Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Like it would have been this quiet had the election gone the other way.<< Had these elections gone the other way, it would have been news. The two gubernatorial races were being watched as closely as they were because there was a possibility that the GOP may have picked up another statehouse. That they remained in the same party is not that big a deal. That they remained in the same party while the President is experiencing his lowest poll numbers is virtually a given. So... no big crowing over this election. The California initiatives are slightly bigger news. But again, the governor's poll numbers are down, and all that really happened is that things stayed the same. Hardly a cause for much whooping and hollering. Now, if the initiatives had passed, despite Schwarzenegger's low numbers and the massive amount of money spent to defeat them, then there would have been a story. I didn't see a great deal on the news that indicates that this election is being viewed as much beyond what it is-- an off year special election. Oh, I did see several Democratic leaders lined up at a microphone, each of whom dutifully stepped up and repeated (in eerily similar language) that the election was proof that voters were rejecting the GOP's culture of corruption. So it's good to see that they were honoring their now transparent talking points. The Democratic leadership: as gracious in victory as they are in defeat.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh-- I did see a story on MSNBC that sort of said that the Democrats may have gained some traction in this election. The most arresting piece of the very, very qualified story was the on screen graphic, entitled: DAWN OF THE DEMS. Could George Romero sue?
Originally Posted By itsme >>Really, there's not a big deal here. ---- Your kidding right? Do you know how many threads were started dealing with this, how many posts there were saying this is whats gonna happen. I'll look at 2, the govs props, and the Dover Pa. Id thing where all 8 board memebrs up for re-election got canned for forcng ID down the throats of the school whre it doenst belong. Thats 0 for 12 as far as agendas that are right that we always hear about here. I live in a pretty republican to moderate area, I could list article after article how for the first time in 5, 10, 15 years the democrats now control this town or that one. I do think this election does say something, Now hopefully the higer-ups of the republican party see that and stop drinking what ever it is they are that is making them drunk with power and go back to standing for what it is they once did.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "The Democratic leadership: as gracious in victory as they are in defeat." Don't EVEN imply the Dems are bad winners. Let's look at this board as a microcosm. It's been nothing but slam, slam, slam from certain far right posters around here, and you know it. The gloating since 2004 has been nonstop and in your face, complete with insults and temporary bannings on both sides. Even if this past Tuesday is perceived as a "tie" who can blame some Dems around here from exulting a little bit. Instead of acknowledging that maybe the public is embracing even a few Democratic ideas, the right is claiming that they were outspent, big time. Maybe so this time, but who's fault is that? It isn't as if the Republicans don't have a large war chest. Like Bush, some Republicans just can't admit when mistakes were made, and that is not a very attractive quality.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Do you know how many threads were started dealing with this, how many posts there were saying this is whats gonna happen.<< My reference was not to WE, but to the coverage of this election in general. >>...I could list article after article how for the first time in 5, 10, 15 years the democrats now control this town or that one.<< By all means do so, then.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Don't EVEN imply the Dems are bad winners.<< I was refering specifically to the Democratic leadership's attempt to fold this election into their bizarre "GOP is all corrupt" message. Rather than simply exude confidence following their victories, they had to engage in a completely irrelevant exercise in spin.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Rather than simply exude confidence following their victories, they had to engage in a completely irrelevant exercise in spin.' Well, since they didn't seize the opportunity to just "exude confidence", it would now be the Republicans' turn to take the high road, eh? All many of us are asking is that someone, anyone, do that for a change. And yeah, even if you didn't mean to include WE here, you have to admit that is the prevailing atmosphere aroud here.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>All many of us are asking is that someone, anyone, do that for a change.<< I don't think today's political leaders have the vaguest idea what a high road is. All anybody cares about is WINNING!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The California initiatives are slightly bigger news. But again, the governor's poll numbers are down, and all that really happened is that things stayed the same.<< No, all that happened is that millions of dollars was wasted in a state already having fiscal problems with an ill-concieved special election featuring a hodge-podge of propositions (all of which were leading in polling early on -- check out any of Darkbeer's 30 threads on the subject for a reminder), and a governor who ran as a moderate and a "man of the people" and had high approval ratings took a hard right turn for some reason and got nowhere fast. No story there.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The rabid-right seems to consist of sore winners...and even sorer losers. On the other hand, while I am feeling unbridled glee at this repudiation of Schwarzenegger and his harebrained ideas for "reform," I understand that it's time to move forward with better ideas to reform what needs fixing in California. I've said this before and I'll keep on saying it: California does need reform. The problem is that Schwarzenegger's ideas SUCKED. Now he has to go back and try to LEAD, which is what he was elected to do.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue How fun it would be to take this whining about spending on the campaigns and compare it to other elections. Here's a hint: many of your political heroes greatly outspent their opponents as well. You'd think with all the whining about spending that you all would be crying for spending limits/campaign reform. Problem is, you haven't figured out a way to make it apply only to the Democrats.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>You'd think with all the whining about spending that you all would be crying for spending limits/campaign reform. Problem is, you haven't figured out a way to make it apply only to the Democrats. << They figured out one way, but the Californians voted against Prop 75.
Originally Posted By cmpaley They sure tried to put a campaign limit on Democrats with Prop 75, didn't they?
Originally Posted By DlandDug Glad to see that you both agree, as I do, that union dollars are all destined for Democrats. But I guess they aren't really a "special" interest, are they? It's all in the semantics...
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue I think the point is that any legislation intended to restrict the influence of special interest groups should apply to ALL such groups.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How fun it would be to take this whining about spending on the campaigns and compare it to other elections.> I don't see it as whining. I see it as pointing out facts.
Originally Posted By itsme >>I don't see it as whining. I see it as pointing out facts. ---- So are you ok with saying that Bush only beat Kerry cause he spent more money?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Corzine outspent Forrester by a large margin.> So? That doesn't negate the fact that the GOP had high hopes for NJ. Or that Forrester spent plenty himself - the most of any losing candidate in NJ history. Corzine's a zillionaire, like Bloomberg. Of course they were going to outspend their opponents. In fact, both Corzine and Forrester spent so much, they might have been better off spending less - they both turned off voters big time just be being THERE so much. You couldn't escape the ads. In Forrester's case particularly he might have done well to spend less - his last minute gutter-ad featuring a quote from Corzine's ex-wife is being blamed around these parts for making a tight race a comfortable Corzine win; nobody but nobody could justify that one and it probably cost Forrester votes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>...I could list article after article how for the first time in 5, 10, 15 years the democrats now control this town or that one.<< <By all means do so, then.> I'm not the author of the first quote, but today's paper has this article about Nassau and Suffolk counties (Long Island - long GOP strongholds). Democrats won in county-wide races and in Town races (Towns are kind of like mini-counties - I don't think you have them out west) where they hadn't won in decades. (No link, because I'm tying from the paper here): "In Nassau County, the Republican candidate for county executive failed to earn even 40 percent of the vote... Meanwhile, defeat swamped Republicans in Suffolk County. The county legislature went from an 11-7 Republican majority to a 10-8 Democratic edge...Even the Republican stronghold of Brookhaven crumbled...All this happened in two counties where Republicans still hold the edge in voter registration." It's worth noting too that the suburbs are usually the ultimate swing constituency. The cities go heavy Dem. and rural goes heavy GOP, with the suburbs usually being the deciding puzzle piece. Clinton captured the "soccer moms" and then Bush turned them into "security moms" or so the conventional wisdom goes. This may be just a blip of course, but if the Democrats are strengthening in the suburbs, it could be a harbinger of '06. Or not.
