I don't see Virginia as a big deal. New Jersey, maybe. Generally a democratic state, Obama made several visits in support of Corzine and he still lost.

 

But, I think its quite possible that we'll see a lot of one-termers with the state our country is in. In general, Americans expect fast results, and I'm not sure that's possible in our current situation. Combine that with the fact that these polticians promise results that they can't live up to. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of incumbents go down in the upcoming elections, and obviously democrats will take a bigger hit because they're in the majority.

 

:thumb:

 

I think it's really tough to make an inference about the rest of the country and future elections from the results last night. Though, I do agree that incumbents probably won't be as strong as usual.

I hope that they continue to move to the right. What I think this shows is that if you throw a too conservative candidate in there you will lose a seat that has been held by a Republican since the mid-1800s. The actually Republican nominee would probably have won, but once the Palin and Pawlenty group moved her out of the way, the more moderate candidate won. We are no longer a right of center country, I am tell you.

 

It could be argued that the conservative candidate would have won had they not split the vote with the Republican.

Don't think you can read too much into last night's elections. I think it is somewhat an indictment on Obama, but not nearly as much as some think.

Don't think you can read too much into last night's elections. I think it is somewhat an indictment on Obama, but not nearly as much as some think.

 

Last night was about local politics. Looked like the normal shift here in Virginia.

Did it not hold true in NY 23 and in California - I can look up the district. Also, Deeds ran away from the progressive policies that one Obama the White House - had he embraced those policies things might have been different. Just as they may have been different had Gore embraced Clinton's policies, but he too ran from them.

 

Things wouldn't have been any different. The economy has effected Virginia very hard in the last four years. The state has had to severely cut back on their spending including in localities that depended on that money for infrastructure. Deeds is as boring and unknown as a Gubernatorial candidate could be. He was outspent and out efforted by the GOP.

 

In my time in VA the Govs have been:

 

Doug Wilder

George Allen

Jim Gilmore

Mark Warner

Tim Kaine

 

Wilder was part of the reason for Allen's win. Things went well in his term and led to Gilmore. He was a disaster (he won promising to eliminate the car tax and merely lowered it and sent the fund raising problem on down to local governments to be the heavy in raising their taxes.). That led to Warner. Warner's persona led to Kaine. The economy more than Kaine led to this win.

 

Just my take.

It could be argued that the conservative candidate would have won had they not split the vote with the Republican.

 

The Republican withdrew, or was forced out. She threw her support behind the democrat b/c the conservative movement is becoming too narrow.

The Republican withdrew, or was forced out. She threw her support behind the democrat b/c the conservative movement is becoming too narrow.

 

Was that her reason, or was it more because she was annoyed that she was forced out by the conservatives? I am indifferent to the reason, I am just pointing out another possibility.

:thumb:

 

I think it's really tough to make an inference about the rest of the country and future elections from the results last night. Though, I do agree that incumbents probably won't be as strong as usual.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of turnover in Washington over the next decade or so, from the president on down...more one termers than we're accustomed to seeing.

 

That could be as much an indictment on the political system as a whole...the status quo politics, the mess they're largely responsible for our country being in, etc...than one party, whether it be Democratic or Republican.

 

I believe people are frustrated with polticians in general. I believe Amercians are spoiled and expect immediate results. I believe polticians are greedy, lying people by and large who will do or say whatever they have to to get elected. I also believe nothing or nobody can right our country in the short time they are given when elected...combine all that, and I question whether any current president, senator or congressman will have any easy time getting re-elected. I'm sure there are some, but I'm not expecting as many as usual.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of turnover in Washington over the next decade or so, from the president on down...more one termers than we're accustomed to seeing.

 

That, IMO, is the only way that we will get them to respond to what we want as opposed to them trying to tell us what we need.

The Republican withdrew, or was forced out. She threw her support behind the democrat b/c the conservative movement is becoming too narrow.

 

And still received 6 percent in a race decided by 3 percent. Think those 6 percent would have voted for the democrat?

Was that her reason, or was it more because she was annoyed that she was forced out by the conservatives? I am indifferent to the reason, I am just pointing out another possibility.

 

I think she just had more in common with democrats...in reality, she was more democrat than republican despite her registration.

 

JMO

And still received 6 percent in a race decided by 3 percent. Think those 6 percent would have voted for the democrat?

 

A pro choice, pro gay rights (i think) Republican, nominated by the Rep. leaders in her district . . . because they knew she would win and continue the Republican hold on the district, held since the mid 1800s.

 

So what I am guessing is that she is saying is that the Republican party has become too narrow when she is forced out by Republicans

A pro choice, pro gay rights (i think) Republican, nominated by the Rep. leaders in her district . . . because they knew she would win and continue the Republican hold on the district, held since the mid 1800s.

 

So what I am guessing is that she is saying is that the Republican party has become too narrow when she is forced out by Republicans

 

Why would Republicans of any stripe want to vote for someone who supports immorality on at least 2 counts?

A pro choice, pro gay rights (i think) Republican, nominated by the Rep. leaders in her district . . . because they knew she would win and continue the Republican hold on the district, held since the mid 1800s.

 

So what I am guessing is that she is saying is that the Republican party has become too narrow when she is forced out by Republicans

 

I'm guessing she's not.

I am guessing she is:

 

From the ABC news blog

 

ABC News’ Kristina Wong reports: In a surprise twist in the contentious special election race for a U.S. House seat in New York, moderate Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava endorsed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, on Sunday afternoon after announcing the day before that she was releasing her supporters.

 

Scozzafava, who supports abortion rights and same-sex marriage, suspended her campaign after high-profile Republicans, such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, threw their support behind Doug Hoffman, a disaffected Republican running on the Conservative Party line.

 

Scozzafava’s decision to get out of the race was seen by analysts as exposing an ideological rift within the GOP in upstate New York -- but it nevertheless came as a surprise on Sunday when she decided to endorse the Democratic candidate.