What do last nights elections mean

The youth vote at least (4.00 / 2)

Was down by half in Virginia. Creigh Deeds was a profoundly uninspiring candidate who spent most of his time running against the progressive platform he'd cultivated through his actions in past years and capped it off by explicitly running against most of the President's agenda. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

NJ's gone through, I think, 8 governors in 9 years, so they're just kinda weird.

NY 23 should have taught the tea party conservatives a good lesson about purging moderates from the party, but it doesn't seem to have.

There were oodles and oodles of good wins for Dems on the local level, though. CA-10 got a great new progressive congresscritter in a special election and LOTS of downballot pick-ups for Dems, especially in North Carolina. Some disappointing losses in CT I hear, though, and I'm really saddened by the ME loss - SO disappointed OFA and President Obama weren't more in touch with that one. It could've made all the difference.

All in all - I think for Dem/moderate voters, last night was a referendum on bad candidates, particularly for Deeds. In NY-23 I think Scozzafava and Owens were spoiling for each other (I would've gone with Scozzafava - none of them would vote for a public option, but she's pro-choice, pro-EFCA, pro-LGBT, and not afraid of taxes). Plenty of good local Dem wins, especially for progressive Dems, which is what we need.

Conservatives will squeal with glee over the McDonnell and Christie wins, and I saw a few folks on Twitter saying the "conservative/Republican candidates had gotten 50%" ... suddenly Dede Scozzafava's voters are good enough for them.

I'm just hoping the DNC/DCCC get a little more in tune with progressive sentiment in the country. It is possible to be a moderate Democrat without throwing down a heaping glass of Republican Lite kool-aid. I mean geez, at this point I'd even just take 28 Dede Scozzafavas to the fellows trying to hold up the health care bill because of ~ZOMG ABORTION~.

---

by: mediagadfly @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 22:08:01 PM CST

Whoops (0.00 / 0)

I meant the repeal of gay marriage rights in ME, and the conservative/Republican 50% tally is from NY-23.  

---

by: mediagadfly @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 22:09:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A lot of commentators are paid to fill airtime, aren't they? But here's my comments on your points (4.00 / 2)

1- The GOP is nowhere near demise, and was at worst going to become a regional party.  I guess I would quibble that in NY-23, those unhappy with the Democratic nominee had two alternatives - until one of the alternatives ran the other one out of the race.  So it did turn out to be a 2 party system, but apparently more were unhappy with the Conservative party nominee.  If only there had been a Whig candidate...

2- Certainly, many people who were inspired to turn out for Obama last fall were not inspired to turn out to vote for one guy (in Virginia) who was running as fast as he could away from Obama.  Now, in New Jersey, Obama campaigned for Corzine, so you can say that Obama can't get voters to turn out to vote for an incumbent with 30% approval, just based on Obama's say-so.  That may be the definition of short coat-tails.

3- Nothing like a bad economy to raise the voters' pissitivity.  I will once again quibble, I think that politicians will get some credit if they are perceived as really trying - FDR didn't get shut down in 1934 for not reversing all the effects of the Great Depression.  But Obama and the Dems in Congress need to be working for Main Street more than for Wall Street, or 2010 will be ugly for the Democrats.

4- Only if they are obvious.  McDonnell, in Virginia, managed to soft-pedal his right-wing christianist background successfully enough to win.   In King County, Washington, Susan Hutchison's stealth wingnut campaign was unsuccessful not in the least because of exposure by the netroots.

5- See point #2.  Those first time voters were fired up by the possibility of real change, but they are suspicious of phony change.  The Obama administration needs to remember this if they want to get anything done during and after 2010. 

"The War in Iraq is not the disease. The War in Iraq is a symptom. Arrogance is the disease" - Bill Richardson

---

by: herding old cats @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 22:39:26 PM CST

The answer to your 5th point is "no"... (4.00 / 1)

Pres. Obama energized the young, disenfranchised, independence and African Americans because they believe he was a change agent with vision and grit...

We're learn since then with the Health Care debate that he is in my opinion a weak leader that lacks the grit to fight for real change that millions of these independents, young voters and disenfranchised were hoping, even praying for.

Just as importantly, Obama failed to get big enough of a stimulus bill passed to included funds for the 2.5 trillion dollar shove ready road works and infrastructure projects that would definitely have stimulated both public and private economic growth...this will come back to haunt him and congressional democrats in 2010.

The sad thing is, Obama has the votes in Congress to get almost all of the programs he eloquently espoused during the election campaign passed....what people did not realize was he was a pretty good community organizer, but would make for a very weak president.

The democrats will suffer greatly next year because they had their chance, and failed America.
They failed in 1993 because former KKK member Senator Byrd of WV wouldn't allow reconciliation on Health Care, and they will fail in 2009 and 2010 because community organizer Barack Obama will not press for reconciliation either.

Democrats can't blame the repugs this time...they did it to themselves.  

---

by: BlueSeeingRed @ Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 22:56:19 PM CST

I think this means nothing for the dems except (4.00 / 1)

1. GET BETTER CANDIDATES
2. CAMPAIGN ON A MORE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA SIMILAR TO OBAMA'S

---

by: melmel @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 08:13:26 AM CST

I totally agree with "it's the economy, stupid" (4.00 / 1)

Also, the National Dems would like to think all the folks who voted for Obama last November are now Democrats. We saw the flaw in that thinking on Tuesday.

Some folks from the non-functional MCDEC analyzed the results from last November and while Obama won, the local Dems did not, because the folks who voted for Obama DID NOT vote for any other Democrat; in fact, in many cases they did not vote for another candidate period. Voted for Obama & turned in their ballots. I'm not prepared to say that's a national phenomenon, but I'm willing to bet it happened in at least some other counties/states as well.

So while Obama may have a mandate, I'm not sure the Democratic Party does.

"I know the world isn't fair, but why isn't it ever unfair in my favor?" - Calvin/Bill Watterson

---

by: mpmarus @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 09:40:37 AM CST

Yes, republicans are cheering the results. I know why. (4.00 / 1)

Because there has been nothing for them to cheer in so effing long that they will take half a loaf gladly,  or even a few crumbs.

1. NJ- Corzine has zip approval ratings and is seen as corrupt. (Even by New Jersey standards). The shocker is that the millions he spent were not enough to win for him. He was a sicky candidate!

2. Deeds was a hard-charging progressive who pushed out McCaullife, because he energized the left-center part of the party.  As soon as the primary was over, he ran hard to the Conservative wing of the party and lost.  He never asked for or got any coattail effect from Obama, because he opposed everything Obama stands for.  So he lost the left and never had a chance to gain on the right, because the gopper was an anti-feminist right wingnut.

3. In NY23, The tea bagging wing of the regional rump oarty, got their asses handed to them, despite the support of the All Star Team of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Armey, etc.  Common sense won in NY23. Mostly the common sense of the real republican candidate and her followers.

4.  The vote in Maine was certainly a loss, but not a loss for the Democrats.  No it was a loss for the human race.  As a race, we suck!  The Catholic Church continues to be the strongest advocate of bigotry in the world.  Thetre should be an immediate investigation into the Portland Archdiocese for their unconstitutional and illegal political involvement in this referendum.  The Mormons in California and the Catholics in Maine are the best argument for separation of church and state. Both organizations should lose their tax-exempt status immediately, but neither will.

5.  Is the Democratic Party in trouble?  Yes!  A resounding yes!  An allegory, if I may.  When the schoolyard bully struts up to a large group of students in the playground and starts threatening them, the appropriate action is to say "Screw you. There are twenty of us and one of you. STFU!". If, on the other hand, the group tries to placate the bully by giving up certain unpopular members of the group, like the gays, the foreign-born, the females, and the minorites, the bully is energized and will soon control the whole effing schoolyard.

Welcome to America under minority conservative rule!

No, I do not think it will happen, but Prop. 8 and now Prop. 1, have shown what is possible. Add in all the votes and State laws limiting abortion rights, all the attempts to harden our stance against immigrants, and the obvious remnants of segregated schools throughout the South (and other regions), and you can get a pretty good idea of a truly Fascist America, if the right gets its way.

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead  

---

by: piggieheart @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:44:03 AM CST

A very thoughtful and (rare) nonpartisan analysis (4.00 / 1)

1. I'm not so sure about that.  While the GOP did gain a couple of races, they appeared to be against candidates that a ham sandwich in a red tie could have beaten.  I don't think any realistic Democrat thought they were going to win those.

2. Obama wasn't the issue, according to the exit polls, and I see no reason why any Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) should be able to ride on anyone's coattails but their own.  I never voted for Sen. Sessions based on anything that President Bush did.

3. I agree with you here.

4. Amen.

5. If the trend follows as usual, then no.  Mid-term elections are never as big as the presidential election years.  Of course, this could also entirely depend on whether or not a particular state/municipality is having a particularly interesting election that year.  The possibility of electing Alabama's first black governor might have just enough gimick to it to bring out a larger-than-normal crowd down here.

---

by: Almoderate @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 11:30:55 AM CST