Election aftermath and general discussion of candidates for public office

[Maister]

It's the day after election day and the results for many state and local elections are rolling in. Some predictable wins and some upsets.

Speaking in general, do you think those individuals who could be classified as gadflies, or persistent vocal critics of government make good legislators or function well in the role of public official when they win an election?

[Gedunker]

The internecine fighting in NY23, I believe, is a harbinger for the Republican and Conservative parties. 'I'm sorry, but you are not Republican enough'? Death knell for the GOP, if you ask me. There are more social moderates than there are social conservatives, but you'd never know it by the way the latter acts.

In my opinion, the gadflies don't make good legislators because they seem utterly unable to compromise.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Personally, I can't wait for the Conservative vs GOP fights to begin.

The Conservative candidates can't win, but they can force the GOP candidate to the right of Atilla the Hun, making both the Conservative and GOP candidate unelectable. Any time a member of the GOP tries to say something at a campaign rally even remotely reasonable they will get shouted down.

A minimum of 6 more years in the wilderness for the GOP.

[PennPlanner]

Uhh.....

the GOP WON Virginia in a 60% blowout. That's a landslide victory despite the Washington Post calling McDonnell a fraud. the GOP candidate even picked up all the Northern Virginia suburbs save Arlington.

the GOP WON New Jersey despite the state being one of the most staunchly Democratic states in the country.

I'm not sure why some of you think a single congressional seat in upstate New York is a harbinger of things to come. Has there ever been a single congressional seat election, especially one that featured a three-way race, that was a harbinger of things to come on the national scale?

[imaplanner]

I'm pretty shocked about Virginia. How much more backward can McDonnell be?

[TexanOkie]

I agree with PennPlanner, and will further comment that a lot of what y'all think are harbingers of things to come have actually been in effect for several years now (albeit minus the 3rd party).

[CJC]

Uhh.....

the GOP WON Virginia in a 60% blowout. That's a landslide victory despite the Washington Post calling McDonnell a fraud. the GOP candidate even picked up all the Northern Virginia suburbs save Arlington.

the GOP WON New Jersey despite the state being one of the most staunchly Democratic states in the country.

I'm not sure why some of you think a single congressional seat in upstate New York is a harbinger of things to come. Has there ever been a single congressional seat election, especially one that featured a three-way race, that was a harbinger of things to come on the national scale?

Well, the two GOP wins that you're talking about were gubernatorial races, which are an entirely different animal from congressional or presidential elections. (though I don't necessarily think that NY23 was a harbinger of anything to come)

People more often vote for governors and mayors based upon individual policies, rather than those of the party that they belong to, because governors and mayors have less pressure to toe the party line. For example, there's a pretty good chance that I would vote for a GOP candidate for mayor or governor in my city or state, but not a chance in hell that I'd vote for a GOP candidate to send to Washington (even if his/her personal views were close to mine), as he/she would be heavily influenced/forced to fall in line with much more socially conservative policies of the majority of congressional GOP members. It's one of the problems of the two party system - it basically has forced me into voting for one party on national level races, regardless of my distaste for any given candidate.

[jsk1983]

Still trying to figure out what was on the ballot here in Chicago. Can't even find any coverage on the Tribune's website. I know it's an off year but it seems like there almost wasn't an election at all.

[PrahaSMC]

My quick-hit thoughts:

- As an out-of-state liberal dem, I wasn't the least bit surprised or displeased to see Corzine ousted. His personal fortune, deep ties to Goldman Sachs and the financial industry, combined with New Jersey's sputtering economy made him an easy mark for conservatives in the national media. Christie will take over, fail to deliver on his promised tax cuts, be forced to slash state programs, and the economy will continue to suck... by 2010, the '09 backlash will be a distant memory if people are still hurting (and this recession is still far from over).

-The Republican party is going to embrace moderates as they size up their chances in house races next fall. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and other voices who have marginalized the moderate, "big tent" party philosophy lack the broad national appeal to sway the balance of power in Washington. Come 2012, the party will turn to a more pragmatic conservative like Tim Pawlenty; stick a fork in strick social conservatives like Palin and Huckabee.

-The so-called "Obama Coalition" does not translate for other Democrats. Obama rode a wave of anti-Bush sentiment and votes from young, first-time voters and racial minorities... people who traditionally vote in comparatively low percentages, especially in off-year elections.

-The Republicans will take back a lot of seats in 2010, narrowing the Democratic majorities in the house and senate. This will create gridlock, making it very difficult to pass any substantive legislation in the second half of Obama's term; the two parties just don't play nice anymore. Ultimately, the economy will still be really bad next year... whether it turns around by 2012 will determine if Obama is re-elected to a second term.

[danthonyjr]

Uhh.....

the GOP WON Virginia in a 60% blowout. That's a landslide victory despite the Washington Post calling McDonnell a fraud. the GOP candidate even picked up all the Northern Virginia suburbs save Arlington.

the GOP WON New Jersey despite the state being one of the most staunchly Democratic states in the country.

I'm not sure why some of you think a single congressional seat in upstate New York is a harbinger of things to come. Has there ever been a single congressional seat election, especially one that featured a three-way race, that was a harbinger of things to come on the national scale?

National politics and local/state politics are two totally different things. Party affiliation does not make as much difference on the local/state scale. Example: Here in Arkansas, every state Constitutional office is held by Democrats (Governor, Lt. Governor, Sec. of State, Atty. Gen., Land Commissioner). Both our State House and State Senate are overwhelmingly Democratic. In fact, 5 out of 6 members of our U.S. Congressional delegation are Democrats. Yet, no Democrat Presidential candidate has won here since Bill Clinton. Last year, Obama's margin of loss here was either the second or third highest margin of loss in the entire country.

Don't look too much into what happened in VA or NJ's state races. (Even Massachusetts had a Republican governor a few years ago -- I don't remember anyone arguing that Mass. was trending 'conservative' or Republican, and if they were, they probably feel like dolts now.)

[hilldweller]

Gubernatorial elections don't signify much politically. Case in point: Massachusetts, bastion of liberalism, had a Republican governor in office for a ten-year stretch from 1997-2007. People tend to elect governors based on their perceived ability as administrators and budget managers rather than their political affiliations.

I don't know if NY23 is a harbinger of anything, except for maybe that the GOP is dying a slow, painful death here in the northeast. Not too long ago the GOP was actually a viable opposition party here, and dems didn't have a chance in districts like NY23 that were always solidly Republican. That's completely changed over the past decade or so, as the extreme cultural conservatism of the national party drove out the moderates. The recent comments by Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh I think make pretty clear that there is still a faction of the GOP that doesn't want moderates "in the tent", so to speak. If so they can swear off ever becoming relevant again in the northeast.

[imaplanner]

-The Republican party is going to embrace moderates as they size up their chances in house races next fall. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and other voices who have marginalized the moderate, "big tent" party philosophy lack the broad national appeal to sway the balance of power in Washington. Come 2012, the party will turn to a more pragmatic conservative like Tim Pawlenty; stick a fork in strick social conservatives like Palin and Huckabee.
.

I'm not so sure. Palin, Huckabee and Rush are the face of the GOP right now. The main reason why so little people are identifying themselves as republican is not because they are moderate- but rather that they are believing that the GOP is too moderate for them. NY 23 came fairly close to winning with a "conservative party" candidate, which really is just the extreme wing of the GOP. I see that as supporting the teabagger group's agenda of purging all moderates from the GOP. Common sense says that if the GOP wants to win they will move to the center- but common sense also doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the modern republican agenda.

[otterpop]

It seems like it is much ado about nothing much. A Republican wins in Virginia! My gawd, what a shock!!

The 24 hour news channels and Fox Spews have to fill their time and everything has to be black or white. Either events are a reaffirmation of the status quo or the death knell of the status quo.

In our local election a liberal and a conservative won vacant seats in town. No surpise there. We pretty much knew two weeks ago those two men would win. The only cliffhanger was who would come in third and by how close?

I did get a vicarious thrill out of the Republicans shooting themselves in the foot in New York. Had a comfy hold on that congressional seat for more than a century, but they just had to mess it up.

Disorganized and crippled by in-fighting. Seems like the Republican Party is acting more and more like the Democratic Party.

[Hink]

I'm not sure why some of you think a single congressional seat in upstate New York is a harbinger of things to come. Has there ever been a single congressional seat election, especially one that featured a three-way race, that was a harbinger of things to come on the national scale?

Well it wasn't a three way race, it was two ways, after Scozzafava dropped out, but it isn't about this one seat in my mind, it is about the way they handled this seat.

I think that the management of the repub party for this seat shows a lot about the way that they plan on handling future elections. If they decide to push away all republicans who are not "conservative" enough, they are going to be in for a long haul. Whether they like it or not, the only reason many people are republican is for the fiscal conservative ideals, not the socially backward ones. If someone like Scozzafava who I would say was a social liberal, fiscal conservative, is told she is too "far to the left", then the GOP is up a creek. If they don't realize that this "we are conservatives, we have always been right, and we will always continue to be right" talk doesn't stop, and they don't start looking to appeal to the younger generation of folks who believe in gay rights and abortion rights they are going to continue to look like the party of yesterday. Scozzafava was a strong conservative on most issues, just not a couple.

Sad really. If the republican party could just shut up people like Rush/Palin/Hannity they might get stronger candidates like Scozzafava who at least try to appeal to moderates and socially liberal conservatives.

[PrahaSMC]

I see that as supporting the teabagger group's agenda of purging all moderates from the GOP. Common sense says that if the GOP wants to win they will move to the center- but common sense also doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the modern republican agenda.

The tea-bagging, Limbaugh-listening, Fox News-watching cohort represents only a narrow slice of the Republican base. In national elections, Republicans don't have to appeal to religious conservatives in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc.-- these voters will default to the Republican candidate as a lesser of two evils choice, even if he/she is moderate on social issues. On the other hand, the suburban middle class in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania need to be actively courted on economic issues. Republicans want to win, even if it means compromising on a candidate who isn't big on social issues. That's how the GOP ended up with John McCain... he was the most "sellable" candidate they had, much to the chagrin of Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity.

I will say that if the economy remains bad, and I suspect it will, the 2012 candidate to look out for will be Mitt Romney. Though I think his road to the GOP nomination will be difficult (Hey Mitt, remember like 10 years ago, when you were pro-choice and favored gun control?), he will have a lot of things going for him outside the policy realm:
- He proved in Massachusetts that he can appeal to moderates.
- His business background (however shady it may be) gives him credibility on economic issues and he loves to talk job creation... a great asset in this economic climate.
- The Democratic base could be disaffected and vulnerable (see my post above)
- And, of course, never underestimate the country's ability to fall in love with a handsome, smooth-talking suit.

[Planit]

On the local level two long term mayors lost in a couple towns near me.
One had been mayor for 23 years and the new guy had been running on we cna be better than before (which really wasn't bad and there was still some ripples from a WallyWorld decision 4 years ago)
The other one was a political transfer (although the council & mayor are nonpartisian races) from demo to repub - something that hasn't happens it more than 40 years or more.

[kalimotxo]

Uhh.....

the GOP WON Virginia in a 60% blowout. That's a landslide victory despite the Washington Post calling McDonnell a fraud. the GOP candidate even picked up all the Northern Virginia suburbs save Arlington.

the GOP WON New Jersey despite the state being one of the most staunchly Democratic states in the country.

First of all, your bit about NOVA just isn't true. The race was very close in Fairfax, and Deeds won in Falls Church, Alexandria, and Fredericksburg, in the former cases by a very wide margin. Considering McDonnell is actually a Fairfax native, I'd say Deeds made a pretty good showing up there.

Secondly, I think anyone who would suggest that the governor's races are in any substantial way a referendum on DC needs to consider the facts on the ground. Corzine was a very weak incumbent. His approval ratings were dismal (~34%) through most of his campaign for governor. Considering the circumstances, Christie's performance was not all that impressive.

Deeds, whom I voted for and I think is a good man and would have made a goodgovernor, was by any measure a weak candidate. He based most of his campaign on McDonnell's 20 year old thesis but the people of Virginia are largely more concerned about jobs than anything else. McDonnell's views in that paper were so out of touch with reality that it was easy for him to dismiss it as an academic exercise, but Deeds couldn't let go of it. If he had spent more time talking about fixing Virginia's dismal roads and maintaining a business friendly state, he could have had a shot, but instead he never talked about himself and let the McDonnell campaign label him a liberal. Dems in Virginia don't get much more conservative than Creigh Deeds.

[imaplanner]

What is going to be interesting is to see what lesson the democrats learn. I believe that the lesson is that when you don't do what the voters voted you into office for, those voters aren't going to show up next time. However, I'm afraid that they are going to get the wrong idea that to be competetive they need to become even more republican-lite. Democrats are usually pretty stupid like that

[TexanOkie]

What is going to be interesting is to see what lesson the democrats learn. I believe that the lesson is that when you don't do what the voters voted you into office for, those voters aren't going to show up next time. However, I'm afraid that they are going to get the wrong idea that to be competetive they need to become even more republican-lite. Democrats are usually pretty stupid like that

I guess that explains all the advice Dems and Dem-oriented folks have been giving the GOP the last 3 1/2 years.

[pete-rock]

I'm no political guru, but it seemed to me the Republicans were going to win some races simply because of the poor economy. If you look back at the 2008 election, I think McCain would have pulled off a narrow victory if not for the economic meltdown of September 2008. He proved to be pretty erratic in his response to the collapse and Obama showed some mettle. And I say this as an Obama supporter.

Now we've got millions of unemployed people saying the bailouts and stimulus didn't work, and what was once a Bush economy is now an Obama economy. I expect the Republicans will pick up more seats in the House and Senate in 2010.

HOWEVA...

That will have more to do with general dissatisfaction with the economy than any overall shift of the electorate toward the GOP. The Republicans still will have to figure out if they want to "purge" moderates out of the party, or if they want to be competitive in places outside of their strongholds.

[imaplanner]

I guess that explains all the advice Dems and Dem-oriented folks have been giving the GOP the last 3 1/2 years.

I don't see it as a fair comparison. The republicans moved really far to the right and lost elections. Moving even more to the right isn't going to help them. The democrats won the last election while campaigning for certain things they are now backing down from.

[PennPlanner]

Now I know why I avoid political threads. It really doesn't matter what you say. You'll just interprate the facts to satisfy the conclusion you prefer.

I'll just throw in a few things: Governors' elections can be about local affairs, but they are also connected to national affairs as well. I'm old enough and have lived in several states to know this very well. Had VA's election been last year on the same day as the presidential election, who would have won? Or how much narrower would the victory be?

Upstate New York: the winning candidate didn't get 50% of the vote. You can say the majority of the district actually voted for the conservative/Republican candidate.
Switch 2K votes or so and the Republicans would be proclaiming a major victory just as the Democrats are claiming a major victory today.

Let's remember that Joseph Leiberman lost the Democratic primary in CT a few years back to a more liberal democrat. He threw a hissy fit, ran as an Independent, and won. What did that mean for the Democratic coalition? Nothing, as it turned out.

Last but not least, having read a few analyses on this election it appears that in Virginia and New Jersey, independent voters decisively swung to the Republicans, which is a major turnaround from the last few elections. You can decide whatever this means to you.

[kjel]

NJ's race for Gov has been very interesting and the polls showed pretty much a dead heat between Corzine-D and Christie-R for the last six weeks. Neither ran a very good campaign. Corzine refused to debate in public and really didn't have much of a record to run on. Christie's campaign was "I'm not that guy!" and there was an Independent candidate that got about 5% of the overall vote who was by far the most reasoned and articulate of the three.

While NJ is a blue state there are a more red areas than you would think and the solidly blue areas did not come out and represent for Corzine in the way he needed it. My county can usually be counted on for 60%+ for the Dems and last night it was only 47%. The people of NJ are pissed off, things have reached a critical mass in terms of budget deficits, pension deficits, corruption, poor business climate, unemployment, lack of services, sky high property taxes, etc etc.

While I am excited about the change the legislature is still a democratic majority and they will more than likely give Christie a world class runaround for the next two years. Last night one dem assemblyman from Bayonne was reelected despite having an open indictment for corruption and bribery

[Gedunker]

Bumpity bump ...

The internecine fighting in NY23, I believe, is a harbinger for the Republican and Conservative parties. 'I'm sorry, but you are not Republican enough'? Death knell for the GOP, if you ask me. There are more social moderates than there are social conservatives, but you'd never know it by the way the latter acts.

A lot of y'all didn't agree with me about NY23 being a harbinger. Take a listen to this NPR All Things Considered story to see if it is a bellwether. While they are not (yet) calling themselves a political party, these Tea Bag folks certainly sound like one: 'Where were you in NY23' will be a litmus test for them -- in Dallas, TX.

[The One]

A fiscal disaster coupled with the complete lack of educational funding from people in this state (Arizona) may lead to my kids middle school being closed next year The legislature takes 1/2 of the blame for not being able to provide even basic education funding and about 60% of the population are to blame.....guess what party they belong to!!!