2009 Elections

[Bancroft Agee]

Originally Posted by Merriweather

How did it take a minimum of six years for electoral cycles to fall under the influence of Bush's idiocy, but less than a year for people to turn sour after Obama's solid-yet-unspectacular start? It's like America is just looking for an excuse to go red.

When you let the opposition frame the argument as "Socialism vs. the traditional American way of life" you're going to take hits. Americans have been conditioned to immediately shit their pants and find a pitchfork whenever the word is brought up in a political context. It's a war of fear ladies and gentlemen and that'll beat that hippie commie bullshit like hope or empathy everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. It's sickening to me as someone with extreme Leftist sympathies but that is the way it goes.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Merriweather

How did it take a minimum of six years for electoral cycles to fall under the influence of Bush's idiocy, but less than a year for people to turn sour after Obama's solid-yet-unspectacular start? It's like America is just looking for an excuse to go red.

What Bancroft Agee said, and it just seems like people are souring to the whole public healthcare debate - mostly because the Republicans have taken the Overton Window and fucking RAN WITH IT, and it's working. I really don't know what to suggest at this point because most Democratic leadership strikes me as either painfully inept or just resigned to the same flavor of defeatism that they kicked around for both Bush terms, and that's fucked up. We need an army of Alan Graysons, not an army of Joe Liebermans. I don't mean to hold that guy up as the de facto exemplary Democratic politician, but I like his rhetoric. Otherwise, the Democratic party could use an infusion of backbone, but I think even now it might be too little too late.

[RathBandu]

Also, what Prankster said in the other thread, which is that the conservative right is now actively hurting the Republican party. I personally think there's too much in-fighting going on right now to mount a sizable challenge by next year. Make no mistake -- it's going to be a fight, and Obama definitely needs to get his head out of his ass and let Rahm and Biden off their respective leashes and start playing hard offense before then -- but the congressional seat hasn't been blue in a while. Both parties are in need of a wake-up call, and I only hope that the Dems get to it first.

[Ludwig]

Originally Posted by Merriweather

How did it take a minimum of six years for electoral cycles to fall under the influence of Bush's idiocy, but less than a year for people to turn sour after Obama's solid-yet-unspectacular start? It's like America is just looking for an excuse to go red.

I don't know if people are looking for an excuse to go red per se, I think they are just frustrated after having gone through 8 years of Bush and a year of Obama with nothing getting better. People aren't being rational, as the man has only been in office a year, but with everything going on people don't have any patience. Some don't have the luxury of being patient with having no jobs, no economic hope, etc. but yeah. The thing is with Bush, right up until the last year, the economy wasn't that bad for most. And for many people, if they have work and things are good in their personal lives, they couldn't give a fuck about politics.

The best part of this latest election cycle? Despite the tea baggers forcing a candidate of their own to the plate in NY23, they lost hard. Like "that district hasn't been blue since the formation of the country" hard. Dede Scozzafava probably would have won it for the Republicans too had she been allowed to keep running. And to be fair, she was really right wing, only breaking ranks with the tea bagger wing of the party on things like the health care reform stuff and women's rights.

The worst part of this latest election cycle? Yes On 1 winning in Maine. We've had Canada-wide legal gay marriage for a few years now (so not province by province, it's legal across the entire country), and none of what the right-wing assholes claim happens when you allow gay people to marry has happened here. Not a single thing! Not only that, we've had hate crimes legislation on the books that includes sexual orientation since what, 2004? Not a single church has been shut down or muzzled due to the law. Mind you, there is a notwithstanding clause in the bill (C250) that protects some kinds of religiously-motivated hate speech, but still.

[HBarr]

Originally Posted by EdHocken

Lousy fuckin Maine skinheads.

At least Ref 71 out of Washington passed.

Although Booker for Senate could make sense, Lautenberg is as old as dirt.

Maine hurts though. Yet another time we get the legislature to do the right thing and then the public goes and upturns the law. Boggles the mind a little. Makes me seriously consider a move to Canada.

[AlmightyShmun]

Maine, you're breaking my heart. This shit is ridiculous.

Good news about the 23rd though, I guess.

[EdHocken]

Originally Posted by HBarr

Maine hurts though. Yet another time we get the legislature to do the right thing and then the public goes and upturns the law. Boggles the mind a little. Makes me seriously consider a move to Canada.

Every time this happens, I think about the fact we should just scrap the initative process. Or game it to prevent social issues from being put up.

[nekkerbee]

Originally Posted by Ludwig

The best part of this latest election cycle? Despite the tea baggers forcing a candidate of their own to the plate in NY23, they lost hard. Like "that district hasn't been blue since the formation of the country" hard. Dede Scozzafava probably would have won it for the Republicans too had she been allowed to keep running. And to be fair, she was really right wing, only breaking ranks with the tea bagger wing of the party on things like the health care reform stuff and women's rights.

The Right lost NY23, but they sure didn't lose "hard." Owens won with 49%, Hoffman had 46%, and Scozzafava still got 5%. Scozzafava spoiled it simply by being there (which is fine, the more candidates the merrier), but 51% didn't vote for Owens. I think if Scozz hadn't run at all it would still be a red district.

[Ludwig]

Originally Posted by nekkerbee

The Right lost NY23, but they sure didn't lose "hard." Owens won with 49%, Hoffman had 46%, and Scozzafava still got 5%. Scozzafava spoiled it simply by being there (which is fine, the more candidates the merrier), but 51% didn't vote for Owens. I think if Scozz hadn't run at all it would still be a red district.

By hard, I wasn't talking about percentages. The Democrat should have been destroyed in that election. It was a hard loss due to the fact that Republicans have dominated it for so long, and that despite having a viable candidate in Dede, they decided to all back the Conservative candidate instead. The fact that the Democrat won was amazing. Had Dede stayed, he (Owens) was tracking at 39% of the popular vote.

[Bancroft Agee]

Originally Posted by AlmightyShmun

Maine, you're breaking my heart. This shit is ridiculous.

Good news about the 23rd though, I guess.

They should just go ahead and send Pennywise to Washington. Although his rape all the men and rob all the women platform probably would face an uphill struggle given current events.

[jvc]

Originally Posted by Ludwig

By hard, I wasn't talking about percentages. The Democrat should have been destroyed in that election. It was a hard loss due to the fact that Republicans have dominated it for so long, and that despite having a viable candidate in Dede, they decided to all back the Conservative candidate instead. The fact that the Democrat won was amazing. Had Dede stayed, he (Owens) was tracking at 39% of the popular vote.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that Scozzafava is "really right wing." She's nothing of the sort. The Republicans in the state legislature in NY are among the most liberal Republicans in the country. She fell somewhere in the middle of them. For Congress, she would have been more liberal than many of the Democrats. Even that Daily Kos guy called her "the most liberal candidate in the race." And then she dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.

She was selected to run by the party leadership and the party members rejected the pick. And New York, from what I've read, has a history of 3rd parties (Liberal and Conservative) either backing a major party candidate when appropriate or putting up their own candidate when appropriate, as the Conservatives did here. Nothing that novel in that in NY. And once the major endorsements from mainstream Republicans (including moderates like Pataki) started rolling in for Hoffman, he quickly jumped from the mid-teens to winning 46% of the vote. Owens went from the mid 30s to 49% as soon as Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed him (a mirror image of Scozzafava's drop during the same time).

Basically, the Republican party screwed up. They picked the wrong candidate. They dumped almost a million dollars into her campaign, including ads run against Hoffman. Instead of winning, she played spoiler and gift-wrapped the seat for Owens with her endorsement. Now we get to do this the right way with a primary in 2010 that Hoffman is sure to win. Now in a heads-up Owens-Hoffman race next fall, would anyone bet on Owens retaining his seat?

[HBarr]

Originally Posted by EdHocken

Every time this happens, I think about the fact we should just scrap the initative process. Or game it to prevent social issues from being put up.

So strange. This was never an issue in the past (or was it?).

Also, I hope Anise Parker wins the Mayor race in Houston. Going to a run-off.

[jvc]

Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee

When you let the opposition frame the argument as "Socialism vs. the traditional American way of life" you're going to take hits. Americans have been conditioned to immediately shit their pants and find a pitchfork whenever the word is brought up in a political context. It's a war of fear ladies and gentlemen and that'll beat that hippie commie bullshit like hope or empathy everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. It's sickening to me as someone with extreme Leftist sympathies but that is the way it goes.

I agree somewhat, but think that the public would be much more open to big health care changes (of the progressive variety) if we weren't already staring at big budget deficits getting even bigger over the next decade. It's sticker shock. It was really ballsy of the Democrats to try to do this now when our economy is in shambles and there is not much hope on the near horizon. But the bet hasn't paid off because they have done an absolutely horrible job selling the bill to an increasingly cost-conscious electorate. It especially doesn't help that the president, House, and Senate haven't even settled on a single list of what should be included or that the justifications for the changes (whatever they end up being) keep shifting.

[Alan "Nordling" Cerny]

Originally Posted by HBarr

So strange. This was never an issue in the past (or was it?).

Also, I hope Anise Parker wins the Mayor race in Houston. Going to a run-off.

Yeah, me too. It would be awesome - for one thing, it wouldn't be because she was gay, but that she was the best candidate, and I think that means more in the long run, that her orientation wasn't a deciding factor for most people.

[HBarr]

Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny

Yeah, me too. It would be awesome - for one thing, it wouldn't be because she was gay, but that she was the best candidate, and I think that means more in the long run, that her orientation wasn't a deciding factor for most people.

Bingo. She's done a fantastic job laying the ground work. Now hopefully she can seal the deal.

[Alan "Nordling" Cerny]

If she wins, maybe people won't think we're backwoods ignorant fucks here in Houston too.

Well, at least for a few days, anyway.

[Ludwig]

Originally Posted by jvc

I don't know where you are getting the idea that Scozzafava is "really right wing." She's nothing of the sort. The Republicans in the state legislature in NY are among the most liberal Republicans in the country. She fell somewhere in the middle of them. For Congress, she would have been more liberal than many of the Democrats. Even that Daily Kos guy called her "the most liberal candidate in the race." And then she dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.

She was selected to run by the party leadership and the party members rejected the pick. And New York, from what I've read, has a history of 3rd parties (Liberal and Conservative) either backing a major party candidate when appropriate or putting up their own candidate when appropriate, as the Conservatives did here. Nothing that novel in that in NY. And once the major endorsements from mainstream Republicans (including moderates like Pataki) started rolling in for Hoffman, he quickly jumped from the mid-teens to winning 46% of the vote. Owens went from the mid 30s to 49% as soon as Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed him (a mirror image of Scozzafava's drop during the same time).

Basically, the Republican party screwed up. They picked the wrong candidate. They dumped almost a million dollars into her campaign, including ads run against Hoffman. Instead of winning, she played spoiler and gift-wrapped the seat for Owens with her endorsement. Now we get to do this the right way with a primary in 2010 that Hoffman is sure to win. Now in a heads-up Owens-Hoffman race next fall, would anyone bet on Owens retaining his seat?

The ONLY liberal things she supported were health care reform (no actual statement about the public option) and a woman's right to choose. If that is more liberal than most Democrats that scares me. Owens isn't liberal really at all; he supports health care, but on every other issue he's pro business (source), so from a progressive standpoint, maybe Dede would have been a better candidate in terms of serving the interests of the public, who knows? Dede had the RNC support before Hoffman was even a name on the map. It was the tea bagging machine that elevated his status to the point it was at. I mean sure, from a strategic standpoint maybe the RNC could have dumped money into his campaign, but that would have been ceding even more control and influence to what is supposed to be a minority group within the party.

I would hope that NY23 residents would be smart enough to not support a candidate like Hoffman, who wasn't concerned in the least about local issues and doesn't even live in that district, but yeah, statistically without Dede still being a factor he might have won. The 5% who voted for her were not guaranteed to vote for Hoffman (protest throw-away votes are FUN). If there was no ability to vote for her, they may have all gone to Owens.

Indeed, it's not like the people who voted for Dede didn't know she wasn't in the race anymore, they were more than likely spiteful supporters of her campaign who saw this as a way to say F.U. to outsiders fucking up their candidate's run.

[jvc]

She's voted several times to raise taxes. She supports card check. She's pro-choice. She's in favor of gay marriage. She's run in the past on the Worker's Family Party, which describes itself as "New York’s liveliest and most progressive political party." And she is reportedly endorsing Andrew Cuomo for governor. There's a reason Kos called her the most liberal candidate in the race.

I don't believe she is in favor of the public option and she is endorsed by the NRA. So she has some conservative leanings. She was definitely more of a Susan Collins/Olympia Snowe Republican.

[Ludwig]

I though the reason was Owens wasn't really a liberal/progressive, and Hoffman was prime wingnut. But yeah, reading all of that, she would have made an excellent rep for that district! I'm not a brand loyalist when it comes to Democrat VS Republican, so had I lived there and she was on the ballot I would have voted for her I think, regardless of the R. She actually sounds way more liberal than Snowe, that's for sure...

[jvc]

Originally Posted by Ludwig

I though the reason was Owens wasn't really a liberal/progressive, and Hoffman was prime wingnut. But yeah, reading all of that, she would have made an excellent rep for that district! I'm not a brand loyalist when it comes to Democrat VS Republican, so had I lived there and she was on the ballot I would have voted for her I think, regardless of the R. She actually sounds way more liberal than Snowe, that's for sure...

You're right. Owens was wishy-washy on gay marriage and not a "movement" progressive. In fact, I read some post-election speculation today that Owens could join up with the Blue Dogs. So Kos's call probably had as much to do with Owens as it did Scozzafava's postions.

[RathBandu]

I really hope Gov. Paterson takes a long hard look at the how and why Corzine lost this year, and reconsiders the White House's request to let Andrew Cuomo run instead. Because ain't no way D Pattz is beating Rudy.

[jvc]

Originally Posted by RathBandu

I really hope Gov. Paterson takes a long hard look at the how and why Corzine lost this year, and reconsiders the White House's request to let Andrew Cuomo run instead. Because ain't no way D Pattz is beating Rudy.

Cuomo will trounce him in the primary anyway. This poll from a few weeks ago had it 61-19 for Cuomo. He does much better in potential general election match-ups too:


Cuomo (D) 50
Giuliani (R) 40

Cuomo (D) 61
Lazio (R) 22

Paterson (D) 38
Lazio (R) 38

Giuliani (R) 54
Paterson (D) 32

[RathBandu]

Yeah, but Cuomo has still been waffling about whether or not he's actually going to run.

[EdHocken]

Originally Posted by RathBandu

Yeah, but Cuomo has still been waffling about whether or not he's actually going to run.

Just like dear old dad.

[jvc]

Originally Posted by EdHocken

Just like dear old dad.

And once again, a Clinton may be the beneficiary of a Cuomo playing Hamlet.

Hillary for Guv!

[EdHocken]

Originally Posted by jvc

And once again, a Clinton may be the beneficiary of a Cuomo playing Hamlet.

Hillary for Guv!

Why you........*shakes fist*

[Pop Zeus]

I think the overriding theme is anti-incumbency, not an anti-Obama specific backlash. Corzine got more votes than his lack of popularity would dictate (Obama actually helped but not enough) and the VA gov Dem candidate kinda sucked and the R candidate didn't.

I love how the NY-23 election, which tea party conservatives tried to nationalize, failed big-time for them. A moderate Republican could've, y'know, won that seat. A Dem hasn't held it since the Civil War.

On a side note, if you don't believe in a progressive tax hike in any possible conceivable circumstance, you are not a moderate, you are a conservative. I'm sick of ideological purists being called moderate.

[reggie-wanker]

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus

the VA gov Dem candidate kinda sucked and the R candidate didn't.

He didn't "kinda" anything. Creigh Deeds was fucking terrible and his failure was earned and then some. This is what happens when the Democratic candidate gives the Democratic base the finger: that finger is reciprocated on election day. The victorious Republican (a graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University) talked about green jobs while standing in front of blue backdrops; the Democrat talked about opting out of national health care reform. The really scary bit is the new fringe-right Republican AG. It's not a good time to be gay or an immigrant in Virginia. (As if it ever was.)

Virginia's 2009 Republicans are even more awful than usual (in a state that tried to send fucking Oliver North to the Senate), but they ran a super-effective campaign. Democrats who ignore this contest or take the wrong lessons away from it ("Deeds' problem was that he wasn't conservative enough!") can look forward to sharing Deeds' pathetic fate.

[Pop Zeus]

Originally Posted by reggie-wanker

He didn't "kinda" anything. Creigh Deeds was fucking terrible and his failure was earned and then some. This is what happens when the Democratic candidate gives the Democratic base the finger: that finger is reciprocated on election day. The victorious Republican (a graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University) talked about green jobs while standing in front of blue backdrops; the Democrat talked about opting out of national health care reform. The really scary bit is the new fringe-right Republican AG. It's not a good time to be gay or an immigrant in Virginia. (As if it ever was.)

Virginia's 2009 Republicans are even more awful than usual (in a state that tried to send fucking Oliver North to the Senate), but they ran a super-effective campaign. Democrats who ignore this contest or take the wrong lessons away from it ("Deeds' problem was that he wasn't conservative enough!") can look forward to sharing Deeds' pathetic fate.

Honestly, I don't know that much about the VA gov race, but what I do know certainly didn't help motivate the D base (like rejecting Obama's health care plan). Also, I had heard that the R candidate ran as a moderate even though he is far from one.

[EdHocken]

I also thought it would be difficult for the Dems to maintain the governorship three times. Would VA voters be willing to go with McCallif(sp?). I'm not so sure.

[Ludwig]

Originally Posted by Pop Zeus

Honestly, I don't know that much about the VA gov race, but what I do know certainly didn't help motivate the D base (like rejecting Obama's health care plan). Also, I had heard that the R candidate ran as a moderate even though he is far from one.

Yeah pretty much. The Democrat in that contest was pretty scummy, but I am not sure they got someone better in his Republican opponent. The thing is, that race got zero attention from the DNCC or any of the feeder groups that quite often raise money for the Democratic apparatus. It's almost like they all decided at one point that he was going to lose no matter what and that was that. I would love to see the fundraising totals the D side pulled in.

[Pop Zeus]

I'm starting to think that if there's any warnings in these results for the President and Congressional Democrats its that if they don't tackle the problems (like unemployment) head on and somewhat fearlessly (not an easy task for a party that leans towards cowardice), they will be out of a job. Republicans will win if Democrats are seen as ineffective leaders, regardless of whether or not they prefer Republicans. Remember, all it takes for Repubs to win is to drive down Dem enthusiasm.

Passing health care is a good thing, but taking forever to get it done isn't so hot either. The by-product to all this slow-as-shit bipartisanship and procedural inertia is that the American people see Bureaucracy and it makes them feel a different kind of despair towards their government. Republicans' ability to execute their policies and agendas would be a positive if Americans actually liked their policies which, when it comes down to it, they really don't.

[Khaunshar]

Interesting how many people now see Republican as the default, if the democrats dont do a good job.
Its all about democrat performance now... if they dont do a good job, people vote Rep out of what, spite?

How did that come to pass? Why does it have to be red/blue everything? There ARE other options if neither is a good pick.

[Pompoussory Estoppel]

Originally Posted by Khaunshar

Interesting how many people now see Republican as the default, if the democrats dont do a good job.
Its all about democrat performance now... if they dont do a good job, people vote Rep out of what, spite?

How did that come to pass? Why does it have to be red/blue everything? There ARE other options if neither is a good pick.

Actually, there aren't.