> On Nov 3, 11:35 pm, Va Beach Hokie <wjl...@provider.com> wrote: >> On Wed 04 Nov 2009 01:09:11a, Dan Bretta (nuda...@yahoo.com) >> wrote
>> > Virginia going GOP is...well...not a surprise.
>> It's not a surprise, but not for the reasons you think.
>> Our last two Govs have been Democrats and neither really >> screwed up. There is a bit a budget crunch happening, but >> that's just the economy. I've had little to bitch about with >> either Kaine or Warner before him. Both were pretty moderate >> and had decent numbers. Warner could easily have won a 2nd >> term if our constitution didn't prohibit it.
>> The reason it wasn't a suprise is that Creigh Deeds is an idot >> and IMO ran a lousy campaign. Both campaigns went negative >> early. Deeds went after McDonnell on women's issues and >> McDonnell went after Deeds on taxes. Money trumped this >> election.
> I wasn't trying to slight Virginia...even though you've had back > to back Democratic govs it's still a GOP leaning state.
Not really, at least not as Governors. Since Reconstruction, we've only had 5 GOP govs. And all of those since 1970. Holton R Godwin was a Nixon D who switched parties in 1974. Dalton R Robb D Balliles D Wilder D Allen R Gilmore R Warner D Kaine D
Prior to Holton, it was all controlled by the Byrd Machine.
We seem to prefer the middle of the road. Go too far either way and you'll likely cost your party the next two elections. (See Gilmore, Jim)
> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats > for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.
> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually > increases a seat.
The funny thing is that the Republicans probably would have won this race had the teabaggers not gotten involved in it.
Net effect, there is now a liberal Democrat occupying the seat instead of a liberal Republican.
Heiman
Hoffman, doesn't even live in the district and showed throughout the last few weeks that he was unprepared and doesn't know the issues...complained that he wasn't given the questions beforehand for a debate when they were printed in the newspaper that morning...et cetera...and this was the guy that got the late endorsement of Sarah Palin. Michelle Malkin and the rightwing bloggers turned on Newt Gingrich for endorsing the actual GOP candidate...I honestly think that 2010 will go much the same way unless the moderate GOPers get out of the way of the teabaggers early on.
It's not surprising that the governorships of NJ and Virginia went GOP tonight...NJ is highly taxed and the economy sucks..people want change there. Virginia going GOP is...well...not a surprise.
> >It's not surprising that the governorships of >NJ and Virginia went GOP > >tonight...NJ is highly taxed and the economy >sucks..people want change > >there.
> Hmm .. so people don't like high taxes and the economy sucks .. that > doesn't > bode well for the Democrats nationwide does it!
Actually it doesn't, but the teabaggers don't seem to understand that if they wedge themselves into races they're going to be splitting votes and ultimately hurting their own cause. ******************************* Only left wing whackos and RINOs are naive enough to believe that shit.
> On Nov 3, 10:31 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats >> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.
>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually >> increases a seat.
> I doubt you will believe it, but there are getting to be a lot of > (former) Republicans more than willing to lose a few elections in the > coming years in order to bring the party back to the its roots.
Which roots? I mean seriously, which roots? The Nixon roots? The Goldwater roots? The Rockefeller roots? The Hoover roots? The Lincoln roots?
Yeah, I know, you think that Reagan is your roots, but face it, Reagan would get run out of the GOP on a rail today by the teabaggers -- Sandra O'Connor would have been more than enough. Besides, he was the undisputed king of post-WWII deficit spending until Bush 43 came long, so if you think Bush represents a departure from your Reaganite past... no. He was the logical extension of Reagan in just about every way imaginable.
So I honestly just do not get this "bring the party back to its roots" business, unless in the most politically cynical context -- "we need to be popular again."
> On Nov 3, 9:16 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> lein wrote, On 11/3/09 11:15 PM:
>>> On Nov 3, 9:05 pm, honkifyoulovejustice >>> <the.tick.honkifyoulovejust...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Nov 3, 8:38 pm, "Highway 66" <kduv...@charter.net> wrote: >>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message >>>>> news:yc-dnV7m9aYMnmzXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com... >>>>>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats >>>>>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party. >>>>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually >>>>>> increases a seat. >>>>>> cb >>>>> Humm .. I'm watching all the news networks and no one has called that race >>>>> yet? If the Dem does win that race then you can enjoy your consolation >>>>> prize! Bwahahahahaha!!! >>>> NY-23 was supposed to be a beachhead for the Wingnut Party, a >>>> historically safe GOP district where the nouveau-right carpetbaggers >>>> could come in, plant their flag and wedge one of their own into the >>>> Congress. The GOP rolled over and played dead, giving in to the >>>> wingnut outsiders who tried to run on the tired old teabagger issues. >>>> And as a result, a red seat went blue for the first time in 140 years, >>>> despite the push by Palin and Limbaugh, and the last-minute fellation >>>> by Newt Gingrich. >>>> If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, >>>> 'cause they're mighty tasty! >>> What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like >>> Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the >>> election. This will be good for the party as the Republican voters >>> will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next spring, >>> one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. Had the >>> RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary. >> Shorter Lein: "This election made it possible for the >> teabaggers to find some other moron to fumble away a >> sure GOP seat to the Democrats."
> Actually it means the Republicans will have a primary next year and > can actually remake the party into something other that the status-quo > Democrat lite party.
...at which point it will attract even fewer voters!
Also, the Conservative Party will have their own nominee if the GOP doesn't play nice. Right, John?
I'm just trying to see why I shouldn't be endlessly smug and annoying about this.
> On Nov 3, 9:48 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> Highway 66 wrote, On 11/3/09 11:45 PM:
>>> so losing is a good thing? NY-23 for the Republicans was a disaster. >>> Losing New Jersey was a far bigger disaster for the Democrats. Even CNN was >>> saying all night that a Republican win in Virginia was not that big a deal >>> but if the Republican won in New Jersey then the Democrats had better be >>> concerned. Guess who won? >> It tells us that right now, only one guy is popular and that's >> the one living at 1600 Pennsylvania.
> How many trips did he make to Jersey in the past week?
A bunch, but he wasn't on the ballot. The Goldman Sachs guy was.
> > On Nov 3, 9:48 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > >> Highway 66 wrote, On 11/3/09 11:45 PM:
> >>> so losing is a good thing? NY-23 for the Republicans was a disaster. > >>> Losing New Jersey was a far bigger disaster for the Democrats. Even CNN was > >>> saying all night that a Republican win in Virginia was not that big a deal > >>> but if the Republican won in New Jersey then the Democrats had better be > >>> concerned. Guess who won? > >> It tells us that right now, only one guy is popular and that's > >> the one living at 1600 Pennsylvania.
> > How many trips did he make to Jersey in the past week?
> A bunch, but he wasn't on the ballot. The Goldman Sachs guy was.
> > On Nov 3, 9:16 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > >> lein wrote, On 11/3/09 11:15 PM:
> >>> On Nov 3, 9:05 pm, honkifyoulovejustice > >>> <the.tick.honkifyoulovejust...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 3, 8:38 pm, "Highway 66" <kduv...@charter.net> wrote: > >>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message > >>>>>news:yc-dnV7m9aYMnmzXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com... > >>>>>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats > >>>>>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party. > >>>>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually > >>>>>> increases a seat. > >>>>>> cb > >>>>> Humm .. I'm watching all the news networks and no one has called that race > >>>>> yet? If the Dem does win that race then you can enjoy your consolation > >>>>> prize! Bwahahahahaha!!! > >>>> NY-23 was supposed to be a beachhead for the Wingnut Party, a > >>>> historically safe GOP district where the nouveau-right carpetbaggers > >>>> could come in, plant their flag and wedge one of their own into the > >>>> Congress. The GOP rolled over and played dead, giving in to the > >>>> wingnut outsiders who tried to run on the tired old teabagger issues. > >>>> And as a result, a red seat went blue for the first time in 140 years, > >>>> despite the push by Palin and Limbaugh, and the last-minute fellation > >>>> by Newt Gingrich. > >>>> If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, > >>>> 'cause they're mighty tasty! > >>> What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like > >>> Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the > >>> election. This will be good for the party as the Republican voters > >>> will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next spring, > >>> one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. Had the > >>> RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary. > >> Shorter Lein: "This election made it possible for the > >> teabaggers to find some other moron to fumble away a > >> sure GOP seat to the Democrats."
> > Actually it means the Republicans will have a primary next year and > > can actually remake the party into something other that the status-quo > > Democrat lite party.
> ...at which point it will attract even fewer voters!
> Also, the Conservative Party will have their own nominee if the > GOP doesn't play nice. Right, John?
Nope, Hoffman will be able to run in the Republican primary. Republicans generally don't win as left wingers - the county chairs who selected what's her name should be taken out and flogged.
> I'm just trying to see why I shouldn't be endlessly smug > and annoying about this.
Because given the out-right domination of Republicans in Virginia and Jersey, its all you have. Remember, just 4 months or so ago the Republicans were considered dead. Looks like the party rebuilding is coming along nicely, and is being done from a conservative perspective. Good thing given that conservatives outnumber liberals and today, more independents identify with Conservatives than they do the Liberals.
> >It's not surprising that the governorships of >NJ and Virginia went GOP > >tonight...NJ is highly taxed and the economy >sucks..people want change > >there.
> Hmm .. so people don't like high taxes and the economy sucks .. that doesn't > bode well for the Democrats nationwide does it!
Actually it doesn't, but the teabaggers don't seem to understand that if they wedge themselves into races they're going to be splitting votes and ultimately hurting their own cause. They turned on Newt Gingrich for crissakes.
Dan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newt needs to lay low. He's not the favorite some think he is. He's not what the GOP or the USA need right now.
> Jim Brown wrote, On 11/3/09 11:50 PM: >> On Nov 3, 10:31 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats >>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.
>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually >>> increases a seat.
>> I doubt you will believe it, but there are getting to be a lot of >> (former) Republicans more than willing to lose a few elections in the >> coming years in order to bring the party back to the its roots.
> Which roots? I mean seriously, which roots? The Nixon roots? > The Goldwater roots? The Rockefeller roots? The Hoover roots? > The Lincoln roots?
> Yeah, I know, you think that Reagan is your roots, but face > it, Reagan would get run out of the GOP on a rail today by > the teabaggers -- Sandra O'Connor would have been more than > enough. Besides, he was the undisputed king of post-WWII > deficit spending until Bush 43 came long, so if you think > Bush represents a departure from your Reaganite past... > no. He was the logical extension of Reagan in just about > every way imaginable.
> So I honestly just do not get this "bring the party back > to its roots" business, unless in the most politically > cynical context -- "we need to be popular again."
> cb
I vote for the Goldwater roots. The smaller government roots. The don't fuck with me roots.
On Nov 4, 12:15 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, > > 'cause they're mighty tasty!
> What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like > Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the > election.
Interesting, because if you look at liberal blogs they're saying the same thing about their candidates. That other than just being sucky candidates, Owens and Deeds were blue dogs. It'd be crazy to expect blue dogs to be the model of democrats (according to the blogs). They point out that half-assing reform (health, climate, immigration, financial regulation) will bite them in the ass and that they'll pay on elections. Remember hwo many warned the stimulus was too watered down, and that now healthcare is too watered down?
Politics is fun isn't it?
This will be good for the party as the Republican voters
> will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next spring, > one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. Had the > RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary.
What do you think of Rubio/Crist? Will (should) Snowe be primaried next time round?
> On Nov 4, 12:15 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, > > > 'cause they're mighty tasty!
> > What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like > > Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the > > election.
> Interesting, because if you look at liberal blogs they're saying the > same thing about their candidates. That other than just being sucky > candidates, Owens and Deeds were blue dogs. It'd be crazy to expect > blue dogs to be the model of democrats (according to the blogs). They > point out that half-assing reform (health, climate, immigration, > financial regulation) will bite them in the ass and that they'll pay > on elections. Remember hwo many warned the stimulus was too watered > down, and that now healthcare is too watered down?
the Democrats can't control the house without blue dogs, they were specially recruited because they are more conservative and could win in those districts.
If you look at the trend, even with the Ds winning the the last election, conservatives have gained.
> Politics is fun isn't it?
indeed
> This will be good for the party as the Republican voters
> > will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next spring, > > one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. Had the > > RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary.
> What do you think of Rubio/Crist? Will (should) Snowe be primaried > next time round?
I never really followed Crist, but my hunch is that he is one of those long standing establishment guys who will magically project himself as a conservative in the primary not because of his core beliefs, but because he is skilled and that's what it will take to win. If he ran in last November's election, he would have projected himself more to the left. There is always too many of those types of politicians.
> On Nov 3, 10:31 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats > > for the first time since the Whigs were the other party.
> > And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually > > increases a seat.
> The funny thing is that the Republicans probably would have won this > race had the teabaggers not gotten involved in it. Hoffman, doesn't > even live in the district and showed throughout the last few weeks > that he was unprepared and doesn't know the issues...complained that > he wasn't given the questions beforehand for a debate when they were > printed in the newspaper that morning...et cetera...and this was the > guy that got the late endorsement of Sarah Palin. Michelle Malkin and > the rightwing bloggers turned on Newt Gingrich for endorsing the > actual GOP candidate...I honestly think that 2010 will go much the > same way unless the moderate GOPers get out of the way of the > teabaggers early on.
> It's not surprising that the governorships of NJ and Virginia went GOP > tonight...NJ is highly taxed and the economy sucks..people want change > there. Virginia going GOP is...well...not a surprise.
> Dan
So you think Republicans support eliminating the secret ballot (card- check), want to expand federal abortion programs, want more spending (debt)?
On Nov 4, 10:09 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> the Democrats can't control the house without blue dogs, they were > specially recruited because they are more conservative and could win > in those districts.
They tend to be relatively conservative fiscally, and not firebreathers on social issues.
How come though, the GOP doesn't beleive in more moderate people in Northeast or West Coast? I mean whats wrong with Giuliani or McCain? They are tough guys that will KICK YO' ASS~! flag wavers (i.e. "strong" on defense), so why is their being moderate on social issues, or sympathetic to stuff like the environment so damn offensive to some?
> On Nov 3, 10:45 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> lein wrote, On 11/4/09 12:08 AM:
>>> On Nov 3, 9:16 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >>>> lein wrote, On 11/3/09 11:15 PM: >>>>> On Nov 3, 9:05 pm, honkifyoulovejustice >>>>> <the.tick.honkifyoulovejust...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 3, 8:38 pm, "Highway 66" <kduv...@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>>> "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:yc-dnV7m9aYMnmzXnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@supernews.com... >>>>>>>> New York's 23rd Congressional District goes to the Democrats >>>>>>>> for the first time since the Whigs were the other party. >>>>>>>> And with that, the Dems' majority in the House actually >>>>>>>> increases a seat. >>>>>>>> cb >>>>>>> Humm .. I'm watching all the news networks and no one has called that race >>>>>>> yet? If the Dem does win that race then you can enjoy your consolation >>>>>>> prize! Bwahahahahaha!!! >>>>>> NY-23 was supposed to be a beachhead for the Wingnut Party, a >>>>>> historically safe GOP district where the nouveau-right carpetbaggers >>>>>> could come in, plant their flag and wedge one of their own into the >>>>>> Congress. The GOP rolled over and played dead, giving in to the >>>>>> wingnut outsiders who tried to run on the tired old teabagger issues. >>>>>> And as a result, a red seat went blue for the first time in 140 years, >>>>>> despite the push by Palin and Limbaugh, and the last-minute fellation >>>>>> by Newt Gingrich. >>>>>> If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, >>>>>> 'cause they're mighty tasty! >>>>> What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like >>>>> Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the >>>>> election. This will be good for the party as the Republican voters >>>>> will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next spring, >>>>> one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. Had the >>>>> RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary. >>>> Shorter Lein: "This election made it possible for the >>>> teabaggers to find some other moron to fumble away a >>>> sure GOP seat to the Democrats." >>> Actually it means the Republicans will have a primary next year and >>> can actually remake the party into something other that the status-quo >>> Democrat lite party. >> ...at which point it will attract even fewer voters!
>> Also, the Conservative Party will have their own nominee if the >> GOP doesn't play nice. Right, John?
> Nope, Hoffman will be able to run in the Republican primary. > Republicans generally don't win as left wingers - the county chairs > who selected what's her name should be taken out and flogged.
But if he loses the GOP primary -- which is likely, given the makeup of the district -- well, it's obvious where this is headed, isn't it?
>> I'm just trying to see why I shouldn't be endlessly smug >> and annoying about this.
> Because given the out-right domination of Republicans in Virginia and > Jersey, its all you have.
Well, you hitch your wagon to that star, young feller. I'm sure you'll be dominating the world again in no time.
lein wrote: > On Nov 4, 4:34 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 12:15 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> If that's a consolation prize, send me a whole truckload of 'em, >>>> 'cause they're mighty tasty! >>> What NY-23 was a rejection of the establishment "lets be like >>> Democrats" Republicans choosing who would represent them in the >>> election. >> Interesting, because if you look at liberal blogs they're saying the >> same thing about their candidates. That other than just being sucky >> candidates, Owens and Deeds were blue dogs. It'd be crazy to expect >> blue dogs to be the model of democrats (according to the blogs). They >> point out that half-assing reform (health, climate, immigration, >> financial regulation) will bite them in the ass and that they'll pay >> on elections. Remember hwo many warned the stimulus was too watered >> down, and that now healthcare is too watered down?
> the Democrats can't control the house without blue dogs, they were > specially recruited because they are more conservative and could win > in those districts.
> If you look at the trend, even with the Ds winning the the last > election, conservatives have gained.
Addition by subtraction, eh? If that helps you feel better, I guess more power to you.
>> This will be good for the party as the Republican voters
>>> will actually get to pick a candidate of their choosing next spring, >>> one that doesn't support Cap and Trade, card check, etc. Had the >>> RINO won, she would have likely been unopposed in the primary. >> What do you think of Rubio/Crist? Will (should) Snowe be primaried >> next time round?
> I never really followed Crist, but my hunch is that he is one of those > long standing establishment guys who will magically project himself as > a conservative in the primary not because of his core beliefs, but > because he is skilled and that's what it will take to win. If he ran > in last November's election, he would have projected himself more to > the left. There is always too many of those types of politicians.
On Nov 4, 12:38 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote, On 11/4/09 8:01 AM:
> > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:45:10 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> > > wrote:
> >> I'm just trying to see why I shouldn't be endlessly smug > >> and annoying about this.
> >> cb
> > VA and NJ for starters.
> I'm not shedding any tears over Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine.
> The GOP fumbling away NY 23, though, is hilarious.
This must be the "addition by subtraction" that TimV is talking about.
-Tom Enright
"Many have argued that capitalism does not offer a satisfactory moral message. But that is like saying that calculus does not contain cabrohydrates, amino acids, or other essential nutrients. Everything fails by irrevelant standards."
On Nov 4, 12:35 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> NapalmHeart wrote, On 11/4/09 1:47 AM:
> > I vote for the Goldwater roots. The smaller government roots. The don't fuck with me roots. > You mean the same Goldwater who regularly expressed open > contempt for the religious right? Again -- he would be > run out of the GOP on a rail today.
The "religious right" has little to no pull in the GOP today, and in their best of times they were little more than a scary bedtime story that liberals read to their children at beddy-bye time.
OTOH, Robert Byrd would be run out of the DNC on a rail today.
-Tom Enright
Can Obama laugh at himself? Of course not. That would be racist
> On Nov 4, 12:38 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote, On 11/4/09 8:01 AM:
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:45:10 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> >>> wrote: >>>> I'm just trying to see why I shouldn't be endlessly smug >>>> and annoying about this. >>>> cb >>> VA and NJ for starters. >> I'm not shedding any tears over Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine.
>> The GOP fumbling away NY 23, though, is hilarious.
> This must be the "addition by subtraction" that TimV is talking about.
Not really. The GOP was going to win Virginia this year regardless -- Deeds was a poor candidate, especially for a low-turnout election. Them's the breaks, man, you can't win 'em all.
Corzine and NJ... well, it's about time that somebody from Goldman Sachs lost his job.
> On Nov 4, 12:35 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> NapalmHeart wrote, On 11/4/09 1:47 AM:
>>> I vote for the Goldwater roots. The smaller government roots. The don't fuck with me roots.
>> You mean the same Goldwater who regularly expressed open >> contempt for the religious right? Again -- he would be >> run out of the GOP on a rail today.
> The "religious right" has little to no pull in the GOP today, and in > their best of times they were little more than a scary bedtime story > that liberals read to their children at beddy-bye time.
Hence the lack of a litmus test on abortion rights... oh, wait.
> OTOH, Robert Byrd would be run out of the DNC on a rail today.
|
