With Republican Bob McDonnell winning big in Virginia, and incumbent Democratic Gov. John Corzine apparently headed to defeat in New Jersey, Republicans are loudly pitching the election as a referendum on President Barack Obama.
Well, uh, not so much…
Chuck Todd reports that Barack Obama’s approval rating among Virginia voters stands at 51 percent (just under the 52.6 percent of the vote he received in the state last November) and 57 percent in New Jersey (almost exactly the same as the 57.1 percent of the vote he earned in that state last November). In other words, exit polling indicates President Obama has not really lost supporters over the past year.
Apparently, exit polls in both Virginia and New Jersey both have voters denying that their vote had anything to do with Obama. But, you know, if that’s what it takes for goopers to get themselves through the day, more power to ’em.
Yessir libs! You commie wannabes just got yer ass kicked!!!
Go GOP in ’10!!!
Bwahahahahahahhaaaaa!!!!!
The big problem in Virginia was that the Deomcrats ran a conservative Democrat who tried to play Republican-lite. He lost big. The big lesson here is that if Democrats try to play Republican-lite their base stays home. Maybe the Senators and our esteemed representatives will figure out that they need to serve the people on health care instead of the insurance companies or Democrats will lose big next cycle.
As for NY-23, a Republican district since the Whig party looks like it may go Democratic because the Tea Baggers attacked a moderate Republican and ran her off the ballot.
I don’t think this is a ringing endorsement of conservatism by any means
Hey Goldy,
Of course you’re gonna spin it the best you can. Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm made trips to multiple VA and NJ over the last few weeks while great men died in Afghanistan. Also, everyone who thinks on their feet know Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm decided to hold off on his Afghanistan troop levels so he DIDN’T pizz off his lunatic progressive fringies to give Corzine and Deeds a chance.
Dummocrapts control NJ, BIG TIME. NJ corruption which Puddy brought to HA Libtardos months before was high on voters thoughts. Did you see the CNN poll where 63 percent of those questioned say things are still going badly in America.
Virginia voters are essentially split, according to early CNN Exit Poll data, with 50 percent of voters saying they do not approve of the way President Obama is doing his job.
You Traitorcrats just got you ASSES handed to you in NJ and VA! Eat shit and die you scum! THe referendum on OBAMA is in and it ain’t good!
@ 2~ You realize your dumbass just contradicted yourself right?
You want Democrats to be solid Democrats, and not Republican’s lite in order to win elections.
Yet Conservatives, in your opinion, should have voted for a Democrat lite in NY 23.
You can guess where you can shove your advice, dude.
What? Dede Scozzafava
She was ACORN supported. Dede and her husband dabbled for years in the Working Families Party, co-chaired by ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis. Dede won the support of the state’s largest teacher’s union. Dede’s husband is a leading regional labor official in NYS. Then she says vote for Owens. She wasn’t a Republican at all.
Puddy glad ex-CEO Corzine spent up to $30 Million of his own Goldman Sucks money. Also Corzine used Christie’s weight in campaign commercials. Another disgusting progressive libtardo.
Hey puttybutt
Looks like the Dem’s are taking NY-23
http://www.politico.com/
Oh and I loved your halloween costume.
http://costumezone.com/images/.....ac1101.gif
Actually I think I spoke too soon on NY-23. The numbers now look like Hoffman will pull it out in the end though it is still 49-44 for Owens, a conservative Democrat. Frankly, whether or not the Conservative party candidate wins here is not a big deal as the Democrats do not need another conservative Blue Dog anyway.
Before people get to celebrating too much this would be like the Democrats eeeking out a victory in WA-7.
Well, Puddy, you and your ilk just stroke yourself silly over this. You need something to offset last fall. And congratulations on the victories.
But remember that if all you intellectuals that are calling us “commie scum”, and “traitors”, and all the other the other wretched excess, lose your asses next time around, there will be lots of people here who will remember all of your grandiose predictions and will be happy to revisit it.
And you do not do “humility” very well, much less enforced humility. None of us do.
By 3 weeks from now I will be long gone, but I will be only a few routers away from adding my snickers to your embarrassment.
Enjoy!
Apparently, exit polls in both Virginia and New Jersey both have voters denying that their vote had anything to do with Obama. But, you know, if that’s what it takes for goopers to get themselves through the day, more power to ‘em.
————–
Actually, if this gets you through the day, Goldy. Voters are responding to a variety of issues, including the economy, the perception that the administration has bailed out Wall Street to the detriment of Main Street, and growing doubts about big government. In a matter of months Afghanistan will get added to the list.
Obama promised change, and voters, fairly or unfairly, are asking where it is. They like the man personally, but are thinking more and more, big hat, no cattle.
The election results are a warning of what will happen in 2010 if the administration doesn’t begin to deliver.
Hey MarkS (S for syphillis, shit, stupid or slut)
Whatever strokes your brain when you pick your nose. We’ll see about NY-23.
Could it be that voters were responding to *GASP* the candidates in front of them? I realize all these other factors play in, but this was not about Obama except for perhaps Democrats staying home because there were no progressives on the ballot.
We had a Goldman Sachs exec in NJ (great year for that!), a Conservative Democrat in Virginia, and a district that has elected Republicans for 100 years.
I realize this is not the place for rational analysis but hey, why not try?
Without gloating, there is a traditional American response to one party having too much influence. The party in control is expected to perform, and Obama, for all his “saved or created jobs,” hasn’t.
One possible electoral exception is FDR, who traded on fear to make us smaller in spirit, smaller in stature and less of a great nation. He redefined government and our relationship to it, for the worse. Instead of proud and self reliant working people he helped make a substantial minority of us whining beggars unable and unwilling ot lift a finger for their own needs. Nevertheless, his fearmongering worked, and he won handily in his second term elections. Sadly and to our lasting harm.
Oddly, the progressives have been right about interpreting these wins, in my humble oponinion. Democrats have the whip hand and should use it for the time they do. I don’t know if big 2010 wins are in the cards for Republicans, the status quo is held, or more power goes to the Dems. I suppose a lot depends on how the economy and foreign wars are going.
More depends on whether either the Republicans or the Democrats find a voice for what and how they believe. People respect someone who values his or her convictions enough to stand or fall by them. Sort of the opposite of our current president, really.
Either way, failing to see this as a referendum on current leadership is simple spin, and nothing else. Well, maybe a dash of wishful thinking too.
Without gloating, there is a traditional American response to one party having too much influence. The party in control is expected to perform, and Obama, for all his “saved or created jobs,” hasn’t.
One possible electoral exception is FDR, who traded on fear to make us smaller in spirit, smaller in stature and less of a great nation. He redefined government and our relationship to it, for the worse. Instead of proud and self reliant working people he helped make a substantial minority of us whining beggars unable and unwilling ot lift a finger for their own needs. Nevertheless, his fearmongering worked, and he won handily in his second term elections. Sadly and to our lasting harm.
Oddly, the progressives have been right about interpreting these wins, in my humble oponinion. Democrats have the whip hand and should use it for the time they do. I don’t know if big 2010 wins are in the cards for Republicans, the status quo is held, or more power goes to the Dems. I suppose a lot depends on how the economy and foreign wars are going.
More depends on whether either the Republicans or the Democrats find a voice for what and how they believe. People respect someone who values his or her convictions enough to stand or fall by them. Sort of the opposite of our current president, really.
Either way, failing to see this as a referendum on current leadership is simple spin, and nothing else. Well, maybe a dash of wishful thinking too.
Ok, so two governor seats go to Republicans taking out a Goldman Sachs executive and a Conservative Democrat.
The two congressional races, one in a rock-solid Republican stronghold and the other a swing district both go to Democrats.
So what I hear you arguing is that state races equal a referendum on Obama but races for Congress are meaningless local affairs?
I realize all these other factors play in, but this was not about Obama except for perhaps Democrats staying home because there were no progressives on the ballot.
———
This is a false issue that Goldy raised. Voters for the most part are voting on critical issues such as the economy, and tossing out incumbents who either haven’t performed or kept promises. The Dems will suffer in 2010 if we dip into another recession as some are projecting, employment remains high (as others are projecting), and other burning issues move front and center. If you think Obama and Dems in general will skate through this, especially after all of the bold promises that were made, you’re in for a surprise. And FYI, Obama has slipped badly among independents, who proved pivotal in 2008. He will lose even more of them unless things improve.
Contests serve as warning to Democrats: It’s not 2008 anymore
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....id=topnews
Not so much that Congressional races don’t matter, Nindid. A real anger was felt by the voters in 08, and Republicans got what they deserved. To say they were entirely at fault is simplistic, but they were in charge and were held responsible.
People like me are who the Repblicans need to convince in 2010 and 2012. Just as liberal leaning swing voters are the target audience for Democrats. The way to do this is to honestly articulate the vision either has for the country, and let the chips fall where they may. They need to specifically say what they plan to do and how they plan to do it. This will also energize the base of either party, mobilizing them to participate in elections campaigns and to vote. Neither party has the guts to do that just now, and both have suffered for it.
As far as Obama goes he is personally liked in polls. This is understandable, as he’s a consumate politician capable of acting whatever part he believes is necessary for power. When you look at his performance on specific issues he doesn’t rate nearly so highly though. This is an expression of the state of mind of voters, and should be a warning bell to Democrat leadership. One, which for my part I hope they ignore, but that is strictly partisan.
lost: “One possible electoral exception is FDR, who traded on fear to make us smaller in spirit, smaller in stature and less of a great nation. He redefined government and our relationship to it, for the worse. Instead of proud and self reliant working people he helped make a substantial minority of us whining beggars unable and unwilling ot lift a finger for their own needs.”
What history texts are you reading, lost? FDR brought this country through the two greatest tests it has faced; your texts might have mentioned, at least in passing, the Great Depression and WWII. And, he did it in a manner that fundamentally changed this country for the better–racial equality started to actually become a value then, though such has surely still not been reached. You are, I’m guessing, a well-off, white, straight male. I can understand how you pine for the days of yesteryear. Obama has been handed a country in crisis almost on the par of what FDR faced–two wars sapping our strength, an economy shot to hell, and you folks on the right want to blame him. Go for it, guys, the world has passed you by.
My texts did mention, in passing, WW2. To his credit FDR let the military leaders run the war as military needs dictated. Crdit where credit is due.
I am white, male and hetorosexual. I’m well off through hard work, discipline and denial of transitory satisfaction for long term goals. My parents were poor, and neither was college educated. I don’t say this to take anything away from them, they were wonderful parents. I say it to demonstrate a point. Success is a choice.
The claim about an FDR push to racial equality simply doesn’t hold water. Military units were segrated under FDR, with so called colored units pulling the dirtiest and most dangerous jobs. Civil rights movements may have begun to gain strength under him, but certainly not due to him.
Other than his status as a civil rights icon what exactly did FDR do to change this country for the better? Social Security? Most financial advisers will tell you that just about any private investment will perform better than the taxes paid to Social Security and yield a better retirement income.
A compassionate society? Maybe, if social engineering to produce people incompetent to care for themselves is compassionate. Personally I don’t raise my kids to avoid the consequences of their choices. It feels good in the short term, but is bad parenting whose end result is a poorly adjusted adult. This is the objection I have to social programs that remove the stigma from bad personal choices; societal or financial. Quite apart, that is, from a purely selfish objection to paying for the needs of someone for whom I have no responsibility.
Any comparison to the situation FDR faced with that Obama does and did is simply silly and ignores history. The Depression was severe in a way the current recession is not, by any economic marker. This doesn’t excuse FDR. Bad times should bring out principle, not cause it to be compromised. WW2 was, I don’t know, A WORLD WAR. Comparing it to either Iraq or Afganistan or the two combined is simply idiotic. I don’t blame Obama for situation the country was in when he took office. I do for the situation it’s going to be in when his irresponsible reckless and financially inexcusable spending has to be paid for. I do blame him for being completely unready and unable to perform his job.
By the way, the irony of the ultimate fearmonger saying “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” is not lost on me. Nor do I think it was on that bastard FDR.
lost…you da man. Thank you for saying, in a clear and eloquent way, what many of us are thinking.
@20
And let’s not forget the internment camps – Japanese only – I think those were mentioned in the textbooks along with the depression and WWII. And it’s not clear what “FDR brought us through WWII” means. Another president wouldn’t have, despite our overwhelming production capacity compared against that of our adversaries? And whether FDR finally brought us out of the depression or WWII did is highly debatable.
what a lousy thesis….the point is the blue dog conservadems will see this and realize, wow, obama gets the nod in my state too, but that’s not me is it, they will get scared and they will not want a strong public option and anyway they’re going to get hit next year because duh they are not obama!
it’s cold comfort to them to know they can lose while obama keeps his overall positive approval numbers. obama isn’t on the freaking ticket next year, that’s why this is a lousy dumb thesis.
if he can’t carry someone like corzine in fucking new jersey god knows he can’t carry conservadems in purply states.
Rasmussen had Christie by 3 points and McDonnell by 13.
Proof AGAIN about the #1 Poll for accuracy.
RASMUSSEN!
Goldy is funnin’ us about Obama.
The Dems are very worried.
It’s this bad only 9-1/2 months into Obama’s failed Administration.
NJ and Virginia are very important to his re-election.
Watch the Rasmussen polls.
Goopers? I thought it was goobers.
Predictably, Mr Cynical ignores reality while concocting his latest cartoonish thesis.
Our HA village idiot spends all his waking hours reminding Seattle voters what a corrupt capitalist sleeze Corzine is…then the voters catch on – and he blames Obama.
I still can’t tell if Mr Cynical is a psychotic righty, or clever lefty. Total toss-up.
AH. The SECOND Cynical has arrived.
As in the 4 cynicals of the Apocalypse.
I think it’s time to quarantine Patmos. Or the sewer system.
X’ad and other HA Libtardos…
It’s the economy stupid. Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm claimed the Porkulus bill would create 3 million jobs. Uhhhhh nope. We’ve lost 3 million jobs since Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm became preznit. All those grandiose speeches. All that continual air time for Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm. Mrs Puddy asked last night where did all the Porkulus money go. Puddy said good question. Peeps are beginning to see through the smoke and the mirror reflection is pretty.
Also the world is now realizing Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm is weak on the foreign stage. After the World Wide Weeping April Apology Affair (WWW AAA – look that up ylb arschloch), where he offered his open palm. Russia slugged back and has said Nyet to more Iranian sanctions. The Iranians slapped back and have said No to the foreign uranium processing. Sarkozy is right in his assessment of Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm.
Great men are dying in Afghanistan because he’s taking a military decision and making it into a political decision. Well the progressive whackamoles didn’t help Corzine or Deeds last night. How many have withered while Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm dithered?
Hey ButtPutty @30,
You sound a bit bitter this morning. The election didn’t go so well for you, did it?
ButtPutty @30,
I especially like the phrase “Great men are dying in Afghanistan”. One might forget that “great men” have been dying there for years, and that the war there was a war of choice of the Bush/Cheney administration.
Go hump your goat. That is what you are really expert at, you freak.
ButtPutty @30,
Ah, those were the days. The Reich could march arm in arm together and denounce as unpatriotic any suggestion that war was a bad idea. Remember the Dixie Chicks? Freedom Fries? Waving the (made in China) American flags? And, oh yes, don’t forget, “paying” for the war off budget.
Oh, them was the good old days. You should be proud.
Gee, it’s amazing to see posters who claim to be moderate Republicans yet attack FDR’s legacy, saying it turned us into a bunch of whiners.
If they were to attack Johnson’s War on Poverty, at least then we could have a rational discussion. I still wouldn’t agree with them, but at least it would be based upon a rational discussion.
But to attack FDR as creating what the conservatives argue is a “welfare state?” Not likely!
FDR inherited a completely broken economy which had to be re-built from the ground up. It had to start with the banking system, imposing the “bank holidays” so that the FDIC system could get up and running, restoring confidence in the banking and financial system. (Not unlike the challenge faced by the Obama administration, except not QUITE so bad).
The FDR tried to appease the Republican businesspeople by concentrating on what the businesspeople saw as the next biggest culprit – deflation. This led to the National Recovery Act and the creation of numerous governmental agencies in each industry with the goal of stabilizing prices and standards. But this was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Schecter Poultry case), and a showdown with the court. The NRA was probably a bad program, but it did help restore some level of confidence in the economy, as people began to quit hording cash in the expectation that things were going to get better.
But even as FDR was heading to a showdown with the court (which ended in the “Switch in Time Which Saved Nine”, the jobs-creation programs came on line.
The jobs-creation progams had the biggest effect on the economy. It invested in the infrastructure of the nation, while giving rewards only to those who were willing to work. The Tennessee Valley Authority, the Rural Electric programs, the CCC, the building of the U.S. highway system, etc. all provided benefits which we still enjoy today, while providing well-paying jobs to those who wanted to work.
It didn’t take long for the benefits of these programs to be felt in a big way. Not only were the wages a welcome benefit to the families and the local economy, but the infrastructure developments proved of immense value in WWII. The hydroelectric projects (especially in East Tennessee and Western Washington) provided the large amounts of electricity which produced enough aluminum to build airplanes in far greater numbers than our enemies could fathom – the term “alumnimum overcast” was used to describe the immense flights of B-17’s over Germany in the final year of that war, and in the Pacific a few thousand-plane air raids were made before the war came to an end.
The availability of cheap electric power allowed the construction of uranium enrichment plants, producing the uranium-based bomb in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the plutonium bomb in Hanford, Washington. German scientists had early in their nuclear programs rejected the enrichment methods used by the Manhattan project because they couldn’t fathom having the amount of electric power available for such a project.
If America had waited until Dec. 7th, 1941 to start these large hydroelectric projects, the dams themselves wouldn’t have been created until late 1941, at the earliest, and at a considerable expense to the material and manpower requirements of the rest of the war effort.
But the Republicans continued to fight against these programs during the 1930’s, and even now try to argue that they were ineffective and harmful, dangerously increasing our national debt. They even fought bitterly against spending money on the creation of a Philipino Army, insisting that no money be spent unless it could be paid for from already available government funds. This logjam wasn’t broken until a sugar tax was enacted (I think Sept. 1941), putting the first Philipino soldiers into training camps in November 1941 – obviously, a bit too late.
But why would the Republicans hate job creation programs? Was it really concern over the mounting national debt?
The answer was found on the local level. Each local area contained businessmen who profited from cheap manual labor. They wanted wages to remain low, even if prices were low also. They wanted to maintain a monopoly on local utilities, even if they refused to serve rural areas. Thugs were hired to run charity workers out of town and break up their soup kitchens, because they felt only starving people would be motivated to work for the meagre wages they were operated. Thugs also beat workers hired to install electric lines for the Rural Electrical Cooperative program, in an attempt to preserve the local monopoly. In both cases, attempts were made to stir up opposition to the workers in the jobs programs by claiming they were communists.
Remember the democrats attacking rush?
All that did was increase his audience.
Remember the democrats attacking beck?
All that did was increase his audience.
Remember the democrats attacking fox?
All that did was increase their ratings.
Puddy @ 30 said:
It’s called civilian control of the military. The civilian government establishes national policy, not the military. I thought even you would have understood that by now.
Obama’s decision must be based upon three basic strategic decisions: (a) Is it in our national interest to ensure the survival of the current government of Iraq? (b) How is that best accomplished – by adding U.S. troops, modifying their mission, or by reducing them? (c) Can any U.S. involvement produce a desirable result, or are we just pissing into the wind?
Once those decisions are made, then the military can be giving a task to perform. If we decide that no strategic U.S. interests are at stake in Afganistan, or that reducing the U.S. presence will have a better result than increasing them, or that no U.S. intervention can change Afganistan, then Obama should begin a strategic withdrawal.
If, however, it is decided that U.S. strategic interests are at stake, that increasing U.S. troops will advance those strategic interests, and that they can have the desired effect, then Obama should increase U.S. troops in Afganistan.
A deliberate and careful analysis is certainly the best way to go. At the very least, it’s much better than the previous administration, which gave the U.S. military a mission to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power (which they performed very well), only to have no plan in place to secure weapons arsenals, provide for the occupation of a country which is in a state of perpetual civil war, and no exit strategy. That’s a perfect example of a political failure, rather than a military one.