an incremental approach to securing equal rights, including marriage. Everyone who thinks that it is abominable to put individual rights to a popular vote gets no argument from me.

But we don't live in that ideal world and just like every other minority in history, we will have to fight to secure and keep our rights. In Washington we tried to go for a big win in the mid-90s by having a public vote to extend civil rights protections to glb people (nobody spoke seriously about including transgender people then). The initiative went down in flames and killed progress on civil rights for a decade.

That's what led to the Washington strategy of incremental progress. In the six years since the agreement on this approach was reached by elected officials and (sometimes frustrated) activists we passed statewide non-discrimination protections after 30 years, and it included gender identity as a protected class. The same year the civil rights bill passed, strong protections against bullying were also approved to create a safer environment in schools. It was controversial at the time to again include gender identity, but it passed and efforts to overturn these achievements through a public vote went nowhere.

The effort to repeal 'everything but marriage' in Washington State is failing in the polls and I'm pretty sure that these rights will be quite secure by next week. Based on the success to date of the incremental strategy I predict that Washington State will have full marriage equality within three years. And if there is a vote to strike that down, I think it will lose then too.

Geoff said...

dcm -

dude, some smuck posting a stupid and ridiculous anti gay study or something isnt a threat to you - its a stupid douchebag posting some crap.

i dunno man, i have a few gay friends who aren't all mega hung up on being under attack at all times from straight white males. Maybe I just dont talk to the right people or something.

:)

all im saying is, the best way to handle morons is by first noting their idiocy and not responding emotionally as the moron wants you to respond.

to actually think they're out to get you is a little much.

Jenny said...

Nobody's out to get you, dude, and that includes all heterosexual Christian males. We have better things to do, such as trying to get chicks. Sabe?

Hi Governor Sanford!

Thanks for all the comedy!

Jenny said...

So where do the teabagger turn now....

Why Florida, of course.

Watch Crist pull a Spector.

Sarah Palin = the gift that KEEPS on giving.

Geoff said...

Former VA Democratic Governor Douglas Wilder has a message for you about Obama and the Dems:

“This is a shot across the bow to the moderates and Blue Dog Democrats as they decide votes on health care” and other issues, said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine—who as current Virginia governor had previously won plaudits for making his state more competitive for his party—saw his reputation scuffed. But he cautioned against drawing national trends, saying opinion polls show Obama still winning majority support among independents nationally.

"These two races each had their own spin," Kaine told POLITICO.

Notably, one of Virginia’s most prominent Democrats, former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder—the nation’s first elected African-American governor—sided more with Cantor.

“It’s a wake-up call for Democrats across the country,” said Wilder, who did not endorse Deeds.

He said independents are worried about what they see as careless spending by Obama and his Democratic allies in Washington, and advised Obama to reorganize his White House to rely less on campaign operatives and focus more on governing.

Jenny said...

I just sent SarahPAC a nice donation and note to inflate her ego.

Gotta keep Sarah going at full speed!

She's the best mole we've ever infiltrated. :)

Geoff said...

Jenny said...

Nobody's out to get you, dude, and that includes all heterosexual Christian males. We have better things to do, such as trying to get chicks. Sabe?

Hi Governor Sanford!

Thanks for all the comedy!


WELL

I was tryingto be funny - but im not sure how that makes me Sanford or at all answers my point.

Paranoia self destroya, Jenny :)

Jenny said...

“This is a shot across the bow to the moderates and Blue Dog Democrats as they decide votes on health care” and other issues, said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip.


A shot across the blow and straight into their own foot


Keep shooting Eric!

Owens = Another vote for Pelosi and health care!

Just John said...

Yup Jenny, it's nice to pad the ol' House majority, especially with a guy on record supporting the public option.

Oh, also, if Christie and McDonnell want to throw their weight around and opt out of that newfangled public option next summer, they should go ahead and try that. See how their citizenry likes it. See how it impacts their re-election efforts.

PorridgeGun said...

Great spin, Geoff. Really.


That's a nice rationalization of what just happened, but cold hard votes say otherwise as the GOP sits in two new governor mansions than they did yesterday.

Like I'm denying races both Rs were leading by double digits for months turned out the way many were predicting...for months.

As mentioned in a previous post, the Dem bench was cleared in Virginia, the bullpen was empty. When Terry McAuliffe parachutes in and has a decent shot at the nom, that pretty much tells you the Dems had nobody left to run. The best and brightest had all moved on to greener pastures. Creigh Deeds, even if one were to argue he was the strongest possible candidate the Dems could have put up, ran an unbelievably piss-poor campaign from the off. Short of endorsing McDonnell at the debate, Deeds ticked every box of what a candidate shouldn't do. The guy depressed his own base, even managing to throw AA Obama votes to his opponent, no less. McDonnell, on the other hand, was the strongest candidate the republicans could have put up. If he was up against Mark Warner, it wouldn't even have been a contest. Corzine I give you, but he was at 30% and Christie was leading for months.


BTW, I just realised. Two conservatrolls are now saying it's great that Beck and Quitter have been smacked down in a race with national cnsequences. Funny, I bet if I was to scan the threads they weren't saying that a week ago.

Jenny said...

Nancy Pelosi added two Dem seats tonight, including one the republicans had held since 1850, bringing the Democratic total to 258! to the teabagger's 177 -- an 81 seat majority!

Former Virgina congressman Tom Davis(R) is right: the teabaggers are less popular than dogfood. :)

Jenny said...

“This is a shot across the bow to the moderates and Blue Dog Democrats as they decide votes on health care” and other issues, said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip.


On 2nd thought, Cantor is really NUTS.

The only candidate running AGAINST health care tonight was Hoffman - and he crashed and burned.

As Stephen Colbert has said, Facts have an inherent liberal bias.

PorridgeGun said...

Also, Geoff. I actually think what went down in VA and NJ was totally justified. Deeds deserved to lose. This guy is an example to every Dem who ever runs for office. You want to lose spectacularly? Study this clusterfuck of a campaign. Corzine, who replaced McGreeevy remember, let his ego get in the way and also deserved to lose.

Just John said...

Jenny said: "Watch Crist pull a Spector."

Oh Jenny, you're reaching there, that's not happening, but if it does, I think lots of people will pee their pants. Keep that optimism coming.

(Now, if you'd mentioned Collins and/or Snowe...)

Geoff said...

porridge - y'all did not expect this level of blowout in VA and most lefties were arguing Corzine would pull it out, including your head leftist spin meister Carville and his voodoo polling showing Corzine up 5, like the NYT also found showing Corzine winning as well.

and lets not forget the lionizing of Deeds for months until he sank under the weight of having to answer for the Dem agenda in Congress. Its only after the smackdown that now teh story is Deeds always sucked, just like the White House told yall to say last week.

obama put his own people in charge of corzine's campaign and did 5 or 6 rallies, as did biden. the magic is gone, my friend, for Obama.

Obama peaked in February, and the bubble of his mystique burst in late July because of the health care mess and continues to this day. Its reality, like it or not, Obama's at 50 in Gallup in ALL ADULTS and 46 in LV in Ras.

And if we had a national election today, imagine the margins in PA swing districts or the South.

:)

Edmund said...

Aroostook County, Maine -- the northern bit that drove Prop 1 to victory -- is also the place that Ross Perot nearly picked up an electoral vote in 1992. It's not just out of sync with the rest of New England, it's out of sync with sanity.

shiloh said...

2010 will be mostly about the economy/jobs, as per usual and the power of incumbency, money and whether the Dems can get their act together and actually use their majority.

Big picture people, big picture ie last night means nothing, except the Dems have (2) more votes in Congress to help them get their act together or not in passing legislation.

btw, (3) mos. ago Corzine had absolutely no chance to win NJ, Deeds was an underdog w/no personality/pulse and NY-23 was a solid Rep seat.

carry on

Again, Reagan had a 35% job approval rating March 1983 and he landslided Mondale Nov. 1984 ...

Think big picture! and ignore the media ad nauseam minutia ....

Jenny said...

Ya know we ALL have start sending Palin notes begging her to run, saying she's the ONLY person who can save the party.

Her out of control ego will eat it up. Youbetcha!

Palin = General Custer

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU

Geoff said...

i agree they both ran crappy campaigns - but also keep in mind the press was praising their campaign strategies of getting close with obama and blaming bush right up until it stopped working.

the hard reality is that obama was in VA on Wednesday hugging Deeds (and a few times before) and was in NJ a few times this week, including Sunday hugging Corzine.

BOTH are now clear losers.

What does that make Obama?

The independents went by 30 points to the GOP in VA and NJ. That is the reaction to Obama.

Jenny said...

Again, Reagan had a 35% job approval rating March 1983 and he landslided Mondale Nov. 1984 ...
====================================

Reagan also lost 28 house seats and 2 senate seats in the 1982 midterm and he still won a landslide 2 years later.

Yes it true, the great ronald reagan lost seats in congress. Hard to believe, but as Dutch used to love to say, "facts are stupid things."

Geoff said...

I'm not sure that any president, Republican or Democrat, has ever campaigned so hard in these two contests, as Obama did. Consider the fact that Obama not only campaigned in person for both Deeds and Corzine, he was highlighted in their advertisements. He commonly talked about the two as critical allies in the effort to advance his agenda. And, to top that, he put Organizing for America on the job, his personal campaign apparatus, to mobilize the Democratic base. So I don't think anyone can credibly say that these elections were JUST about NJ and VA.

EmonOkari said...

Tonight's BIG winner?


Dede Scozzafava. Even at this hour she might still be high-fiving her colleagues, voicing her best Fargo impression: "Payback's a bitch, you betcha!"

Geoff said...

The bad news for the Democrats isn't limited to Virginia, New Jersey...

Trent Wisecup, a Michigan political strategist, informs me that there was a big special election tonight to fill the State Senate seat of Mark Schauer, the former Democratic Leader of the Michigan Senate, who won a Congressional seat last November. This Senate seat is located in South Central Michigan, a true swing area of the Wolverine State. With two-thirds of the votes counted, the GOP candidate Mike Nofs is winning with close to 60 percent. There is a ripple of discontent brewing across America that should make Democrats very, very nervous.

Jenny said...

Geoff, I have a question for you.

When did it strike you that Palin was a BIG mistake? Was it when she said she could see Russia from her house? Was when she revealed she couldn't speak in complete sentences? Or was it when she couldn't name any magazines she read?


Here's some classic moment w/ Jack Cafferty!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc

Letter said...

I don't know what this site did to deserve the hyperpartisan comments section it has, but yeesh, it does not match the actual site content or tone at all.

I don't see how anybody can say this was a bad day for Obama with a straight face. Small sample size, much? This is a pretty statistical site and all. Then when you factor in the economy and the relative merits of the candidates themselves (limited or non-existent all around), I just don't see it.

Today does offer an interesting outlook for the Democrats as a party, however. Just no enthusiasm in that electorate at all. Which is understandable. For the last four years, people have been trained to see the political world in black and white. Bush and not-Bush, if you will. But now we're all stuck back in the murky world of gray, where, most unfortunately, the Democrats kinda suck too.

I'd have to think the NY loss will help the Republicans though. Surely, someone in the corridors of power has enough political savvy to rival their lust for power? Ok, maybe not, given their current history, but still.

It isn't that hard. Harry Reid and company have more than proven their incapacity to legislate, with a huge majority. So, really, Republicans just need to change the ratio by one seat in the Senate to completely sandbag the government. I just threw up in my mouth a little. Sure, they'll still get trounced in the 2012 presidential election, but they just need to tell the tea party wackos to stop cannibalizing on congressional races and they could be right back in this thing.

shiloh said...

Geoff said...
~~~~~~~~~~


Corzine's job approval was 36/58 and yet he got 45% of the vote ie Christie was a god awful candidate but the lesser of (2) evils as most NJ voters despised Corzine. So I would give Obama some credit and Christie some blame.

And as others have noted, NJ being NJ and Christie being Christie, he's toast in (4) years, so hopefully he will enjoy the ride. And McDonnell, being term limited, can't run again in (4) years ...

carry on

loner said...

The polling troll turns up. Just a reminder:

Geoff commented over a thousand times between 8/30 and 9/26.

Geoff commented zero times between 9/27 and 11/4.

That was in 2008. In 2009, he last put in an appearance on 8/27.

Rasmussen has been vindicated, once again, as the most accurate pollster, calling both the NJ and VA elections.

Gales of laughter.

Jenny said...

There is a ripple of discontent brewing across America that should make Democrats very, very nervous.

Dude, give it up - you lost a congressional seat you've held since 1850. You just blew a seat that even FDR and LBJ couldn't pry away from the GOP.

Palin and the teabaggers did the impossible.

Though Obama deserves credit for appointing McHugh which opened up the seat. Some how he knew Palin's ego would get the best of her and hand the Dems ANOTHER vote on health care.

Geoff said...

jenny - i know this may come as a surprise to you, but Palin was LAST year's election.

The one that happened a few hours ago was the GOP Comeback - try to stay focused on reality and not your palin hate fantasies. :)

i mean seriously, palin is okay as a sideshow, but she's not a serious contender in 12, so why do you lefties get all fired up about her so much? Its silly.



shiloh -

you can spin as much as you want, but the cold hard votes went to the GOP, not the Dems, in massive numbers a few hours ago. If this had been a national election, we'd have a GOP congress if you extrapolate the GOP margins in VA and NJ to the other states.

That's reality, not spin.

Geoff said...

I so love having my own personal statistician. Its fun talking with the allegedly intellectual left now and again. :)

And yes, Ras has been vindicated. Who else called NJ exactly?

Not Democracy Corp
Not the NYT
Not the rest of your lefty pollsters and the Daily Koz/media bought polls.

Ras called NJ, and still you are in denial.

loner said...

The polling troll turns up. Just a reminder:

Geoff commented over a thousand times between 8/30 and 9/26.

Geoff commented zero times between 9/27 and 11/4.

That was in 2008. In 2009, he last put in an appearance on 8/27.

Rasmussen has been vindicated, once again, as the most accurate pollster, calling both the NJ and VA elections.

Gales of laughter.

November 4, 2009 4:40 AM

Lucas said...

Geoff said...

The bad news for the Democrats isn't limited to Virginia, New Jersey...

Trent Wisecup, a Michigan political strategist, informs me that there was a big special election tonight to fill the State Senate seat of Mark Schauer, the former Democratic Leader of the Michigan Senate, who won a Congressional seat last November. This Senate seat is located in South Central Michigan, a true swing area of the Wolverine State. With two-thirds of the votes counted, the GOP candidate Mike Nofs is winning with close to 60 percent. There is a ripple of discontent brewing across America that should make Democrats very, very nervous.

===============

The same ripple of discontent that flipped NY-23?

The predictive power of the elections the year after the presidential election is basically negligible. In 2001 the Democrat won in both NJ and VA. 2002 was terrible for Democrats. In 1997 the Republican won in both states. 1998 was a good year for Democrats.

There are some that match up well with the midterm elections the following year - the Democrats won both in 2005 and the Republicans won both in 1993 - but that puts the predictive power at around total 50-50, effectively saying that we can derive no information about 2010 from this outcome whatsoever.

Geoff said...

The same ripple of discontent that flipped NY-23?


COME on man, the only reason that the Dem won was Dede endorsing the Dem.

Her district voted for the Dem, instead of how they always voted...the rest of the territory fell on partisan lines, and Dede herself took 6% to complete the theft by the Dems.

It wont last, Owens is gone in 2010, and you know it. A nobody hard conservative got 46 percent of the vote, and you think that is a good sign for you in 2010?

Leftist logic never ceases to amaze me.

Geoff said...

Re Ras, here's the generic House 2010 ballot polling released today by Ras:

Republican congressional candidates hold on to a four-point lead over Democrats this week in the latest Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Voters not affiliated with either party continue to heavily favor Republicans, 39% to 23%.


Ras was right about NJ going 3 points to the GOP. Why are they wrong about this?

Mr. Universe said...

McDonnell won on merit. Deeds never had a chance. Neither did Corzine really. The only thing Jersey got was one bad Governor replacing another bad Governor.

I'll take two new Dem reps in DC over a couple of Guv races anyday.

I told you guys that upstate NY people weren't going to be played for suckers.

PorridgeGun said...

Geoff, Obama was doing what every elected President does for his party's candidates. No sitting President has managed to put every candidate they stump for over the line. Did Obama stump for Owens? He won against the odds. Besides, every poll released prior to the results clearly stated Obama wasn't a factor in voters decision. They weren't voting for Obama, they were voting for/against Deeds and Corzine. Even pResident Bush stumped for Kilgore when he was running for Virginia Governor against Tim Kaine, who was a pretty lame candidate. The difference in that race wasn't Bush, it was Mark Warner and his record as Governor.

Deeds entire campaign was the deciding factor. Corzine's low approval was the deciding factor. Dede Scozzafava being torpedoed by Beck, Quitter and T-Paw was the deciding factor, not to mention whathisname's snippy response to Dede bowing out, which likely pushed her to endorse Owens.

loner said...

Geoff—

Just letting others know, as promised, that there's nothing serious about you. Again.

Jenny said...

Geoff said...

jenny - i know this may come as a surprise to you, but Palin was LAST year's election.


The teabaggers just blew a seat they held since 1850!

1850!

1850!

1850!

It was Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck who blew that seat. TONIGHT!

I'm so loving this.

shiloh said...

Geoff, which current Rep leader, and I use that word advisedly is gonna beat Obama in 2012.

Asked someone a couple days ago, think it was winger Mike, who in 2008 would have performed better than McCain as many Reps kept saying because he was a RINO he underperformed w/conservatives. And I pointed out to 538's ultimate spinner BDP, a couple mos. ago that the % of conservative voters remained the same for 2004 and 2008 (34%).

Yea asked who would have done better than McCain and all I heard was crickets ...

Again, Obama will have the power of incumbency, etc. and I'm not seeing any Reagan's on the horizon for the party of No! just bat shit crazy wingnuts like palin, gingrich, pawlenty, jindal, sanford, vitters, perry, ensign, bachmann, blackburn, joe wilson, cantor, boehner ...

And as I said, 2010 will be about the economy and last night means nothing re: the big picture as elections can turn on a dime and one year is an eternity.

but as I say to BDP ~ Keep hope alive! ;)

take care

Mr. Universe said...

Where are the trolls? There ought to be trolls.

I so wanted to rub PeteKents PPP predictions in his face. What a chicken.

Jenny said...

Republican congressional candidates hold on to a four-point lead over Democrats this week in the latest Generic Congressional Ballot.
================================

Scaaaaaaaaaaaaaary!

That's why JUST TONIGHT they lost a congressional seat they've owned since 1850!

Way to go, Ras.

I can see Palin torpedoing your candidates from my house :)

Mr. Universe said...

I was going to sit on this until 2010. But I feel like saying it now: there is no real race until 2016.

There. I said it. Unless Obama decides to drop out of politics (and who could blame him? He gets a bunch of crap thrown his way and I suspect he wouldn't mind spending more time with his daughters) there are no real candidates who can equal my president.

Put it on intrade. I'm calling it.

shiloh said...

Most of 538's winger trolls probably went to redstate and freepertopia, etc. so they could all high five each other together about VA and NJ and sing kumbaya! ;)

but, but, but ...

EmonOkari said...

I don't think anyone can credibly say that these elections were JUST about NJ and VA.

I agree with this statement. Yet, how MUCH of an Obama factor do you personally claim?

Exit polls in both states roughly had the 'Obama Effect' at ~20% 'Obama Factored In Positively', ~20% 'Obama Factored In Negatively', and ~60% stating 'Obama No Factor'. Barring better evidence, these exit polls give a solid case that the 2009 races showed leading indicators neither in support of, or repudiation against, the President of the United States. In a low-turnout, off-year election (with a highly-energized right), Obama's importance still appeared to be around 'net-neutral'.

Lucas said...

Geoff said...

The same ripple of discontent that flipped NY-23?


COME on man, the only reason that the Dem won was Dede endorsing the Dem.

Her district voted for the Dem, instead of how they always voted...the rest of the territory fell on partisan lines, and Dede herself took 6% to complete the theft by the Dems.

It wont last, Owens is gone in 2010, and you know it. A nobody hard conservative got 46 percent of the vote, and you think that is a good sign for you in 2010?

Leftist logic never ceases to amaze me.

======================

No offense, but you managed to post four paragraphs yet not even acknowledge the existence of anything I said.

Look at the elections in the years immediately following presidential elections. Then try to find a correlation between those results and the results in the midterm elections the year thereafter. You won't find one, because there isn't one. There is no correlation to be found whatsoever. Nada. Zip.

It's a free country, and you are more than welcome to make as many conclusions you'd like about 2010 from these results. Those conclusions, however, will be wrong. I can't sugarcoat that. The Republicans may do well in 2010, certainly - I'm not attempting to assert that the Democrats are guaranteed to have a third great year in a row. But history plainly tells us that this just was not by any means the first signs of such an event. This outcome is not good or bad news for 2010 for either Democrats or Republicans. There is no objective reason to treat it as if it has any predictive power whatsoever. It is what it is, and no more.

This is not "leftist logic", this is just plain old logic.

Mr. Universe said...

Geoff said,

There is a ripple of discontent brewing across America that should make Democrats very, very nervous.

Hey, you and PeteKent should get together for a brew. He's been saying that ever since 538 started. How right has he been?

r2afael said...

The defeat in Maine is heartbreaking. But we will go to the polls as many times as need be. Equality will see its day under the sun.

EmonOkari said...

COME on man, the only reason that the Dem won was Dede endorsing the Dem.

To be fair, when one major-party candidate completely drops out of the race to fully endorses their opponent...thats a pretty GOOD reason.

Mr. Universe said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Mr. Universe said...

Geoff said,

you can spin as much as you want, but the cold hard votes went to the GOP, not the Dems, in massive numbers a few hours ago. If this had been a national election, we'd have a GOP congress if you extrapolate the GOP margins in VA and NJ to the other states.

Again, I point out that two states got Republican governors and two states are sending Democratic reps to DC. Just how is it we came out on the bad side?

EmonOkari said...
This post has been removed by the author.
EmonOkari said...

Hey, you and PeteKent should get together for a brew. He's been saying that ever since 538 started. How right has he been?

I'd say 'QUITE' right. 'VERY' right. 'WAY' right. 'TIME TO GO TO WINGERS FOR A HUGE PLATE OF WINGS' right.

On an ironic note, the word verification for this post is: 'Falin' (no joke)

Blue said...

I work for the local media in Central VA and have been following the polls all along as part of my job and McDonnell's victory is not surprising or indicative of any sort of national Republican/Conservative wave. It may or may not exist but using the VA race to justify that theory is false.

The narrative that's been created in the national media was nonsense to anyone following the race. McDonnell's been polling ahead of Deeds the entire campaign.

Even during the primary, when McDonnell was put in a poll with any of the three Democratic candidates McDonnell was far in the lead. He ended up with a larger number than he polled primarily because independents disliked Deed's campaign tactics.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0409/617649.html

Mr. Universe said...

Jenny said,

Ya know we ALL have start sending Palin notes begging her to run, saying she's the ONLY person who can save the party.

I think Jenny's right, if nothing just to witness the carnage.

GregM said...

For the Repubs: Mark Warner's win in Virginia in 2001 TOTALLY presaged a Democratic victory in 2002? Right? Right?

Oh wait.

Also, we won CA-10, and yeah, that's a safe Dem seat, but we actually managed to replace a CorporaDem with a bona-fide progressive Dem. We actually know how to get rid of our sellout Dems and still win elections, unlike you guys, who managed to lose a seat you'd held since BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR. If the Virginia Dem race predicted national trends, Dems would've won a landslide in 2002.

And for the guy quoting Gallup, Gallup trends Republican. If you look at Obama's approval ratings in NJ and VA, they match up almost exactly with the percentages of votes he got election night.

The Mormons blew another million attacking gays & lesbians. So be it. Now gay marriage is only legal in five states, not six. And everyone siding against equal rights for gays & lesbians will be remembered much as the pro-segregationists were--with embarrassment and disgust.

Mr. Universe said...

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 42% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Why do you guys keep quoting Rasputin as though it were legitimate? I mean, c'mon. Give me something I can take to the bank like a Strategic Visions poll, will'ya?

Where are Pete and Bart, and Mule?

I think I'm calling tonight a draw. Actually, I'm feeling pretty good about it (well, except for Maine). Small steps, I guess.

G'nite

Jon said...

Nate,

Is it really necessary to defend having pegged something as a 70:30 favorite and having it lose? The whole point is that you said it was 70:30, not 1:0. If you made ten independent, accurate, and appropriate 70:30 predictions, there would be a 97% chance that you'd "miss" at least one of them.

-Jon

Peter Wolf said...

@Jon

I think Nate feels pretty strongly about equal rights and as a result this particular error has made him question whether he made a mistake based on his hopes rather than the evidence, or whether his model was flawed.

Peter Wolf said...

and does anyone else find it funny that non of the batshit-insane fringe are here after having predicted HOffman?

markymark said...

Here is my reading of the night. Bad night for conservative Republicans. Where the GOPer ran as a relative moderate, and was allowed to keep running as such, they won. Where there was a conservative takeover, they lost. Yes that was in upstate New York, but that says to me that the tactics of the far right are not good. If they wanted a political victory why not race into Virginia and poor some resources into that and claim a victory for the right there? Now they have a defeat on there hands, when a strong conservative presence was always going to lead to problems for the GOP and conservatism.

For a mainstream Republican (people to the left of BDP! :p ) it was a good night. But only historically what can be expected. (Christine Todd Whitman won back to back NJ gubernatorials in the Clinton era for instance). I think the big message of the night for the GOP is to sideline the likes of Limbaugh and Beck. I actually think a GOPer who stood up to Limbaugh would get a lot of kudos at this point.

As for the Democrats, I think Owens win gives them a half decent night. They won the one election on the night that might possible reverberate for a while. It will be interesting to see what happens in the NY23rd next year, I'd imagine the GOP would take back the seat, but it does appear to be a rejection of wingnut politics in the Northeast. As for the gubernatorials, two bad candidates lost. To me, thats the message. There is no 'the party has been too radical' or whatever type message to take out of this years results.

As for the Maine elections, thats a tough result for the national pro gay marriage movement (To the extent that one exists). My guess is that it will stop much in the way of a pro gay marriage law being passed anywhere for a while. The issue should perhaps settle on long term partners rights for now?

Saco-Harry said...

Maine No on 1 lost my vote by overly aggressive & flat disrespectful campaigning in the final days. They kept calling when we asked them to stop. Even when we told them that we believed in their cause and they had our vote. They simply couldn't accept it. They gained unauthorized access into our condo building two days in a row to go canvassing door to door. They kept urging people to vote early, vote early, not respecting that hey, some people -like- voting on voting day. It all became zealotry, and bullying. In the end, I couldn't support those kinds of tactics. Issues are decided by grownups, and grownups understand how to listen & how to respect, no matter their level of passion. In the end, the campaign stopped acting like grownups. The concept that the campaign is not at fault is, in my experience, flat wrong.

Greg said...

Haha, apparently Redstate is claiming that Hoffman's loss is GREAT NEWS... for Doug Hoffman!!!

Yeahh, because the lesson from this election is that the far right of the party is a group to be listened to under pain electoral loss, and NOT that scuttling a moderate candidate to appease the far-right drives more moderates away from the party than it brings in so-called "conservatives". Spot on analysis, there.

Well, hopefully we'll see the far-right angle for a few more "wins" of this nature.

kth said...

Shoulda posted before the vote came in, but I was pretty sure nearly all of the Dede vote would go to Owens. Just didn't make sense any other way given the national spotlight on the race.

harold said...

Marky Mark -

You're exactly right, and that's why BDP, PK, MR, etc, are sullenly silent.

The conservative movement agenda can't win, except in the deep south, and maybe a few sparsely populated areas in the great plains and mountain west.

The Republican party can probably still win - but in most places, only if it abandons the extreme agenda.

The wingnuts have to choose between supporting moderates they despise, or never winning.

Local Republicans tried to run a district-appropriate moderate in a district that's been Republican since about 1850, the Michelle Malkin element went nuts and forced in a third party candidate, and now the Democrats have another congressional seat.

The results in Maine are a disgrace. And the governor races are embarrassing - there wasn't much anyone could do about NJ, where the incumbent was despised, but a strong candidate could have been run in VA.

Nevertheless, a bad night for conservatives.

Also - Bloomberg got so little of the vote because of the perception that Obama endorsed his opponent.

harold said...

Saco-Harry -

You voted to deprive your fellow citizens of equal rights under the law because you didn't like somebody's manners?

If I lived in Maine, I would have voted for equal rights for my fellow citizens, even that campaign was hitting me in the face with a pie every time I walked out the door.

Heteroflexible said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Saco-Harry said...

Hey harold.

I appreciate your position, and my choice wasn't an easy one. In the end, I decided that favoring "No on 1" would have been a tacit approval of campaign tactics that were way out of line. To me, winning most definitely isn't everything. And winning with those tactics just would reinforce that crazy works. For me, it doesn't. It was telling that a campaign whose premise was the desire for civility, understanding, communication, & tolerance showed none of those qualities.

When they try again, I hope to be able to support them.

Heteroflexible said...

While I think there is a place for blaming the DNC and White House for the defeat in Maine, most of the blame belongs with the gay and progressive community for being so uncommitted and unwise about these campaigns. First thing, we should never push for gay marriage in a state like Maine where it is almost certain that voters will have the chance to repeal such a law through voter referendum. Maine is a state with an easy people's veto, that has overturned gay rights before. Gay marriage probably can't win on the ballot in any state today, except for possibly MA, and that is a huge POSSIBLY. What Einstein thought it would be a good state to push for gay marriage already? It was inevitable that it would be subject to a people's veto, likely it would be overturned by the people.

Until we are almost CERTAIN that voters will support gay marriage at the ballot box in states with easy referendum processes, we need to avoid legalizing gay marriage in those jurisdictions. Stop blaming everyone else and start placing the blame on our inability to work hard and commit to this cause. Although the No on One Campaign in Maine was better than California's No on Prop 8 campaign, it still failed to engage people to change their minds and produced lackluster, milquetoast ads that lacked the emotional punch of the other side. From now on, we need to go for the jugular in our ads and stop relying on soft "equality is good" ads. Use fear and anger in your ads, present the other side as the boogeyman, portray the other side as a scarey threat out to oppress the average person, not just gays.

Moreover, our lack of fervor, dedication, and zeal is why we CONTINUE to lose. The other side is more organized, zealous, sacrificial, and dedicated to their cause. Many gay people aren't even aware of the Maine struggle, most gay people didn't even donate money. Tons of gay and progressive volunteers should have flown or bussed into Maine to help out with the cause. We are most to blame.

Finally, while I respect Nate Silver's analysis, I think he is very overly optimistic in his predictions of when the majority of a state's population will support gay marriage. While religiosity is a factor in same-sex marriage support, it is not dispositive or totally predictive of popular sentiment on this issue. There are many non-religious anti-gay people. Moreover, his calculations don't account for the enthusiasm and organization gap on this issue. The ANTI-gay side is so much more devoted, zealot, certain, and sacrificial to their side than the pro-gay side, and Maine is another example. People came out from the crypt to vote against the gays. ANother thing is that there is in fact a "Bradley Effect" with gay issues. The anti-gay side usually performs about 5-9 points better on election day than they do in polling. And you can count on undecideds to go to the anti-gay side. Nate Silver needs to go back and recalculate his projections with more important factors such as the rural-urban ratio, age demographics, the ease of ballot initiatives/referenda, educational level, and Black population.

The point is we should avoid at all cost passing gay marriage in jurisdictions where there is an easy referendum or ballot initiative process. In the meantime, we should be out trying to change minds.

Juris said...

Re the question, "Where are BDP, PK, Rudy, MR, etc., to celebrate their smashmouth victories?" the answer is: they have been recalled to their home planet to receive new programmed orders. None has ever shown an original thought in his comments here.

What will the new arguments be? No telling. Perhaps something along the lines that their strategy was tested and came close last night; they need only to be persistent and ultimate victory will be theirs. (Y'all ought to read Leon Festinger's classic "When Prophecy Fails" to understand how they'll behave in this case.)

In other words, "They'll be back."

Lehman said...

Daily Kos, thy name is cognitive dissonanace. I hope that the politicians agrees with you, that the reason the dems lost was that they weren't left enough. Should make 2010 a walkover.

Divided government makes for good government, because it stops the extremists from both parties from getting their way. An all GOP house senate and executive was unpalatable., as is an all Dem.

It is a shame about the gay marriage bill. It isn't a religious issue, but a civil one. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. We have bigger fish to fry, and denying a civil right is never, well, "right."

Lying said...

Saco-Harry is funny. I too decide all of my public policy positions based upon how much I enjoy the most annoying proponents. Now, let us both get behind amending the Constitution to get rid of that pesky first amendment. You couldn't imagine how obnoxious some of the people in favor of that one can be.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

I can't believe Maine people voted that way.

Imagine your marriage being deemed illegal.

Whoever was behind this should have their houses burnt to the ground.

Lehman said...

The thing I never understand is this: why does the GOP litmus test always have to be social(gay marriage, abortion) when those issues, while emotional, have very little bearing on how the country succeeds or fails? One would think that a true conservative would be on the side of keeping the government out of one's life as much as possible. A fiscally conservative litmus test would make more sense, as, really, as the economy goes, so does the country.

I applaud the conservative voices that preach self-reliance and fiscal conservatism, but have to hold my nose and cringe when they start talking about "values."

Mark said...

As a married heterosexual male... I want government to just get out of the "marriage" business altogether.

Civil unions for everyone.

Lehman said...

Mark

couldn't agree more, from the same demographic.

Icon said...

Nate:

You don't need to defend being wrong on Maine. Besides the obvious nature of probability, there's also the possibility that your prediction model was flawed.

You based your prediction on the assumption that opposition to a Constitutional amendment implies support for same-sex marriage. It is possible that assumption is not true.

If this issue is on the ballot again next year (which is entirely possible, given the fact it took the legislature three attempts to pass a gay non-discrimination bill because of referenda), and we see a similar result, we may be able to conclude that assumption is wrong.

This does seem consistent with politicians' positioning too. Obama, for example, opposes amendments regarding same sex marriage, but nonetheless says marriage should remain between a man and a woman. This may be typical political doublespeak for Obama, but I don't doubt that there may be a segment of the population that doesn't want equality, but doesn't want to constrain the decisions of future generations.

gilhodges said...

Nate,
After gay marraige failed in California, you quoted a statistic that suggested Prop 8 would have failed if no Californian over 65 had voted. Do you know yet if the same demographic dynamic can be found in Maine's vote?

As sickening as the Maine result is, we have to remind ourselves that this is all just a matter of time. As the intolerant older generation of voters die off, equality will become the will of the people.

Rixar13 said...

Rixar13

It is distressing that out of State money influenced the vote. I am disapointed but change takes time.

Bradford said...

Maine sucks, but NY23 is absolutley GREAT!

Can we get teabaggers to go after all the moderate repubs? PLEASE go after Castle in DE, pretty please!

brian said...

NJ+VA gov= leadership of 16M people

NY 23= leadership of 650,000 people

But libs would rather have the House seat though, huh. Well, I guess they think all power resides in DC, so it makes sense.

Nathan said...

As I understand it (from Nate's writeup), the Maine law, if allowed to stand, could have required churches and clergymen to perform gay marriages against their will. I suspect that aspect of the situation there could have brought moderates to support the initiative. As a socially moderate independent, I wouldn't be in any crazed rush to vote down gay marriage per se. (I think all sides are wrong on this issue, and tend not to vote either way.) But if I thought they were gonna try to make my pastor violate his conscience, you can bet I'd show up to stop them. Maybe some people in Maine feel the same way.

I'm not sure about the wording of the Maine law, but if the "yes" forces were able to raise this prospect it could help explain the huge turnout.

Dwight said...

The thing I never understand is this: why does the GOP litmus test always have to be social(gay marriage, abortion) when those issues, while emotional, have very little bearing on how the country succeeds or fails?

In part because they would disagree? *shrug* Yeah, it is hella hard to wrap your head around rationally. Unchecked reliance on faith for your understanding of the world around you corrosive is like that.

ChrisP said...

This is just speculative, but maybe the reason gay-marriage failed in Maine is NOT because the majority opposed it, but because about %10 voted against their true intentions due to the confusing nature of the question (if you support gay marriage, vote against it). If the pro-gay marriage side is really less enthusiastic and motivated, then it stands to reason that less of them will take the time to figure out how they are supposed to vote.

I'm not saying this is definitive, or anything, but at least looking into. The margin in Maine was close enough that a significant difference between the two sides voting against what they believe could lead to a different outcome.

GbThrone said...

Nate, now that the sound and fury of a batch of off-year midterm elections is over, start working up some numbers on the REAL issue that will devolve out of the 2010 mid-terms - the census and redistricting. CA will be a major political battleground in that event, given the massively gerry-mandered 2000 redistricting, designed to protect as many incumbants as possible in the disfunctional state legislature. The CA Congressional districts from the 2000 redistricting are even worse.

Jeff said...

Jocelyn: Gay marriage, pro or con, is simply not a church state issue. Having heterosexual marriage laws is not an establishment of religion. NONE of the jurisprudence on this has concerned the establishment of religion. There are religious and nonreligious people on both sides of the issue.

I've always said on this site, that the gay marriage opposition underpolls - rather as the Tories used to in the UK for years. Nate finally has observed this.
As for VA and NJ, come on folks. These were HUGH swings against the Dems. And if Deeds was so weak, then why did he basically tie with McDonnell last time out for AG. McDonnell - Deeds is almost a perfect test case for judging the relative swings involved here. (The other Dems, by the way, would have lost even worse.) If it were just a weak candidate, then why did the GOP sweep the state? Were all of the Dems weak candidates?

Quite frankly, I think that Christie was a weak candidate, and that a better one would have crushed Corzine. But the GOP still prevailed.

And as for the general analysis here, if you folks really believe that Obama needs to move left in order to jazz up the liberal base, you are courting disaster. Polling is very clear - the liberal base is smaller than the conservative one - and will never sustain a governng coalition. Obama knows this. I suspect he will take exactly the opposite lesson from tonight, and move to the center further. To the benefit of the country.

Jeff said...

The election was not all about Obama, that is true. But politics isn't "all about Obama" either, and I think the Dems would be wise to remember that. Obama could win the battle but lose the war, just like Clinton. His reelection is years off. Last night wasn't so much about him, but it was about the policies of the Democratic party. It was also about corruption, which is not necessarily just a local issue, as the GOP found out in 2006/8 and as the party of Murtha-Rangel-Waters-tax cheats in the cabinet will find out.

Jeff said...

Before the election, the spin on the left was that a Hoffman win was perfect for the Dems, because it would trigger a civil war in the GOP. So I guess the GOP had the perfect night, winning across the board, putting an end to the notion that conservative social positions are looser issues (even in liberal New England), and avoiding a civil war.

brian said...

Some stats:

McDonnell margin was largest in VA gov history

Christie margin was largest for Repub non-incumbent in 30+ years

Keep thinking this was just another election libs.

Lehman said...

On what planet is Scozzafava a "moderate." She is a lib, and the conservatives disagreed with her as a choice. In a month, he went from near-nobody to almost winning. Next year should be interesting.

And it is hard to call those sopcial issues as unchecked reliance on faith. I think people have their own biases and wll prop them up with whatever rationalization they find lying around. Take GTMO. I think (my own opinion) that had Obama been President at the time of its opening, people on the left would be more sympathetic to its necessity, if only for the lack of a better alternative. Since it was Bush, they felt justified in screaming about it, calling it criminal and not coming up with a reasonable better idea.

Ideology sometimes blinds one to reality. Like people concluding that the solution to all this conservative backlash is to move further to the left. Not logical.

Nathan said...

Jeff,

I agree (and earnestly hope) that the ethical-government vote is building, and ready to play a role in 2010 and beyond. The question is, where can they go? The Republican Party has not exactly undergone an ethical revolution since 2006/8, and third parties took a serious blow with Hoffman's loss. So what happens next?

I think there's room in the electorate for a (center-libertarian) third party, but there's no room in the media/fundraising/election-law paradigm, which (sadly) has as much to do with who wins elections as what the voters think.

amyers said...

Two gubernatorial races in Mid-Atlantic states, a couple of off-year congressional by-elections, and various local-level elections are not indicative of any sort of national trend. However, as a preview of what is to come in the mid-term and gubernatorial races next year, here are a few observations from last night.

The GOP establishment still has legs. Two mainstream center-right Republican candidates won governorships in states that have recently trended towards the Democrats. This isn't necessarily a sign of a full-scale Republican comeback: McDonnell ran a better campaign than Deeds in open-seated Virginia, and Christie was running against a weak incumbent in New Jersey's Corzine.

There are 19 governor's seats in play next year that are currently occupied by Democrats; eight will be vacated due to term limits (ME, MI, NM, OK, OR, PA, TN, WY), two by retirement (KS, WI), and two that have not been vetted by the public (IL, NY). 2010 will likely have an anti-incumbent mood in governor's races thanks to the budget crises most states are facing, so the other seven states (AR, CO, IA, MD, MA, NH, OH) are potentially in play as well. A mainstream Republican candidate who manages his campaign well stands a fighting chance anywhere next year, and the GOP could swing several states back into their column if they play their cards right. They will need them, because there the GOP has their own share of vulnerable gubernatorial races next year (CT, FL, HI, MN, RI, VT).

The far right is still a great danger to the GOP's electoral hopes nationwide. The conservative movement did the Republican Party very little service in the NY-23 special election. Dede Scozzafava, a not-particularly-conservative Republican in a not-particularly-conservative Republican district, would have easily won the election had the activist right not usurped local forces and force-fed a "true conservative" upon a population that didn't ask for one. As a result, the seat is now held by a Democrat, and thanks to the massive fissure created by the far right, it may be years before the GOP regains its footing in the district (and the rest of the northeast, for that matter).

The GOP can make gains with mainstream center-right candidates in 2010, but the hard-right base will make it hard for those candidates to make it all the way to November. If the base continues to place ideological purity above overall electability, the gains proposed above simply will not happen.

Democratic candidates cannot expect an "Obama bump" to help them in an off-year. Both Deeds and Corzine were clamoring for the president's endorsement in the weeks leading up to the elections, but in the end, having Obama's seal of approval didn't mean much at the polls. Like in NY-23, where outside forces meddling into local affairs didn't help Hoffman, Democrats up for election next year will need to focus on concentrating support from within their states or districts. It's not 2008, and the gubernatorial and Senate elections are not down on the ballot; there are no coattails to ride.

juvanya said...

The only thing this election shows is that we will see a huge anti-incumbent sweep in 2010. Every one of the three major seats today has a new part.

If anyone tacks this to Obama, they are an idiot and a dreamer.

Jenny said...

brian said...

Some stats:

McDonnell margin was largest in VA gov history

Christie margin was largest for Repub non-incumbent in 30+ years

Keep thinking this was just another election libs.

==================================

The best stat:

The republicans lost a district they've held since 1850, which they won a year ago by 30 points.

Just another election, huh, teabaggers?

Rudy said...

Juris, I don't know why you think we conservatives should be running with our tails between our legs. Yes, I thought Hoffman would win, and I was wrong. My comments on that were before Dede endorsed the Democrat, which created the carpetbagger meme that cost Hoffman. But at the core, the blame goes to the liberal wing of the Republican party that spawned the Hoffman rebellion by choosing a poor, RINO candidate. Regardless, we all know the seat's only a rental for the Dems for a year.

The thrust of the conservative case remains true and is proven effective in the other high-profile races. For example, the leftist kook fringe tried very hard to villify a wholly decent man in Virginia, with passionate assist from the WaPost, yet he won by 18. That's a message from the voters.

There is no doubt that the conservative wing of the party is in ascendency. Conservative positions are what attract independents to Republicans and win elections.

Mike said...

Jenny said...

Geoff, I have a question for you.

When did it strike you that Palin was a BIG mistake? Was it when she said she could see Russia from her house?
____________

Jenny,

Palin might not be the smartest person in the world, but she never actually said that. Tina Fey did on SNL.

(The same as Bush never said Strategery... it was also SNL.)

Just FYI.

Jenny said...

brian said...

NJ+VA gov= leadership of 16M people

NY 23= leadership of 650,000 people

But libs would rather have the House seat though, huh. Well, I guess they think all power resides in DC, so it makes sense.
====================================

So that's why palin/Beck/Rush and the teabaggers made such a big deal about NY23 -- they can't add.

ahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahha

Jenny said...

Lehman said...

On what planet is Scozzafava a "moderate." She is a lib, and the conservatives disagreed with her as a choice. In a month, he went from near-nobody to almost winning. Next year should be interesting.
=====================================

What makes her liberal?

Just earlier in the thread you said the litmus test should be economic issues not social stances.

Mike said...

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

I can't believe Maine people voted that way.

Imagine your marriage being deemed illegal.

Whoever was behind this should have their houses burnt to the ground.
___________

Wow... so freedom is only permitted if they agree with you?

Which wing is really full of fringe kooks...

Pan said...

What's frustrating about our two-party system is that we so often combined "social" with "fiscal" in our candidates and then try to read the results of both out of the choice between two completely opposing sides.

By this, I mean if there was a social conservative/fiscal conservative, social liberal/fiscal conservative, social liberal/fiscal liberal and social conservative/fiscal liberal in every election it'd make it a lot clearer what people are voting for. Granted, this is in a "perfect" world where each candidate is equally likeable and ran and equally competent campaign.

That's one reason I don't see the Tea Party movement as having as big an effect as it could. If it was simply a movement to elect fiscal conservatives of varying social bents, then I think it could have a real impact. As it stands, it seems like it so frequently plugs into only a quarter of the possible combinations and thus limits its impact.

As far as Maine and social liberal policy goes, I'm disappointed but not discouraged. The great thing about being a social liberal is that, over time, societies always get more and more socially liberal. Places like Nazi Germany are the short term exception to that trend.

The main thing that's stopped that in the past has been the destruction of a civilization through warfare, sending it back into the dark ages. I don't see that happening with western democracies anymore, the ravings of Phelps' band notwithstanding.

Jenny said...

Mike, please don't be naive.

Al Gore never said he invented the internet either. That didnt stop the republicans and their media assets from using it.

If you can dish it out, you have to be prepared to take it.

Nathan said...

"The far right is still a great danger to the GOP's electoral hopes nationwide. The conservative movement did the Republican Party very little service in the NY-23 special election."

True enough. But many in the conservative movement no longer see serving the Republican Party as an important goal.

Mike said...

Mark said...

As a married heterosexual male... I want government to just get out of the "marriage" business altogether.

Civil unions for everyone.
_________

Yep.

To all the gay rights supporters out there, let me try and explain why you are facing an uphill battle.

I am the kind of person who would have rejected Gay Marriage in Maine, but supported the Washington State referendum. (But I would not support the "final step" in the WA plan.)

Marriage is a religious institution. People with religious beliefs see homosexuality as an abomination, so to bless is under the eyes of God is contrary to everything they believe.

Let me state now that I am not religious, but I respect their beliefs, and will support them on this issue.

The real problem is not the religious (and it's not the religious right as CA's Prop-8 showed last year -- many, many minorities reject Gay Marriage as well). The problem is the government's co-opting of a religious institution for its own use.

The correct solution is to replace the legal side of the equation with civil unions (we should all be applying for civil union licenses, not marriage licenses) and then churches can also "marry" people if they want.

We are not against equality, far from it. But I suspect that's probably too much for some of you to accept.

I would also be a very strong advocate for eliminating all legal necessities for civil unions, for the protection of rights -- simple contract law should suffice, for the following reason: Islam permits multiple wives; at what point does the current legal marriage/union set up fall foul of the 1st amendment?

Younghoo said...

Pundits are trying to connect displeasure with Obama to the results in Virginia. Voters in the Commonwealth did what they have done the eight previous gubernatorial elections, they elected a governor of the opposite party of the president.

Harman said...

I am definitely disappointed. And I DO blame Obama for having been totally a wimp on gay rights for the past 10 months. He is fast losing my enthusiasm. And NO, I do not see that win in Washington as a decent consolation prize. Didn't the civil rights movement already conclusively show that "separate but equal" is never "equal"? Mr. Obama, it is time you stood up to help us. I am 55 years old and grew up in North Carolina. I have no trouble remembering the laws as they applied to your minority group in my youth. Now it's time for you to show us that you understand what it is like to be from a minority. Glenn Harman

markymark said...

Brian said
'Some stats:

McDonnell margin was largest in VA gov history

Christie margin was largest for Repub non-incumbent in 30+ years

Keep thinking this was just another election libs.'
-----------------------------------

I haven't said that the gubernatorial results were good. But I don't think they have huge national implications. I think that the Dems had 2 bad candidates in a year when the underlying conditions, as proved historically, was in the favor of the GOP. I think that it was a baaaad night for conservative Republicans. But a very good night for mainstream Republicans.
=====================
Mike said
'Jenny,

Palin might not be the smartest person in the world, but she never actually said that. Tina Fey did on SNL.

(The same as Bush never said Strategery... it was also SNL.)

Just FYI.'
-------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psyo4JDbJJ4&feature=related

Note the dates those two videos were posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ

Nathan said...

Mike wrote: "(The same as Bush never said Strategery... it was also SNL.)"

Off topic, but that parody of a 2000 Bush/Gore debate is one of the funniest sketches I've ever seen on SNL. "After an unfortunate shark attack..." ROFL.

Jenny said...

Rudy said...



There is no doubt that the conservative wing of the party is in ascendency. Conservative positions are what attract independents to Republicans and win elections.
=================================

Are you guys all idiots?

You are aware that 365 days ago, today, Obama carried 60 percent of the independent vote.

I mean, geez, just use common sense.

Rudy said...

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet".

Al Gore, March 9, 1999, on CNN.

Nathan said...

Totally agree with Mike on marriage. There's the civil law side of this and the religious side of it...and liberals ought to be the first to understand that they are separate questions.

That's why laws mandating that churches perform gay marriages will and should go down to defeat.

Dwight said...

@Rudy

Yes, and in spite of his unfortunate choice of wording, it is true he was a key player in the success of growth and propigation of the internet by championing the funding for the infrastructure.

Mike said...

Harman said...
I am definitely disappointed. And I DO blame Obama for having been totally a wimp on gay rights for the past 10 months. He is fast losing my enthusiasm. And NO, I do not see that win in Washington as a decent consolation prize. Didn't the civil rights movement already conclusively show that "separate but equal" is never "equal"? Mr. Obama, it is time you stood up to help us. I am 55 years old and grew up in North Carolina. I have no trouble remembering the laws as they applied to your minority group in my youth. Now it's time for you to show us that you understand what it is like to be from a minority
_______________

With respect, this is one issue he has been consistent on. He has always been against gay marriage.

Given the church he comes from, this shouldn't be a surprise.

I wouldn't look to any help from Obama on this issue if I were you.

And remember; Obama is half white. Does he really see eye-to-eye with black people, or are they just a way to get elected?

Rudy said...

You're exactly right, Jenny, a year ago was disaterous for Republicans. Because of running moderates like McCain and on Dem-lite positions instead of on conservative positions. That proved not to work.

History shows that elections are won for Republicans with conservative-oriented campaigns that attract moderates, not moderate candidates and positions that turn off conservatives. Losing so badly last year spawned the current conservative ascendency, which is demonstrating success.

That has been the core of the internal battle in the Republican party for 50 years, just as the battle between the socialists and the blue dogs is the battle within the Democratic Party. It will also force many Dems away from supporting the leftist legislation in congress, which is the real vistory.

Pan said...

@Mike: Marriage is a religious institution. People with religious beliefs see homosexuality as an abomination, so to bless is under the eyes of God is contrary to everything they believe.

You've just actually made the case for gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Therefore, if a gay couple belongs to a church that has no proscriptions against gay marriage, then they should be able to be married. Some religions see it as an abomination for people of their religion to marry outside of that religion. These people are not denied the ability to marry under law.

Second part - secular marriages. Currently, people get married outside of churches. These people are called "married", not "unioned." It is treated equivalent to a religious marriage in law. Therefore either you need to change this term to something other than "marriage", or you need to allow gay couples to also have this exact same kind of marriage.

Gatordad said...

@Jenny - you might want to rethink the idiot question

From the Wash Times
Home » News » PoliticsWednesday, November 4, 2009
Independents fuel GOP victories in Va., N.J.

Mr. Obama won New Jersey, Virginia and New York's 23rd Congressional District in 2008, so Republicans' showing Tuesday suggested that the red-to-blue wave that Democrats rode the past two national elections has crested. Most important, Republicans showed gains among independent and suburban voters who had defected in 2006 and 2008.

Exit polls showed independents, who made up nearly one-third of voters in both Virginia and New Jersey, went for the Republicans by a margin of nearly 2-to-1.


And from AP

Analysis: Nervous voters send message to Obama
Beth Fouhy
Voters nervous about the economy and fed up with the political establishment dominated the off-year elections, sending a strong message to President Barack Obama, who won the White House as a change agent but has himself become the face of political power and incumbency.

Independents who supported Obama broke heavily for Republicans Tuesday, helping the GOP win marquee governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey. And the coalition of younger, minority voters who powered Obama's victory last year was replaced by an electorate that was noticeably whiter, especially in Virginia, where Democrat Creigh Deeds lost in a landslide.

Yet Democrats weren't the only ones in danger, as voters also vented their frustration at incumbents and party insiders.

In upstate New York, Democrat Bill Owens won a House seat held for decades by Republicans in a special election dominated by a fierce intraparty GOP split.

Billy said...

The conservatives who are crowing about margin in VA or NJ are ignoring that this was an odd-year election.

VA may represent a rebuke to Obama, but Deeds had an uphill battle from the start. The first contested primary in decades meant that Deeds had to beat Moran and McCauliff (sp?), then pivot to confront McDonnell (who didn't have to fight a primary). Further, McDonnell had twice the cash.

NJ (IMHO) was all about Corzine and corruption - of course, helped by the off-year Republican bias. I don't think Obama had anything to do with it.

NY-23 was just a Republican fuster-cluck. Ended up putting a blue-dog in for two years. No big deal, except that it underscores that the Paulettes/Teabaggers are not a complete match with the current Republican party. (And Palin is a doofus.)

Maine just breaks my heart. So many spiteful people. It reminds me of MLKs march in Chicago. He spent all that time trying to convert the stalwarts, then to come to the "friendly" confines (CA or New England) and get snubbed. I'd like to see more demographics on that. I wonder if it was all the over-65 gang again.

By the way, Nathan, you are wrong about the Maine law forcing religious people to perform ceremonies. That was just part of the confusing verbiage of the proposal. The original law explicitly wrote that no religious entity could be forced into performing ceremonies.

Billy said...

Gatordad, quoting the Washington (Moonie) Times makes you look silly. The Virginia governors election was a lot less simple than a yay or nay on Obama.

Rudy said...

Dwight, fair enough. But he has overstated his importance in the process, as politicians are prone to do.

Mike said...

Pan said...
@Mike: Marriage is a religious institution. People with religious beliefs see homosexuality as an abomination, so to bless is under the eyes of God is contrary to everything they believe.

You've just actually made the case for gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Therefore, if a gay couple belongs to a church that has no proscriptions against gay marriage, then they should be able to be married. Some religions see it as an abomination for people of their religion to marry outside of that religion. These people are not denied the ability to marry under law.

Second part - secular marriages. Currently, people get married outside of churches. These people are called "married", not "unioned." It is treated equivalent to a religious marriage in law. Therefore either you need to change this term to something other than "marriage", or you need to allow gay couples to also have this exact same kind of marriage.
___________

My point was you need to change the term. People aren't voting against legal protections; they're voting against marriage being extended to those people.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Pan said...

Jenny: Al Gore never said he invented the internet either.

Rudy:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet".
Al Gore, March 9, 1999, on CNN.


And there you have it. Rudy responds with a quote that nowhere says Al Gore invented the internet. He responds with a quote you can make funnier by changing it to say he invented it. In much the same way, Palin's quote "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska" was made funnier by changing it into "I can see Russia from my house."

Both rephrasing are probably unfair to their original, but also have a bit of truth to them in that's the way people perceive those statements even though they weren't what was literally said. Gore came off as a snobby nerd who would say such a thing, so the culture went with it. Palin seemed like a moron in over her head who would say such a thing, so the culture went with that.

Mike said...

A comment on NJ.

For those of you thinking Christie is toast in 2013, remember that for past 20 odd years, NJ has always elected a governor in the opposite party to the President.

Does that mean Obama will lose in 2012?

(*ducks*)

Pan said...

@Mike

Yes, but again, are you going to change the term so that your church can't use the word "marriage"? You want to make it where a church that accepts homosexuals can't use that word. Have you decided they're not a real church because their beliefs are different than yours?

If you do that, how is that not a law that establishes one religion over another? We're talking about two consenting adults marrying each other. Why does one group of religions get the monopoly on that?

The only way that what you're saying makes sense is if no one gets to use the word married. And if no one is using it, what's the point of saving the word?

Gatordad said...

'Marriage' or 'union'. Frigging semantics. Why are we still even discussing this issue. Two (or more, but that's another discussion) consenting adults should be able to 'marry', start a civil 'union' or organize a softball team, whatever. Do we as a country not have a whole lot more pressing issues to deal with? And as for the folks who say it's not 'normal' I would suggest you think about the following... in study after study across all socio-economic groups, across all religions, in every society on the planet, the incidence of homosexuality is at roughly 10% of the population. If this re-occurence of the same % is steady and crosses all religious, economic and social barriers, then I would have to say that's pretty damn 'normal'. Government has no place legislating personal adult sexual behaviour or relationships. Quit worrying about who is banging who and fix the economy. Just sayin'.

Juris said...

@Rudy: What any "minority" party needs to learn is how the electoral rules constrain their ability to turn supporters into votes into seats.

If the U.S. had a proportional representation (PR system), the Conservative party in NY could be winning many seats in the state legislature, for example, more than it might win under plurality/majority winner take all voting.

In the case of the U.S. House of Representatives, the way to win is to get a plurality (I would prefer majority runoffs among two highest vote getters if none gets a majority in first vote). The conservatives in NY 23 did not play that game very well, and thus lost.

The fact that the sum of the GOP and 'Independent' votes is a majority doesn't matter under the rules. So they lost. The fact that the sum of the GOP and 'Independent' votes exceeds 50% is consistent with the fact that this is a majority-Republican district.

But it's not a majority extreme Conservative district.

And Owens wasn't an extreme liberal but rather played toward the midpoint of the ideology of this district, while Hoffman did not. He was a bad fit to the district.

And so under the plurality winner-take-all electoral rules, he lost.

I suspect all of the machinations and national-level attention to the GOP candidate problem only enhanced the sense by people in the district that nobody really cared a whit about them -- their interests. And so the candidate who DID care, who had a strong base of local underwriting, and whose ideology was closest to the center of the voters, won.

DEM_in_Virginia said...

@ Mike

I have met many well meaning religious people who have said exactly what you have said. However the Washington Ref which is what you said it is just barely passed and had to rely on a state with a strong liberal population.

To me it is sad but true that there is a huge population out there that will not give equal rights to gay people, no matter what you call it

Mike said...

Pan said...
@Mike

Yes, but again, are you going to change the term so that your church can't use the word "marriage"? You want to make it where a church that accepts homosexuals can't use that word. Have you decided they're not a real church because their beliefs are different than yours?

If you do that, how is that not a law that establishes one religion over another? We're talking about two consenting adults marrying each other. Why does one group of religions get the monopoly on that?

The only way that what you're saying makes sense is if no one gets to use the word married. And if no one is using it, what's the point of saving the word?
_____________

I think you're missing the point.

If a church wants to perform a religious ceremony and call it marriage, that's fine. For legal recognition, the couple would still need to get a civil union license.

I think that if this entire debate was presented in this way, the proponents have more success.

Gatordad said...

Billy said...
Gatordad, quoting the Washington (Moonie) Times makes you look silly. The Virginia governors election was a lot less simple than a yay or nay on Obama.

Billy, I'm not saying the WaTimes is the arbiter of truth, I'm just saying that the reality is that independants went hard right in this election. I don't think that this was a referendum for either side. What happens next year will have everything to do with the economy. I think trying to extrapolate much from last night is kind of folly on both sides.

SP said...

Only commenting on VA which is where I live (even if it is the communist part of VA).

I'm not quite sure why anyone would be in a rush to extrapolate any sort of 'referendum on Obama's policies' from this off-year election. According to the WaPo poll released prior to the election, 70% of VA voters said that Obama had no bearing on their votes. The rest split pretty evenly on the pro-Obama and anti-Obama sides.

Deeds did run pretty much the most ineffectual campaign in the history of political campaigns. He started off with the strategy of 'Well, the liberals will vote for me anyway, so let's get the conservatives on my side', which is NEVER ever going to work in VA. He turned off his base, and the other guy's base voted for him anyway. Deeds never made any effort to capitalize on the popularity of the two Democratic governors before him, and pretty much only pulled in Obama as a desperate last minute move.

One of the local stations showed the demographics of the electorate this time around, which skewed older, with less minority representation. If the top of the ticket isn't energizing the base, pretty much everyone downstream will feel the effects - hence the results.

markymark said...

Rudy said
'History shows that elections are won for Republicans with conservative-oriented campaigns that attract moderates, not moderate candidates and positions that turn off conservatives. Losing so badly last year spawned the current conservative ascendency, which is demonstrating success.'
--------------------------------

The problem with your, and also fellow right wingnut types, is that last year moderates were scared off voting for McCain by his VP pick. Moderates overwhelmingly voted Obama, not McCain. Perhaps conservatives need to think about what they would prefer, a moderately led Republican administration, that listens and forwards the Republican agenda, or moderately led Democratic administration that doesn't.

Pan said...

@Mike

If I had to, I'd be okay with the word "marriage" only applying to religious ceremonies and the word "union" applying to the legal side of it. But first there's the problem of all the existing law that has the word "marriage" or "married" in it. You have to either go back and rewrite and pass all those modifications, or you can just come up with a blanket law that says "marriage=union." Such a law is like the one in Maine, which people rejected.

The second problem is that the word "marriage" is part of a culture, not just our religion. I'm an agnostic, but my wife and I are "married." We're not "united." When people ask us, we say we're "married." It just doesn't fit our culture to say any other thing. I don't believe we should be constrained from using the culturally accepted term because we chose to exercise our rights to not be part of a religion.

So, if you do make the change, people who have a civil union will still go around saying they are "married." And some will be pissed off because the law was changed saying "nope, sorry, marriage is only for religious people", which would be a bit of a first amendment issue.

Lehman said...

I didn't say I revolted, the conservativs in upstate new york did. And se is a fiscal lib in her pro-union stances, her voiced approval f the stimulus package and the fact that she almost ran as a Democrats, but the dems didn't support her because her brother had tax issues.

I had surgery on my dominant arm last week, so forgive the typos.

I don't have a litmus test, which is, by definition, based on one variable. I look at the candidates and vote for the best one electable.

DEM_in_Virginia said...

For those of you thinking Christie is toast in 2013, remember that for past 20 odd years, NJ has always elected a governor in the opposite party to the President.

Does that mean Obama will lose in 2012?

-------

If the economy rebounds both Obama and Christie will win. If it does not they can both lose. Virginia after all had democratic governors during the height of the GOP powers

Dwight said...

Rudy said...
Dwight, fair enough. But he has overstated his importance in the process, as politicians are prone to do.


He did stop short of claiming he invented it. ;)

Ironicly a lot of the hoopla about that quote is because he actually doesn't get the credit he deserves, it isn't widely understood that the internet is quite unlikely to exist without that bill, the one that Republicans took glee in pillorying him over as a "tax and spend librul".

It really isn't that much of an overstatement.

Dwight said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Philippe said...

Regarding Referendum 71 in Washington State, by my count, 69.4% of the votes to be counted as of 1AM local time are from the 10 counties which vote in favor of approving measure. That is some 235,700 votes, of which half of them come from the Seattle area. The average approval rate is roughly 54.5% from these 10 counties.

It seems pretty clear that the No side simply won't have enough margins left to overcome this.

Gatordad said...

@Dwight

Hey Dwight, gotta quibble a little. The internet existed well before that legislation. The technology would have come to the forefront either way. The bill helped move the process along, expedited it. But the net was coming either way.

Jenny said...

Rudy said...

You're exactly right, Jenny, a year ago was disaterous for Republicans. Because of running moderates like McCain and on Dem-lite positions instead of on conservative positions. That proved not to work.
===================================

I guess you guys are all idiots.

You couldn't get more conservative than the queen of the teabaggers (palin).

So why did 60% of Independent support Obama - because he's conservative?

Rudy said...

Juris, I agree that NY-23 wasn't well managed from top to bottom by either party. Yet, between them they captured more than 50% of the vote despite the Keystone Kops routine.

The important thing is that the conservative voice was reasserted rather that stifled, as the liberal Republicans would have had it. That is the lasting implication from this race. The moderates have lost their stroke because they lose.

Chiadi said...

I'm delighted to see Saco-Harry acknowledge the obvious. We pretend to democracy and yet want to impose criteria (such as policy analysis) on someone else exercise of their right. It is all BS really!

Irritation (with a candidate, campaign or cause) is a legitimate basis on which to cast your vote. There are no knowledge, IQ, equanimity, commitment, or fairness clauses or caveats in the right to vote! If a candidate or cause wants a vote, they must persuade - which means you must be civil too!

Heteroflexible has it right, I think. I am ambivalent about legislative initiatives in states where these cannot be won at the ballot, whatever the issue. I hope the GLBT world can learn a few things from the Maine vote. Mainly, that righteous indignation and contempt is not going win this thing. Hard work, persuasion and compromise (as in Washington state) are the ingredients for progress. Either that or wait until Gen X becomes the dominant block (and hope that they don't "change horses" as they mature). Short cuts that rely on pleading rights and righteousness and sneering at the opposition (dismissing them as "intolerant", "anti-gay", etc.) do not seem to be winning ways...

As for NY-23, Amyers says it for me... this is a representative democracy. If we believe that, we must allow districts/constituents to pick their representatives in their own image, for better or for worse... and we must accept too that we can't each have our won representative -- we must share representatives.

Charles said...

Philippe:

Yeah, that's too bad about Washington State (at least it isn't technically "marriage" like in Maine). I'm not here to gloat, and I feel bad for anyone hurt by yesterday's vote, I really do.

I completely understand that homosexuals feel like second-class citizens, but as someone pointed out above, so do polygamists and fathers who want to marry their daughters (that is most assuredly NOT "another discussion" because the slippery slope argument is actually coming to pass in this case). If there was some way to allow for same-sex "marriage" but ensure that it would stop there, and not be picked up by other "consenting adults" who want their "rights" too, maybe I wouldn't fight it so hard.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the issues honestly.

Jenny said...

Rudy said...

Juris, I agree that NY-23 wasn't well managed from top to bottom by either party. Yet, between them they captured more than 50% of the vote despite the Keystone Kops routine.
=================================

You are aware you blew a district that had been in GOP control since 1850 And one year ago, they republican won the seat by 30 points.

That's quite a trend going from plus-30 to a tie in 365 days.

Lord Calvert said...

One of the things I have been trying to get across since I came here and most people aren't getting is that upstate New York is not conservative in the manner that the Deep South is. Upstate New York is limited-government Goldwater-conservative and the totalitarianism of the religiously dominated Republican Party today simply does not work here. That is why the GOP has now lost every single upstate seat save one (Chris Lee's NY-26, formerly Tom Reynolds and Bill Paxon's district) in an area that was once one of their cores.

If the Republicans want to get upstate back, they have to start acting like conservatives again and get rid of the Taliban-wannabees that currently dominate the Party.

shrinkers said...

Something that I haven't seen explicitly pointed out -

Several people have noted that the Dems picked up two (2) seats in the House last night.

Isn't the party in power supposed to lose seats in the midterm elections?

In what way is this not a Democratic wave, Obama's power still crowing, despite historical trends?

Yeah okay, two governorships when to Republicans - but governors are about local (state) politics, and say nothing about the national scene (and don't give me that "Obama campaigned for them and they lost he must be losing his magic." Bull. They were poor candidates who poorly ran campaigns and did not properly address the local issues people voted on. Period.)

Republicans are in serious trouble for 2010. A lot of it is of their own making, with the teabaggers and the lunatic rightwing nutbats. Insanely, the message they will take from NY-23 is that they are not yet crazy enough and need to swing evn father toward that ledge on the right.

But think about it - the President's party PICKED UP SEATS in an off-year election. Why is this not being noticed for the almost unprecedented show of presidential popularity that it is?

DEM_in_Virginia said...

@Charles

How is Father wanting to marry daughters a marriage between consenting adults ? You could use Brothers marrying sisters as an example though and I do not know how to counter that.

Charles said...

Lord Calvert:

You mean like the "Taliban-wannabees" who just voted for Maine Question 1? Please read Chiadi's post at 11:39 AM to see where your side's stringent rhetoric is leading.

Charles said...

shrinkers:

2010 is the midterm election (yesterday was a "Special Election" for those house seats).

DEM_in_Virginia:

Once the daughter is legally of age to marry. Same thing for a brother and sister.

DEM_in_Virginia said...

@Shrinkers

I am on your side and wish for the Obama wave to keep riding. But the independents did vote whole heartedly for the Republican candidates. This may mean nothing as it may be local issues. But it is still pause for thought.
Ignoring reality for ideology is what really turned me off the GOP. I do not want the same to happen to the Democratic party

Rudy said...

Markymark, you remember incorrectly. Palin helped McCain's numbers markedly once she was announced. Undoubtedly, certain moderates were turned off by her, but far more were turned on by her.

In the end, someone so shallow as to not vote for the presidential candidate because of the VP isn't a voter worth pursuing on that basis. Ultimately, most of those would go for the Dem anyway.

The logic you favor is exactly what produced such disaster for Republicans, and propogated the McCain Fallacy to begin with -- that he was every Democrat's favorite Republican, so he could win more votes. Wrong.

The moderates worth pursuing are those who like the principled position of the candidates. And that's where the attention needs to be better focused by Republicans, not tailoring positions and candidates to the mushy middle.

Dwight said...

Gatordad said...
@Dwight

Hey Dwight, gotta quibble a little. The internet existed well before that legislation. The technology would have come to the forefront either way. The bill helped move the process along, expedited it. But the net was coming either way.


Imagine driving the US without Interstate system. That's roughly the analogy. It would have happened but later and crappier, with an associated lag in technological and social advances, and associated wealth.

emupilot said...

Of course there is a Bradley effect with gay rights propositions. We saw it with Amendment 2 in Colorado in 1992. We saw it the first time California voted against gay marriage. We saw it the second time California voted against gay marriage. We saw it again last night.

Whenever gay rights are on the ballot, subtract 4 points from the gay rights support and give it to the intolerant side. It's as predictable as the sunrise.

Charles said...

Good posts, Rudy.

Jenny said...

DEM_in_Virginia said...

I am on your side and wish for the Obama wave to keep riding. But the independents did vote whole heartedly for the Republican candidates. This may mean nothing as it may be local issues. But it is still pause for thought.


===============================

you can't compare off year elections to general elections because the turnout models are different.

The best way to compare is to compare this election to the one from 2005.

Dwight said...

>> Palin helped McCain's numbers markedly once she was announced.

...up until she tried to talk on anything of substance outside of a prepared speech. As in once people started to get to know her.

Then the idea of her being VP, and thus potentially President, freaked the living shit out of a lot Republicans, muchless independants.

Leland Traiman said...

A new marriage rights strategy is needed! Same-sex marriage has never won an election. 33 lost elections. Domestic partnerships have never lost an election. Our quest for the rites of marriage has obscured our quest for the rights of marriage. It is time to work for a new strategy.

Charles said...

Good luck with that, Leland.

Jenny said...

Rudy said...

you still haven't answered the question -- you say Independents are attracted to conservative principals, then why did 60% of indies vote for Obama?

shrinkers said...

@DEM_in_Virginia
I am on your side and wish for the Obama wave to keep riding. But the independents did vote whole heartedly for the Republican candidates. This may mean nothing as it may be local issues. But it is still pause for thought.
Ignoring reality for ideology is what really turned me off the GOP. I do not want the same to happen to the Democratic party


Excellent thoughts. Yes, complacency is the worst danger.

I think the reason the party in power usually loses seats in the elections immediately following the general election is that people are impatient. It takes time - usually a year, minimum - for a new administration to get its wings, to learn the ropes, and for its new policies to really have an observable effect.

But people want immediate gratification ("You took office NINE MONTHS ago! Why hasn't the whole world changed yet???") The fact that so many people can't see Sudden Dramatic Change means they lose interest, get bored, get frustrated, and either don't vote or vote the other way to slap the people they so recently elected - not realizing that, by doing so, they are hurting their own causes.

I suspect "independents" (many of whom say they're "independent" simply because they don't bother to keep up) are especially prone to this.

So, in a special election so soon after the general, the party in power PICKS UP SEATS, despite these trends. That's huge, and has remarkable implications for 2010.

IF the Dems don't get complacent.

But hopefully, the Republicans will continue running off that cliff on their right :)

Charles said...

Jenny:

McCain was not a "conservative". Just wait until Palin runs (you do remember the Reagan Democrats, right?).

Charles said...

shrinkers:

Hopefully gays and lesbians keep attacking the sanctity of marriage.

Philippe said...

Charles,

I am from Seattle. I can tell you I am not surprised that Referendum 71 is passing in part due to the heavy support of the city. Proportionally speaking, Seattle has a higher % of educated citizens (those with college and/or graduate degrees or higher) than any other major U.S. cities, including San Francisco.

That said, the impression I gather is gays here are not as obsessed about the word marriage as some other places, which is not to say that is not important - it is. However, pragmatism is even more crucial at this point and time. I think a lot of people are just happy that from a practical standpoint, there will be no differences in the treatement of gay couples vs. hetero married couples in about a month when the results are certified.

As for the word marriage, tell you the truth, I think it will come but it will likely be years away. But to me, the most important thing is that meanwhile, the State will treat you equally as any other married couples and you can always go marry elsewhere and come back here and enjoy the same benefits as everyone else. BC is just near by and makes a great marriage destination for those who want to.

Once Ref. 71 is certified to pass, then the State of Washington can argue, like the State of MA is doing, to the Obama Administration that it is denying its citizens the necessary federal recognitions. It's important that the State first treats its own citizens equally before they can have the moral grounds to pressure the White House and Congress. In this sense, I have no disappointment about the outcome.

Jenny said...

Charles - why did the Independence support Obama, who isn't a conservative?

how come none of you guys can't answer the question? Waiting for Rush to tell ya?

Rudy said...

Yes, Jenny, I believe you pointed out once or twice this morning ::eyes roll:: that Republicans held the seat since 1850. Things change. But it wasn't because of voters rejecting conservatism, it was because of the internecene battle and poor judgment by the Republican power structure in initial candidate choice. Surely, you recognize that the seat is only a one-year rental, anyway.

And, yes, I get it that you think we're all idiots, as you saw fit to repeat that again, in case I didn't grasp it the first time ::eyes roll:: ::hang head in shame::, but you seem incapable of understanding the logic of conservatives rejecting a Dem-lite strategy. It empirically doesn't work.

DEM_in_Virginia said...

@RUDY

You are saying that the way for the GOP to win seats is to follow a socially conservative path. But at the same time you say that the democrats are losing because they are deviating from the center (well i am assuming you said that, I do not know if you did). But what is the right way ? The middle way, the left way or the right way.

Actually I think there is no right way but I digress.

Juris said...

@Rudy: I guess one lesson from NY 23 could be under what conditions should minority parties compete as a third party and under what conditions should they try to capture the nomination of one of the two major parties. What was learned from this race?

What I think we know is that if there had been no attempt by the conservatives to dump the GOP candidate, then this district probably would have stayed in the GOP fold.

But what can be learned for future races? Of course the strategy by the Club for Growth, for example, has for quite a while been to get economic conservatives nominated in GOP primaries -- even knocking out incumbent GOP moderates if need be.

That has sometimes worked. But then when the two remaining candidates come to the general election, what are the voters going to do? A popular incumbent may have lost the renomination. A right-wing Republican is now the nominee. What happens in some of those cases is what happened in NY23: a moderate Dem wins.

Only when the GOP is willing to put up locally popular, perhaps moderate nominees is it going to be able to compete against locally popular perhaps moderate Dem nominees.

Jenny said...

Blogger Charles said...

shrinkers:

Hopefully gays and lesbians keep attacking the sanctity of marriage.
=============================

Yes, I hope Cheney's gay daughter, Larry Craig, Trent Lott, and MArk Foley keep attacking!!!

Jenny said...

Rudy said...

you still haven't answered the question -- you say Independents are attracted to conservative principals, then why did 60% of indies vote for Obama?

Charles said...

Phillipe:

You'll understand if I continue to fight against such recognition.

Jenny:

I will be happy to answer your two new questions to me just as soon as you answer my one old question to you.

brian said...

Jenny-

Enough with your lame "1850" stat on NY 23. Cook Political rates the district +1 Repub--hardly Utah. Rahm Emanual knew it was a swing district, which is why he plucked off the strong incumbent to put it in play.

Jenny said...

Blogger Rudy said...

but you seem incapable of understanding the logic of conservatives rejecting a Dem-lite strategy. It empirically doesn't work.

=============================

No. I find that perfectly logical.

The question is why did Independent support Obama by 60 perecent when you say Independents are only attracted to conservative principals.

Once again, why did Indies turn their back on conservatism in favor of the liberal candidate?

can't answer that can you?

Jenny said...

brian said...

Jenny-

Enough with your lame "1850" stat on NY 23. Cook Political rates the district +1 Repub--hardly Utah. Rahm Emanual knew it was a swing district, which is why he plucked off the strong incumbent to put it in play.
=======================================

Brian, you carried the fucking seat by 30 fucking points only 12 fucking months ago.

Accept it - you lost a safe seat!

Jenny said...

Charles said...

what was your queston?

Lehman said...

Jenny, I'll answer your question:

Independents voted for Obama because he pretended he was moderate and said he would be fiscally responsible. This was a welcome relief from Bush, who said he was a conservative and would be fiscally responsilbe, and was not even close to responsible.

A year after the election, the blinders are off, the bloom is off the rose and the independents realize that Obama is just another machine politician and a left-wing ideologue who wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it were a fly on his arm. We in the vast middle are casting about, looking for someone in whom we can trust to navigate some very scary times. If Obama were the man he pretended to be, he wouldn't have spent the last 6 months trying to sell a plan that most don''t want and would get down to the business of helping this country out of it's financial hole. The health care bill (which wouldn't take effect for 3 more years) is hardly emergent, while the deficit and job loss are.

Juris said...

@Jenny: you have a way with words. They bear repeating:

"Brian, you carried the fucking seat by 30 fucking points only 12 fucking months ago.

Accept it - you lost a safe seat!"

Lord Calvert said...

@Charles - As a Goldwater-conservative myself, I am highly disappointed in the Maine vote because placing marriage in the hands of big-government is an attack on the religious independence of the country's houses of worship, stripping away the ability of churches to implement their own theological doctrine.

If the government of Maine, or any other government can declare a UU marriage illegal, they can declare a Catholic or Lutheran marriage illegal. That is simply too much power for government to have in an area where they simply have no competence nor valid legislative purpose.

As James Madison so eloquently said, "Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government." If religion needs the compulsive power of big-government to enforce it's theological tenets, that is the clearest evidence that they lack the competence to do so on their own merits or resources. Only error needs the endorsement of government.