Meaning of the Nov 3 elections

I have been sorting through the various news sources, left and right, trying to ferret out the meaning of the elections yesterday.  Taking what by consensus were the Big 3, Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections and the New York 23 special congressional vote, did they mean a repudiation of Obama?  Was it a repudiation of Obama’s policies but not Obama?  Did it signify that the teabag movement had an impact?  Did it imply the Republicans are on the ascendency?  Did it mean nothing at all?

Each of those options has been supported on the net in various guises, but I think I come down on the side that it didn’t mean much.  Taking the votes one at a time.

Virginia.  Historically Virginia elects the party not in the White House after the new presidents’ election.  Obviously this time it was a Republican but I surely don’t think it can be characterized as a Republican ascendency.  I don’t see that as a repudiation of Obama or his policies, nor do I see that the teabaggers had much of an impact.  As McDonnell has already beaten Deeds once in a Virginia state wide election, although by a razor thin margin, it doesn’t seem to be much of a leap to think he might beat him again; especially when the first time produced a Democrat governor.  Only two things about the Virginia election were surprising to me.  One was the margin of McDonnell’s victory; 18% points is a landslide.  Second was the fact the Lt Governor and Attorney General also went Republican.  These are the factors that Republicans are pointing to that show Obama was repudiated, but I’m not so sure.  Deeds was not a good candidate and McDonnell stayed on message and Virginia voters followed history.  I don’t believe a whole lot was decided here.

New Jersey.  Let’s face facts, Jon Corzine was not an effective governor; in fact he is an arrogant twit by any measure.  Obama did campaign hard for Corzine, inexplicably in my opinion, but the heavily left New Jersey repudiated Corzine anyhow.  I think it was more of a backlash against Corzine than a repudiation of Obama or his policies.  I do find Robert Gibb’s comment “President Barack Obama wasn't even keeping an eye on the results” to be highly suspect if not a flat out lie.  With the effort Obama put into campaigning with Corzine it is impossible for me to believe he had no interest in the results.  He surely was not spending the time talking to his Afghanistan Commander or his Secretary of Defense.

New York 23.  The results here are the most interesting of the day yesterday in my opinon, and the varied conclusions drawn from the results are just as interesting. 

The prevailing view being pushed by the left is that the Republicans proved you had to be hard right to be a candidate and that’s what lost the race for Hoffman.  I reject that view as the very liberal Scozzafava was selected by the Republican hierarchy as their candidate.  The people of the 23rd rejected her candidacy, not the Republican Party.  While Hoffman is clearly a conservative, his views don't qualify as hard right; only in comparison to Republican's anointed candidate did he appear to be hard right.

Another take is that a Democrat when running on a reasonable platform can win even in the most Republican of districts when running against a weak candidate.  I think that is clearly true; the better candidate and better campaign won.  The morass created by the selection of a liberal Republican, which gave rise to a viable candidacy by an independent conservative (wow I like that term), was the problem for the conservative leaning 23rd district.  An attractive moderate Democrat who was better funded and better known beat an attractive unknown conservative; both of them beat the liberal Scozzafava.  I don’t think this was a harbinger of things to come or a vindication of Obama or his policies.

Anti-Obamaists could point to the fact that he campaigned in both Virginia and New Jersey, but did not campaign in New York.  While an attractive talking point, I don’t think that had any effect on NY 23.

I’m curious what the readers think the election results mean, if anything.

Comments

[Jerry Scarborough]

Timo,

I agree. As they say "all politics are local". The two Democrat candidates we both pretty poor. A lot of local issues, especially in New Jersey, were in play. It's actually good to know that Corzine couldn't buy the election.

I suppose, had the Democrats won in both Virginia and New Jersey the pundits would be claim a vindication of Obama. As it is, the media is saying it is no reflection on Obama, so maybe it really is a reflection. Such a conundrum.

[Ricky]

I don't think it reflected much. I'll take the voters word for it that President Obama didn't factor into their decision.

I do think conservative independents were really active in both governor's races. The young people and African-Americans who supported President Obama in 2008 clearly didn't turn out for either Deeds or Corzine.

The interesting thing to me about New York 23 is that it most likely won't even exist after the next redistricting. I understand the uproar, but part of me wonders if in the long run it's a seat with limited value to either party.

[Ceart]

Good points all. Low liberal independent turnout, high conservative independent (I like that term also) turnout, local issues, and weak Democratic candidates all played into the governor victories for Republicans. But I believe there was a whiff of national Democratic repudiation in the air, and I believe that will carry over into the 2010 races (Remember "It's the economy, stupid"?). If conservative Dems and Dems who won in red districts (on Obama coattails), toe the Pelosi line on health care reform and/or Cap and Trade, it will be a bloodbath. That is why Owens will be a 1/2 term Congressman. That is why Schauer will bite the dust to either Walberg or Brian Rooney.

Timo - It is reported that Obama was watching the HBO movie about himself instead of the returns. So, he is either a narcissist or a liar. Actually, I choose both.

[Timo Kokko]

While Nancy Pelosi is far from my favorite politician, she outdid herself yeserday with the inane "We won last night" comment when referring to Tuesday's election results.

[Andrew Smith]

I think in general these elections perhaps reflected a bit of disenchantment and frustration by the public, they certainly weren't harbringers of doom for any particular party or ideology. I agree with Ceart; I think there is an air of disaffectation regarding the liberal establishment's policies and that certainly is fueling a more robust effort in the 2010 races. I actually agree with the White House: the midterm elections will be a better way to gauge the mood of the country.

The parties haven't yet figured out the independent conservative movement. Despite being outnumbered 10-1 to by rabid extremist partisan loyalists and 100-1 by apathetic scarcely-aware rank-and-file partisans, the independent conservatives are plugged-in to every race and despite displaying little national coordination, very well-organized. This is bound to lead to some surprises. I think if the media had picked up the story in NY 23 earlier and the heavyweights had not come out to endorse Hoffman only a week or two before the election, he could have won.

These elections were not viewed as critical and with some exceptions, not as much effort was put out by any of the various interests.

2010 will undoubtedly be hotly contested everywhere. Establishment candidates are in big trouble and that makes me smile.

[CaravaggiosZen]

So Nancy thinks she won Tuesday evening? I think she must have been snuggled up next to Barack on the couch watching that HBO special and not watching the returns if she's claiming victory.

The 23rd district was a Republican screw up. Since it was a special election, there was no primary. Had there been a primary, Scozzafava's name would not have found the light of day. But a few guys sitting around a table in a New York pizza parlour chose her to be on the ballot. Huge mistake that I predict won't be made again.

Like Ceart said, there is a "whiff of Democratic repudiation in the air." The Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey may not have been an out and out Obama referendum, but it's definately not a liberal mandate celebrating Obama's spending sprees either. A message was sent to Washington on Tuesday night, and although the dems are not publicly admitting it, know that we are going to see a shift in the coming days/weeks/months.

[Ricky]

Fellas,

Nancy Pelosi leads The US House of Representatives.

How did the Democrats do in the US House races Tuesday night?

2 for 2. She gained a member of her caucus she had no reason to believe she was going to get. She gained a much more liberal member in California than the one that left the caucus.

Do I know that is what she meant? No. But if you think about her context for a second, it isn't that preposterous. While Democrats were clearly thumped at the state level, the federal Democrats were not.

Best wishes to the families of the victims at Fort Hood today.

[Comrade Tang]

The Jersey race may have been a statement about Obama, we'll see what next year brings.

I'm predicting a Hoekstra win over Cherry here next year.

It's too bad the crazies pushed the moderate republican candidate out of the NY 23rd race. The exposure of Hoffman's 95% out of district contributions to go along with Palin's endorsement helped to assure a happy ending. If the teabags want to be taken seriously they'll need to put some distance between their movement and the nuts like Palin and Bachmann.

Quote of the week from an unidentified GOP congressman,
“When your captain’s crazy, it’s time to find a new ship."

[Timo Kokko]

Ricky,
I must agree with you on both points. The odious Pelosi did indeed add two Dems to her majority. I had looked at the election primarily in terms of the governors races but you are right; the Dems did win in the House. I also had forgotten about California 10. That was totally inexplicable to me.

Hard to believe what happened at Ft Hood today.

[Johnny Pax]

It is?

[Ceart]

Timo - Based on eyewitness accounts and what has been reported this morning, what happened at Fort Hood is just another chapter in the Islamofascist war against the west. It is not that much different than a suicide bomber in Iraq or Afghanistan. What makes this one so puzzling is that it happened on our soil and was perpetrated by one of our own servicemembers. As a soldier, I grieve for America and the families of the victems.

There was a discussion about the death penalty recently and I stated that since Michigan had no death penalty, I was ambiguous in my feelings about the subject. Well, this is a federal capital crime (and a hate crime according to recently passed legislation), and I am sure hoping that the shooters face capital punishment.

[All Timo All the Time Oh]

It isn't federal or state, it's military. UCMJ doesn't have hate crimes, last I checked.

This shooting wasn't part of any Islamofascist -- who can still say that word with a straight face, Ceart? -- phenomenon. It seems a far closer cousin to the way the military is run and the ceaseless run of school, workplace, and public shooting sprees in American society.

[Ceart]

The hate crime thing was a stab at sarcasm. I know all about the UCMJ. I lived under it for 23 years. In my opinion (and I am entitled to it), this was a planned and calculated attack by an Islamic extremist. If you don't think this is an Islamic terrorist attack, then you, and all the other Jihad apologists have your head in the sand.

Some of the MSM seem to be referring to this as pre-post traumatic stress syndrome. I call it cowardice. Major Hasan doesn't deserve to be called a soldier.

[ggbuttstead]

It's beginning to look like Ceart's thinking is quite similar to the thinking of some of Hasan's neighbors and fellow servicemembers in Texas. If he hadn't met people with such attitudes, he might not have turned quite so extremist, to the unknowing delight of many.

Does it occur to you at all, Ceart, that your reaction here has the power to instigate, too?

Maybe in a society where racial, ethnic, and religious fearmongering had been eliminated, violent outbursts would also be curtailed.

Or just keep Allah bashing and hope for the best. If anyone reacts, use the reaction to justify your bashing.

What a wipe.

[Michael Schils]

Ceart wrote, "There was a discussion about the death penalty recently and I stated that since Michigan had no death penalty, I was ambiguous in my feelings about the subject."

You say you were "ambiguous"? Ceart, don't you mean you were "ambivalent"?

But without having all the facts regarding what happened in Fort Hood, you are proud to say that you already have an opinion that "Islamofascism" is responsible and you want to see someone die.

Ceart, your mindless rants are a vile combination of hate, prejudice, and ignorance.

Timo, take the keyboard away from your little brother, will ya?

[Stump08]

Let me get this straight . . .
A Christian murders and abortion Doctor and it is touted as doestic terrorism from the left and screamed from the hilltops.

A Muslim convert with pro-palistinian beliefs who blogs about the courageous suicide bomber yells aaluah ackbar before opening fire is the fault of some schoolyard bullying.

Not buying it at all left. And please drop the PTSD crap, this man was never deplouyed to a combat zone.

[Michael Schils]

Stump, your claim that the shooter was a Muslim "convert" conflicts with reports that he has been a Muslim all his life. Your allegation that he blogged about a "courageous suicide bomber" is completely unverified.

The whole story smells like a cover-up. How could so many battle ready soldiers with defensive training and hair trigger reflexes allow themselves to be massacred by one man with two handguns? What were they all doing while he was reloading and why didn't they rush him? Why didn't the military police just shoot him dead?

There must have been more than one shooter. It could have been a revolt by a group of soldiers who had enough and didn't want to go back. Such a scenario would require a serious cover up by the Pentagon and the White House to preserve public support for our endless wars.

A "lone gunman" historically does not survive long in Texas, so I doubt we will ever hear his side of what happened.

[Timo Kokko]

Well I was wrong on my assessment of Owens. According to sources, among them http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9833&posts=3 , Owens broke four campaign promises in the first hour after being sworn in as a new representative. This may be a new record shattering any previous office holder's for mendacity. Shameful.

[Michael Schils]

Oh mendacity shmendacity Timo, can't you see when a REAL story has trumped one of your contrived partisan "stories"?

Why aren't you all over this Fort Hood story, Timo? It appears that Obama's White House and what you call our "liberal" media are both hard at work making sure the truth doesn't get out here. So why aren't you interested?

Because the PENTAGON is at the heart of the cover-up, that's why you're not interested.

We've already clearly been told at least one lie by the authorities when the early reports claimed the gunman was dead. The number of shooters being reported went from 5-3-2-1.

An official acknowledged that it was "counterintuitive" that a single shooter could hit so many people, but he said the massacre occurred in "close quarters". "With ricochet fire, he was able to injure that number of people," the official said.

So they're already desperate enough to pull out the "magic bullet" explanation. And they have a "lone gunman". And they're in Texas. Do I detect a lack of imagination?

The REAL story may be that a group of soldiers rebelled against further deployment. This is why there were early reports of multiple shooters.

But 5 or so soldiers shooting their officers signals mutiny in the ranks and reminds everyone of the "fragging" of Vietnam days. It looks really bad to the people. It could even spread to other soldiers and other bases where the military are stretched to the breaking point.

Bingo! Five shooters driven to violence with the wars becomes one conveniently dead Muslim. But wait, he isn't dead.

I predict the "lone gunman" will meet his Jack Ruby within a week, because, well, it worked so good before, why change the narative?

[Ceart]

Jeez Michael - Who pooped on your parade today?

Yes, I meant ambivalent. So what? And I take no pride in my feelings that the shooter should face the death penalty. It doesn't matter if his motive was Jihad or cowardice. He still killed fellow soldiers with premeditation.

You have no idea what goes on in the military, military posts, or in the military mind. I would say that my 23 years of experience in the Army through three conflicts (Vietnam, Grenada, and Desert Storm) give me a little better point of view than your anti-military one.

There may have been more than one shooter, but it is still possible for a lone gunman to get off enough shots to do the damage Hasan. The pistol is the primary weapon for medical personnel. They are taught fast reloading in their weapons training. Besides, there are 9mm pistols that have magazines that can hold up to 33 rounds.

Analysts are divided about whether this was a terrorist act (my opinion), or the act of someone who didn't want to go to war. Some have coined the term pre-PTST. I call it cowardice. If Hasan really didn't want to go, he could have done any number of harmless things to stay, including just going AWOL. Certainly the punishment would have been less severe than execution will be.

Your analogy to fragging is pathetic. What do you know about that subject anyway? First, his action was against soldiers and civilians who were strangers. No chain of command, no one who had dissed him, or had anything to do his potential deployment were targeted.

Your comment about the other soldiers present is equally as assinine: "How could so many battle ready soldiers with defensive training and hair trigger reflexes allow themselves to be massacred by one man with two handguns? What were they all doing while he was reloading and why didn't they rush him? Why didn't the military police just shoot him dead?"

Soldiers, other than MP's don't carry weapons on posts outside a combat zone. Reports have said that many did try to rush Hasan, but were not successful. Did it ever cross your puny mind that Fort Hood may not have a garrison MP force due to the personnel requirements in other areas of the world? The brave police officer who shot Hasan, and was wounded herself, is a member of the Fort Hood police force, probably augmenting or replacing the road patrols previously done by garrison MP's.

Your tinfoil hat conspiracy theory about soldiers rebelling against deployment and going on a shooting spree is totally without merit and credibility. You can be an apologist for the Jihadists. I prefer to stay vigilant.

[Timo Kokko]

Ceart,
Good post.

Michael,
While I have gotten used to some silliness coming from you, this may have topped your previous efforts. A conspiracy theory already?

[Michael Schils]

Timo, as I see you commend your most like-minded disciple for another I-couldn't-have-said-it-better-myself comment, I have to ask if you share Ceart's opinion that "what happened at Fort Hood is just another chapter in the Islamofascist war against the west"?

I see you carefully avoided using the I-word in your post so here's to hoping that even you have become too embarrassed to use that term. Instead, in your post you opted to be much more subtle with your Islamophobia as you use the hate crimes bill as a literary device to raise the question of whether the shooter's actions fall under the "religion" clause.

You cite the unverified anonymous claim that the shooter shouted “Allahu Akbar” as your proof that the shooter's actions were driven by religion. Of course, video footage from the many cameras that are positioned in and around military installations would confirm whether this was true or not, but you obviously see no need for such verification before proceeding with your speculation.

Again Timo, please indicate whether you share Ceart's view that this "was a planned and calculated attack by an Islamic extremist". If you are ready to make such an assumption on such scant evidence, then there is your reason why the accused doesn't have a chance of receiving a fair trial by the military.

And if you are going to continue to use Ceart to float your trial balloons before you post on a subject, maybe you should teach him the difference between the words "ambiguous" and "ambivalent" and discourage him from using those "long words" he's not quite sure of.

[Ceart]

Michael - Why are you afraid to post directly to me? I don't speak for Timo and he doesn't speak for me. So what if I misused a word? I apologize to you since you seem to take it so personal. I am in the process of self-flagellation for my sin even as I write this. How about if I go back through all your posts and play grammar and spelling police? Maybe I should plead with YNH to discourage you from posting stupid comments.

What happened at Fort Hood may just be conjecture and opinion for everyone who comments on it, including you. It is not like we are writing a news piece here. It is my opinion that the shooting appears to be Islamic terrorism. Islamofascists around the world are probably rejoicing just as they did on 9/11. Too bad if you and others don't like my opinion or choice of words.

[Timo Kokko]

Michael,
As Ceart said, he is more than capable of answering questions posted directly to him. I do not speak for Ceart nor do I speak for anyone else other than myself. I do find it very refreshing that Ceart provides a voice of reason, that I frequently agree with, in the sometimes bizarre posts that appear on the People's Politics.

I am not certainly not embarrassed to use the term Islamofascist when the term fits the situation-such as flying planes into the Twin Towers or bombing Seder suppers. I suspect, but haven't read enough on Hasad to have a firm opinion yet, that this was a pre-planned killing due not to his Islamofascist leanings, but more due to the fact he is a total mess as a human being.

I further have no idea why my opinion would influence or be representative of a UCMJ panel were one to be called to adjudicate this; I believe they would have significantly more and better data than that to which I have access.

The rest of this topic would be better handled on the Hate Crime or not post.

[Michael Schils]

Timo, when you praise someone for his or her comments, I think its fair for me to ask you if you agree with something specific that person said. How both of you got out of this that I was asking you to "speak for Ceart" is beyond me.

But your reference to the suspect's "Islamofascist leanings" answers my question, as I now see that you are swallowing without verifying the same disinformation being put out there as he.

The simple point I was trying to make is that if like you, the UCMJ panel looks at this case with the preconceived notion that the suspect has "Islamofascist leanings" then I hardly see how a fair trial would be possible.

Ceart, I have no idea why you think I am "taking personal" the fact that you sometimes write beyond the limits of your vocabulary. It really doesn't bother me at all. If I see a misused word, I'll just ask you again if you would like to replace it with another.