Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Please explain how the conservatives would of "won" if Dede Scozzafava would had won? She was a liberal. She voted with Obama and the Dems, she even backed the democrat after dropping out!
This was a victory for conservatives, it was a message to the Republican Party that they'd had better stop nominating these shitbag liberals in an attempt to be "moderate", which is just code word for liberal.
Pretty funny stuff.
Everything from " a HUGE win for Palin" even though the candidate she was backing lost to "Democrats gain one more seat in their congressional majority" (which may be true but they also lost a governorship that has traditionally been pretty solid.
So here's MY spin:
I think Americans want something different. I think they expressed that in the presidential nominations and election by selecting a newcomer and a guy with a reputation for bucking the party line (up until the last 8 years anyway)
I also think a third party candidate gathered steam in New York because of the desire for something different. This was a seat the GOP held since the 1850s or something and the Republican pulled out a few days before the election.
IMHO if canddates want to do well in 2010 - they will show that they can reject the typical and predictable hyper-partisan, party-line blather that has done such damage to this nation. Doesn't matter if the have a D, a R, an I, or a C, or any other letter of the alphabet behind their name - they are going to have to project the strength to champion their constituency no matter whose feathers they have to ruffle to do it.
Just MHO.
I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again. Both sides have some reasons to be concerned by the results.
Virginia and NJ going "R" isn't that surprising if you've paid attention. Virginia always flips against the White House (R under Clinton, D under Bush, now R under Obama). However, Virginia was part of why Obama came in with a landslide in 2008. Anyway you spin it, the Virginia loss isn't good for Democrats.
On the other hand, NY23 is a race the Republicans should have easily won. It was a solidly "R" seat any way you cut it. And yet, thanks to the Teabaggers and Sarah the party imploded there. The loss there finally puts to rest the spin that McCain/Palin's loss in several solidly Red states in 2008 was solely McCain's fault.
Can someone please help me understand why everyone is so eager to pin the results of local and state elections back on the POTUS? Do you people NOT vote for the candidate who has the best ideas for your locale? In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was a horrible candidate, who ran a horrible campaign filled with ZERO substance. Deeds should have lost to my 11 month old daughter. However, how or why does this have ANYTHING to do with Obama?
While I disagree with a few of your finer points, I think you've got some really good points in here. But I think N.J. is the more impressive win (even if Corzine was so poorly regarded there) because it is traditionally Democratic.
I know the GOP probably takes a lot of heart in the Virginia win because Virginia is traditionally more center-leaning and the GOP really wants to regain the center. Maybe even at the expense of losing the far right.
But yeah, I think it will take some time to sort out.
While I disagree with a few of your finer points, I think you've got some really good points in here. But I think N.J. is the more impressive win (even if Corzine was so poorly regarded there) because it is traditionally Democratic.
I know the GOP probably takes a lot of heart in the Virginia win because Virginia is traditionally more center-leaning and the GOP really wants to regain the center. Maybe even at the expense of losing the far right.
But yeah, I think it will take some time to sort out.
Oh - I totally agree that winning New Jersey was the more impressive win, from the point of view that (as you said), it's a pretty "blue" state generally.
But strategically, as far as helping in the next Presidential election (or maybe 2016), I don't think winning New Jersey helps them as much as having Virginia.
It's hard to imagine a NJ governor going on to be elected President, while former Virginia governors are usually on somebody's short list. Plus, having their guy as governor will help whoever runs for the GOP nomination in Virginia in 2012 also. It's hard to imagine NJ voting for a Republican president three years from now, although stranger things have happened I suppose.
In any case - the loss of Virginia's statehouse is going to be the more painful loss for Democratic strategists looking over the electoral map for 2012 (imo, anyway).
If I had to bet money right now (as in, gun to my head), I would bet that the Dems keep majorities in both houses next fall (although they'll lose some seats in both, for sure), and that Obama gets reelected in 2012. On the other hand, I'd bet as little as the guy with the gun let me
I agree to an extent. But imho a leader is someone who has their own vision and inspires people to share that vision - not someone who simply parrots the latest opinion polls.
So I guess someone who could champion real ideas about how to address these most important issues would be my idea of a particularly strong candidate. Don't just gin up fear and prey upon that - but inspire people with real, workable ideas.
Most important to America is jobs and economy
Politicians is healthcare
I think the economy is traditionally the number one issue (unless we are attacked). And I would agree with your assessment IF our elected officials had set to work on a heathcare plan BEFORE addressing economic stimulus - but since they addressed the economy first and THEN began working on healthcare, it seems to me that reflects their priorities.
Are you suggesting that the economy needs MORE government intervention at this point? And that additional intervention is MORE important than healthcare?
Personally, I don't mind the attention on healthcare right now - BUT I think this issue as well as every other issue MUST be approached with a committment to reducing our debt.
Most important to America is jobs and economy
Politicians is healthcare
I think the economy is traditionally the number one issue (unless we are attacked). And I would agree with your assessment IF our elected officials had set to work on a heathcare plan BEFORE addressing economic stimulus - but since they addressed the economy first and THEN began working on healthcare, it seems to me that reflects their priorities.
Are you suggesting that the economy needs MORE government intervention at this point? And that additional intervention is MORE important than healthcare?
Personally, I don't mind the attention on healthcare right now - BUT I think this issue as well as every other issue MUST be approached with a committment to reducing our debt.
People being out of jobs, has to be #1 with our government. If that could be turned around, the economy would follow. I believe in limited regulations from our government. og course, we do need some regulations, but there is a fine line between regulating and over regulating.
On healthcare, I think we all know that there needs to be reform in the industry, I'm all for lowering overall costs. I just don't think the government is dealing with it in an itelligent manner. There is away to bring this about without a whole lot of government intervention, they just need to regulate it more than they are. But, they are taking great measures to overhaul the system. I don't see government commited to do what's best for the people, but they are doing it for more government power.
I agree with reducing the debt of the country, I just don't see our politicians commited on doing this. If cap and trade ever gets passed, we will never see the light of day, in this country again.
I think the economy is traditionally the number one issue (unless we are attacked). And I would agree with your assessment IF our elected officials had set to work on a heathcare plan BEFORE addressing economic stimulus - but since they addressed the economy first and THEN began working on healthcare, it seems to me that reflects their priorities.
Are you suggesting that the economy needs MORE government intervention at this point? And that additional intervention is MORE important than healthcare?
Personally, I don't mind the attention on healthcare right now - BUT I think this issue as well as every other issue MUST be approached with a committment to reducing our debt.
People being out of jobs, has to be #1 with our government. If that could be turned around, the economy would follow. I believe in limited regulations from our government. og course, we do need some regulations, but there is a fine line between regulating and over regulating.
On healthcare, I think we all know that there needs to be reform in the industry, I'm all for lowering overall costs. I just don't think the government is dealing with it in an itelligent manner. There is away to bring this about without a whole lot of government intervention, they just need to regulate it more than they are. But, they are taking great measures to overhaul the system. I don't see government commited to do what's best for the people, but they are doing it for more government power.
I agree with reducing the debt of the country, I just don't see our politicians commited on doing this. If cap and trade ever gets passed, we will never see the light of day, in this country again.
No Cap and trade proposal that I've seen would add a cent to our national debt. May mean electricity costs a heck of a lot more for consumers ... a heck of a lot more if the Wall Street auction of credits is included.
But I agree - some economic regulation is required - mostly (imho) to guarantee the transparancy of our markets. I consider unemployment a symptom - not the disease. My opinion is that if you treat the disease, the symptoms will eventually take care of itself.
Look at all the jobs Americans WON'T do - it's why we have immigrants streaming in because they are willing to work for wages and do work that Americans won't. We have spoiled ourselves with a standard of living that we can't support without going into debt. Tough for a politician to run on this platform - but imho - it's the truth.
People being out of jobs, has to be #1 with our government. If that could be turned around, the economy would follow. I believe in limited regulations from our government. og course, we do need some regulations, but there is a fine line between regulating and over regulating.
On healthcare, I think we all know that there needs to be reform in the industry, I'm all for lowering overall costs. I just don't think the government is dealing with it in an itelligent manner. There is away to bring this about without a whole lot of government intervention, they just need to regulate it more than they are. But, they are taking great measures to overhaul the system. I don't see government commited to do what's best for the people, but they are doing it for more government power.
I agree with reducing the debt of the country, I just don't see our politicians commited on doing this. If cap and trade ever gets passed, we will never see the light of day, in this country again.
No Cap and trade proposal that I've seen would add a cent to our national debt. May mean electricity costs a heck of a lot more for consumers ... a heck of a lot more if the Wall Street auction of credits is included.
But I agree - some economic regulation is required - mostly (imho) to guarantee the transparancy of our markets. I consider unemployment a symptom - not the disease. My opinion is that if you treat the disease, the symptoms will eventually take care of itself.
Look at all the jobs Americans WON'T do - it's why we have immigrants streaming in because they are willing to work for wages and do work that Americans won't. We have spoiled ourselves with a standard of living that we can't support without going into debt. Tough for a politician to run on this platform - but imho - it's the truth.
Where I live, there isn't a job that Americans won't do. What it comes down to, is that contractors, and businesses are paying illegal wages that Americans won't work for. I remember in Ca. growing up that roofers made good money before the illegals started flooding the area. Now the wages are not even entry level wages. But, my point is that Americans will do any job that we have, I see it everyday in Idaho.
I see it just the opposite.Pretty funny stuff.
Everything from " a HUGE win for Palin" even though the candidate she was backing lost to "Democrats gain one more seat in their congressional majority" (which may be true but they also lost a governorship that has traditionally been pretty solid.
So here's MY spin:
I think Americans want something different. I think they expressed that in the presidential nominations and election by selecting a newcomer and a guy with a reputation for bucking the party line (up until the last 8 years anyway)
I also think a third party candidate gathered steam in New York because of the desire for something different. This was a seat the GOP held since the 1850s or something and the Republican pulled out a few days before the election.
IMHO if canddates want to do well in 2010 - they will show that they can reject the typical and predictable hyper-partisan, party-line blather that has done such damage to this nation. Doesn't matter if the have a D, a R, an I, or a C, or any other letter of the alphabet behind their name - they are going to have to project the strength to champion their constituency no matter whose feathers they have to ruffle to do it.
Just MHO.
I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again. Both sides have some reasons to be concerned by the results.
Virginia and NJ going "R" isn't that surprising if you've paid attention. Virginia always flips against the White House (R under Clinton, D under Bush, now R under Obama). However, Virginia was part of why Obama came in with a landslide in 2008. Anyway you spin it, the Virginia loss isn't good for Democrats.
On the other hand, NY23 is a race the Republicans should have easily won. It was a solidly "R" seat any way you cut it. And yet, thanks to the Teabaggers and Sarah the party imploded there. The loss there finally puts to rest the spin that McCain/Palin's loss in several solidly Red states in 2008 was solely McCain's fault.
I see it just the opposite.Pretty funny stuff.
Everything from " a HUGE win for Palin" even though the candidate she was backing lost to "Democrats gain one more seat in their congressional majority" (which may be true but they also lost a governorship that has traditionally been pretty solid.
So here's MY spin:
I think Americans want something different. I think they expressed that in the presidential nominations and election by selecting a newcomer and a guy with a reputation for bucking the party line (up until the last 8 years anyway)
I also think a third party candidate gathered steam in New York because of the desire for something different. This was a seat the GOP held since the 1850s or something and the Republican pulled out a few days before the election.
IMHO if canddates want to do well in 2010 - they will show that they can reject the typical and predictable hyper-partisan, party-line blather that has done such damage to this nation. Doesn't matter if the have a D, a R, an I, or a C, or any other letter of the alphabet behind their name - they are going to have to project the strength to champion their constituency no matter whose feathers they have to ruffle to do it.
Just MHO.
I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again. Both sides have some reasons to be concerned by the results.
Virginia and NJ going "R" isn't that surprising if you've paid attention. Virginia always flips against the White House (R under Clinton, D under Bush, now R under Obama). However, Virginia was part of why Obama came in with a landslide in 2008. Anyway you spin it, the Virginia loss isn't good for Democrats.
On the other hand, NY23 is a race the Republicans should have easily won. It was a solidly "R" seat any way you cut it. And yet, thanks to the Teabaggers and Sarah the party imploded there. The loss there finally puts to rest the spin that McCain/Palin's loss in several solidly Red states in 2008 was solely McCain's fault.
NY23 had an R as long as that R was left of center. The republicans didn't lose anything in this election but gained some insight into a shifting pattern in upstate NY. A virtual unknown and a honest conservative almost managed to pull it off. When this seat comes up for the normal election, the conservative wing of the GOP may have a good shot of putting a real Republican into that seat. Not just another Democrat lite.
As for Virginia. Yes. It always goes against the party in power for the Governors seat and NJ was a vote against Corzine, not a vote for Republicans.
A decent day for the GOP, but not some momentum shifter that the GOP is spinning for. But then, I just heard the DNC vice-Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz call the lone conservative in NY23 an extremists. A sure sign that the Democrats are worried about NY23.
Well, if I was in the DNC, I'd be worried about NY23 for sure. Upstate NY is often (and wrongly) called conservative. However, I work in upstate NY and upstate is anything but conservative. After all, they elected Hillary Clinton as their Senator!I see it just the opposite.I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again. Both sides have some reasons to be concerned by the results.
Virginia and NJ going "R" isn't that surprising if you've paid attention. Virginia always flips against the White House (R under Clinton, D under Bush, now R under Obama). However, Virginia was part of why Obama came in with a landslide in 2008. Anyway you spin it, the Virginia loss isn't good for Democrats.
On the other hand, NY23 is a race the Republicans should have easily won. It was a solidly "R" seat any way you cut it. And yet, thanks to the Teabaggers and Sarah the party imploded there. The loss there finally puts to rest the spin that McCain/Palin's loss in several solidly Red states in 2008 was solely McCain's fault.
NY23 had an R as long as that R was left of center. The republicans didn't lose anything in this election but gained some insight into a shifting pattern in upstate NY. A virtual unknown and a honest conservative almost managed to pull it off. When this seat comes up for the normal election, the conservative wing of the GOP may have a good shot of putting a real Republican into that seat. Not just another Democrat lite.
As for Virginia. Yes. It always goes against the party in power for the Governors seat and NJ was a vote against Corzine, not a vote for Republicans.
A decent day for the GOP, but not some momentum shifter that the GOP is spinning for. But then, I just heard the DNC vice-Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz call the lone conservative in NY23 an extremists. A sure sign that the Democrats are worried about NY23.
I think that's a pretty level-headed assessment. I don't think the Dems have much of a chance at really holding NY23 so maybe they are right to be worried about that. But I don't think the GOP or any other party can elect a social/environmental ultra-conservative there.
Well, if I was in the DNC, I'd be worried about NY23 for sure. Upstate NY is often (and wrongly) called conservative. However, I work in upstate NY and upstate is anything but conservative. After all, they elected Hillary Clinton as their Senator!I see it just the opposite.
NY23 had an R as long as that R was left of center. The republicans didn't lose anything in this election but gained some insight into a shifting pattern in upstate NY. A virtual unknown and a honest conservative almost managed to pull it off. When this seat comes up for the normal election, the conservative wing of the GOP may have a good shot of putting a real Republican into that seat. Not just another Democrat lite.
As for Virginia. Yes. It always goes against the party in power for the Governors seat and NJ was a vote against Corzine, not a vote for Republicans.
A decent day for the GOP, but not some momentum shifter that the GOP is spinning for. But then, I just heard the DNC vice-Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz call the lone conservative in NY23 an extremists. A sure sign that the Democrats are worried about NY23.
I think that's a pretty level-headed assessment. I don't think the Dems have much of a chance at really holding NY23 so maybe they are right to be worried about that. But I don't think the GOP or any other party can elect a social/environmental ultra-conservative there.
Of course, some of the problems in NY23 can be attributed more to Patterson then Obama, but they are all getting tired of the high taxes and out of control spending at both levels of government.
Of course. But as I said, Republicans that come out of that district are left of center. Upstate NY is nothing if not liberal.Well, if I was in the DNC, I'd be worried about NY23 for sure. Upstate NY is often (and wrongly) called conservative. However, I work in upstate NY and upstate is anything but conservative. After all, they elected Hillary Clinton as their Senator!I think that's a pretty level-headed assessment. I don't think the Dems have much of a chance at really holding NY23 so maybe they are right to be worried about that. But I don't think the GOP or any other party can elect a social/environmental ultra-conservative there.
Of course, some of the problems in NY23 can be attributed more to Patterson then Obama, but they are all getting tired of the high taxes and out of control spending at both levels of government.
Well, I think the ENTIRE state elected Clinton. If she carried that district, then from what I've read, it must have been an anomoly. I've seen results that sujggest the district is a consistent GOP vote.
On the other hand, NY23 is a race the Republicans should have easily won. It was a solidly "R" seat any way you cut it. And yet, thanks to the Teabaggers and Sarah the party imploded there. The loss there finally puts to rest the spin that McCain/Palin's loss in several solidly Red states in 2008 was solely McCain's fault.
I see it just the opposite.
NY23 had an R as long as that R was left of center. The republicans didn't lose anything in this election but gained some insight into a shifting pattern in upstate NY. A virtual unknown and a honest conservative almost managed to pull it off. When this seat comes up for the normal election, the conservative wing of the GOP may have a good shot of putting a real Republican into that seat. Not just another Democrat lite.
As for Virginia. Yes. It always goes against the party in power for the Governors seat and NJ was a vote against Corzine, not a vote for Republicans.
A decent day for the GOP, but not some momentum shifter that the GOP is spinning for. But then, I just heard the DNC vice-Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz call the lone conservative in NY23 an extremists. A sure sign that the Democrats are worried about NY23.
Of course. But as I said, Republicans that come out of that district are left of center. Upstate NY is nothing if not liberal.Well, if I was in the DNC, I'd be worried about NY23 for sure. Upstate NY is often (and wrongly) called conservative. However, I work in upstate NY and upstate is anything but conservative. After all, they elected Hillary Clinton as their Senator!
Of course, some of the problems in NY23 can be attributed more to Patterson then Obama, but they are all getting tired of the high taxes and out of control spending at both levels of government.
Well, I think the ENTIRE state elected Clinton. If she carried that district, then from what I've read, it must have been an anomoly. I've seen results that sujggest the district is a consistent GOP vote.
I see it just the opposite.[
On the other hand, NY23 is a race the Republicans should have easily won. It was a solidly "R" seat any way you cut it. And yet, thanks to the Teabaggers and Sarah the party imploded there. The loss there finally puts to rest the spin that McCain/Palin's loss in several solidly Red states in 2008 was solely McCain's fault.
NY23 had an R as long as that R was left of center. The republicans didn't lose anything in this election but gained some insight into a shifting pattern in upstate NY. A virtual unknown and a honest conservative almost managed to pull it off. When this seat comes up for the normal election, the conservative wing of the GOP may have a good shot of putting a real Republican into that seat. Not just another Democrat lite.
As for Virginia. Yes. It always goes against the party in power for the Governors seat and NJ was a vote against Corzine, not a vote for Republicans.
A decent day for the GOP, but not some momentum shifter that the GOP is spinning for. But then, I just heard the DNC vice-Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz call the lone conservative in NY23 an extremists. A sure sign that the Democrats are worried about NY23.
Perhaps. But a review of the voting record of the members that come out of that district is fairly telling.Of course. But as I said, Republicans that come out of that district are left of center. Upstate NY is nothing if not liberal.Well, I think the ENTIRE state elected Clinton. If she carried that district, then from what I've read, it must have been an anomoly. I've seen results that sujggest the district is a consistent GOP vote.
Well, I guess that's a subjective assesssment that really depends on where you are standing when you look at it. From the far-right it probably appears to be VERY liberal and from the far-left it probably appears to be VERY conservative. But I think it would be hard to argue that this district has somehow been able to find a steady stream of "liberal" Republicans to elect since the 1850s.
But realtive "liberalness" and relative "conservativeness" is largely in the eye of the beholder and I guess that's exactly where it belongs.
I see it just the opposite.On the other hand, NY23 is a race the Republicans should have easily won. It was a solidly "R" seat any way you cut it. And yet, thanks to the Teabaggers and Sarah the party imploded there. The loss there finally puts to rest the spin that McCain/Palin's loss in several solidly Red states in 2008 was solely McCain's fault.
NY23 had an R as long as that R was left of center. The republicans didn't lose anything in this election but gained some insight into a shifting pattern in upstate NY. A virtual unknown and a honest conservative almost managed to pull it off. When this seat comes up for the normal election, the conservative wing of the GOP may have a good shot of putting a real Republican into that seat. Not just another Democrat lite.
