home

Election Night

I have no thoughts on today's elections. None.

Hope you folks can do better than me.

BREAKING! Deeds Loses In VA! (Snark)

Bloomberg Wins

Corzine Loses In NJ

Dem Leads In NY-23. Now, if we can only get the Teabaggers to win all the GOP primaries, Dems might be sitting pretty in 2010. It is always easier to run against someone than be run against.

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | Denver Rejects Vehicle Impound Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Whatever happens ... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    people will read too much into these elections.

    Frankly, I'm more interested in the remake of V on tonight.

    I can't watch (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:12:16 PM EST
    I loved the original series back in high school, as awful and cheesy as it was.  Sometimes there's a good kind of cheesy.  Myself and this other guy used to hang out in the library after lunch all the time and talk about this week's show.

    At my 10-year reunion they announced that that guy had passed away.  Brain cancer.  Really horrible and I felt even worse when I realized that other than myself, there were maybe two people in the entire room who had any idea who this guy was.  Just not in the popular set.

    So I really don't think I could watch the remake without thinking of my friend Jeff.  Sad.

    Parent

    I loved the original series (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:39:50 PM EST
    and it is on SiFi channel this week, I'm told.

    I'm watching the new version.  Looks good.  But it turns out that the second half will not be until spring.  That drives me nuts with HBO, the long waits even of years between "seasons."  So I dunno.

    Parent

    V is an ABC program (none / 0) (#28)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:01:04 PM EST
    which series are you talking about on HBO?

    ABC has done an incredible lead-in to this show. It's hard to not want to watch at least the first episode....and, easy for the DWTS fans since it premiers the hour before the results show tonight :)


    Parent

    I didn't write that clearly. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:07:18 PM EST
    Yes, V is on ABC.  But the split scheduling across many months reminds me of the HBO scheduling, which also drives me nuts.

    Parent
    Got it :) (none / 0) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:11:24 PM EST
    and, agree completely. I also dislike the way the networks run their series with a few new episodes, then re-run them before a few more new episodes...and a really long space between seasons. We've had about 5 episodes in the fall season series, so I expect the re-runs to start in the next couple of weeks.

    Parent
    If I had actually written something (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:15:47 PM EST
    about the elections, I would call this sub-thread off topic.

    But I guess what I can take from this is no one has much of anything to say about tonight's elections.

    Parent

    Well, unlike the so-called journalists (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    it looks like we're going to wait for the results.

    Also known as the facts.

    :-)

    Parent

    I noticed that (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:52:20 AM EST
    Sarah Palin's candidate in NY lost, in a conservative district. I take that as a sign her endorsement hurts more than helps and that she's so last year. She's not even worth a separate post. I think she'll be a footnote in history.

    Parent
    That's strange logic. Obama endorsed (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:01:34 AM EST
    Corzine in the fairly blue state of NJ. Corzine lost. Did Obama's endorsement hurt more then it helped?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#155)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:42:26 AM EST
    NJ just really hated Corzine. It was a choice between the devil you knew and a new one. Unfortunately for NJ, marriage equality will now take longer to pass because Christie will veto.

    Parent
    Lame duck session (none / 0) (#159)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:58:47 AM EST
    is our only chance for the next 4 years. I believe we have a promise on that, but we're going to have to hold them to it.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:41:17 AM EST
    it's all about Palin.

    Parent
    Here's my thought. These election don't (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:47:53 PM EST
    mean nearly as much nationally as some people are trying to claim.

    In NY 23 a Conservative beat a RINO and a DINO. Not a huge surprise and very local.

    Virginia is still a red state, and is swinging back toward it's natural equlibrium.

    If Corzine loses New Jersey it will be because the people are sick of hugely corrupt government (though Corzine is one of the few who can afford to be honest) sky high taxes and various other problems. Even if Christie wins, I'm sure a Democrat will be elected in 2013.

    Elections matter (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    I'm from NJ and the biggest difference to me is that Corzine is re-elected we will have marriage equality in NJ. Christie will veto the expected bill and there will be another wait in the garden state.

    Parent
    Christie is just another (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:54:09 AM EST
    ex prosecutor. Like the guy who won in VA. I'm just glad they were running for Gov. rather than Congress.

    Parent
    Didn't the Supreme Court (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    order them to pass a bill?  If the governor vetoes, do we have a constitutional crisis?

    Parent
    2006 (none / 0) (#156)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:48:36 AM EST
    The Supreme Ct said marriage or equivalent. The Legislature went for civil unions but also set up a review system. It is now clear to the Legislature that civil unions are not equivalent to marriage and they should pass a marriage bill before long. But at this point the Legislature does not have a firm timeline and the Governor can still veto any specific bill. Corzine said he'd sign a marriage bill. Christie does not even like civil unions.

    Parent
    I'm not sure Virginia is a red state (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by BDB on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:42:37 PM EST
    I'd say purple, maybe even leaning blue.  The last two governors have been Democrats.  Both Senators are Democrats.  The State Senate is controlled by Democrats.  Democrats can win here and in recent years have and not because of Obama (Mark Warner outperformed Obama in Virginia).

    But we have a Democratic Congress and Administration who haven't done jack for average Americans in a bad economy and a lousy Democratic candidate for Governor.  There was no reason why any Democrat in Virginia should be excited in this race.  The only reason I showed up to vote was that it was a Governor's race, meaning McDonnell will have more direct authority and over poor women.  If it had been a congressional race between these two, and after seeing the non-change from 2008, I don't think I would've bothered.  And based on the less than five minutes it took me to vote after work (no wait) in my fairly liberal district in Northern Virginia, not a lot of people did bother.

    Parent

    It's looking incredibly red tonight (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:08:40 PM EST
    according to the CNN report just now.  A clean sweep of several offices for Republicans.  Those Dems in VA seats might start sweating a bit. . . .

    Parent
    Looks like the state party (none / 0) (#95)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:38:42 PM EST
    didn't do jack about GOTV.

    Parent
    You can bring a horse to water (none / 0) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:57:19 PM EST
    but you can't etc.  The fact that Dems sat on their hands in VA doesn't mean there wasn't a GOTV effort.

    Parent
    It means there wasn't an effective one. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:59:57 PM EST
    What else of interest was on that ballot?

    Parent
    All of the row offices (none / 0) (#109)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:02:19 AM EST
    and the state house. Virginia elected a nutso slate tonight, no doubt about it. The incoming AG is even worse than Bob McDonnell, if that's possible.

    Parent
    Well, then....bad job, Dems. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:19:16 AM EST
    A relentless GOTV orgsnization is the bottom line in any election which could be won by numbers.

    Parent
    Not if the people (none / 0) (#139)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:53:15 AM EST
    don't wanna go.  Sitting on your hands can send just as much of a message as actually voting.

    Parent
    The GOP row office candidates (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:40:11 PM EST
    are seriously, seriously, bad news. But for the state Senate, Virginia just elected itself a state government appropriate for Alabama.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:55:49 PM EST
    That's how the WH has been spinning it already.  I'm sure the Dem pundits will be saying the same thing all night on TV.

    Parent
    Even a stopped clock... (none / 0) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    Really important race (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by jen on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:54:18 PM EST
    in CA, that is being completely ignored.

    dday over at FDL:


    The Forgotten Election: CA-10 Becomes A Progressive District Today

    . . .Democratic seat, "near San Francisco," no big deal. A Democrat replaces a Democrat in Congress. Ho-hum.

    Except the difference between the departed Ellen Tauscher and the incoming John Garamendi is numerous. Tauscher led the pro-business New Democrats; Garamendi, the state's Lieutenant Governor, is one of California's leading progressives and a longtime single-payer advocate. Tauscher ran away from progressive values; Garamendi charges toward them. Tauscher and her allies were fond of explaining that CA-10 was a moderate district and only moderates could win there; Garamendi ran as himself and will win today. In fact, because of the prominence of vote-by-mail in California, he probably already has. . . .



    Yipee! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Pacific John on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:36:06 PM EST
    Garamendi is a good man with a long, loyal following.

    And CD10 is a study of how steady effort pays off. Ellen Tauscher won the year we rebounded from the Contract [On] America, beating a despicable Gingrich hatchet man, Bill Baker, who ran around saying things like, women are breeders.

    This is a particularly satisfying event for me, since I was a regional director in one of our close wins that day 13 years ago. Go, John!

    Parent

    2002 redistricting (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:41:37 PM EST
    gave her a much friendlier map than she needed. Now she can be replaced by a really good Democrat.

    Parent
    Heh, ya mean my conservative parents (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:07:33 PM EST
    are going to have to deal with a progressive? And I'll be a part time constituent? :)

    Parent
    I helped the campaign of Bill Baker's opponent (none / 0) (#39)
    by hairspray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:47:40 PM EST
    on two different occasions.  He wasn't a charismatic candidate (forgot his name) but the district was VERY conservative and I was surprised at how well the neandrathal Bill Baker ran.  When Tauscher won, finally, the district was turning, but not much. It wasn't until the district was gerrymandered to include more Dems that things began to change.  I wouldn't put as much blame on Tauscher as you are willing to do.

    Parent
    I fear (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Left of the Left on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:04:48 PM EST
    the direction things will take if Dems get their butts handed to them. Embolden the wrong people and all that.

    I have one thought (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by NealB on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:50:16 PM EST
    It would be better if Democrats weren't fighting for their lives, if Democratic-favored gay marriage related amendments weren't such a battle, if Obama hadn't failed as miserably as he has during his first ten months in office.

    All of that would be better.

    That this election is going so badly for Democrats and Democratic issues after such unequivocal wins for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 is bad for our prospects going forward.

    That is not good.

    Plouffe says Obama has kept his (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:56:31 PM EST
    campaign promises.  What are you talking about?

    Parent
    Thanks for reminder... (none / 0) (#146)
    by NealB on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:15:58 AM EST
    ...to keep a little sense of humor about it.

    Parent
    we (none / 0) (#149)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:44:07 AM EST
    have always been at war with EastAsia

    Parent
    Big Story: 2010 Wipe-Out Looming (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by kidneystones on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:58:30 PM EST
    Dems better figure out quickly whether they want to continue to pretend that these elections are not referendums on the first year in office of all Dems, who, lest we forget control Congress and the WH. This is buck stops here time and if Dems have any real hope of the 2010 elections being a referendum on 10% plus un-employment rates, big-government over-reach, and a feckless, fumbling will we/will we not? prosecution of Obama's "War of Necessity", a meme which has to be competing now with 'Mission Accomplished' as the dumbest political claim of this young century.

    Voter unhappiness is real.

    A better strategy might be: We're listening and we're concerned, rather than Michelle takes tweens to Cyrus concert and Obama isn't watching results. You don't invest as much political capital and firepower in NY, NJ, and Virginia and then try to convince folks that results don't really matter.

    And any knucklehead who reads the econ blogs (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Pacific John on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:06:13 PM EST
    knows the economy will be very hard for our side to finesse when it's the issue. PK says with only partial irony that unless Team BHO sobers up, unemployment will not return to reasonable levels until the 2nd Palin administration.

    Parent
    Garbled (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by kidneystones on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    Sorry about the long, incomplete sentences. I'm multi-tasking badly.

    Point is: the WH and Dems aren't showing they've learned a thing from the last year. With the majority Dems enjoy(ed?), voters have reason to expect real results that will benefit them, not claims about jobs 'created or saved'. Most of us know bs when we hear it and for a long time more of the bs has emanated from the right.

    These elections are a referendum on Dems and Dems had better demonstrate something more than a tin ear to the results, because the current response sounds a whole lot like: screw the bitter, clingy, gun-lovers. Voters will be watching to see whether NJ and Virginia fall off the WH radar after the elections. If that's the case, expect the same results across the board in 2010.

    Parent

    We is in big trouble. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:33:38 PM EST
    If I'm Obama, first thing tomorrow morning, press conference, announce new team:

    Out!: Rahmbo, Geithner, Summers

    In!: Feingold, Volker, Kucinich  

    Parent

    NJ exit poll finally out (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:09:47 PM EST
    here.

    Doing the cross-multiplication, it's exactly tied Corzine 46.77 to Christie 46.76. But the real results don't lie. . .

    Actually, they do lie...sometimes. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:35:11 PM EST
    Keep in mind...it matter who COUNTS the votes.

    Parent
    Dems did the counting in NJ, I think (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:40:45 PM EST
    Corzine lost fair and square. But we held our assembly majority pretty easily. So Chris Christie is going to be checked.

    Parent
    I have to wonder (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:12:14 AM EST
    if Goldman Sachs didn't play a part in this.  Everybody in the country is furious at Wall Street, but helpless to do anything about it.  And then there's Mr. Goldman Sachs right there on the ballot...  The fact that Dems. in the assembly won and Corzine lost says Corzine, fairly or unfairly, was the problem more than Dems. per se.

    Parent
    Absolutely Corzine was the problem (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:19:19 AM EST
    Whether it was Goldman or just his generally aloof attitude I can't say. But I do know that he was deeply unpopular, and that it's pretty amazing that he was able to hold Christie to a ~5 point win.

     I think if he ever bothered to tell the story about how Hank Paulson pushed him out he would have been in better shape.

    Parent

    Everybody gets checked then. (none / 0) (#104)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:56:20 PM EST
    Veto checks the majority if there's a fight, no?

    Parent
    Yes, it's not ideal (none / 0) (#108)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:01:20 AM EST
    I would much rather that Corzine had held on. But he doesn't get to totally run the show (quite: there are terrible implications for the NJ Supreme Court--one of the most progressive in the nation--and the NJ Governor still has a huge number of appointees).

    Parent
    Dems have systemic problems? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:02:13 PM EST
    Who knew?

    And what else is new?

    You are so right.

    After last year's election (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:05:16 PM EST
    Obama had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. After eight years of GWB, B.O. could have locked it up for the Dems for a generation.

    Wall Street destroyed our middle class, our country, and most of the world. Main Street was on it's knees begging for help.

    Barry had a choice to make; he chose wrong.

    He spit on us, robbed us of what we had left, and gave it to the Billionaire Banksters.

    The American public has been the object of much ridicule, but there's a level of stupidity even they won't fall for.

    The "Boys on the Bus" thought they could ride the Primaries for eight years.

    They were wrong.


    "Don't make too much of it." (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:09:30 PM EST
    It's all good... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kidneystones on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:23:00 PM EST
    Thanks for the link. I can't think of a better way to breathe life into Republicans than to pretend that the light is shining brightly at the end of the tunnel and only the deluded fail to see it.

    Pretty much everyone in my cohort is set economically. Those younger and much younger are looking at a very different reality. Middle-age workers who did not build extra skills for this rainy-day turned into a deluge are facing intense competition for a limited number of jobs.

    It's not all bad. Far from it. I'd like to see real change, particularly no more money for wall st and green money going to nuclear, as well as solar and wind. I don't think higher taxes will make anything better. People need to spend far less time ingesting mood and mind altering substances (no matter how tempting nights like tonight might make them ).

    It's about the work.

    Parent

    The bottom line, I'm betting (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:49:15 AM EST
    from what we've seen tonight is that the boyz and grlz inside the Beltway, media and politicos alike, may just be beginning to get that there is a H*LL of a lot of anger outside the Beltway at just how badly the mess we're in has been handled.  From big bailouts to the biggies to idiotic little bandaids like cash for clunkers that was screwed up, too, to alleged aid for students to stay in school that isn't there for them, after all . . . and now even a lousy health care bill is stuck.  And so much more.

    And the phrase that will be used to hit and hurt the Dems worse than they can imagine?

    Jobless recovery.  It's an oxymoron, folks, to us folks out here.

    Good candidates win (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:18:05 AM EST
    bad candidates lose. The only anger out there is on the extremes and mostly from the teabag contingent. And they had a handpicked candidate that lost where republicans never lose.

    I'm happy with the pickup in the House.

    In a rare occurrence Newt was right when discussing NY-23. When you cater to the extremes you lose. And tonight, Club for Growth, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage took one on the chin in upstate NY.

    Parent

    I can't believe you actually think the loss (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:22:32 AM EST
    in NY 23 matters. An extremely conservative Democrat won a messed up race in one of 29 districts in New York. Congratulations. The entrire states of Virginia and New Jersey (plus the 1 million people in my New York county) kicked the Democrats out. And I think the anti-gay groups can take alot of solace from running up yet another victory in Maine.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:35:12 AM EST
    I think the WIN in NY-23 matters. And I have no problem with conservative Dems winning. It's far superior to sending a Republican to Washington.

    Parent
    I live in New York 19. Represented by John (none / 0) (#135)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:48:06 AM EST
    Hall, a pretty liberal Democrat. Certainly far more liberal then the new guy. He's probably going to lose the election in 2010. I know this because fairly liberal Weschester County (part of his district) just beat the hell out of the Democrat County Executive and Republicans all over the area gained.

    But a DINO got elected. Yippee.

    Parent

    I think John Hall is going to be OK (none / 0) (#150)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:00:19 AM EST
    I don't know. He won in 2006 because (none / 0) (#168)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    it was a sea change year and because the incumbent barely challenged him. She skipped out on the debate. I'd bet that if she had gone to that one event, she would have won the election. His 2008 opponent was a political novice who was too conservative for the district and couldn't raise much money. This year, Greg Ball (the rising star of the New York Republican party) has already outraised him and has already started robocalls (taking the more liberal position) against him on Afghanistan.

    My money is on Ball.

    Parent

    The only anger out there? (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:32:30 AM EST
    Wait and see.  Remove the earbuds.  I can hear the roar that's coming.  

    Parent
    The only anger? Really? (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:42:03 AM EST
    I'm furious. And I'm pretty confident that I am not the only liberal who's feeling upset and angry at the way things are going. We may not be packing heat at town halls, but we are not happy. And boy howdy, just wait until the health insurance bill is passed and people learn that the only real winners are the insurance companies. Yet another win for profits over people.

    Outside of Wall Street and Washington, DC, nobody considers the looming jobless recovery a good thing. The Dems have done nothing to help people who are losing their homes, but Goldman Sachs is just humming along, thanks to taxpayer money.

    Don't make the same mistake Obama seems to be making. Don't mistake a quietly seething Democratic base for a happy base.

    Parent

    There are always (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:04:39 AM EST
    nattering nabobs of negativism in the base for both parties. The base doesn't win elections, but if you do nothing but cater to them you will surely lose.

    BTD makes an excellent point. Get teabaggers to win all the GOP primaries and the Dems will win big. But the opposite also holds true. Get extreme liberal candidates to win all the Dem primaries and the Republicans will win big.


    Parent

    otoh, if you IGNORE the base (none / 0) (#164)
    by sj on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:41:21 AM EST
    Pretty soon you no longer have one.

    Parent
    I am afraid that the lesson (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:36:07 AM EST
    the Obama Administration will take away from the election results is that they need to become more bipartisan and more conservative.   All their "liberal" policies were rejected and, by gosh, we will change.

    Parent
    Bad news (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:26:13 AM EST
    My biggest concern over the election is that this will be interpreted as a need to shift even further to the right to pacify the independant's that they lost in this cycle.

    The thought that just maybe they need to energize their base won't even enter their minds.

    Last year (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:29:49 PM EST
    I had to wait in line for over an hour to vote for Obama.  This year... it was just me and some old lady.  One of the election workers was so bored he made a joke about my name.

    I'm not sure I can extrapolate any meaning from this, other than that my neighborhood maybe thinks Barack Obama is a bigger deal than Jon Corzine.  I still have a good feeling about this race.

    The poll worker (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    joked about the name Steve?  ;)

    Parent
    Well hey (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:39:01 PM EST
    As my friend Steve's girlfriend used to say, one Steve is as good as another.

    Parent
    Does this mean I never ever have to figure (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 06:57:11 PM EST
    NY-23?  Hope so.

    I actually see that (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:16:26 AM EST
    as the biggest upset of the night. A house seat that switches in a very conservative district due to GOP infighting.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:59:06 PM EST
    No idea what your sentence means.  Explain?

    Parent
    District 23, upstate NY (none / 0) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:12:39 AM EST
    Er, I understand very well what (none / 0) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:51:43 AM EST
    23 upstate NY is.  What I don't understand is what you mean by you don't have to "figure" it.

    Parent
    "figure out" (none / 0) (#166)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    CNN is projection Taliban Bob wins in VA (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:01:49 PM EST
    OK, well I did that weeks ago. Now to dig up the NJ exit polls.

    Washington's ballot issues (none / 0) (#13)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:08:44 PM EST
    will be a referendum on:  

    1)Whether equality-loving citizens can beat back right-wing zealots, and simply allow gays to live their lives and care for their families in peace, and,

    2)Whether professional anti-tax irritant, Tim Eyman, will lose in his effort to destroy every last vestige of representative democracy at the state, county and city level.

    Here in Seattle, we are stuck with the two worst mayoral candidates I can ever remember. Both are unqualified. One seems completely ignorant of some of the basics about how our city operates. The other is a whiny, bitter a$$hole who doesn't work well with others.

    I did not enjoy voting in this election.

    You forgot to mention (none / 0) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:56:14 PM EST
    the hideous choices for County Executive to replace Ron Sims. YIKES!!

    These elected officials get paid a lot of money for those jobs. Why don't they have job descriptions and minimal qualifications lists that the candidates must meet and prove they have the talent before they are allowed to run?

    Seems really qualified people don't want the jobs these days. I'm thinking it's because they can see the stigma on their level of intelligence if they go after a political position.


    Parent

    Who would want to run for office these days? (none / 0) (#30)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:04:13 PM EST
    The media and the public pore over your private life, looking for any ounce of negative gossip to hang you with before you even raise your first campaign dollar.

    Dow may not be the greatest choice, but Hutchinson is a frightening joke on a good day. Talk about unqualified... If she won I would move outta here, pronto. Thankfully, she hasn't got a chance.

    Parent

    Heh - just saw her poo-pooing (none / 0) (#37)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:15:57 PM EST
    the polls that have her losing. Imagine her and the lesser of the two lousy choices for Mayor together. It would take Seattle decades to repair itself after that.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#100)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:28:48 PM EST
    That's about right!

    I just saw Gary Horcher interviewing her on KIRODTV2 and she looked very tense -- and emaciated.

    Parent

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#122)
    by Spamlet on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:33:25 AM EST
    she looked very tense -- and emaciated

    She can eat her words.

    Parent

    Used to be that the exit polls were released (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:12:43 PM EST
    right at closing time. No dice so far.

    I'm hoping there is a big enough margin (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:17:27 PM EST
    when all is said and done, that it gets put to rest quickly :) The airwaves are magically free of Christie ads now.

    Parent
    Early exit polls (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:32:44 PM EST
    From CNN:

    (CNN) - Independents appear to be playing an important role in the country's two off-year gubernatorial races.

    In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie took 58 percent of the independent vote, according to early CNN Exit Poll data. Incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, took just 33 percent of the independent vote. Independents made up 27 percent of the voters in New Jersey race.

    To the south, in Virginia, 62 percent of independents cast ballots for Republican Bob McDonnell in that state's gubernatorial contest. Democrat Creigh Deeds earned the votes of 37 percent of independents. Independents made up 29 percent of voters in that race.

    More complete data will be released later in the evening.



    I love the opening line (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:03:12 PM EST
    Because independent votes count more than everyone else's.

    So stupid.


    Parent

    Nah, it's just that we're more interesting (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:14:08 PM EST
    as Independents.  Unpredictable.  Not taken for granted.  Actually asked for our opinions rather than told what we think.

    If I had known it was this much fun to be an Independent. . . .

    Parent

    Indies are (none / 0) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:02:39 PM EST
    about 40% of the population now(and its growing). So yes, when you have those numbers then you do take on a certain amount of importance.

    Parent
    Independants (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:08:46 AM EST
    I have a difficult time understanding the independant mind set. I can easily accept someone's contempt for both parties, but to go back and forth from Republican to Democrat is hard for me to follow.

    There are major differences in party philosphies that are just incompatable. (Even if the line gets fuzzy at times)

    If you believe in woman's rights or gay rights, how can you vote Republican? If you believe in HCR, again why would you vote Republican?

    Why would someone disregard their core values just to show their dissatisfaction with their party's candidate?

    Parent

    ahem (4.00 / 3) (#151)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:01:29 AM EST
    If you believe in woman's rights or gay rights, how can you vote Republican? If you believe in HCR, again why would you vote Republican?

    Why would someone disregard their core values just to show their dissatisfaction with their party's candidate?

    The democratic party has done almost nothing for women's rights or gay rights and Obama's version of HCR looks a lot like McCain's.
    So what are you talking about?

    Parent

    There is a difference (none / 0) (#152)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:19:21 AM EST
    I'm talking about the Republican agenda that actively works to deny these rights. It's about the lesser of two evils. Democrat's may not advance these issues to our satisfaction, but they don't actively work to destroy them. That's the difference.

    Vote for a third party candidate or at worst sit out an election, but to actively endorse an agenda that goes against your own interests seems counter productive at best.

    Parent

    the pander to them (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:35:30 AM EST
    and then throw them under the bus any chance they get.  Obama voted "present" every time he had a chance to vote on choice.  My state which is reliably blue stuck women with Bob Casey.  The democratic party is no friend to women or gays.  With the republicans in power what happened to abortion rights?  Nothing.  So they do not actively work to take away rights except a fringe few.
    Democrats should stop thinking they can chant "abortion abortion abortion" to me to keep me voting for them.  Right now I am much more interested in a woman's right to be the party nominee when she is the choice of the party's voters.  Equality is more important than an occasional grudging head nod to abortion rights. Women are more than their reproductive parts.

    Parent
    Not quite (none / 0) (#169)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    Republican's managed to bury the morning after pill for years even after their own appointee quit over it. They also managed to get the conscience clause put into effect to add another road block. I also have no doubts that when a case comes before the Supreme Court, Roberts and Alito will do their utmost to further weaken woman's rights.

    As for gay rights, forget it. I see no hope. But at least the Democrat's aren't using gay rights as a boogie man to frighten their base to the polls.

    Parent

    And yet (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:10:48 PM EST
    the story says "independents made up 27 percent of the voters in the New Jersey race..."

    Parent
    27% (none / 0) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:13:34 PM EST
    may be enough to decide a race when you have a margin of 6% between the two candidates.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    and the other 73% of the people may be relevant too.  I think you missed the point completely.

    Parent
    Make up your mind (none / 0) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:49:02 PM EST
    According to BTD what happened is not enough Dems showed up. If that is the case then YES, Indies did matter. If you aren't showing up to vote then no, you don't get to be relevant.

    Parent
    Oh okay (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:55:27 PM EST
    I always thought that if one side's base didn't show up, it could affect the result, but I guess I was wrong.

    The point you seem to be disregarding is that any group can be responsible for the result of the election if you choose to spin it that way.  Gee, if the brown-eyed vote is close, then the blue-eyed vote will decide the election!  In the real world, an Independent vote for Christie impacts the final result exactly as much as a Republican vote for Christie.

    Parent

    Was the Republican vote for Christie (none / 0) (#88)
    by cawaltz on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    in question? I mean seriously, you didn't notice the fact that the Republican party has been jazzed about how the Democratic party has dropped the ball? I sincerely hope you are kidding or it doesn't bode well for your chances in 2010.

    Oh and if you guys decide to stay home and pout then yes, you can probably consider yourself irrelevant. I doubt they are going to door to door exit polls on why you didn't bother to show up.

    Parent

    It's actually very funny (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:24:13 PM EST
    that you are now the one arguing that Democratic voters can be taken for granted.

    Parent
    I'm arguing (none / 0) (#94)
    by cawaltz on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:32:48 PM EST
    that if you don't vote then it's pretty hard to consider yourself relevant which is the opposite of what you are saying.

    As I stated they don't go door to door to exit poll. They ask the people who VOTED.

    Parent

    Corzine's gonna win (none / 0) (#24)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    Corzine's gonna win.

    Christie's is so far getting a 3-4 point improvement in the 2-party vote over the 2005 election in those counties that have reported a significant number of returns. However, he needs about a 5-point improvement over the 2005 2-party vote in order to pull it out.

    I'm not ready to say anything yet (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:46:13 PM EST
    One complete county would be good to start with.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#26)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    Maybe I spoke too soon. I had Christie/Corzine flipped in Gloucester.

    Gloucester County is about 50% in, with Christie leading 47/45, which translates to about 51/49 in the 2-party vote.

    In 2005, Corzine won Gloucester 55.5/44.5 in the 2 party vote, so Christie is actually about 6.5 points ahead of the GOP candidate in Gloucester in the 2005 vote.  Very possible that Christie wins this thing.

    Parent

    Yeah, Christie will win (none / 0) (#31)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:07:06 PM EST
    Christie far outperforming the 2005 Republican candidate in Ocean County - more than 10% swing with40% in.  About a 7% swing in Hudson (57% in) and Gloucester (86%) Counties too.  All he needs is a 5.2% swing.  Looks like he'll get it.

    Parent
    Nothing from Mercer yet (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:28:26 PM EST
    Are you receiving Tweets? Adrianna is! (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:55:33 PM EST
    AP just flashed Christie is projected (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    winner on my TV . . . Ugh.

    Parent
    I don't like to make premature calls (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:55:07 PM EST
    But it's hard to see how Corzine pulls this out. UGH.

    BTW, traditionally Gloucester cty mirrors (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:57:37 PM EST
    statewide results. Christie leads 47/44 with all votes counted there.

    Disaster.

    Parent

    Corzine was dead in the water (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:59:03 PM EST
    It's a miracle it's close.

    Dem turnout was not what it needed to be.

     

    Parent

    Well, early word is good in Maine (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:00:45 PM EST
    That's some consolation to an otherwise terrible night.

    I've given up thinking about Virginia, but they just elected a slate that's appropriate for Alabama.

    Parent

    Top of the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:01:44 PM EST
    destroyed them.

    Let that be a lesson.

    Parent

    I doubt either of the Dem alternatives (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:04:12 PM EST
    would have been better. Maybe T-Mac would have made a race of it? Who knows.

    Parent
    Both would have been better (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:16:47 PM EST
    Deed is horrible.

    Parent
    yes but (none / 0) (#163)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    they couldn't have a yicky Clinton lover as the nominee.  Obama's organization is still making the rules there and that is why they got a dud candidate.

    Parent
    Deeds (none / 0) (#165)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    defeated McAuliffe by 25 points.  If Obama actually had enough electoral clout to secretly make a 25-point difference in a primary, folks he supported like Corzine wouldn't be losers today.

    Parent
    Deeds (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:07:07 AM EST
    Had the endorsement of the Washington Post, and Obama stayed out of the primary race - he certainly didn't back Deeds at that time.  

    Deeds imploded.

    Parent

    Not good anymore (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:16:48 AM EST
    Maine joined  the ever growing list of states to repeal gay marriage rights.

    I wonder where the civil right's movement would be today if each state was allowed to decide how or if they would integrate?

    The courts are going to have to step in on this issue if it's ever to be a reality.

    Parent

    The WH say Obama's not watching the numbers (none / 0) (#50)
    by Pacific John on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:02:55 PM EST
    Uh huh. My guess is he's currently praying he's not part of another Prop 8 leadership vacuum debacle. His life will be a loooot easier if his sin of omission didn't lose the No on 1 battle for us. As of now, we're up slightly. I'm rooting to BHO to dodge a bullet.

    Obama campaigns (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:12:59 PM EST
    and then is not so concerned about the results? Is that what the WH said?

    Parent
    Jobs, Economy, War, Dem Failure (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by kidneystones on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:27:57 PM EST
    Spinning tonight as anything but a complete disaster for Dems is ludicrous and the sooner Dems wake the fuc# up and recognize that most voters are seriously pissed-off the better.

    A year ago, any suggestion that McCain might have do a better job than Obama on the economy would have been met with stares of incredulity. Voters no longer see things that way.

    Economic mismanagement and hand outs to Wall St. campaign donors, as well as record un-employment numbers did Dems in.

    Watch the WH start to walk back the: 'we weren't really watching' meme right about now. TPM is still running the 'WH Aides: Obama isn't watching' sidebar. Expect that to be replaced with something that reflects a more spinnable message along the lines of 'we really care!'

    A lot! Really! What a mess.

    Parent

    Is it really appropriate to call NYC Mayor (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:14:29 PM EST
    when 56% of the vote it in and there's barely a point between the candidates?

    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by Pacific John on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:15:09 PM EST
    Is it possible (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:18:03 PM EST
    that the NYT results page just isn't showing Bloombo's fusion votes? That would explain the strangeness.

    Parent
    What's a "fusion vote"? (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:12:49 AM EST
    Fusion Voting (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:21:35 AM EST
    Bloomberg was on more than one party line. But my hypothesis turned out to be wrong. The race really was that close.

    Parent
    I had heard Bloomberg's challenger called (none / 0) (#65)
    by magster on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:22:16 PM EST
    to congratulate Bloomberg.  Is there anything binding once someone concedes?  I wouldn't think so.

    Parent
    Only if your brother (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:28:02 PM EST
    is governor of Florida.

    Parent
    Funny but very painful comment CC. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Teresa on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:47:01 PM EST
    Of course not (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:23:19 PM EST
    I just saw a news flash (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:44:49 PM EST
    and it is now 3pts. But no call as to a winner.

    Parent
    If it stays close (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:47:13 PM EST
    maybe we can retire the "Bradley effect" theory once and for all.  Thompson was behind by 12 points in the last poll.

    Parent
    Well, the polls were showing Bloomberg (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:49:20 PM EST
    with some 30% of the black vote. I never believed that for a second.

    Still, this looks to be a pretty big polling failure.

    Parent

    May not be the poll (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:00:03 PM EST
    but the people not voting when all is said and done. "They" did say it would be a turnout race.

    Parent
    I contend (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:55:48 PM EST
    There is a deep seated sense of betrayal by Democrats against Obama. I have said all along how I can't understand why the political geniuses in the White House have misplayed their hand so badly.

    It may be childish, and self-defeating, but it's also just plain human; "You're going to take us for granted? Where else are we going to go?"

    Tonight, they showed them where they're going to go.......home.


    Parent

    Eh, I don't think it had anything to do (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:13:54 PM EST
    with Obama. I think it had more to do with folks thinking Bloomie was a lock and perhaps some election burnout after last year. Just heard it was a very low (one of the lowest) turnouts ever. 25% or less of registered voter turnout. Will be interested to see if that's true etc. But it would explain the closeness of the race, imo. Thompson voters had a reason to turn out.

    Parent
    I would like to see turn out #s (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    percentage that vote for him vs turnout in past elections against Bloomie.

    Wouldn't it be kinda weird to have the BE in NYC? Also, wouldn't most just write it off to Bloomie "buying" the election?

    Parent

    Why not? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    People want to find the Bradley Effect everywhere from Los Angeles to New Hampshire.  But there's no evidence for it and it needs to be put out to pasture.

    Parent
    Yeah, it's clearly dead (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:07:18 PM EST
    The polls in 2008 were consistently right.

    Parent
    Just saw on whatever network (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:16:37 PM EST
    I'm watching, in NJ, the Obama youth vote stayed home.

    I wonder how Springsteen feels about having his music played while Christie walks out?

    Parent

    CNN saying (none / 0) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:14:47 AM EST
    in both VA and NJ, youth vote didn't come out, African-Americans didn't come out.

    Parent
    Dang (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:14:43 PM EST
    Sorry, I didn't credit the fiction factor . . . .

    Hopefully the pasture is green and some livestock is happily grazing  ;)

    Parent

    GOP insanity (none / 0) (#70)
    by Pacific John on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:28:43 PM EST
    evidently doesn't play well when it's out in the open.

    This is the race I care about least, pretty much (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:31:17 PM EST


    My Dem County Executive just got beat (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 09:41:02 PM EST
    soundly by a rat faced little putz who made my skin crawl the one or two times I've met him. Great.

    This also means pretty bad things for my House rep, who I like.

    PA Supreme Court looks to get a GOP majority (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 10:25:00 PM EST
    Awesome.

    Hoffman loses. (none / 0) (#101)
    by TomStewart on Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 11:30:16 PM EST
    That's really the big story tonight.

    It's depressing how close he came (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:17:44 AM EST
    though.  He was as terrible a candidate as Deeds was for the Dems, maybe worse.  And the ostensible Dem, Owens, is the bluest of Blue Dogs, at best.

    This is also the most liberal of the upstate NY areas.  McHugh was an actual moderate Republican.  We like to think here it's because of its proximity to enlightened Vermont.

    Parent

    Most liberal? (none / 0) (#121)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:23:30 AM EST
    has a Dem ever represented that District before tonight?

    Parent
    Not for 100 years (none / 0) (#136)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:49:18 AM EST
    Don't know about the rest of upstate, but if they've ever had a Dem. it's been a momentary aberration.  But McHuge was no neanderthal, and the district went fairly strongly for Obama in 2008. IOW, one of the less rock-ribbed conservative rural districts outside VT.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#144)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:08:21 AM EST
    it took me a long time to find what I thought I had remembered reading. It was a write up on Swing State Project last June 6th.

    "Almost two-thirds of the population of the current district NY-23 (62%) live in territory that has not elected a Democrat since 1890 or earlier."

    Parent

    Don't hurt yourself with all that stretching. (none / 0) (#124)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:05:16 AM EST
    BTD says... (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:06:20 AM EST
    "It is always easier to run against someone than be run against."

    While it's true that it's hard to be on the defense and easier to be on offense, it is still the case that incumbents have the edge...unless they've been indicted, of course...and even then...so, I don't think it's true for incumbents.

    Incumbents have the edge (none / 0) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:18:37 AM EST
    if they keep their noses clean and the economy hasn't tanked.  

    Parent
    For the record (none / 0) (#126)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:21:06 AM EST
    I called a Maine loss ages (perhaps months) ago when Markos had R2k take a poll and found NO at about 46%. If we're going to start winning these things, we have to start at over 55%.

    So, I'm looking at other liberal blogs and (none / 0) (#130)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:41:11 AM EST
    they are basically calling tonight a Democratic victory because of NY-23. That's like saying the Titanic had a good voyage because some of the passengers didn't drown.

    Here's what Chris Brown says, "Whenever a party gains seats in congress, the voters simply are not rebuking that party"

    So, the entire state of New Jersey and Virginia (16 million people) can vote against Democrats, but 1 victory in a district of well less then a million means this wasn't a rebuke?

    Ridiculous.

    Too bad the only liberal in (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:44:48 AM EST
    the NY-23 race was the Republican woman who got run out of the race. Another ConservaDem goes to Washington. Turns out heads they win;tails we lose.

    Parent
    I liked her (none / 0) (#160)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:17:02 AM EST
    And this whole thing only encourages Rahm-think. We'll have more Blue Dogs in races where a progressive could win. Sad.

    Parent
    The results in Virginia say what you want them to (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:46:16 AM EST
    The results in New Jersey and NYC do not. NJ was all about Corzine (and in fact the assembly was essentially unchanged), while NYC was about Bloomberg.

    Virginia was a clu$terfu¢k.

    Parent

    I think the NJ results also make my point. (none / 0) (#143)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:05:40 AM EST
    I don't think the Corzine loss is a major rebuke for Democrats. HOWEVER, if the rejection of a conservative in one single district is meaningfull, shouldn't the rejection of a Democrat in a much larger venue be more meaningfull.

    And I agree, the NYC race has little to do with anyting.

    However, in Westchester, Putnam and Rockland (South of NY 23 and North of the City) Democrats performed worse then usual.

    Parent

    Chris Bowers I mean. (none / 0) (#132)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:42:43 AM EST
    I actually didn't comment on Atlanta (none / 0) (#158)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 07:57:25 AM EST
    I know nothing about the contours of that race.

    Yes, I know. I (none / 0) (#161)
    by kidneystones on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 08:19:18 AM EST
    should have been clearer. You remarked that the slate from Virginia suited Alabama. I know nothing about these candidates, but understand that Virginia was/is a mix of red and blue that turned striking red this weekend.

    I should also have been clearer about my concerns, resentful anglos coalesce around the 'manly' conservative at the same time young folks and African-Americans stay home. Meanwhile, anglo voters who voted for the first African-American president wonder whether they should have voted for anyone for this reason.

    Parent