Mc Donnel (R) wins (VA.) ,Christie (R) NJ
 

projected winner Governor races.

While Obama will try to distance himself from those two losses
his finger prints are all over them.
Obama went to NJ and campaigned for Corzine 3X, and Christie was out spent
by 3 to 1.

Exit polls showed economy, jobs, and corruption were 3 top issues.

Quite a different picture from 1 year ago when Obama swept
both Virginia and NJ.

The Astra turfs have spoken.

I don't think State Governor races demonstrate much relation when it comes to Party outlook on a national scale.

Massachusetts, often argued as one of the most Liberal states, had a Republican governor for 16 years prior to Cadillac Deval and will (hopefully) be going back to one at the next election.

ref-er-en-dum

definetely the beginning of a trend. Obama promised the world, only an idiot would have believed he could deliver on all those promises


Yankees in 6

Over the past couple of weeks Obama went to NJ five times to stump for Corzine.... But it didn't mean anything.:jump1:

Hey, This is the Political Forum....There's No room for people coming here to post crap that they know is going to cause Problems.

Keep it Civil....

It went the other way too, in NY where the Right was bickering, the Dem came in and won...

These don't mean %$%$%$%$ nationally. The big test will be the mid-terms in '10, which I expect will swing the balance back towards the middle a bit...

I believe a message has been sent and look forward to
hearing the Obama/ Emanuel response.

It seems that it definitely does mean something nationally from what I've been reading. Even the Democratic leaders are admitting it was a wake up call.

Dems, incumbents get wake-up call - Yahoo! News

People voted Democrat in response to the Bush Administration in the 2008 elections and now they're voicing their displeasure with what the Obama Administration has (or has not) done so far.

Take RI for an example:
We vote dominantly Democratic, but continuously put a (R) Governor in the state house.

I don't think it indicates much of anything. the congressional races in '10 will tell the tale..

If you think it says something, then what does it say about the GOP re: the NY senate race that all the big guns stumped for....

I'm not pulling this out of my rear end, Bryan. Look at the headlines in the NYT or Washington Post. This is a big deal for the Dems right now. Leaders in the Democratic party seem to think it indicates more than you do. The following quote is from the leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen. “I think all incumbents need to be on full alert,” referring to the Dems currently seated.

The situation in upstate NY is a little different because of the circumstances. The GOP wasn't happy with the Republican candidate, who by the way is very liberal (supports gay marriage and abortion). And the Conservative party candidate was going to take some of the votes away anyways. This split the Republican vote and paved the way for the Democrat to win.

As for "big guns" stumping for candidates, how do you explain President Obama making 5 visits to NJ to stump for a Democratic candidate in a state that traditionally votes Democrat?

I know you're not making it up. I think all the talking heads are making mountains out of molehills.
I'll say my belief again, a lot of liberal states vote in republican governors. Why? I don;t know, but don't think it's a big deal.

does it have potential for '10? Absolutely. but even if the two Dem's won it would have been an issue to watch for the mid-terms.

A lot of liberal states traditionally vote in Republican governors like MA and RI. I don't know why either. The Governors in those states don't have a lot of power. It's almost like people vote for the Repubs because they think it's going to balance things out a bit.

My point was that even with Obama strongly endorsing candidates, they didn't win. This says more about the voters than the candidates themselves. 2010 is right around the corner and if the Independents go back to voting conservative, things will definitely shift.

On a side note, it seems a little smug for Obama to so strongly endorse and campaign for the Democratic candidates, and then when asked about the losses, claim to not have been watching the returns. I know he was out at a Bulls game last night, but I'm sure he was keeping track of the elections.

Exit poles, from what I read basically said that his stumping made no difference either way, so they were probably going to do what they were going to do.

I say whatever, I don't live in NJ or Va, so let's see what 2010 brings!

Gibbs says the defeats in Va. and NJ is not a reflection on Obama and the White House.
Wishful thinking. :)

When you control the house, senate, and executive branches - the only way to go is down. The wins are not good if you're a dem, but the infighting within the republican party is.

I've read a few of the post-election articles and I agree RIRockhound.... mountains out of molehills. It's like listening to mid-day sports radio after you've listened to the two shows beforehand - they've gotta come up with something to talk about.

It's going to be concerning for Dems whenever a fellow Dem is voted out, be it at the federal, state or local level. But to say that 2 state governor elections where the seats changed is a reflection on the entire nation's opinion of the Democratic party is like seeing rain outside your window and assuming that it must also be raining in Texas.

It's not like either state has voted for only one party for the last 20 years.

Come on...

In the VA race the Dems were expected to loose.

In NJ, Corzine had a negative approval going into the vote and from what I hear was making fun of his opponents weight???

If anything, the White House should be concerned at the lack of younger voters...but to think this is a referendum is insane.

The Congressional mid-terms are a completely different matter.

-spence

Evidently Obama's 3 campaign visits to NJ for Corzine, in a solid Democratic state, did nothing to change his approval rating.

It sounds like he was an ass in the campaign to be honest.

-spence

yeah, there's no infighting among deomcrats...when is that healtcare vote again?

Harry Reid said yesterday it now looks like it will be sometime next year.:rotf2:

The gang that couldn't shoot straight. The more conservative Blue Dogs have the party at each others throats.

JD, have you read quotes from leaders within the Democratic party? Many of them seem concerned, are they making mountains out of molehills? While a lot can happen between now and the midterms, this is certainly not good for the incumbents.

As for Joe's comment about Dems having nowhere to go but down, that's not entirely true. They could stay right where they are. They don't have to go down.

Yes, yes I do. Regardless of what Democratic leaders say, two state elections cannot be seen as a representation of widespread trends.

Is the fishing in the canal representative of how the fishing at Cutty, BI, the Race and Plymouth is?

I disagree. It's 2 state elections, both of which have a history of changing from Dem to Repub every 2-3 terms. It's not like these states have been hard-lined to the Left for the last 50 years.

I'm not at all saying that I know more than WSJ or NYT, but I am saying that they are making news out of nothing. Should this be local news, yes - but national news?

Take Massachusetts. In the next Governor election, there is a damn good chance we will have a Republican Governor - regardless of how much Obama stomps for his good friend Cadillac Deval. Will that demonstrate anything on a national level? Is MA going to suddenly start putting 2 Republicans in the Senate? Will we soon put handful of Republicans into the House (which has only happened 3 times since 1983)?

I'm not sure you're even getting it, JD. There are Democratic leaders who are voicing their concern. The media is reporting it, not maing it up. If the Democrats are concerned, then there may be something to these results. Look at the approval ratings of incumbents now as compared to a month after they were elected.

And you know that Massachusetts is different than other states in the way they vote. That example is poor and can't be used with the rest of the country.

OK.
So the point has been made, the Dem talking heads/strategists etc.. think it is a big deal. Understand, but then again what else are they going to talk about?

What was the result of the congressional races Tuesday? That is probably a better indicator than 2 governor races.

I fully "get it". The Dems are voicing their concerns because they are being asked "So what do you think about XXXX election results?"

I also know that you selectively choose one thing that I said and try to refute it with a vague response, while ignoring any of the other supporting evidence.

trend

You wanna know what Obama has to say about that?
http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imageb...7287938-27.jpg

If they thought everything was hunky dory, I suppose they'd say "there's no reason to be concerned with the results of 2 governor elections. We'll be just fine in the mid-terms."

Which Congressional races are you referring to that occured on Tuesday? To my knowledge, there was only the one in the 23rd district in NY and the one in California's 10th district. No suprise in CA as the Dem was the LT. Governor and he was running against an attorney with no political experience. Would you consider these 2 races to be more indicative than the governor races?

no doubt.......and very presidential...........

Absolutely.

I think the House and Senate in a states leadership tends to reflect the true voting nature of a state.

You said no surprise re: California going democratic, but what party does their Govenator align himself with:confused:

Much has been made of Obama stumping and gotten no where, BUT if the NY23rd had gone the other way, and the Governor races had as well, all we would have heard was that the states didn't matter, and that the influence of Palin et al was huge and will reflect the 2010 elections....

The Governor of California had a Democrat as his Lt. Governor. :huh: And you can't have it both ways. It's already been beaten to death the fact that there are liberal states that vote in Republican Governors. It's not a reflection on wether the state is conservative or liberal. I'd be much more suprised if a Republican took a seat in district 9 in MA or District 1 in RI than was elected Governor of either state.

You can play hypotheticals all you want, but the races went the way they did. How do you know what would have been said or written?