Originally posted by pavil
Originally posted by eNumbra
49% to 45% is close, and not only is it not "not close" it is a huge statement that the Governor-elect doesn't have half the state's population's
confidence.
It is a relative "big" win. Clinton won by 43% and 49% winning percentages, to use your analogy, what does that say about his Presidency?
Considering it was a victory against an incumbent in a heavily Democratic State, with a thrid party candidate, it was a very impressive win.
It was an impressive win indeed. Considering what Corzine did to the state, and that both Corzine and the Independant, Dagget wanted to continue
raising taxes rather than cutting spending, It's nothing I didn't expect.
|
reply to post by eNumbra
The most revealing thing about the New Jersey Corzine election
was that Obama has no more power. They all heard and then ignored
Obama. The independents ran away from him and over to the GOP. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Virginia race was even worse for Obama.
Landslide victory for the republicans. Full sweep.
Governor - R
Lt. Governor - R
Attorney General - R
----------------------------------------------------------------
The blue dog dems are shaking in their boots!
November 2010 is only 12 months away.
|
Originally posted by pavil
Originally posted by nixie_nox
First question is common sense, what do governors have to do with the white house?
Governor races tend to tell the trend of a State. Take a look historically. Not 100% but a fairly good test.
They can but they can be unpredictable. But two states hardly dictates a national trend.
60% of voters said their votes have nothing to do with the Obama administration. Nor should they. Governors are a different political animal
and Presidential support should never be considered.
The President invested in the NJ race, that his coatails couldn't do the job speaks not only to the Gov. of NJ but to Obama's abilty to pull
marginal candidates through. If Cap and Trade and Healthcare passes and every citizen grumbles about paying more in taxes, how well will Obama's
coattails prove? Dem Candidates might not even ask him to campaign for him. There is the flip side of being too closely tied to the President when
their polices fail.
The democrat candidate barely even broached the subject of high property taxes in teh state. The repub did. Presidents only have a nominal effect on
candidates, people SHOULD be voting whether or not they like THAT governor, it isn't a vote for or against the president. I find it kind of
disturbing that anyone votes for a governor based on how they feel about a president.
both state voters had the economy as a prioritiy but for New Jersey, the second priority was the insanely high property taxes.
What makes you think the economy (actually jobs) and taxes won't be the top two on peoples mind nationwide in 2010?
I didn't say it wouldn't. Depending on the condition of things in those elections (one of which is my own state) that will be the priority.
If in that state the gop doesn't take care of the property tax problem that he ran on, then the next election could easily swing back to blue.If that
is what is eating up the residents.
But that is the state's election, about issues regarding the state. the big hoopla in our last election was over slots. Has nothing to do with the
national level. I have voted in several states, and many of the issues are local. The fact that people act like it is a presidential election is just
strange to me.
Chris Christie won NJ because he is for lowering property taxes. IT is plain and simple.
McDonell won VA because he went out of his way to appeal to the Independants, which were a deciding factor for VA.
Why didn't the Dems do both of those? Don't you think that is a message from the voters?
No, because who risks a bad governor( and yes they do make a differnce) just to send a message? I certainly hope not. If so then those residents
deserve whatever is comign to them. I am near VA. So I had heard a bit about the election. And the dem candidate just wasn't desireable. He never had
a chance at that election.
|
reply to post by nixie_nox
Fix the quoting, it was hard to follow. I know it can be a pain.
I don't disagree with you that much. Governor races "can" be a lead indicator in how a State will go in the future. They don't always do that. I
don't think many people voted for Christie to "send a message" to Obama, he was the better candidate, which should worry Dems. Often, a change in
governor with a new party signals a State wide trend. That was evident in VA, where the Republicans did very well across the board.
The Democratic Party is pretty much two things; Obama and everyone else. This isn't like Reagan who had people running as Reagan Republicans, I bet
you won't see many in 2010 running as Obama Democrats. They will realize he can't put them over the hump in tight races, so they won't tie
themselves too closely to him.
|
reply to post by northof8
I don't own a factory dumping millions of pollutants in the air, am I, North?
|
