Fact

14 Responses to “Fact”

1. The OG DG writes
   November 4th, 2009 8:52 am

   Nice try.

2. Matthew Hurtt writes
   November 4th, 2009 8:59 am

   Haha. That’s funny.

   60-40 in Virginia isn’t a mandate? NJ is overwhelmingly Dem, Corzine spent millions and what? Well, last time I checked, only 2% of cemetaries had reported.

   Big win last night for Republicans.

3. SayUncle writes
   November 4th, 2009 9:01 am

   Apparently, there was some race no one paid attention to in Cali that broke that trend.

4. Tom Paine writes
   November 4th, 2009 9:02 am

   So, ACK, you’re arguing that if the Republican had STAYED in the race in NY-23, the Democrat wouldn’t have won?

   On what are you basing that “fact”?

   And Matthew, at this point, any win at this point is a big win for the Republicans.

5. JD writes
   November 4th, 2009 9:03 am

   Hunh? Whatchu talking about, Willis? Did the Republicans win ANY race for national office? The Democrats won NY-23 and CA-10. Granted, the Republicans had a very good night overall, given the party’s sorry state these days, but let’s not get carried away . . .

   The Democrats now have one additional member of Congress (in NY-23), and another one (in CA-10) who is likely to be more progressive than his predecessor, Ellen Tauscher.

6. Sean Braisted writes
   November 4th, 2009 9:11 am

   Uncle,

   Good point. California 10th was ignored because nobody expects Republicans to pick up Democratic congressional districts.

7. GoldnI writes
   November 4th, 2009 9:19 am

   Fact: Even without an (R) by his name, he was still the chosen candidate of Sarah Palin and her wing of the party. It just shows that given the choice between a moderate and a tea-bagger, the moderate wins regardless of party.

8. TNVolunteer73 writes
   November 4th, 2009 10:07 am

   JD.. no the republicans won the same races they won in 1993, by ~ the same or > margin of victory.

   We know what happened in 1994 Massive losses by the Democrats in the House and senate.

   They also won the same races that were won by the Democrats in 2005, by the ~ same margin of victory or larger as the Democrat had in 2005. And we know what happened in 2006. Massive losses by the GOP in the house and senate

   These are Bell Weather races.

   Other races have been close and teh following year there have been small or no changes in the Senate and house races.

9. JoeP. writes
   November 4th, 2009 10:28 am

   Bellwether: “The term is derived from the Middle English bellewether and refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a castrated ram (a wether) leading its flock of sheep.”

10. JD writes
    November 4th, 2009 10:39 am

    TNVol,

    I guess that is true, as long as you ignore:

    (A) Every election for national office that happened last night. [at the end of 1993, both NY-23 and CA-10 were held by Republicans, and both were won by republicans in 1994. In 2009, both NY-23 and CA-10 are now held by democrats, so what lesson are we to draw again?]

    (B) The fact that NONE of these offices were up for grabs in 1993 or 1995, so I am not even sure what exactly what you are talking about. For instance, there was no governor’s race in NJ or VA in 1993.

    That said, I was not arguing against the underlying point I think that you or Say Uncle would like to make. I am just calling y’all out for making stuff up.

    The point on which I agree is that Democrats ought to pay attention to the fact that Republicans were apparently way more energized, and their voter turnout operations correspondingly more effective, in both VA and NJ. If that pattern continues across the country in 2010, the Democrats will be in trouble.

    I take a different lesson from that, I suspect, than you do. If I were a power broker for the Democrats, I would go left, rather than centrist, with my candidates and public statements, because 2010 is going to be about energizing the Democratic base against the already-energized teabaggers.

11. dontcallmemikey writes
    November 4th, 2009 10:53 am

    JD - you’re correct. Democrats need to remember that EVERY election matters, not just one or two. Corzine was unpopular, Deeds wasn’t much — BUT, the turnout for Democrats doesn’t seem to have been there, either. Keep focused, and - as you said - go progressive.

12. The OG DG writes
    November 4th, 2009 10:57 am

    Vol, you and Uncle were yelling “RINO” in the middle of a crowded theater, and Hoffman became the cause celebre among the tea party crowd.

    I think there are some pretty good lessons for serious Republicans to take from last night’s elections: like Christie and McDonnell, run as pragmatic problem solvers who are better skilled to address local (”parochial”) concerns though effective budget oversight. Neither were stupid enough to run against Obama (or “Pelosi/Reid”). Instead they made strong cases that they would be better than the other guy at governing the state, particularly on taxes and fiscal issues.

    Ranting about socialism is a loser. Being a what you guys call a “RINO” is much more likely to bring success.

    I’d be concerned about last night if it weren’t for the fact that the tea party types will figure out how to screw everything up.

13. JD writes
    November 4th, 2009 11:20 am

    Fact checking myself: Just looked up the data, and I was wrong as to the VA/NJ governors races in 1993. Looks like that is the year Whitman and George won those elections; sorry about the misstatement. In any event, as I had said, I agree that there are lessons to be learned from those two elections last night . . .

14. Snuffy writes
    November 4th, 2009 11:50 am

    TNVol, if last night were “Bell Weather” races (and that’s a BIG if) for 2010, then here is what we know:

    1) In the federal elections for Congress, the Democrats will have the momentum. Not only did the Dems win in solidly Republican districts last night, they also did it while supporting healthcare reform and mild support for the public option. Once the legislation has passed by 2010, we can count on Democrats using GOP opposition against them in the campaigns with probable success - even in swing districts.

    2) In the Governor’s races, Republicans have the momentum, but ONLY if they are moderate Republicans. This is not unexpected as traditionally it has been moderates on both sides of the aisle who tend to win governor’s races. Should right-wing candidates manage to end up at the top of the GOP ticket - people like say, Zach Wamp or Ron Ramsey - they risk losing what should be safe GOP wins.

    3) In both federal or state level races, the right-wing Teabagger Nation has not helped the Republican Party win elections. In fact, the GOP fratricide is what handed the Democrats NY-23 last night.

    4) Based on all the exit polls in all the races in all the states that happened yesterday, President Obama was not a factor that helped or hurt any candidates of either party. All evidence shows that the economy, jobs, and healthcare are the primary concern of voters - not the stimulus, not Nancy Pelosi, not Barack Obama, not “socialized medicine” scares.

    This is the landscape facing both parties in 2010 IF you assume that last night was a bellwether.