Palin and Armey pull a Bull-Moose Party in NY House race

[Instant Sunrise]

Well, the right wing noise machine is already hemming and hawwing about how the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races are this "referendum on obama."

I wonder what they were saying about the 2001 election when the democrats won those seats. Let's take a look.

Mort Kondracke: "We have no way of knowing" how 2001 outcome would affect 2002 midterms. On November 5, 2001, Mort Kondracke commented: "I don't know what effect this will have on the 2002 election. And the 2002 election is -- could be decided on the basis of terrorism, and the fact that law enforcement -- the Republicans have an advantage in defense and law enforcement. And the Democrats, if it's a lousy economy, that may be the big issue. We have no way of knowing." Kondracke continued: "But the history of the matter is that in 2002 the chances are that the party in control of the White House will lose. It's almost -- lose seats, yes, in the House and Senate. In which case, the Republicans could lose control of the House." (Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 11/5/2001; via the Nexis database)

Mara Liasson: "A handful of off-year elections can't be used to predict" outcome of 2002 midterms. On November 7, 2001, Mara Liasson said: "A handful of off-year elections can't be used to predict what may happen next year when all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is up for election. But last night Democrats proved they could run to the middle and keep their base in both a conservative state like Virginia and a classic swing state like New Jersey." (NPR's Morning Edition, 11/7/2001; via Nexis)

Dick Morris: "If you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republicans." On November 6, 2001, Dick Morris said of the "two Democratic victories" in New Jersey and Virginia: "If you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republicans. That's why the Republicans got 37 governorships while Clinton was president." Morris added: "[N]ow the Democrats are picking them all off because Bush is president. People want divided government, and that's what you're seeing, and that's what you will see in '02, a Democratic trend, not because they don't like Bush" (Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 11/6/2001; via Nexis)

David Broder highlighted the difference between open gubernatorial races and congressional races with "popular incumbents." On November 6, 2001, David Broder said in an appearance on CNN: "The striking thing about these races was that Republicans did not have incumbents to run, and the candidates that they came up with as the successors that they hoped to elect were -- did not have nearly the breadth of appeal, not nearly the personalities of the people that they were trying to sec -- to replace." He continued: "And that carries some warning signs, I think, perhaps more for next year's governors' races where the Republicans will be in the same position, trying to replace popular incumbents, not so much in the congressional races where we expect most of the incumbents will be running again." (CNN's Greenfield at Large, 11/6/2001; via Nexis)

Michael Barone: "I don't think that the issues and personalities" in Virginia and New Jersey races "are going to be congruent with very many" races in 2002 or 2004. On November 5, 2001, Michael Barone said: "f you're talking about a harbinger -- are the odd-year elections a harbinger of the off-year elections and the presidential-year elections, I think the answer is, only to the extent that the issues and personalities are congruent." He later added: "I don't think that the issues and personalities in that race in Virginia or in New Jersey are going to be congruent with very many Congressional and House and Senate races in '02, or the presidential race in '04." [Special Report, 11/5/2001; via Nexis)

Laura Ingraham: "Both sides are going to spin this," but "to call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense." On November 7, 2001, Laura Ingraham said of the election results: "Both sides are going to spin this, Alan [Colmes], but to say -- to call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense." (Hannity & Colmes, 11/7/2001; via Nexis)

Why hasn't there been more coverage of this splitting and self-destruction of the local republican party on any of the news networks? Every time I turn on the T.V., even the "liberal" networks like MSNBC, it's all about how the dems lost virginia. Fox keeps hammering on about it being a "referendum on president obama" or some such crap. No one seems to be talking about this.

I'm really not surprised by NY-23 getting swept under the rug and the coverage of the VA and NJ governors races getting the lion's share of media coverage.

It's an unfortunate truth that the right controls the political narrative when it comes to how the media covers political issues. The opinion commentators will create a controversy, and then the news side is merely "covering the controversy."

[Knife]

Well, I'm of two minds. The two Gov. wins are important for moral for the GOPers, yet the retention of the Dem in California, and the pick up in NY strengthens the Dems in the national government while the governors do nothing in the national government. So, yeah, the GOPers have a couple more Governors to display and run some states (for good or bad) but lost ground in the Congress of the US where most of the important legislation we need will be had.

[D.Turtle]

Frankly, you have to look at the type of Democrats who lost.

You have the deeply disliked incumbent democrat in New Jersey who ran a campaign that consisted solely of attacking the Republican. And you have a blue dog democrat who is anti universal health care, anti cap and trade, anti immigration reform, anti labor reform running in Virginia.

Surprisingly they lost, because Democrats didn't turn out enough.

But hey, one can always hope that the Democratic leadership gets the message that "moderate" blue dog democrats can not expect to delay and attack and sabotage progressive Democrats' goals and still get their support. Frankly, the Democrat's have enough breathing space in order to purge some of the more extreme "moderates" and still retain their majorities.

As for this being a referendum on Obama (from the CNN exit polls: When only 20% of voters say their vote was meant to express opposition to Obama, the same amount say their vote was supposed to express support for Obama, and the remaining 60% say Obama wasn't a factor, then I'd say those elections weren't a referendum on Obama. But don't tell the Mainstream Media that...

[Axis Kast]

Rather than a "Republican Civil War," look to the fact that third-party wins, even when they have the effect of "spoiling" a single election cycle, rarely translate to staying power in our two-party system. Instead, "flanking" maneuvers, especially against one's own party, select for, and influence, the issues that take precedence two, four, or six years hence.

The number of self-identified Independents suggests that the truth of Rove's perceptions earlier this decade -- that the margins, not the middle were where to look for voters -- may no longer be correct. However, the fact that moderates in NY went to the Democratic candidate and not their own moderate candidate suggests that the "cleansing" of the Republican Party will only strengthen the Democrats, not result in the establishing of a third, libertarian political organization.

[ray245]

As for this being a referendum on Obama (from the CNN exit polls: When only 20% of voters say their vote was meant to express opposition to Obama, the same amount say their vote was supposed to express support for Obama, and the remaining 60% say Obama wasn't a factor, then I'd say those elections weren't a referendum on Obama. But don't tell the Mainstream Media that...

Many mainstream media is arguing that the reason why the democrat lost was due to those people who are in the middle decides dislike the progressive push towards UHC and gay rights.

[Axis Kast]

If I'm hearing it correctly, all of today's races were essentially about local issues, with the exception of the vote in Maine, where, from what I hear, the far right successfully (and without plausible evidence) pitched the problem as whether or not homosexuality should be "taught" or endorsed in the public school system.

[D.Turtle]

Here is a wonderful NYT editorial about last election day:

Hark! The Voters Speak!
By GAIL COLLINS

In Ohio, citizens marched to the polls on Tuesday and voted to allow gambling casinos in the state. This was a obviously a message to President Obama that independent voters are not happy with the way the health care bill is going.

Really, I don’t see how else you can interpret it. Ohioans were looking forward to the lower insurance costs that would come with a robust public option, and if the president can’t deliver, they’re planning to pay their future medical bills with their winnings at the roulette wheel.

Also, people here in Cincinnati rejected a proposal that would have made it harder for the city to expand mass transit. Obviously a repudiation of the entire cash-for-clunkers initiative.

Meanwhile, both Atlanta and Houston voted on mayoral races, and in each city there is now going to be a runoff between a woman and a black guy. You think this is a coincidence? The meaning could not be clearer if the ballots had had a “maybe we should have gone for Hillary” line.

There seems to be a semiconsensus across the land that the myriad decisions voters made around the country this week all added up to a terrible blow to the White House. If that’s the way we’re going to go, I don’t think it’s fair to dump all the blame on gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia.

Although there is no way to deny that New Jersey and Virginia were terrible, horrible, disastrous, cataclysmic blows to Obama’s prestige. No wonder the White House said he was not watching the results come in. How could the man have gotten any sleep after he realized that his lukewarm support of an inept candidate whose most notable claim to fame was experience in hog castration was not enough to ensure a Democratic victory in Virginia?

New Jersey was even worse. The defeat of Gov. Jon Corzine made it clear that the young and minority voters who turned out for Obama will not necessarily show up at the polls in order to re-elect an uncharismatic former Wall Street big shot who failed to deliver on his most important campaign promises while serving as the public face of a state party that specializes in getting indicted.

They would not rally around Corzine even when the president asked them! Really, what good are coattails if they can’t drag an unlovable guy from a deeply corrupt party into a second term?

Also, we have heard a lot about the fact that Corzine’s campaign made sport of his rather chunky opponent, Chris Christie. It was not until Wednesday morning that it became obvious that Christie’s victory was actually an outcry by average, pudgy Americans against a president who has to continuously battle against a tendency to lose weight.

We have a dramatic saga story line brewing here, and I do not want to mess it up by pointing out that Obama’s party won the only two elections that actually had anything to do with the president’s agenda. Those were the special Congressional races in California and upstate New York. But obviously they reflect only a very narrow voter sentiment, since one involved a district that was safe for the Democrats and the other a district that had not been represented by the party since 1872.

On the other hand, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s victory clearly fits into the pattern of voter outrage against an unsuccessful White House. Initially, New York City residents found it hard to figure out how to send their message of inchoate rage against all that Barack Obama stands for, since Bloomberg is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but rather a member of the well-known splinter group, Extremely Rich White Persons. Also, Obama had backed his opponent, Bill Thompson, with an endorsement that could not have been more oblique and half-hearted if he had sent it via Candygram.

In the end, everyone got together and decided to re-elect Bloomberg by a margin that was much narrower than expected. I know this is the first time that you are hearing this, but I voted on my way out of town on Tuesday, and I can assure you that everyone in New York intended to convey their unhappiness with the administration’s foreign policy by electing Bloomberg by a margin of five percentage points — exactly the average number of letters in “Iran” and “Israel.”

The voters were directed by a crack team of political operatives disguised as elementary school bake-sale ladies, who spelled out their orders with chocolate chip cookies. The national news media missed this entirely, but insiders could tell that the cookie people were working under cover, since the school system banned genuine pastry sales as part of Bloomberg’s healthier-than-thou initiative.

It all worked out great, and I hope Obama has gotten the message. Really, he had better shape up and completely transform the way Washington works before the next election. Otherwise, another governor’s head could roll.

[CarsonPalmer]

Realistically, Christie should be embarassed that the damn vote was close. Regardless of Corzine's policies, he tried as hard as he could to be un-re-electable by just being abrasive and obnoxious towards voters on so many issues. I agreed with a lot of his policies, but it was tough to do it because his whole manner made me want to slap him across the face. Corzine getting as much as he did shows that the Democratic Party in NJ is, as always, pretty strong. And the Republicans are crazy if they think they can actually win the state in a 2012 election.

[Anguirus]

Here's some more commentary on this "Right-wing shoots GOP in the foot" saga. Didn't realize how serious and organized they were, nor how willing they were to accept a Dmocratic victory as preferable to having an impure GOP candidate.

Insurgent conservatives have declared all-out war on the Republican establishment, and Erick Erickson is helping to lead the charge.

Erickson, who runs the influential Web site RedState.com, drew fire on Wednesday from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, after Erickson expressed glee over the outcome of New York’s hotly contested 23rd Congressional District race. With help from Sarah Palin and Dick Armey, Erickson had led the online charge to drive the GOP favorite, Dede Scozzafava, from the race, believing her to be too moderate. Erickson’s preferred candidate went on to lose to a Democrat—handing the GOP its first loss in this Adirondacks-based district in more than 100 years. Erickson nonetheless declared victory, saying he’d done “exactly what we set out to do—crush the establishment-based GOP candidate.”

[Axis Kast]

Too many victories like this will spoil their credibility, as one FOX News commentator pointed out, but, for now, it's a tried-and-true strategy for keeping social issues at the fore just when Obama is tackling other kinds of problems. For Republicans like Palin, that's the ticket to victory.

[The Kernel]

Too many victories like this will spoil their credibility, as one FOX News commentator pointed out, but, for now, it's a tried-and-true strategy for keeping social issues at the fore just when Obama is tackling other kinds of problems. For Republicans like Palin, that's the ticket to victory.

The whole "culture wars" thing has been a tried-and-true strategy of the GOP for decades, but I'm not sure how effective it is anymore. Let's look at some of the historic issues:

• 1) Gun Control: Most rational Democrats have given up on this issue and although the wingnut conservatives still think Obama is going to take away their guns (as evidenced by the massive ammo shortages after he was elected), I seriously doubt the middle 20% is seriously concerned about this anymore.
  
  2) Gay Rights: This might seem to be a good issue except that it has settled in quite well as a state referendum in most places and even though the US is still slightly more than 50% against things like gay marriage in even the best areas, the middle seems content with giving gays protected liberties and are not interested in a federal crackdown on the gay marriage issue.
  
  3) Abortion: An oldie that still is good for riling up the base on either side, but it doesn't have the polarizing effect on the middle that it used to except in extremely narrow contexts like government healthcare spending on abortions.

[Axis Kast]

Republicans are still thinking in the Rovian sense of trying to get confirmed conservatives out of their homes to vote. I don't think they've yet embraced the idea that there's been a resurgence of swing voters.

I'd contend that your assessment of gay marriage is well off the mark. Even when the issue is being settled at the state level, legislators who identify as "pro-marriage" are still enormously popular.

[The Kernel]

I'd contend that your assessment of gay marriage is well off the mark. Even when the issue is being settled at the state level, legislators who identify as "pro-marriage" are still enormously popular.

Maybe, but it's not the wedge issue for independents that the GOP hoped it would be. And it's especially hard since it's possible to be very pro-gay rights and still not commit to gay marriage.

Take Obama as a classic example. He has managed to be pro-gay rights without committing to gay marriages and it never hurt him in the election nor did it seem that independents gave much of a shit one way or the other.

[Axis Kast]

Maybe, but it's not the wedge issue for independents that the GOP hoped it would be. And it's especially hard since it's possible to be very pro-gay rights and still not commit to gay marriage.

I think it is not. One can not be "very" pro-gay rights and yet not have a certain opinion on the issue of marriage.

I agree that gay marriage doesn't appear to be a wedge issue for independents. However, Palin, Armey, Thompson, and their ilk still believe that the problem is getting their proven partisans to the polls, not "biggering" the tent.

Take Obama as a classic example. He has managed to be pro-gay rights without committing to gay marriages and it never hurt him in the election nor did it seem that independents gave much of a shit one way or the other.

Obama was the "liberal" candidate. He won the vote of social liberals by default. His decision not to commit to gay marriage was presumably made for political reasons, and forgiven as such.

[CarsonPalmer]

I agree that gay marriage doesn't appear to be a wedge issue for independents. However, Palin, Armey, Thompson, and their ilk still believe that the problem is getting their proven partisans to the polls, not "biggering" the tent.

Yeah, and for that belief they are:

1. Immoral for the positions they hold.

2. Wrong.

Looking at things rationally does not preclude making a moral judgment, which you refuse to do.

[The Kernel]

I think it is not. One can not be "very" pro-gay rights and yet not have a certain opinion on the issue of marriage.

I agree that gay marriage doesn't appear to be a wedge issue for independents. However, Palin, Armey, Thompson, and their ilk still believe that the problem is getting their proven partisans to the polls, not "biggering" the tent.

Getting your base out in force is requirement for any election but it's counterproductive if in doing so you alienate the swing voters. This is exactly why many GOP strategists think that Palin is more dangerous to the Republican party than Obama.

Obama was the "liberal" candidate. He won the vote of social liberals by default. His decision not to commit to gay marriage was presumably made for political reasons, and forgiven as such.

No I meant that he didn't alienate a significant amount of independents with his stance on gay rights which shows that although gay rights might be a reasonable way to get out the vote for the conservative base, it's not going to prevent moderates from voting for the liberal candidate.

[Axis Kast]

Getting your base out in force is requirement for any election but it's counterproductive if in doing so you alienate the swing voters. This is exactly why many GOP strategists think that Palin is more dangerous to the Republican party than Obama.

Republicans still operate under the now eight- or nine-year-old assumption that "true" Independents are actually very rare, and that elections are swayed by he or she who can get out the most stalwarts.

Looking at things rationally does not preclude making a moral judgment, which you refuse to do.

What has this to do with the price of eggs? I've called the conservative position on gay marriage flat-out wrong and immoral many times before.