2009 election results (official)

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by Best Buckeye

No, it's about money.

True, I'm sure those $50mill "licensing fees" didn't hurt.

[Jake]

The argument I heard repeatedly for Issue 3 was "keep Ohio money in Ohio" because neighboring states allow gambling. Then the follow up was all the tax revenue it would generate for the state.

Well, if neighboring states have gambling, and we're "keeping Ohio money in Ohio", who are we taxing? The casinos? The casinos will be getting their money from players, presumably Ohioans.

Looks like another attempt to tax ourselves into prosperity while a handful of bureaucrats and their cronies line their pockets. There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results...

[BuckeyeMac]

53(y)/47(n) on Issue 3 with over 70% counted.

[Folanator]

Looks like the Republicans have cleaned up.

Now...what were you sayin about health care reform again?

I said it when Obe-wan-bama was elected, in the long run it might be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party.

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by Folanator

Looks like the Republicans have cleaned up.

Now...what were you sayin about health care reform again?

I said it when Obe-wan-bama was elected, in the long run it might be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party.

Looks like NY 23 will go to the conservative Democrat over the conservative candidate, so the Repubs still have a long way to go, especially in the legislative branch. But the sweep in Virginia and especially the wil over Obama's minion Corzine is definitely a brushback.

[TDG]

Two republican victories against fairly weak democratic candidates will be spun into a huge republican turn-around and a backlash against Obama in the age of sensationalist media, I'm sure.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if it scared off moderate democrats and got the healthcare bill further neutered.

Originally Posted by Jake

The argument I heard repeatedly for Issue 3 was "keep Ohio money in Ohio" because neighboring states allow gambling. Then the follow up was all the tax revenue it would generate for the state.

Well, if neighboring states have gambling, and we're "keeping Ohio money in Ohio", who are we taxing? The casinos? The casinos will be getting their money from players, presumably Ohioans.

Looks like another attempt to tax ourselves into prosperity while a handful of bureaucrats and their cronies line their pockets. There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results...

Well yes, if money from Ohioans is spent in out-of-state casinos and that money helps to pay taxes to other states, and as far as Ohio is concerned, our gamblers' money enters a black hole.

The issue, in theory, wouldn't just benefit the bureaucrats because it would make gambling more convenient for Ohioans and would help promote the downtowns. In theory, of course. This in addition to getting more tax dollars to the state, which I guess you could call helping the bureaucrats.

[Bucklion]

Originally Posted by TDG

Two republican victories against fairly weak democratic candidates will be spun into a huge republican turn-around and a backlash against Obama in the age of sensationalist media, I'm sure.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if it scared off moderate democrats and got the healthcare bill further neutered.

Well yes, if money from Ohioans is spent in out-of-state casinos and that money helps to pay taxes to other states, and as far as Ohio is concerned, our gamblers' money enters a black hole.

The issue, in theory, wouldn't just benefit the bureaucrats because it would make gambling more convenient for Ohioans and would help promote the downtowns. In theory, of course. This in addition to getting more tax dollars to the state, which I guess you could call helping the bureaucrats.

Not to heap praise on a weak Republican party, but Corzine was the incumbent, sunk 30 mil of his own money into the campaign, and had Obama fully supporting him as the race drew to a close...how was that a weak candidate, exactly?

And call it what you want, but a Virginia sweep by Republicans in a state that Obama pretty much identified as one of the major coups of his campaign was definitely a brushback.

[TDG]

Oh yes, in other nationwide news, homosexual civil-unions seem to have been approved in Washington, while gay marriage will be struck down in Maine.

Originally Posted by Bucklion

Not to heap praise on a weak Republican party, but Corzine was the incumbent, sunk 30 mil of his own money into the campaign, and had Obama fully supporting him as the race drew to a close...how was that a weak candidate, exactly?

And call it what you want, but a Virginia sweep by Republicans in a state that Obama pretty much identified as one of the major coups of his campaign was definitely a brushback.

Well, Corzine isn't really a weak candidate, but he's wildly unpopular and regarded as a scumbag in New Jersey, so Obama or not he himself was certainly not a strong candidate.

And there was no great heir to the Democrat throne in Virginia, and Deeds' campaign was pretty poorly-run.

Now obviously, it's a setback for the democrats to lose the governorship in what's blossoming into a strong democratic state and what they'd like to become a consistently democrat-leaning battleground state. The beginning of a republican rally or a referendum on the Obama administration... I wouldn't go that far. Especially considering that his approval rating in Virginia and New Jersey is 51% and 57%, respectively.

[xcrunner]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/ny...strict.html?hp
Owens wins the 23rd district.
I don't like reading into these things; these polls are the types of things where they seem important now, but in a few weeks, we've moved on to bigger things. That being said--assuming that this race has much impact at all (which I don't think it does), the article makes the claim that this is a blow to the repubs. I honestly disagree. I think there's a good chance they would have been hurt more if Hoffman had won. In my opinion, his presence there would have strengthened the argument that the Republican party is becoming too right-wing.

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by xcrunner

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/ny...strict.html?hp
Owens wins the 23rd district.
I don't like reading into these things; these polls are the types of things where they seem important now, but in a few weeks, we've moved on to bigger things. That being said--assuming that this race has much impact at all (which I don't think it does), the article makes the claim that this is a blow to the repubs. I honestly disagree. I think there's a good chance they would have been hurt more if Hoffman had won. In my opinion, his presence there would have strengthened the argument that the Republican party is becoming too right-wing.

Two observations. First, every time a Republican or Democrat wins a by-election or interim election, someone will claim that this says something about the Obama administration. Either side will be wrong. People don't vote to send a message about the President. They vote because of local issues primarily.

Second, Republicans have plenty more poll information to be worried about. Despite the protestations of your party leader, when the number of people willing to identify themselves as members of your party continues to slide and hits 20%, you have a problem. His assertions that he "doesn't care" and "only cares about how they vote" can't truly reflect the party's real views.

[Buckeye513]

Opponents of same-sex marriage lead Maine vote | U.S. | Reuters

PORTLAND, Maine (Reuters) - Voters in Maine appeared to have overturned a law allowing same-sex marriage enacted by the state's legislature, according to early results of Tuesday's vote gathered by local media.

With 87 percent of precincts reporting, opponents of same-sex marriage led with 52.7 percent of the vote against 47.2 percent, according to unofficial tallies provided by the Bangor Daily News.

A defeat would mark another loss at the ballot box for the movement to allow gays and lesbians to gain certain legal protections available to heterosexual couples.

State lawmakers approved same-sex marriage in May, but the law never took effect as opponents gathered enough support for a statewide "people's veto" referendum.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont remain the only U.S. states where gay marriage has been approved. In each instance, the laws were enacted by legislatures and judges, not by popular vote.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Buckeye513

Opponents of same-sex marriage lead Maine vote | U.S. | Reuters

Fortunately for those facing that discrimination, the demographic that opposes same sex marriage is dying off at a rather accelerated rate. Matter of time, really. Like segregation, what was an entrenched mindset is giving way to a more enlightened view. I saw Mississippi Burning tonight again, and it reminded me of how certain "truths" of one era are fast becoming just a quaint and rather embarrassing historical footnote.

[OH10]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Fortunately for those facing that discrimination, the demographic that opposes same sex marriage is dying off at a rather accelerated rate. Matter of time, really. Like segregation, what was an entrenched mindset is giving way to a more enlightened view. I saw Mississippi Burning tonight again, and it reminded me of how certain "truths" of one era are fast becoming just a quaint and rather embarrassing historical footnote.

Exactly. People were really worked up about the issue 5 years ago, but in that short time, there has been a growing consciousness among the electorate.

On the national scale, I remember when Republicans were downplaying Democratic victories in Virginia and New Jersey back in 2005. They pretended that it wasn't important and that they had a full year before the mid-term elections rolled around. They were wrong. And Democrats will be wrong if they try to downplay what happened yesterday.

Bottom Line: people aren't happy and the party in power will always get a disproportionate share of the blame. The people blame Obama and the Democrats because the economy hasn't been fixed overnight. A new poll the other day showed that 45 percent of people blamed Obama for the bad economy, while 49 percent blamed Bush. The latter is out-of-sight, out-of-mind - Obama is in power and he's going to shoulder the blame, right or wrong.

[tsteele316]

Originally Posted by Jake

The argument I heard repeatedly for Issue 3 was "keep Ohio money in Ohio" because neighboring states allow gambling. Then the follow up was all the tax revenue it would generate for the state.

Well, if neighboring states have gambling, and we're "keeping Ohio money in Ohio", who are we taxing? The casinos? The casinos will be getting their money from players, presumably Ohioans.

Looks like another attempt to tax ourselves into prosperity while a handful of bureaucrats and their cronies line their pockets. There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results...

i'm sure a lot of folks would view it more as consumer spending rather than being taxed as they have a choice as to whether or not they are spending their money there.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by xcrunner

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/ny...strict.html?hp
Owens wins the 23rd district.
I don't like reading into these things; these polls are the types of things where they seem important now, but in a few weeks, we've moved on to bigger things. That being said--assuming that this race has much impact at all (which I don't think it does), the article makes the claim that this is a blow to the repubs. I honestly disagree. I think there's a good chance they would have been hurt more if Hoffman had won. In my opinion, his presence there would have strengthened the argument that the Republican party is becoming too right-wing.

their was no "republican" in that race...

i think i think it rather shows the third party approach isnt a good idea if you want to win elections