Republicans lose both Governors races.

Great Debates
21

Not sure why Virginia is seen as a Republican stronghold. We tend to reject the national candidate of the Democratic party. But we often vote in Democrats to House seats and the Governors mansion.

In fact I voted for Tom Kaine myself, and I’m a staunch Republican.

I doubt the Republicans are shaking in their boots.

In the House we have a pretty strong stranglehold. Due to years of Democrat crappiness in getting House members elected it’s going to take years for the Dems to get a lead in the U.S. House again. Obviously it will happen, such is the cycle of history and politics.

But right now the Republicans have 29 (or something like that) more House members than the Democrats. While the entire House is up for election every two years, all of us know that there’s actually not all that many seats up for grabs. Gerrymandering and the power of multi-term incumbents is not to be taken lightly, a “safe” House seat is damn near impossible to wrest away for either party.

A third of the Senate is up for election 2006. The worst thing that could come fo 2006 is the Republicans drop down to a tie with the Dems again or the Dems gain a vote lead on us in the Senate. Although I don’t view that as likely, but I won’t give predictions on the senate until I see which 1/3 of the Senate is up for election. Entrenched Senators are even harder to remove than entrenched House members.

I think you guys are getting a bit too happy, and overestimating how much can ever actually change in a mid term election.

When the polls close in 2006 we’ll still control the House, will still control the White House, will have 2 Bush appointees on the bench, and have a good shot at still controlling the Senate.

22

Well, he *was *elected as the more conservative candidate. It came down to a run-off election between him and the Green Party candidate.

23

It’ll be interesting to see how worried Republicans are by the results.

The 2006 elections will see 17 Democratic seats and 15 Republican seats up for election, plus the independent spot. Jim Jeffords, Mark Dayton and Paul Sarbanes are retiring, Trent Lott may retire, Frist might give up his spot as he runs for President. Jon Corzine’s successor will face an election, I think. Rick Santorum is expected to face a real dogfight. I imagine Bernie Sanders will be the favorite to get Jeffords’s spot, but even if you count him, it sounds like it would be hard for the Dems to pick up seven seats in '06.

24

Democrat here and agree with MH. Governer races have little to do with national issues. I’ve had Dems I voted against and Pubs I voted for. Never seen a Pubbie Pres candidiate I’d vote for. Guvs are not appointing Supremes, not making choices over war. Local issues are different.

It portends little. Now Bush’s low approval ratings, and the sudden appearence of Donkey testicles, them’s good portents. The pendulum has a long way to swing, but maybe it is beginning. Maybe.

25

Well Seid I still the biggest problem with the Democratic party is from what I’ve seen over the past few decades Democrats haven’t actually been very good politicians.

In Congress they’ve been repeatedly “out played” by Republicans for years now. And Bush despite immense criticism was still able to pretty soundly defeat the Democratic nominee.

I think Bob Dole helped our party out in a lot of ways. It was sort of a slap in the face and showed us you can’t get away with nominating really bad candidates (no problem with Bob Dole the man, but as a Presidential candidate he was DOA.)

Bush was a great candidate going into 2000. He was down to earth, had a wide appeal, strong base in Republican strongholds, good chances in lots of the battleground states. On top of that he was a governor, and son of a former President.

Al Gore wasn’t a bad choice, but being a Vice President means how you’re going to look to voters is basically a crapshoot. It’s hard for you to get any credit for the administration’s positive points because everyone knows the VP doesn’t do squat, but it’s paradoxically not that hard to get saddled with the outgoing Administration’s baggage.

Al Gore wasn’t a bad candidate but I think he played his hand badly. The whole Florida fiasco never would have happened if he’d campaigned a little bit more in Tennessee, Arkansas, or West Virginia.

The problem the Democrats have faced since Bush took over is the fact that they don’t present a strong national image. Obviously most of this board views the national image of the GOP in a pretty negative light. But, the rest of the country viewed it positively enough to give Bush a second term.

I think if you ask the average Joe what are the Republican party’s positions on several key issues they’d be able to answer that. I think most people would shrug their shoulders when asked that question about the Democrats.

Even if you disagree with the Republicans, it’s still better to actually have a known political image versus being a party that doesn’t really project ideas or solid stances on issues.

26

Yes. That’s why Cheney’s approval rating is at 19%.

27

He promised the voters of Tennessee that he would serve in the Senate for only two terms. His time will be up in 2006. You don’t think that he would go back on his word, do you?

A very interesting and popular Democratic Congressman, Harold Ford, Jr., has his eyes on that Senate seat. I don’t think it will be long – one way or the other – before he has a lot of national attention.

28

It wouldn’t mean much if Bush hadn’t been campaigning for Kilgore. What this shows is that when the emperor has no clothes, then he has no coattails either.

29

Another sign of Bush’s impact on local races.

30

What coattails did Kaine have? Our next lieutenant governor is going to be a Republican. The AG race is too close to call right now, but could easily go our way.

I think, too, a lesson ought to be drawn here. While this was a good night for Democrats in Virginia, I don’t think it was a great night for liberalism. Warner’s stock rose considerable, and he’s the most moderate Democrat with national stature right now.

Kaine had to run away from many of his previously held liberal views to have any shot at all. He nearly disavowed his personal opposition to the death penalty and promised to sign death warrants. He had to take great pains to not make gun owners any angrier than they were.

Democrats at the national level might have similar success if they similarly moderate their positions.

The Washington Post called these results a victory for centrist leadership. I wouldn’t go so far as that, but they are on to something. It certainly wasn’t an embrace of a liberal agenda by Virginia voters.

31

I’d say its a resounding rejection of neo-conservatism.

32

On this point it should be noted that the voters last night also rejected Arnold’s California propositions across the board. Combined with the rejection of the Intelligent Design school board, Republican ideas faired about as well as Republican people.

I agree with you however that what the Democrats have failed to do is look strong. Or more to the point, be strong. Our leaders have been cowed, and have failed to strenuously defend Democratic principles. Until this year, however, where we have turned back Bush’s number one priority of gutting Social Security, have turned back his Gulf Coast Wage Cut, and have gotten the public behind us against the nuclear option, among other successes.

I would also ask whereforart thou, highly vaunted Republican ideals? Was Terry Schiavo a big plank in the Republican platform? How was gutting Social Security put out there for the voters by Bush during the campaign? No, I’d say the biggest issues the Republicans projected to the voters during the campaign were “the queers are gonna getcha” and “the terrorists are gonna getcha”! As to the former, they’ve been decidedly silent ever since, and as to the latter, well “You’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie.”

33

Now, now, before everyone jumps on the “Republicans are being punished” bandwagon:

In Ohio, Republicans are having their share of woes. Their incumbent governor has admitted to commiting criminal acts (accepting gifts without reporting them), one of the party’s main fundraisers is under federal indictment for bypassing federal campaign spending limits while giving the Bush Re-election campaign substantial money in 2004, and is under further invstigation for defrauding the state of some portion of $50 million in workers’ compensation fund monies entrusted to him for “investment” in rare coins. In addition, several other party notables are either caught up in the campaign funds issue or the investments issue.

So, Democrats thought: “What the hell? Let’s throw four reform measures onto the ballot to try and take some political power away from the Republican machine in Columbus.” Given the troubles the Republicans have, it should be a no-brainer, especially if the people are all for punishing the “neo-conservatives” and so-forth.

The result? All the Democratic reform measures were soundly trounced (about 2:1). The only passing measure? The bond issue sponsored by the Republican governor designed to re-invigorate our moribund economy.

Off-year elections like this are very very difficult to analyze in terms of “trends.” Enjoy it if you like, but don’t draw any significant conclusions from it.

34

Not really. Kilgore is an old style religious right social conservative. I think, in VA, at least, it was more that people were happy with Warner, and what he did with the economy and the budget, and Kaine promised to carry on Warner’s policies, plus Potts probably took some moderate Republican votes away from Kilgore.

35

It seems to me that Democrats keep going out of their way to prove the Republicans’ talking point that the Democrats have no ideas in their party. Look at the way these Governors race victories are being spun. They are largely being characterized as “a repudiation of the Bush administration”. While that’s an interesting theory (and if it floats your boat, you’re welcome to it), I find it interesting that the Democrats would accept this characterization lying down.

By accepting this characterization, the Democrats are admitting that victory for their candidates was not due to the positions or even the popularity of their own candidate, but the unpopularity of our second-term President. One really has nothing to do with the other, but the Democrats seem to be fully behind this portrayal of the election results.

The GOP should be concerned about the losses, and both parties need to do a better job of getting out the vote (especially in Northern Virginia where I live). Only a little over 1/3 of the eligible voters actually voted for our Governor’s race. That’s despicable no matter who won.

36

I don’t think the governor’s races were all that significant; they were already held by Democrats. But one could argue that there was some backlash against Jerry Kilgore’s ugly backwards hateful social conservatism.

Where Republicans felt more stinging rebukes were in California, where Ah-nuld’s propositions were denied, and in Dover, PA, where their citizens dumped all 8 Republican school board members and replaced them with Democrats, because of the Republicans’ idiotic Intelligent Design fiasco. Story. Good for them!

37

I hear the sound of a lot of whistling past the graveyard in this thread. Heh heh.

38

:stuck_out_tongue:<- that’s a link.

39

That’s the best news I’ve heard all week. I wonder how the court case is going to turn out… :smiley:

looks like it won’t matter either way now.

40

I do too. But most of that whistling is coming from Democrats.