Post Vote Spin Cycle

[nodoginnafight]

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 candidates 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.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Gotta agree with you there. My personal opinion is that Palin is an extremely divisive figure and pershaps she is just "the GOP rift made flesh."

The failure to accept incremental reform .... the insistence that "I want it ALL my way RIGHT NOW" and the increasing defense of violence to achieve that agenda over contrary election results concerns me.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Gotta agree with you there. My personal opinion is that Palin is an extremely divisive figure and pershaps she is just "the GOP rift made flesh."

The failure to accept incremental reform .... the insistence that "I want it ALL my way RIGHT NOW" and the increasing defense of violence to achieve that agenda over contrary election results concerns me.

Palin is the GOP's version of Hillary. She motivates the left, and alienates the independents. Democrats can only dream that Sarah will make an appearance in their district or support their opponents.

I agree she's the growing rift in the GOP made flesh. What the GOP decides to do with her will decide their fates for a few election cycles. They can not win the Moderates and Independents when Sarah is in the field, and without those folks, YOU LOSE the election. They can't toss her aside as that will alienate your base.

In the end, the question will be is it more important to cater to your base and forget the independents (i.e. LOSE), or cater to independents and tick off your base.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Gotta agree with you there. My personal opinion is that Palin is an extremely divisive figure and pershaps she is just "the GOP rift made flesh."

The failure to accept incremental reform .... the insistence that "I want it ALL my way RIGHT NOW" and the increasing defense of violence to achieve that agenda over contrary election results concerns me.

Palin is the GOP's version of Hillary. She motivates the left, and alienates the independents. Democrats can only dream that Sarah will make an appearance in their district or support their opponents.

I agree she's the growing rift in the GOP made flesh. What the GOP decides to do with her will decide their fates for a few election cycles. They can not win the Moderates and Independents when Sarah is in the field, and without those folks, YOU LOSE the election. They can't toss her aside as that will alienate your base.

In the end, the question will be is it more important to cater to your base and forget the independents (i.e. LOSE), or cater to independents and tick off your base.

Spot on - I think THAT is the "Palin problem" in a nutshell.
I think there is no doubt that she is tapping into a general dissatisfaction with politics-as-usual, and I think if someone else can tap into that without being so divisive, they will be able to rally moderates of all stripes.

 

[Meister]

I think candidates really needs to tap in on the top 1 or 2 issues that Americans see as issues, and not what the politicians see as issues. It sure worked in Va.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think candidates really needs to tap in on the top 1 or 2 issues that Americans see as issues, and not what the politicians see as issues. It sure worked in Va.

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.

 

[theHawk]

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.

 

[Meister]

I think candidates really needs to tap in on the top 1 or 2 issues that Americans see as issues, and not what the politicians see as issues. It sure worked in Va.

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

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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!

Who said that a Scozzafava victory would be a victory for the Conseravtives? Scozzafava winning would have just meant the GOP held on to a GOP seat.

Instead Sarah got involved and the GOP imploded. Just like in 2008.

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.

That's why the GOP lost in 2008, and why they'll lose in 2012. You do not win without the Moderates and Independents. Go too far to the right or left and you'll alienate the middle. Sarah is all about the Right Wing, and because of that when Sarah gets involved the GOP loses in states and districts that should be easy pick ups.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Not sure how a loss for a candidate who put conservative by his name can be twisted into a "win" for conservatives - the attempt just sounds a little too desperate to spin it into a win for your ideology to me .... but to each his own spin I suppose.

 

[random3434]

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 candidates 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.

So do you think this means there is hope for a third party to start making waves in the political arena? Maybe baby steps, but if the public is dissatisfied with both parties enough, maybe we (the citizens) can get the ball rolling on a valid third party that will actually get elected for positions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think candidates really needs to tap in on the top 1 or 2 issues that Americans see as issues, and not what the politicians see as issues. It sure worked in Va.

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.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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 candidates 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.

So do you think this means there is hope for a third party to start making waves in the political arena? Maybe baby steps, but if the public is dissatisfied with both parties enough, maybe we (the citizens) can get the ball rolling on a valid third party that will actually get elected for positions.

IMHO - that's a big yes. I think if an alternative party can tap into fiscal conservatism with a moderate approach to social and environmental issues, I think they could be VERY successful.

My problem with the approach most alternative parties take is that they just run people for president and they typically have a very narrow agenda. I think ALL politics are LOCAL politics. They need to start running candidates for city commissions, or state legislatures and build a base. Without that widespread base, they are just a top-heavy tower that crumbles.

They want to play Carnegie Hall right away - skipping over their local halls.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Maybe my hope for all incumbents getting voted out of office is coming true. It's really time to get all the old hacks out that have been camping out like parasites for years doing nothing but empire building for themselves instead of serving the people that elected them. I think the majority of people in America are just like myself - that is, tired of all the corruption in politics, tired of all the empty promises, tired of hearing the same old drum beat. We need real change and not the crap we have seen since the last Presidential election. I hope this is the beginning of a turn towards government ruled by common sense.

 

[random3434]

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 candidates 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.

So do you think this means there is hope for a third party to start making waves in the political arena? Maybe baby steps, but if the public is dissatisfied with both parties enough, maybe we (the citizens) can get the ball rolling on a valid third party that will actually get elected for positions.

IMHO - that's a big yes. I think if an alternative party can tap into fiscal conservatism with a moderate approach to social and environmental issues, I think they could be VERY successful.

My problem with the approach most alternative parties take is that they just run people for president. I think ALL politics are LOCAL politics. They need to start running candidates for city commissions, or state legislatures and build a base. Without that widespread base, they are just a top-heavy tower that crumbles.

They want to play Carnegie Hall right away - skipping over their local halls.

I agree. We had this discussion elsewhere, and somebody said that is the best way to start, building at the local level and moving up slowly. I am willing to volunteer my time for a party that has the same values/goals I have, and I believe many of us would do the same, because we sure are tired of the same old-same old from the 2 choices we have now.

What better time to start then now.

 

[ayiakri]

Palin is the GOP's version of Hillary. She motivates the left, and alienates the independents. Democrats can only dream that Sarah will make an appearance in their district or support their opponents.

While I agree with the rest of your post (about alienating you base and winning, vs. catering to the base but losing), but I can say with a lot of confidence that Hillary Clinton never appealed to the left-wing of the Democratic party.

If anything, her loss to Obama was orchestrated in no small part by the "liberal" wing of the party, groups like MoveOn.org, lots of former Nader voters, and other liberal grass-roots groups. They've always "accomodated" the Clintons - but they've never liked that the Clintons set up the "DNC" in order to bring the Democratic party more to the center. Obama motivated the liberal base much more so than Hillary did, with the exception of some women's groups, like NOW and Emily's list, who by their nature supported the woman in the race.

I agree she's the growing rift in the GOP made flesh. What the GOP decides to do with her will decide their fates for a few election cycles. They can not win the Moderates and Independents when Sarah is in the field, and without those folks, YOU LOSE the election. They can't toss her aside as that will alienate your base.

That really is the conundrum. In Virginia, the Republicans seemed to have found a possible "winning" work-around: pick someone who is genuinely conservative, but who is neither "scary" (in a Dick Cheny/***** Vader kinda way), nor a completely vapid caricature of the "stupid hillbilly" (a la Sarah Palin).

I also totally agree that it's going to take a couple (or a few) election cycles to sort out, and until then, the GOP isn't going to be making any huge gains on a national level (although winning Virginia is a pretty big win for them - New Jersey, I'm inclined to say... let them have it! haha)

 

[nodoginnafight]

Palin is the GOP's version of Hillary. She motivates the left, and alienates the independents. Democrats can only dream that Sarah will make an appearance in their district or support their opponents.

While I agree with the rest of your post (about alienating you base and winning, vs. catering to the base but losing), but I can say with a lot of confidence that Hillary Clinton never appealed to the left-wing of the Democratic party.

If anything, her loss to Obama was orchestrated in no small part by the "liberal" wing of the party, groups like MoveOn.org, lots of former Nader voters, and other liberal grass-roots groups. They've always "accomodated" the Clintons - but they've never liked that the Clintons set up the "DNC" in order to bring the Democratic party more to the center. Obama motivated the liberal base much more so than Hillary did, with the exception of some women's groups, like NOW and Emily's list, who by their nature supported the woman in the race.

I agree she's the growing rift in the GOP made flesh. What the GOP decides to do with her will decide their fates for a few election cycles. They can not win the Moderates and Independents when Sarah is in the field, and without those folks, YOU LOSE the election. They can't toss her aside as that will alienate your base.

That really is the conundrum. In Virginia, the Republicans seemed to have found a possible "winning" work-around: pick someone who is genuinely conservative, but who is neither "scary" (in a Dick Cheny/***** Vader kinda way), nor a completely vapid caricature of the "stupid hillbilly" (a la Sarah Palin).

I also totally agree that it's going to take a couple (or a few) election cycles to sort out, and until then, the GOP isn't going to be making any huge gains on a national level (although winning Virginia is a pretty big win for them - New Jersey, I'm inclined to say... let them have it! haha)

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.

 

[VaYank5150]

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?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So do you think this means there is hope for a third party to start making waves in the political arena? Maybe baby steps, but if the public is dissatisfied with both parties enough, maybe we (the citizens) can get the ball rolling on a valid third party that will actually get elected for positions.

IMHO - that's a big yes. I think if an alternative party can tap into fiscal conservatism with a moderate approach to social and environmental issues, I think they could be VERY successful.

My problem with the approach most alternative parties take is that they just run people for president. I think ALL politics are LOCAL politics. They need to start running candidates for city commissions, or state legislatures and build a base. Without that widespread base, they are just a top-heavy tower that crumbles.

They want to play Carnegie Hall right away - skipping over their local halls.

I agree. We had this discussion elsewhere, and somebody said that is the best way to start, building at the local level and moving up slowly. I am willing to volunteer my time for a party that has the same values/goals I have, and I believe many of us would do the same, because we sure are tired of the same old-same old from the 2 choices we have now.

What better time to start then now.

MHO - is that is EXACTLY what it will take. If I am reading the center correctly (that they are fiscally conservative but more moderate on social and environmental issues) then this Tea Party movement just could provide a spark for this alternative party. I think they would have to rid themselves of some of the more toxic figures that have just tried to use the movement to beat the current administration over the head.

But some of the Tea Party folks have insisted to me that those folks don't represent the real intent of the movement, that it truly is a movement of fiscal conservatism NOT social conservatism. It's that's true, then I think there is potential.