So the Dems increased their already sizable majority in the House, by winning in a former GOP stronghold, and the take-away message should be that Dems are in trouble and should stop their current initiatives? They’ve won every federal level race since Obama was elected (granted, not a huge sample size), and so people must be angry at Obama?
I really think the idea that governorship races reflect the feeling of the electorate about the current Administration is grasping at straws. Especially in the case of Corzine, who was unpopular before Obama was elected.
I think the only real message one can take from last night is that the country still has a couple years to go until public opinion moves enough to the pro-side on the gay-marriage issue.
Ironically, that’s strikingly similar to the argument that Conservatives make in pushing the Republican party to the right. In fact it’s exactly the same argument. Energize the base! Bring out droves of Silent Majority who normally don’t show up because you’re not conservative enough!
I suppose you think it’s a good idea for them as well.
All the fag-bashing referendums got Bush reelected in 2004, so tactically it has been effective for them. Hate is always a very effective political tool – maybe the most effective – and the GOP has used it to great success since the advent of Reagan and the Moral Majority.
The problem is that the Democrats don’t do hate very well. They haven’t cultivated any target groups like GLBT people or Mexican laborors to blame all of the nation’s problems on and turn out the rubes with the pitchforks. They try to be Rodney King all the time, which inspires nobody.
Maybe they could load up the ballots with legalized pot referendums. Liberals are mostly all for that, and it could turn out normally lackadaisical potheads. The hard part will be getting the potheads to remember to go vote.
North Carolina has a similar law, in which incumbent governors ar limited to two consecutive terms. But Jim Hunt and Jim Martin, swapping off, together served over a quarter century, two four-year terms at a time, each with the other replacing him when he was debarred from being re-elected, then running again after a term or twk out of office had elapsed.
Cap and trade has already passed the House, so that’s moot. And I predict that the House HCR bill will pass, sometime this month, looking pretty much like what Pelosi outlined the other day.
Were these issues in the two gubernatorial races? I don’t think there’ll be any change at all on those issues based on the outcome of these races.
I know Republicans, and to some extent the media, think that any outcome of any event is good for Republicans, but it just ain’t so. Maybe the impact of the outcome of the Virginia elections feels more meaningful to you, but it’s really pretty shrugworthy to everyone else, which will be evident very soon.
The Virginia governor’s race, in particular, can be seen as evidence for the opposite outcome: Deeds lost by running from liberal positions and trying to court older more conservative democrats. AS noted by MyDD:
So, why should it change anything about the public option?
As a 50 year resident of what’s now NY-23, Sam has it right. Those counties are normally moderate Republican territory. They’re strong on defense, somewhat fiscally conservative, mildly socially liberal, and dislike extremism, at either end of the spectrum, strongly. It takes some effort to make any of them go Democratic, but they will if the Republican is too far right for their taste. I actually had personal dealings with Dede when I was working for the state; she’s a typical moderate Republican from a small town, willing to work with the party and not rock the boat for the most part. What she did was very much in character – faced with a losing battle and the potential that she could “be a spoiler” to hand the seat over to a hardline rightist, she withdrew and endorsed the Democrat.
It’s exactly the same argument. But the strength of the argument depends on a number of things, like the relative sizes of the bases, and how well the changes the respective party’s bases are pushing for will play with the broader electorate in the next Presidential year.
If there were a way to design a working bet on the proposition, I’d bet a good deal of money that the more ‘progressive’ the HCR bill that ultimately passes is, the better it will sell with the overall electorate. The stronger a public option, the better; the higher the subsidies for lower and middle class families, the better; and so forth.
And in general, the Dem base seems to be about policy solutions for real problems, be it health care, climate change, gay rights, families getting foreclosed on, whatever. You may agree or disagree with their policy prescriptions, but they’re trying to solve problems, and moderate voters are likely to find that a good deal more reassuring than the GOP base’s screams that OBAMA WILL BRING THE APOCALYPSE DOWN ON US!!!11! OH NOES!!, especially since that’s about all that that base brings to the table.
I hope that explains why I think it’s a more effective strategy on the Dem side than on the GOP side.
What it looks like to me is a typical off-year election. The Democrats gained a seat in the House, “everything but marriage” passed in WA. The Republicans won a couple governorships, defeated gay marriage in Maine. I can’t possibly see how anyone can spin something out of this.
Besides, given the disastrous crises which Obama inherited from Bush II, and a clearly depressed non-white turnout, how could one possibly expect Obama’s party to gain much? But, they did gain a little in the House.
Eh, I read it once. I don’t have the time to wade through all the post-election stuff to get to a cite for a bit of arcane knowledge that has become irrelevant at this point. Sorry. If I come across something I’ll send it to you.
