GOP Making a Comeback?

Remove all ads!

While there were no elections for the federal government yesterday, many states held elections for state offices, most notably governor. Overall, it was a very good showing for the GOP, which reclaimed the governorships of Viriginia and New Jersey. In other elections, opponents of gay marriage voted to repeal the amendment that allowed gays to marry in Maine. Amendments to allow gay marriage in states where it has been put to a popular vote are now 0 for 31.

Evidently, Obama is finding his coat-tails a little short these days. It also may be a harbinger for the midterm elections next fall. The party in power almost always loses seats in both the House and Senate during the midterm elections, and the question for Democrats does not appear to be whether or not they will lose seats, but whether they'll lose relatively few, or a lot.

Thoughts?

 

I've saying this for a while. The pendulum swings both ways and the democrats only had a short time. Personally, I prefer the executive and legislative branchs to be run by different parties -- I think such an arrangement ensures everyone is being taken care of (instead of just one side).

The most damning thing for the democrats is the lack of progress. The in-bickering and total seizure of the democratic party to lead significant legislation (hell, even insignificant) through will really cripple them in the upcoming elections. There are no coattails to ride on here and it's going to be all about "what have you done for me lately." I don't think they will lose majority, but they will be significantly weakened in the 2010 elections (I really think that's a given).

I think the only failure of Obama thus far has been to let the House and Senate majority leaders attempt to lead the party -- he should be doing that. But then, he really had little experience and no real personal power among national leaders before he was elected so his influence is only positional power (which is still significant). Obama needs to step up and show he runs both the country and the democratic party. In order to maintain a majority in the legislative branch in 2012, Obama needs to lead the party. He needs to show the US that the democratic party is working to help everyone (and not just democrats) and willing to work with Republicans. Pelosi and Reid just aren't going to take the party to that level -- they have already failed and Obama needs to take over, NOW.

 

There was a federal election yesterday and the Dems won it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33608691/ns/politics-more_politics/

My, my, "time" is up already? And here I thought Obama still had three more years....

I think his futile pandering to the Republican hacks is what's killing him with his base. That base failed to materialize at the polls yesterday for Mr. Corzine, Wall Street fat cat turned unpopular politician.

 

Chandos, as I mentioned he has until next year. The 2010 elections will significantly weaken the democratic party unless they pull their head out and do something. But, of course, you already knew that and simply wanted to take a shot.

 

What I know is that the liberal base is feeling pretty slighted by the Dems, while Republicans keep crowing that they are not getting enough attention from the leaders they did NOT elect.

 

Elected leaders are the representatives of all the people in their district or state. It really doesn't matter who voted for them, they serve their constituents. Of couse, they cannot please everyone but they must please a majority or they will not be in office much longer.

Right now, the democrats have failed at multiple levels by both not having good enough leadership to get legislation through and by alienating the republicans (whether or not the reps deserved it is another issue). Most moderates and independants will be able to at least see the lack of progress and unwillingness to seek middle ground -- this will simply cause a shift back to republican in the contested districts.

The worst thing a leader can do is nothing (to paraphrase Truman).

 

First, Republicans accused Obama of doing too much; now you guys are accusing him of doing nothing (I know it's not quite that simple).

Also, let me point out that Republicans did just fine in 2000 and 2004 by only representing their base. Those Independents in the middle, who decide elections, don't really care much about the base on either side, and they really vote upon the results.

Libertarians and Liberals both despised the Republican Party during the Bush years, (just look at Ron Paul), but the Republican base still held strong for Bush, despite his gross incompetency, and allowed him to accomplish his agenda, despite how much the other side complained. When that agenda led to dramatic failures, the independents in the middle decided to that change was in order and voted the other way. But results take time to materialize in the real world.

There is a big, fat luxury boat just waiting for Repubicans to hop aboard and kick the Dems out of power. But the Republicans will more than likely miss the boat. The key for them is Wall Street versus Main Street and the Dems have proven, including Mr Obama, that they like the Wall Street side better; that the status quo is really just fine with them. Throwing Corzine out of office in a very blue state like NJ proves that the Dems are on the wrong side of the street. Hell, I would have voted for the Republican in NJ.

The problem for the Republicans is simple: Wall Street + Big Business = Capitialism. And that makes it good. Right? Republicans need to wake up, get over themselves and smell the coffee.

 

Why are lumping me in to "you guys"? I actually have a reasonable view of Obama -- I like the guy and want him to succeed, but he's not the savior and never will be. I have actually pointed out very clear weaknesses and areas he (and the democrats) need shoring up -- these are obvious -- and have never gotten on any Beck/Limbaugh bandwagon. I've argued against the birthers and other idiots. However, he is spending too much and getting too little in return. The democratic party needs to show return and soon.

The republicans did fine in 2000 and 2004 because the democrats chose the worst possible candidates to go against Bush with -- and the republican party knows how to circle the wagons and get things done. You want to continue complaining about the Bush years but don't seem to willing to acknowledge he actually connected with more people (or at least enough to win) than the idiots the democrats put up for election. Those two elections were the democrats for the taking and they (Gore and Kerry) simply dropped the ball.

The "big, fat luxury boat" is really just leadership. Either the democrat legislators will show leadership or they'll miss the re-election boat. The independents in the middle are seeing the same failure on the other side (with significantly more in-fighting) and watching the democratic congress spend the money of our children (which Bush did as well, but that's acient history to most voters). The republican don't even need to wake up to make headway in the next two elections, let along smell the coffee.

 

Because I thought you were saying that he is not doing enough, despite the criticism that he was doing "too much."

Al Gore? The worst possible candidate? That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, ( I notice that you guys never pass up a chance to take your shots either) but IMO, he won that election, and I believe that most thoughtful people, after 8 years of Bush/Cheney would take back their votes and give them to Gore. Of course, there are always those who will depise Al Gore because, he is Al Gore, Bill Clinton's VP and their dislike for Bill is projected onto Gore by simple association. I was speaking to the larger picture though. The voters gave the Republicans all the levers of power and the Republicans screwed up in Congress as well, and now they don't have their hands on any.

 

I don't agree that Al Gore was the worst possible choice in 2000. He actually received about half a million more votes than Bush, remember? I'll concede that Kerry was a weak candidate.

EDIT: CtR typed while I was typing.

 

I see people pointing to the election to say that the population wants Obama to speed up or back off of his plans-the 2 contradict.

From my political hackness, a few things to note.

For NY-23 a moderate pro-life democrat won over a hard-right conservative who doesn't live in the district (note the latter had active support from the tea folks)

Possible lesson: Be reasonable and live where you are supposed to.

Note: This is a federal election with, imagery and talk of coat-tails set aside, what is supposedly the most direct effect on things being done in washington DC (support of Obama's stimulus package seems to have been an issue in this election).

For New Jersey a republican who seems anti-corruption and supports renewable energy (check his website) wins over an incumbent governor with connections to a financial company that was involved in real problems in a state that has had long running struggles with corruption.

Possible lesson: Obama may or may not have coat-tails, but if he does they may not be long enough to save a political figure people have grown to dislike at a time he faces a potentially promising opposing candidate.

Note: The argument in NJ may be that it seemed the candidate who won would have done the best for state government (coat-tails commentary set aside). This may also mean voters in NJ don't oppose Obama's plans (note the state would likely still vote for him to be in the White House today).

For Virginia, a state that often leans conservative (has been arguably turning purple rather than red over the past several years) doesn't elect a candidate who has been accused of having a lack of plans for the office after it has had 8 years of his party in the governorship.


Possible lesson: If elections swing back and forth over time this could be showing that. It may also mean that if a candidate wants to win an election (that may not be that easy) he/she should stand for something and actually have a plan & ideas laid out for the voters to look at. Some candidates win based purely on party affiliation, but not all of them and in this case the democratic candidate may not have tried to run on much else, and did so weakly (even being lukewarm about supporting Obama's plans).


Pluses in this election: a seeming desire to be reasonable, honesty, and a real goal for ___ with ideas of how to reach it.

Anyway this is IMO, but pick it apart and think it over.


EDIT:

And Washington (the state) seems to have approved domestic partnerships. So things aren't all bad for gay relationships.

The closeness (the defeat of the gay marriage referendum wasn't overwhelming) of Maine's referendum may never have existed decades ago so things may change further there in years to come.

 

You're doing the "you guys" again.

And that is your obviously biased opinion. Your dislike for Bush easily outshines any dislike for Clinton I've ever seen (and I've met some people that really hated Clinton).

Gore? Oh please, Disney's Lincoln has more personality and appeal than Gore. He was as exciting as a cardboard cutout and had just as much expressive quality. Gore ran a miserable campaign (and he knew what a good campaign was like, he was in two). He was the worst candidate because he presented a mediocre image that did not inspire enough voters to take the election (of course Bradley wasn't awe inspiring either). The election was his to win and he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It really doesn't matter how many popular votes a candidate gets if they cannot seal the deal (its happened before).

With Bush, the republicans actually got stuff done (it may not have been the best, but it was something) -- which takes us back to my obviously ignored statements.

 

You honestly think Bradley was the better choice? (Except for fans of the Knicks?)

 

Didn't the "of course Bradley wasn't awe inspiring either" answer that? Neither was a good choice. The political parties are continually crippling themselves by putting bad candidates in the general election. The primary process sucks.

I've said it before, this past election was great -- we had two good candidates. For the first time in a long time I felt we were able to vote for a person we liked more (either one) instead of voting against the person we hated more (again, either one). The choice was win-win instead of the usual lose-lose.

 

That's a good point T2. I never voted for Bush, but only because I thought Gore was the lesser evil, not because he wowed me. That was a lose-lose election. At the time at least. I have a better opinion of Gore now. But my vote for McCain came mostly from my respect for the guy, which was my 1st time voting Republican. Obama was impressive as well as an orator, McCain's goodguy mentality, background and experience is what got my vote. If another Bush-type was running, my vote assuredly would of went to Obama. This was an election with two electable candidates. When was the last election that occured in?

 

It most certainly did not, because you said that Gore was the "worst" choice, implying that ALL other choices, including Bradley, were better.

 

I concede, Mr Dictionary(), "worst" was an exaggeration, but not much of one.

Still, when you're heavily favored and you lose it's clear a poor choice was made somewhere.

 

I think those viewing yesterday's election as a refferendum on Obama may need to take it all with a grain of salt. Here in Virginia, at least, the local Dems lost this election all on their own. Between terrible campaigning, a lackluster fielding, and a very bad history in the state (Tim Kaine managed to nearly bankrupt us before the economic crisis), Creigh Deeds and Co didn't really stand much of a chance.

That being said, I do think there's some of a backlash against Obama (a counter-counter?), and we'll see more of it in 2010. I don't think it's signaling "Time's Up" for Obama just yet, though.

 

That's just it. It will be "Time's Up" because the press says so. Most voters don't appear to think for themselves, they just follow the press. If the press says Obama is done, he's done -- unless he can organize the democratic party and get things moving. Right now, Pelosi and Reid are doing more to hurt the democrats than the Republicans could possibly do.

 

Is it a backlash against Obama or just some republicans realizing that things aren't going their way and getting vocal about it?

The tea folks that generated a bit of noise didn't win me (and likely not a lot of other people either) over to their side. A question that is still unanswered by this discussion was if this is a backlash (balancing act better term for it?) or if this is really a case of the local situation and candidates overruling everything else (including attempts of others to boost a given candidate).

EDIT:

My feeling, as of now, is the latter.