Republicans attempt to build momentum off of beating Democratic C team

[blackflame2180]

Something that's been on my mind: ok, Tuesday there were elections in which the two governorships transferred to the Republicans. Yesterday and today there's been a lot of articles attempting to somehow project this into some kind of Republican resurgence

Comments

[weasel2000]

Dude, what kind of crack you on? I want some :-)

First off, before you dump Deeds as the moron of the political class in VA, lets not forget that a scant 4 years ago, he lost to McDonnell by only a percentage point, a whiskers margin. To come back for the big show and to do even worse; with national support with President Obama trying to help him down the stretch in a state that had all the hallmarks of having gone blue because of Northern VA, and then get his ASS kicked as well as a bunch of other local democrats even in Northern VA shows the tarnish on the democrats. Independents aren't buying the same shit they got from the Republican's either. The Economy matters andit doesn't take a genius to figure that if you owe a lot of money, you don't spend even more. The swing among independents was over 20% in VA. You better be damn sure that Blue Dogs are taking notice. The young and the poor don't come out to vote if they are not excited...and the Dems tried to get them excited and FAILED...and they'll fail again in 2010. Virginia is a hell of a bell weather; not for the major parties but for how independent voters are turning and they are turning conservative...since the country as a whole leans center-right.

NJ was an interesting race, given the solidly blue status of the state, even with the disgust at Corzine. Why do you think Obama tried so hard there, major rallies, pumping up the voters and still failing. Again, you see the influence of Independent voters-those who lean center-right and for whom the economy was the top issue. The White House can spin till they get dizzy, but this means is that Obama CAN'T bring out the vote...sure people like him, but they won't vote by his dictate and they sure as hell won't come out to the polls for him. If the democrats want to continue to pump up government and increase the deficit and throw four or five giant govt. programs on top of a continually ailing economy, then they will lose the house and the senate by 2010. That's a guarantee.

In NY 23, Dede wasn't elected in a primary, she was chosen by the republican machine which choose badly. And even then she wasn't doing too bad, Hoffman joining the race obviously meant that the Democrat was going to win because the vote will be split. the real damage didn't begin until Palin and other big names took a long hard look at Dede and realized that she was probably about as liberal as Owens. they put their funding and effort behind a weak candidate and lost by a few point, four I believe...which is hardly a landslide compared to VA and NJ. And the term is only for 1 year...next year, Owens will lose because the better Republican candidate will be choose by the people of NY 23.

The Big story of the elections is message, and choosing the right candidate. If the Republican's can do that, 2010 will be a bloodbath for the democrats. Even if Republican's don't win back control, you can forget the 60 vote filibuster proof majority. As a final aside, the US leans center-right, the sooner democrats realize that and get off their liberal leftie asses and govern like they were elected to do then the better for all concerned, Obama was elected to "change the tone" of politics, he hasn't done so...he's made it worse in fact. Blue Dog democrats need to take their party to the center....I applaud their actions. Oh, and if you think they arn't worried about their constituencies ...why are they holding the Health bill hostage to get abortion funding off the bill? That's hardball and Pelosi better play. thats how worried they are.

However he will probably be re-elected in 2012 given his high favorability numbers and the fact that 2010 will show him that he needs to govern from the center...he's a bright boy and blacks and minorities will come out for him if he is at the top of the ticket. But 2010 will be the end of the democratic majority...

[blackflame2180]

Re: Deeds

Deeds did as well as he did in 2005 by riding the coat tails of Tim Kaine, who was an effective candidate in the Commonwealth. Democrats in general did better in Virginia under the headline of Kaine's campaign-- because Tim Kaine was an effective candidate for office who could and did mobilize a significant percentage of the Democratic base in NVA. If anything 2005 is more evidence that Deeds /is/ the moron of the political class in VA, as most other Democrats were able to ride Kaine's coat-tails to office. Deeds' poor performance as the head of the Virginia Democratic ticket in 2009 explains a lot of how other Democrats in the commonwealth did poorly.

Again, the strongest evidence of this is that exit polling in VA shows that the electorate that went to the polls last week voted for McCain by 8 points-- in a state that went for Obama by a 6.3% margin, making a difference of 14.3 percent. That means that Deeds failed to get 1 out of 4 Obama voters to even go to the polls and vote. That is serious underperformance in his own party, and most clearly explained by Deed's distancing of himself from the national party and specifically Obama. That the Deeds campaign tried to reach out to the Obama administration at the last moment was a failed strategy that was a transparently desperate hail mary pass at the last moment, one which Obama supporters clearly saw through.

More evidence that the Republican success in Virginia owed more to Deed's failure than any real Republican resurgence is the behavior of the Republican candidates themselves. None of them felt comfortable enough in their party identification to so much as include it in their websites, espeacially not McDonnell, whose website was scrubbed clean of all references to the GOP. If his success was in fact built on the return of Republicanism, then clearly marketing himself as a Republican should have been a hallmark of his campaign. Instead, the Republican Party of Virginia had a coordinated effort to hide their political affiliations in the campaign-- that speaks to the fact that even the Republicans knew that the party remains unpopular, which is again more evidence that it was Deed's campaign to lose, not McDonnell's to win.

[weasel2000]

Kaine was still head of the VA Dems as well as the National Party and HE still couldn't energize the masses. If Obama had spent major time in the state...if he spent as much time in VA as he did in NJ...Deeds still would have lost. You all still lost the Independents that made VA swing red. VA is still a harsh bellweather for Democrats in the south (those that remain) and the Mid-West. Dems have overreached and turned off Independents, that will only worsen as the year goes on. To hear dems spin this as much as they have is amusing...

[blackflame2180]

Deeds specifically distanced himself from Kaine, in the debate no less. He avoided appearances with Warner, and with Jim Webb. He avoided rallies in NVA, fearing that they would alienate southern Virginians. He avoided campaign rallies in the first place because his campaign feared his stuttering disability would lead to YouTube clips that would sink the campaign George Allen style-- as it was the McDonnell campaign was able to successfully use his inability to speak clearly at the post-debate press conference in a multitude of campaign ads.

VA is no doubt a harsh land for Democrats-- which is exactly why it's no surprise that a candidate who couldn't organize an effective campaign, refused affiliation with popular national party figures from the State (Kaine, Webb, and Warner all have high positive job approval in the State, another indication that the Democratic national agenda isn't what sunk the Deeds campaign), mounted no get-out-the-vote in counties in which he had strong advantage, and in general was unable to articulate a response to outdated lines of attack did poorly. There's no evidence in any of that that the loss had much if anything to do with a shift in party affiliation, and much more evidence that supporters of the popular Democratic figures of the state just weren't motivated to support a candidate that didn't want their support in the first place.

Re: Independents

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/party-id.php

On election day last year, about 30% of voting-age adults identified as Republicans. Today that number is 22%, meaning that 1 out of 4 people who identified as Republican on election day last year identified as Independent this year. And that's averaging with the far more rosey Rasmussen numbers-- the Wall Street Journal (that storied bastion of Liberals) puts the number at 17%, which would be a loss of over 40%. Over that same period, Independent identification has gone from 32% to 38%-- making it reasonably clear that most Republicans who have left the party now identify as Independent.

It's not that Democrats have lost the independents with whom they built the victories of 2006 and 2008, it's that over the past year the Republican Party has bled so much support that recently-former Republicans make up a significantly large chunk of the independent electorate, a big enough chunk to swing independent numbers more conservative. If you look at polls in which voters are asked who they voted for in 2008, the numbers are virtually unchanged from a year ago.

What you're falling for is the statistics trick where all independent support is accounted to whichever side has the majority of independent support. About 35% of the country identifies as Democratic, and as noted before 22% of the country as Republican. That's a 13 point gap-- in order for the maxim that the majority of this country leans conservative, independents would have to lean conservative by over that 13 points.

That simply is not the case-- the numbers show that to be clearly false.

[blackflame2180]

re: NJ

That NJ was even a close state at all can be attributed to Obama's success at bringing out the vote for Corzine, who wouldn't have been a competitor if not for the participation of Obama administration.

Once again, here we see that interpreting the results of the election as a sign of some sort of Republican resurgence requires one to ignore exit polling. Voters who voted for Corzine overwhelming cited national issues as their top reasons for why, and voters who voted against Corzine overwhelmingly cited local issues over national issues in their as the main reason why. In other words, those voting on national party agenda issues voted with the Democratic Party, while those who voted based on state-based issues voted Christie. Again, that is poor evidence of a resurgence of the Republican agenda in the American electorate, and far better evidence that New Jersey voters are tired of corruption in their state government.

[weasel2000]

You can't have it both ways. All politics are local, and yes, the corruption was a big deal...but the dems had a 2 to 1 favor in registered voters...they could have run Rangel and he would have done well. Yes the candidate was weak, but in most normal years, I bet a 2-1 advantage and massive amounts of money would win out every time...except this. In the end the fact remains, The voters did not come out because there was not a dynamic black man on the ticket. And they won't for 2010. That's the one thing Democrats need. And if NJ is tired of corruption...and that translates to the US,l say goodbye to Reed, Dodd and other Dems with corruption trouble. It may not be Republican resurgence, but it still doesn't bode well for Democrats.

[blackflame2180]

Actually, that it IS both ways is precisely the argument I'm making. The tautology that all politics are local is false-- Politics are local AND National, and the specifics of a given race matter a great deal.

My entire argument is that the specifics of this case greatly disfavored the Democratic incumbent based on local issues specific to this election-- that Corzine specifically was so unpopular that not even a 2 to 1 registered voter advantage (most of whom vote primarily in national election years), nor the assistance of a popular President. My argument is precisely that Corzine only had a chance because he clung to the national party, and that only got him as far as it did because there was an independent candidate who significantly bled support from the Republican candidate.

More generally, my argument is that neither Corzine nor Deeds represent typical Democratic candidates, and hence interpreting their defeat as some sort of backlash against the national Democratic agenda is misleading at best. Neither of these elections has any real impact on national potlics beyond affecting how pundits choose to handicap their predictions for 2010. In elections in which the national party agenda did play a role, Democrats did quite well, in fact.

[blackflame2180]

Re: NY-23

You're assuming that Hoffman supporters won't run an ultra-conservative candidate in the primaries again. What the NY-23 vote shoes is that the district is not favorable to ultra-conservative candidates-- even 6% of Republicans chose effectively to abstain rather than vote for Hoffman. A candidate like Hoffman will lose NY-23, espeacially a year from now after campaign fatigue sets as Republicans continue to infight. Republicans certainly can win NY-23 again-- but it will require the Hoffman supporters to sit down and STFU while the Party runs a moderate candidate. If instead the Hoffman supporters chose to pick a fight with the party infrastructure again, or run a 3rd party candidate again, moderate NY Republicans will either stay home or vote Democrat, as many did this time around.

There's every evidence that Hoffman supporters will attempt a party takeover in the intervening year, though, and that this will in turn lead to a great deal more party turmoil which will continue to alienate moderate Republicans, which is only good news for the Democrats in a district that has until last week been solidly Republican.

re: Blue Dogs and the health bill

(a) noting Saturday's vote, many of them voted for the bill with minor tweaks, and

(b) Abortion is only a litmus test issue if you're a Republican. There have been plenty of pro-life Democrats for decades, which is why abortion rights have never been something the Party could organize around nationally in the manner that Republicans, with their litmus test, have been able to effectively organize around for at least 20 if not 30 years.

There is far more gray area on the issue of abortion in the Democratic Party; the idea that it's acceptable to believe that abortions should be available, but also believe that state or federal funds should not be used to pay for them, and that duality has been a part of the party for Decades.

Re: the Senate

I wouldn't be so sure about the Senate if I were you. There are more Republican seats up for election next year than there are Democratic seats, and many of those Senators are very vulnerable. Republican hopes on breaking the 60 effectively hinge on taking more Democratic seats than they lose Republican seats, and a lot of those hopes hinge on states like Deleware and Conneticut, not to mention pinning a lot of hope on taking down Harry Reid in Nevada.

[weasel2000]

The Republicans will run a candidate that will be not as liberal as Dede...which was really the problem. Hoffman probably won't run again...maybe he will...we'll see, but until then NY23 is conjecture. Moderate Republicans are already alienated, but the LIBERAL democrats haven't helped their cause. As much as the argument exists for the republican's, it exists for the democrats also. Do you seriously think Abortion isn't a litmus test for the far LEFT? The Democrats have been pulled rightward, it will be interesting to see how far this goes in the senate. Pelosi had much larger numbers to play with and it was always going to pass the House unless the House leadership was truly incompetent. I think it will now run into problems in the Senate. The final bill will prevent health insurance to be used for abortion and maybe some other more conservative viewpoints. If that's the case, I may not mind so much. In the end, I am a moderate and abhor single-party control of almost anything. This all bodes well for me in general. The Democrats WILL lose seats in 2010. We'll revisit this then...I bet a bottle of GOOD scotch to the alcohol of your choice that in 2010 Republicans will have a net gain in the Senate.

[blackflame2180]

Abortion is a litmus test for the left-- but the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party at this point is that the Democratic Party is not controlled by the left, whereas the Republican Party at this point is clearly controlled by the far right.

I agree that the Health Care bill will probably run into problems in the Senate-- precisely because the Democratic Party is NOT controlled by the Left, and there ARE a fair number of conservative Democrats.

What will probably pass the Senate is something like Harry Reid is currently suggesting, with some concessions either to Lieberman or Snowe, whichever is more willing to play ball. At this point, it is no longer a question of whether the bill will pass, but rather whether it will contain a public option or not.

I think that it is likely that it will, and that probably what will happen is that the bill will break the fillibuster, but get less than 60 votes on the final tally. Lieberman is too invested in keeping his Homeland Security committee chairmanship to risk losing it over the bill, and similar arm-twisting will get other Democrats to allow cloture.

What will probably emerge is the opt-out public option, which negotiates rates independent of Medicare, and further is funded by taxing Cadillac plans. I expect that in debate, torte reform will be added to the bill, which may be enough to bring Snowe or some other Republican whose state favors the public option along. Similar language to the House bill preventing funds from being funneled towards abortion will probably also emerge.

What emerges out of Committee when the two bills are merged will probably be much closer to the Senate vote, though what will probably change there is that the two funding approaches will be merged such that the tax on Cadillac plans will only apply to more expensive plans than those currently targeted, and the added tax burden on those making more than 250k is reduced.