Republicans Take NJ & Virginia Governor Races

[DerFish]

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

Thats odd.. considering how just a couple weeks ago you posted an article that said this.

What is odd about it? Obama team spent significant time with the candidate's campaign. It just didn't work out too well. For the Democrats sake, if they plan on using administration resources they better hope they do it in a less amatuerish way than they did with Deeds.

[oblioman]

Originally Posted by DerFish

What is odd about it? Obama team spent significant time with the candidate's campaign. It just didn't work out too well. For the Democrats sake, if they plan on using administration resources they better hope they do it in a less amatuerish way than they did with Deeds.

Deeds deserved to get beat. If a local candidate cannot win on their own merits, platform, and service then the people have spoken. Unfortunatly, the political game is centered around the GOP and DNC, and local candidates are pretty much indebted to such. National politics has no right to intercede or influence elections for state offices. For what it's worth, me would love to see a 3rd party come to power. A moderate Independant party would be worth more to America than the ultra-liberal democrats - or the uber conservative bible thumpers. As it is now, a balance will never be attained.

[DerFish]

Originally Posted by oblioman

Deeds deserved to get beat. If a local candidate cannot win on their own merits, platform, and service then the people have spoken. Unfortunatly, the political game is centered around the GOP and DNC, and local candidates are pretty much indebted to such. National politics has no right to intercede or influence elections for state offices. For what it's worth, me would love to see a 3rd party come to power. A moderate Independant party would be worth more to America than the ultra-liberal democrats - or the uber conservative bible thumpers. As it is now, a balance will never be attained.

Good points. I would like to think that the good people of upstate NY understand this and voted no to the out of state money that tried to influence the election.

[DonnyDC]

Originally Posted by DerFish

What is odd about it? Obama team spent significant time with the candidate's campaign. It just didn't work out too well. For the Democrats sake, if they plan on using administration resources they better hope they do it in a less amatuerish way than they did with Deeds.

You said.
"Obama spent more time campaigning for than he has spent with Generals now waging two wars combined"

Well it couldnt have been that much since two weeks ago you posted an article saying they were at odds with each other for not aligning with Obama more.

[oblioman]

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

You said.
"Obama spent more time campaigning for than he has spent with Generals now waging two wars combined"

Well it couldnt have been that much since two weeks ago you posted an article saying they were at odds with each other for not aligning with Obama more.

Fox and other "newstainers" like to report that President Obama is dithering on his options on what to do in Afghanistan. This would be a hard decision for any man, certainly knowing he's going to get blasted from either side with the decision he makes. Me gut feeling is that he sent the Secretary of State over to Pakistan to apply pressure where it's needed, and to root out bin Laden without sending more troops.

[Nexgenrulz]

Hey O, what do you think of this article in reference to Rahm Emanuel from 2005: "Our gubernatorial wins in NJ & Virginia are huge". But now since the Republicans kicked ass you say "no big deal".

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/0...inia-are-huge/

[DerFish]

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

You said.
"Obama spent more time campaigning for than he has spent with Generals now waging two wars combined"

Well it couldnt have been that much since two weeks ago you posted an article saying they were at odds with each other for not aligning with Obama more.

Not sure what your point is or if you read the article. But to quote the article...

"Embracing Obama - who does appear with Deeds on ads running in some parts of the state"

The linked article even has a photo of Obama campaigning for Deeds.
It was only a few weeks before the election when the reality of Deeds trailing by 20 points and the WH campaigning effort seemed to be ineffective that the scapegoating swung into full steam ahead. The manipulation of the press was the main point of that article but it also verifies the campaign effort by Obama for Deeds.

He has only met with the General McChrystal twice since he was appointed and the 2nd meeting was 25 minutes on the tarmac in Copenhagen after his Olympic defeat. He spent more time on his makeup for the Deeds commercials than he did meeting with the top General in Afghanistan.

[oblioman]

Originally Posted by Nexgenrulz

Hey O, what do you think of this article in reference to Rahm Emanuel from 2005: "Our gubernatorial wins in NJ & Virginia are huge". But now since the Republicans kicked ass you say "no big deal".

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/0...inia-are-huge/

read the headlines and the adjoining,,but it mentioned nothing else. Must be Hotaire.comm's way of spreading,,,,hot air. Not a big deal then,,and not a big deal today. But still, what difference does it make on the national scene? Hopefully the governors that got elected will do their job, listen to the people and make the tough choices to do whats right for their state. The only reason this is news at all,,is because our tabloid news system has to have something to feed the airwaves.

[DonnyDC]

Originally Posted by DerFish

Not sure what your point is or if you read the article. But to quote the article...

Yes its arguing whether embracing Obama more would help. "Saunders rejected that argument." And then it accuses the WH for monday morning quarterbacking and preemptively blaming deeds for not doing so more.
And again, in the end it says Deeds and the WH were at odds with each other.
This was all 2 weeks ago.

He has only met with the General McChrystal twice since he was appointed and the 2nd meeting was 25 minutes on the tarmac in Copenhagen after his Olympic defeat. He spent more time on his makeup for the Deeds commercials than he did meeting with the top General in Afghanistan.

Thats kind of an odd measurement youve set up for yourself. How long did Obama have a face to face meeting with Deeds?

[DerFish]

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

Yes its arguing whether embracing Obama more would help. "Saunders rejected that argument." And then it accuses the WH for monday morning quarterbacking and preemptively blaming deeds for not doing so more.
And again, in the end it says Deeds and the WH were at odds with each other.
This was all 2 weeks ago.

Thats kind of an odd measurement youve set up for yourself. How long did Obama have a face to face meeting with Deeds?

Again your point is lost if you even had one to begin with. You are now changing the goal line. You have now moved the original post of campaigning time to face to face time. Whatever the amount of "face to face meeting" time, it obviously was not enough with either General McChrystal's meeting or Deeds judging by the outcomes.

[PFC5]

Originally Posted by NonMcTubber

The question remains, does this have any predictive value for the large number of elections coming in 11/2010?

For a clue, we can also look at the 23'rd district in upstate NY, where a very right wing Republican forced out a more moderate republican with the mantra of taking the GOP back from any moderates.

Result, the democrat Owens won in a district that had not voted democratic in like a century. And if a radical right Republican can't win in a district where 62% of the voters are registered Republican, it sends an even grimmer message in more competitive districts. After all, republican registration is now mired at 20-23% nationwide.

And because the congressional elections of 11/2010 will be more focused on an overall Democratic or Republican agenda nationally, and with the GOP increasingly likely to go the far right, the GOP may get another drubbing for the third election cycle in a row.

The other point to make is that in Virgina and New Jersey, it was mainly registered independent voters that put GOP moderates over the top. Since independent registered voters will have no inputs in selecting GOP congressional candidates in 2010, the independent voters may not like the GOP who run too far to the right. I also predict the nation will soon tire of a GOP that stands for nothing but obstructionism. And as the opening primaries of 2010 dawn , all politicians will be under increasing pressure to show the voters what they have done in 2009. If it only lights a fire under the butts of blue dog democrats, it will be enough to break the gridlock.

Time will tell, but the GOP is now betting it all and their entire viability on the outcome. And could well make it into the list of endangered species list post 11/2010.

Highlighted in red is false. Independents have a choice of which ballot they want to vote on in the primaries so they CAN choose the Republican candidate they would rather have go up against the Democratic candidate in the general election. Apparently you are not an "Independent" registered voter like I am.

[NonMcTubber]

I suppose PFC5 might claim to be at best 50% correct in the set of States that even allow independents to vote in either the democratic or republican primaries.

To start out an independent, in any one given primary election, has to choose one or the other parties even if they are aligned with neither party. And for example might choose to vote in the democratic primary because they despise just one candidate, and thus have no inputs into GOP choices or Vice Versa.

But still, PFC5 is correct in stating that independents are a growing political force. This year in Virgina and New Jersey they broke 2 to 1 for the GOP on largely local issues. The problem with independents is that no one can predict how they will break next time and the why question can be even harder.

[PFC5]

Originally Posted by NonMcTubber

I suppose PFC5 might claim to be at best 50% correct in the set of States that even allow independents to vote in either the democratic or republican primaries.

To start out an independent, in any one given primary election, has to choose one or the other parties even if they are aligned with neither party. And for example might choose to vote in the democratic primary because they despise just one candidate, and thus have no inputs into GOP choices or Vice Versa.

But still, PFC5 is correct in stating that independents are a growing political force. This year in Virgina and New Jersey they broke 2 to 1 for the GOP on largely local issues. The problem with independents is that no one can predict how they will break next time and the why question can be even harder.

After you get done voting in the primary you just state that you want to change back to Independent again so you are not stuck with being in the party you vote for in a primary.

I would say generally that Independents are more in the middle and do not like the extremes of either party so the best way to get the Independent vote is to be a moderate. Many thought Obama was a moderate when he campaigned, but now see him as a VERY far left president. I doubt he will get the majority of Independents when running for his next term.

Clinton saw this when his health care "reform" (Hillary Care) died, and moved to the center with fiscal conservatism after that which is why he was so popular with independents IMO.

[Rick-F]

Originally Posted by NonMcTubber

The question remains, does this have any predictive value for the large number of elections coming in 11/2010?

For a clue, we can also look at the 23'rd district in upstate NY, where a very right wing Republican forced out a more moderate republican with the mantra of taking the GOP back from any moderates.

Result, the democrat Owens won in a district that had not voted democratic in like a century. And if a radical right Republican can't win in a district where 62% of the voters are registered Republican, it sends an even grimmer message in more competitive districts. After all, republican registration is now mired at 20-23% nationwide.

.

That is simply a lie; why would you write that? Just because Pelosi said it, it does not make it true. Check your facts.

There was one democrat, one republican and at least one independent on the ballot. The republican dropped out and supported the democrat; the conservative candidate did NOT run as a republican.

[DonnyDC]

Originally Posted by DerFish

Again your point is lost if you even had one to begin with. You are now changing the goal line. You have now moved the original post of campaigning time to face to face time.

lol YOU were the one that was talking about the '25 minute' meeting. THATS face to face time.

So again, give me the comparative measurement to that 25 minute meeting. Im waiting.