Even if Corzine is able to win, which is questionable, there still must have been a massive, massive crossover of dems or independents for them to be tied at this point. When you have to bring the President into the state four times to help on a podunk election of a state democrat in an overwhelmingly democractic state that is not good.
As I mentioned there is always an oddball election going on somewhere that is controlled by some local scandal. budget problems, or personalities so if the dems lose either Virginai or NJ I am willing to concede that it is not necessarily a reading on congressional elections to come or Obamamania. However, I think that if they lose both states it is unpretty, and the libs should prepare themselves to concede that the kool-aid is wearing off it that happens. And what Obama looks like without kool-aid, mmmm... not so good.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by padthaiforlunch
Ahhh but once a tiger such as myself has smelled blood he cannot go back to thinking about tofu like the libs. Even though it is a year down the road, I can see Harry Reid in the unemployment line.
Last edited by Winter : 11-01-2009 at 06:22 AM.
Reason: Posts merged
Im in NJ and I got to say it is way to close to call. Its all about getting out the vote at this point and in my state Dems got a way bigger ground operation so the advantage is with the Corzine.
Im in NJ and I got to say it is way to close to call. Its all about getting out the vote at this point and in my state Dems got a way bigger ground operation so the advantage is with the Corzine.
Yep. I see that point. What I can't figure out is that the voter registration (I am guessing) is mostly democrats in NJ so for the repub to be running neck and neck there must be crossover votes,unless the independents are suddenly all lining up with the repubs, hard to believe. So if the dems "get out the vote." Who are they are getting out? A dem who could in all likelihood be going to vote republican?
Either way it is a bad showing for the dems when the pres needs to show up four times to win a state that has always voted for dem governors (give or take, my knowledge is hazy here).
Anyway, as they say, the only poll that counts is about to solve that mystery so no need to overthink it now. Let the best man win! And, of course, good luck to Corzine as well.
ALBANY, N.Y. – In a Republican Party struggling to find its identity, the surprise withdrawal of the chosen GOP candidate for a New York congressional race amid a rising conservative upstart renews a lingering national debate: Are moderates welcome in today's Grand Old Party?
The question became even more relevant Sunday when the ex-candidate, state Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava, threw her support behind the Democrat in the race rather than the Conservative Party candidate favored by fellow Republicans.
The GOP leadership insisted on Sunday political TV talk shows the party is strong and inclusive while Democrats described a Republican party out of touch with the people.
"We accept moderates in our party, and we want moderates in our party. We cover a wide range of Americans," said Republican House Leader John Boehner in an interview on CNN's "State of the Union."
But in New York's 23rd Congressional District, the message was clear early: Scozzafava was too moderate; some even used the dreaded "L" word — liberal. Her endorsement of Democrat Bill Owens over Conservative Doug Hoffman only reinforced that perception.
During the campaign she failed to connect with voters, party officials or, perhaps most important, campaign donors, largely because of her support for abortion rights, same-sex marriage and union rights. That opened the door for Hoffman, who took every opportunity to remind people that Scozzafava was not the kind of Republican they wanted representing their interests in a Democrat-led Congress.
Even before Scozzafava's fall, Republicans looking to broaden the base by attracting more centrist candidates worried that the harsh tone in the 23rd spelled trouble for the future, particularly the 2010 midterm elections.
"If we don't get some adult supervision, basically the party could explode and split itself up," said former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, chief executive of the Republican Main Street Partnership, just days before Scozzafava withdrew.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had the same concern, and that's why he endorsed Scozzafava early in the race. As other Republicans threw their support behind Hoffman's momentum, Gingrich argued that the party needed to be more inclusive of moderates if it had a hope of retaking the majority.
He told The Associated Press he was disappointed, and "deeply upset" that Scozzafava endorsed Owens.
"How could she have accepted all that support?" he said, adding later: "I'm very, very let down because she told everybody she was a Republican, and she said she was a loyal Republican."
Gingrich now backs Hoffman.
Scozzafava's support of Owens is angering Republicans back home as well. State Republican chairman Ed Cox said her endorsement is a "betrayal" of the people in the district and the party.
A recent Siena College poll showed her finishing a distant third behind Owens and Hoffman. And in this rural New York district, Republicans never finish third. In its different configurations over the years, a Republican has represented this part of the upstate New York since 1852.
Scozzafava did not return calls Sunday. Her husband, local labor leader Ron McDougall, said he's supporting Owens because of his union positions. He said his wife had been treated "harshly."
During the weekend, New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer and the White House reached out to Scozzafava urging her to back Owens.
Big-name Republicans including Sarah Palin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson weighed in early in the race, giving their support to Hoffman. Money poured into his campaign from all over the country. In the process, Scozzafava was left behind in fundraising.
Democrats are seizing on the race as evidence that Republicans won't be able to retake the majority with a far right agenda.
On CBS' Face The Nation, White House senior adviser David Axelrod addressed whether he believes conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh truly represents the direction the GOP is going.
"That's for the Republican Party to decide," Axelrod said. "I think we've seen an interesting development over this weekend in a special election in upstate New York in a congressional district. The Republican candidate withdrew because of the strong third-party movement behind a very right wing conservative. And certainly Mr. Limbaugh and others were behind that. And I think it sends a clear message to moderates within that party that there's no room at the inn for them. That's why you see Republican identification in polls at a historic low."
And Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said Republican leadership is "becoming more and more extreme and more and more marginalized."
John Brabender, a veteran Republican consultant, said it's dangerous to lump people together by label and suggest there's no room for moderates.
"I think it's about how moderate, and how likely are they to be voting with Republicans," he said. "I think it would be too grand of a statement to say moderates have a target on their back."
Brabender said the outcome of Tuesday's race will be key as Democrats and Republicans fight for what will be perceived as message-sending wins in this and other off-year races. Democrats will try to scoop up any disenfranchised moderate Republicans, while Republicans will argue that this is the year the political pendulum swings back to the right.
"There's a renewed belief that the Republican Party has a number of principles and people are going to look at the candidates running and look at the consistency of their principles rather than if they have an 'R' after their name," Brabender said.
A Republican loss in the 23rd would leave the party with just two seats in the 29-member state congressional delegation.
Ahhh but once a tiger such as myself has smelled blood he cannot go back to thinking about tofu like the libs. Even though it is a year down the road, I can see Harry Reid in the unemployment line.
lol. You've been on a red meat diet since before the election.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by GreenSky
This is such great news for the Libertarian Party, the party of principle.
We are very liberal on social issues (leave us alone) and conservative on fiscal issues (stop taking our money).
Rick
Yes, the implosion of the Republican Party should be good new for Libertarians in any state outside of the South.
If only Texas, and the rest of the South would hurry up and secede this country could get back on track.
I think that as we look at the third pary influence in the upstate elections and in New Jersey, I am caused to launch, once again, into my assertion that future elections in this country will be determined or severely influenced by third parties. Regular viewers will know that this is the same point that Al has systematically dismissed each time I have made it because he looks at things only in terms of who is going to win and thinks I am saying the third party is going to win (which they may in fact in some instances but that is not the point). It is unfortunate that he has no knowledge of political science and election dynamics. The phenomenon of third parties influencing (even if they lose) elections is well upon us now. IN OTHER WORDS, I TOLD YOU SO.
Also people are failing to interpret the influence of third parties properly where it occurs. Example, if Corzine wins in NJ (doubtful but possible) the dems are going to see this as a re-affirmation of the dems and Obama. Most decidedly, not so. Even if the dems win, if you add the repub votes and the independent party votes together that total will be greater than the dems votes. In other words, the party that voted over, overwhelmingly dem for Obama will have received less than fifty per cent of the votes. Not good by any standards and that is the best they can hope for right now because they are also looking at the distinct possibility of flat out losing.
We are only into Monday of this week and I am already feeling the love bigtime. This is going to be a great, great week for state elections and health reform "debate."
Made a nice sale this morning before I had even peed out my first cup of coffee. Also, stopped at the local town office on the way back to vote absentee and trashed several stupid-arse referendums on the ballot. Yes we can.
But why should they have to secede? California, Illinois and New York should secede. They're the states full of liberals who want to modify, twist and change the Constitution.
Last edited by Robert Barney : 11-02-2009 at 01:34 PM.
Reason: Posts merged
Majority rules in this country. If you can't live with that, leave!
I think that is what President Obama is saying to the democrats in Congress these days. Good luck with that. Tell em how it is Barry!
Gee, as I recall after Bush was elected (twice, just as a reminder) dissent was patriotic and there was not a single solitary lib who argued that if they opposed the war or Bush's domestic policies that they should just roll over and accept the fact that the majority rules.
Now it is Obama's way or the highway.
Since you don't love America, you should leave it. We had an election last November and the majority elected Obama and the Democrats.
Majority rules in this country. If you can't live with that, leave!
I do love America and I took the following oath when I became a citizen:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God
Have you ever taken this oath? I did. I meant it.
What do you think the parts I have highlighted in bold means?
Did you leave the country when George W. Bush was President?
I believe that when Obama took this oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
New Jersey Predictions?
.jpg)
Linear Mode
