2009 election results (official)

[Southpaw Stone]

Originally Posted by Bucklion

So is your position that the overall support for Obama is the same (or similar) to a year ago at the election time? Because the poll last night on TV that showed that 65% of Independents in NJ voted for Christie (and only 31% for Corzine) would seem to dispute that, as would Obama's recent poll numbers.

The fact that Jersey lost Corzine is indeed telling. People are saying this election was about jobs and indeed I think it is. Barry said we needed a stimulus to hold unemplyment at 8% or something like that. Now unemployment is almost at 10% and we're hearing we're coming out of a recession....not so fast. Why is the job market not growing? We already know GDP was driven by government with the help of the fed and China.

2nd, with respect to the Casinos, I am a little disappointed as to what kinds of people will be drawn into the Arena district et al. I don't think this was a smart move for the state at all. Ohio has been a clean state for a long time and yet we're inviting trouble. Personally, Las Vegas is a destination and people that can afford to vacation out there economically eliminate trouble (for the most part.) Not so in the Buckeye State. I digress...

Interesting Obama was not watching election returns. hah.

[BigWoof31]

Originally Posted by Southpaw Stone

2nd, with respect to the Casinos, I am a little disappointed as to what kinds of people will be drawn into the Arena district et al.

As a gentleman who likes to throw the dice around a little bit - I am offended by this statement.

Mods - please ban immediately.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by Southpaw Stone

2nd, with respect to the Casinos, I am a little disappointed as to what kinds of people will be drawn into the Arena district et al.

??


(for those of you younger pups)

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by cincibuck

You mean that Dr. Land gets to set the litmus test and the party had better toe the line? That may work in the south for a few more election cycles, but keep in mind that the party is polling at 20 and going lower, especially with younger voters. Also this was an off year election -- those are always big for wealthy, suburban, white, older voters who show up every first Tuesday in November. In Hamilton County you had huge decisions being made by less that 25% of the possible voters.

It's a tough lesson for poor, urban, non-white voters to learn and they pay for it. But it can also give a false sense of security to the GOP that sees this as a rebuttal of Obama.

Hmmm, I'm not certain where I implied a litmus test or anything about Obama--I for one don't see yesterday's results as a comment on Obama as an individual politician, but I do see them as a reaction against the hard left turn Washington has tried to take the country over the last year--polls still show the US as a center-right country despite 2008.

Anyway, my comment about not selecting the right candidate has to do with the local realities of NY23 and who would have been the most electable candidate--it had nothing to do with the "right" ideological candidate. The Republican candidate in NY23 was selected through a process of 8 town hall meetings, not through a primary election of registered Republicans; thus the party elites made the selection. Their inability to select a candidate who spoke to the interests of the district, or at least to the majority of their party, was their mistake--after all, the district has been red forever and has a very active conservative, third party. The reality is they didn't know their own constituents, or they decided to ignore them, and thus the third-party, and more conservative, candidate became an attractive alternative to a significant portion of the electorate.

If they had gone with a moderate Republican--note, I'm NOT saying a conservative, but simply a moderate who was fiscally conservative--rather than a liberal Republican (she favored the stimulus bill, cap and trade, and federal health care reform--social issues are irrelevant in this race, as they were in the gov races yesterday), it is likely the Conservative Party candidate would not have ever gained much traction and the whole situation would have been avoided.

[BigWoof31]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

??


(for those of you younger pups)

Too soon? Low Blow? I never know when I cross the line.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by BigWoof31

Too soon? Low Blow? I never know when I cross the line.

err nto bad, not to border on the bashing buckeyes, hes more of a race track with earle kinda guy.... plus tocchet will be right there (arena district=blue jackets arena---> casino district)

[Ttown]

Up here in Rossford (toledo) area they are building the casino on the site of an old Libbey Owens Ford sludge pond. The EPA has ok'd the construction in spite of the fact that chemicals are still leeching into the Maumee river from the site.
They say as long as no basement is contructed it is ok.
I wonder if the dice will glow.

[cincibuck]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

Hmmm, I'm not certain where I implied a litmus test or anything about Obama--I for one don't see yesterday's results as a comment on Obama as an individual politician, but I do see them as a reaction against the hard left turn Washington has tried to take the country over the last year--polls still show the US as a center-right country despite 2008.

Wasn't talking about an Obama litmus test. I was referring to the fact that the local GOP felt they had a candidate that would represent the GOP voters in the 23rd. As I read the story she was pushed out by GOP folks outside the 23rd.

Anyway, my comment about not selecting the right candidate has to do with the local realities of NY23 and who would have been the most electable candidate--it had nothing to do with the "right" ideological candidate. The Republican candidate in NY23 was selected through a process of 8 town hall meetings, not through a primary election of registered Republicans; thus the party elites made the selection. Their inability to select a candidate who spoke to the interests of the district, or at least to the majority of their party, was their mistake--after all, the district has been red forever and has a very active conservative, third party. The reality is they didn't know their own constituents, or they decided to ignore them, and thus the third-party, and more conservative, candidate became an attractive alternative to a significant portion of the electorate.

A litmus test by any other name would smell the same. I didn't hear any suggest that she wouldn't have won if left alone. The contested seat has been held by a Republican since reconstruction days.

If they had gone with a moderate Republican--note, I'm NOT saying a conservative, but simply a moderate who was fiscally conservative--rather than a liberal Republican (she favored the stimulus bill, cap and trade, and federal health care reform--social issues are irrelevant in this race, as they were in the gov races yesterday), it is likely the Conservative Party candidate would not have ever gained much traction and the whole situation would have been avoided.

You may be right...er, correct about the social issues and yesterday's election, but it seems to me that the GOP outside of the 23rd would rather cede a sure seat to the Democrats than have it filled by someone who was pro choice and at least tolerant on gay rights issues. Had she won the seat she could have been pressured to support the fiscal issues, or perhaps have served as someone who could bridge some of the differences. The new rep will under pressure to conform to district policy to be sure, but as I read the tea leaves there are many Republicans in the 23rd who shared support for choice and gay rights.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Ttown

I wonder if the dice will glow.

Only when they play Cthulhu poker dice



Every roll could be your last.

[MightbeaBuck]

Originally Posted by TDG

...Especially considering that his approval rating in Virginia and New Jersey is 51% and 57%, respectively.

Yeah! And they are considered strong Democratic states.

Bush didn't drop below 55% NATIONALLY until he'd been in office 21 months. And didnt' stay that low consistantly until well into his second term. (because of a lame-ass Democratic congress holding up everything else while trying to bring charges against him.)

Obama blew through that in less than 8 months. At this rate, he'll quickly bottom out below Bush's low before his third year is done.

Good points, TDG!

[cincibuck]

Originally Posted by MightbeaBuck

Yeah! And they are considered strong Democratic states.

Bush didn't drop below 55% NATIONALLY until he'd been in office 21 months. And didnt' stay that low consistantly until well into his second term. (because of a lame-ass Democratic congress holding up everything else while trying to bring charges against him.)

Obama blew through that in less than 8 months. At this rate, he'll quickly bottom out below Bush's low before his third year is done.

Good points, TDG!

If I accepted your premise, which I don't, I might be concerned by his drop in the polls. BUT, Bush was not faced with the collapse of the auto industry, collapse of the banking and financial system, millions of families displaced by foreclosure, depression level unemployment rates and two, count 'em, two wars not of his own making.

9/11 while certainly presenting Bush with tough decisions to be made, was a unifying event that galvanized the public behind the Presidency. His numbers moved dramatically up following the attack, but he was never more than a point or two above 50 until 9/11 and it isn't until shortly after the 04 election that they begin to drop and then they drop dramatically as Katrina, the war, Valerie Plame, the start of the economic crisis eat into his presidency.

Virginia as a big Democratic state? In my dreams perhaps, or prior to Civil Rights legislation, but it has been solidly conservative since shortly after 1776. When the Democratic party pushed through Civil Rights it was only a matter of time until Virginia became Republican, till then it was Dixiecrat territory.

Finally, trying to make national political sense out of an off off year election is patently ridiculous. Less than 25% of registered voters voted, hardly a sample of national will. Wait till next November and then, one way or the other, we will have some sort of sense as to where the political will of the nation stands.

[MightbeaBuck]

Originally Posted by cincibuck

Bush was not faced with ... two, count 'em, two wars not of his own making.

Obama was a sitting Senator (No, really! He didn't do anything, but no, he really was.) at the time CONGRESS declared war. The president can't declare war. Obama and others like him, MADE this war, because only he / they, not Bush, could. So Obama is faced with two wars of his own doing.

Though he had many faults, and was possibly the dumbest president ever (IMO), I find it amazing that Bush can be blamed for absolutely everything.

Virginia as a big Democratic state? In my dreams perhaps, or prior to Civil Rights legislation, but it has been solidly conservative since shortly after 1776. When the Democratic party pushed through Civil Rights it was only a matter of time until Virginia became Republican, till then it was Dixiecrat territory.

Wasn't the election for Governor? If so, then what would you consider a big Democratic state? The Dems have won 5 of the last seven, including the previous two. The Dems have won 26 of the last 31. as far as governorships, Virginia is possibly THE most Democratic state out there.

...he (Bush) was never more than a point or two above 50 until 9/11...

In their first year (until 9.11):
July 19 ............ Bush 56% .... Obama 55%
August 5 ......... Bush 55% .... Obama 54%
August 17 ....... Bush 57% .... Obama 54%
August 31 ....... Bush 55% .... Obama 54%
September 10 .. Bush 51% .... Obama 53%

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by MightbeaBuck

Obama was a sitting Senator (No, really! He didn't do anything, but no, he really was.) at the time CONGRESS declared war. The president can't declare war. Obama and others like him, MADE this war, because only he / they, not Bush, could. So Obama is faced with two wars of his own doing.

Though he had many faults, and was possibly the dumbest president ever (IMO), I find it amazing that Bush can be blamed for absolutely everything.

Wasn't the election for Governor? If so, then what would you consider a big Democratic state? The Dems have won 5 of the last seven, including the previous two. The Dems have won 26 of the last 31. as far as governorships, Virginia is possibly THE most Democratic state out there.

In their first year (until 9.11):
July 19 ............ Bush 56% .... Obama 55%
August 5 ......... Bush 55% .... Obama 54%
August 17 ....... Bush 57% .... Obama 54%
August 31 ....... Bush 55% .... Obama 54%
September 10 .. Bush 51% .... Obama 53%

Nice try, but Obama was not elected to the Senate until 2004 and he spoke out against the Iraq war, although has supported the Afghan war.

Barack Obama's Iraq Speech - Wikisource

Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

[MightbeaBuck]

Originally Posted by CookyPuss

Nice try, but Obama was not elected to the Senate until 2004.

My bad. I even knew that.

Guess I've been getting too much of my info from this board: "Everybody" knew Obama had much, much more leadership experience than Sarah Palin. So he must have been in Congress at least ten to fifteen years, right? Oops...

[cincibuck]

Originally Posted by MightbeaBuck

Obama was a sitting Senator (No, really! He didn't do anything, but no, he really was.) at the time CONGRESS declared war. The president can't declare war. Obama and others like him, MADE this war, because only he / they, not Bush, could. So Obama is faced with two wars of his own doing.

I made no mention of blame for the war. As far as I'm concerned Bush made just about the only decision he could following 9/11. He exercised the power he had under the War Powers Act. And congress, minus Obama, supported him. You may recall that this was an advantage Obama had over fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton during the primary. Bush was never criticized for beginning a war to locate and destroy Bin Laden and Al Queda. The criticism began over the switch to Iraq and then to other aspects of his management of the war, especially his continuing support of Donald Rumsfeld as Sec Def.

Though he had many faults, and was possibly the dumbest president ever (IMO), I find it amazing that Bush can be blamed for absolutely everything.

[censored] happens?

Again, I didn't blame Bush for the war. As I stated 9/11 gave him little choice and when he made it he enjoyed a tremendous spike in his popularity. I made no value judgement about that either. Read my words and don't jump to conclusions.

Wasn't the election for Governor? If so, then what would you consider a big Democratic state? The Dems have won 5 of the last seven, including the previous two. The Dems have won 26 of the last 31. as far as governorships, Virginia is possibly THE most Democratic state out there.

Without benefit of research I will venture that the the Dems have not been anywhere near your figures IN VIRGINIA in the last seven gubernatorial races.

In 1860 Republican Abraham Lincoln's name did not appear on ballots in the South. The South voted for his Democrat rival. Following the war, and especially due to the policies established during Reconstruction, voters in the South voted almost exclusively Democrat -- not out of liberal tradition, far from it. Southern Democrats, like Southern Baptists, bore little resemblance to their Northern brethern.

During the Democratic convention of 1948, when President Truman ordered a group of black delegates from Southern states seated, a group of Southern delegates staged a coup and nominated Strom Thurmond to run opposite the Democratic nominee. Harry Truman survived the walkout by the Southern Democrats, aka The Dixiecrats.

Do you remember that President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat of Texas, had to reach outside of his party to get support from folks like Senator Everett Dirkson, Republican of Illinois, to pass the Civil Rights Act because the Southern Democrats including such "flaming liberals" as Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Jesse Helms, Rep. Wilbur Mills, Gov. George Wallace, and Gov. Lester Maddox were fighting against it?

Historically the South (including Virginia -- Richmond being the capital of the Confederacy) elected Democrats, not because they were "Liberal," but because they weren't members of the "The Party of Lincoln?" Hence the phrase, The Solid South. Prior to 1968 that meant "solid for Democrats," Now it means "solid for Republicans."

Update to "The Nixon Strategy," a strategy which has led to the switch of many Southern politicians from the Democratic party to the GOP in the years following LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act.

In their first year (until 9.11):
July 19 ............ Bush 56% .... Obama 55%
August 5 ......... Bush 55% .... Obama 54%
August 17 ....... Bush 57% .... Obama 54%
August 31 ....... Bush 55% .... Obama 54%
September 10 .. Bush 51% .... Obama 53%

When Obama gets to 22 call me. It could happen. This recession and the wars are far from over and the public is far from pleased in the way Bush AND Obama have dealt with them.

Obama polling so high prior to taking office was a reflection of national angst. No serious analyst that I know of ever assumed that the honeymoon would last. We are a centrist nation and despite your fears, Obama is a centrist politician and his numbers reflect that in several ways. 1) He's lost support from the far left because he's too conservative. 2) He never had support from the far right because he was left of Rush.