|
Frankly, it appears that the Democratic base is high maintenance, and the Obama Administration is going to have to actually deliver on campaign promises to bring the normally apathetic or underrepresented voters back to the polls. I generally believe that local issues always trump national issues in off year elections like these, but seeing the numbers Willa has posted makes it clear that the Administration is going to have to work harder to give people a reason to vote for them again. On the other hand, I don't really mind seeing crooked folks like Corzine go, and I wish the party was more proactive about throwing other corrupt folks under the bus.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:18 |
|
|
|
| # ? Feb 09, 2010 19:35 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Frankly, it appears that the Democratic base is high maintenance, and the Obama Administration is going to have to actually deliver on campaign promises to bring the normally apathetic or underrepresented voters back to the polls. I generally believe that local issues always trump national issues in off year elections like these, but seeing the numbers Willa has posted makes it clear that the Administration is going to have to work harder to give people a reason to vote for them again. The stats show people weren't using this as a referendum on the administration and the two losses for Democrats were governorships which are almost always local. The real lesson here is "lovely canidates often lose."
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:20 |
|
|
Gorelab posted:There's only so much good things can do. The fact that Corzine was close at all was amazing. Also Specter has a pretty good chance of winning especially since he's always been fairly popular in Pennsylvania and his opponent would be a tea party type. Why is that amazing? I'm not from NJ, but Corzine had something like a 2:1 spending advantage, was the incumbent, was the 3rd governor to lose after 1 term, and was in a fairly solid state for Dems. I mean compare him to Blago in '04 in Illinois-Blago was a horrid, horrid governor at that point but it didn't matter, he won easily due to spending advantage, blue state, and being the incumbent. Granted, there was a much bigger turnout/backlash against Republicans that year than this year.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:25 |
|
|
Gorelab posted:The stats show people weren't using this as a referendum on the administration and the two losses for Democrats were governorships which are almost always local. The real lesson here is "lovely canidates often lose." This. The desperation evident in Fox's raving about this should demonstrate to everyone that it's not a national issue. That won't stop the GOF from trying, but it's pretty laughable.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:27 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Why is that amazing? I'm not from NJ, but Corzine had something like a 2:1 spending advantage, was the incumbent, was the 3rd governor to lose after 1 term, and was in a fairly solid state for Dems. He also was very very disliked for being a corrupt scumbag. Furthermore locally New Jersey does elect republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_of_New_Jersey If your favorable rating is in the 30s then it's frankly a miracle that you almost won an election.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:28 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I think it's just as significant. That's another omen for 2010 that I pointed out upthread, and last night's stats do nothing to contradict it. I think it goes a long way toward explaining the shift in independent voters a year later. But yeah, kids don't realize elections happen every year and it's often the stuff in midterms/odd numbered years that have the most direct effect in their lives. I can't speak for what happened in NJ, but being in a VA tv market I can't recall any ads for Deeds but every single McDonnell ad was JOBS JOBS JOBS over and over. Dude knew what issue to run on, and he deserved to win.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:28 |
|
|
cheap sunglasses posted:I think it goes a long way toward explaining the shift in independent voters a year later. But yeah, kids don't realize elections happen every year and it's often the stuff in midterms/odd numbered years that have the most direct effect in their lives. I live in NoVA. Saw plenty of Deeds ads, which were all variants of "BOB MCDONNELL IS A SONOFABITCH WHO WANTS TO PUT WOMEN BACK IN THE KITCHEN". Which, while probably true, doesn't really give you a reason to vote for Deeds. I don't think I saw a single "this is why you should vote for me" ad until maybe a week before the election after which he was pimping his WaPo endorsement. Just a horrible candidate from a field of 3 horrible candidates (Moran could've run up the score in NoVA, but was too far left to win statewide, and MacAuliffe seemed like he was only here because it might be fun to be a governor)
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:32 |
|
|
Gorelab posted:The stats show people weren't using this as a referendum on the administration and the two losses for Democrats were governorships which are almost always local. The real lesson here is "lovely canidates often lose." Agreed. If the Dems are to take anything away from this, I'd say it'd be to field better candidates. Of course with the way the system is, it's an uphill battle to unseat an incumbent type and I don't see many primary wins in such scenarios. But for the weak Republican seats, or ones where the teabaggers are going to run spoiler third party candidates, get the best you can in there against them. Now, I'm not talking about "electability" in whatever lovely nebulous way it's always tossed around concerning Dem candidates, don't want another Kerry situation.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:36 |
|
|
Gorelab posted:He also was very very disliked for being a corrupt scumbag. Furthermore locally New Jersey does elect republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_of_New_Jersey Yeah, IL elected Republicans in the 90s too. And fair enough-he does look like a lovely candidate, but if he'd gotten even half the turnout Obama had, he'd have won the election.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:39 |
|
|
Gorelab posted:The stats show people weren't using this as a referendum on the administration and the two losses for Democrats were governorships which are almost always local. The real lesson here is "lovely canidates often lose." NPR was quoting exit polls this morning that showed that something like 29% of the people that approved of Obama's job performance voted for the Republican in their local race.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:55 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:If CNN has exit polling, it's usually pretty comprehensive. Here is an article from July, which talks about the same things I am. http://www.miller-mccune.com/politi...erally-not-1361 It is essentially stating that Independents are going to vote their party more often than not, and the freshly minted Independents are republicans. The Independent vote has been fairly close since 2002, which should tell you something with how awful Bush had been. Unfortunately CNN doesn't have their exit polling from 2002, which I think would be very interesting. I was wrong in saying that Independents had voted republican, though I think that has been more a function of Bush being awful than Independents not leaning right.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 00:59 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah, IL elected Republicans in the 90s too. And fair enough-he does look like a lovely candidate, but if he'd gotten even half the turnout Obama had, he'd have won the election. Which is why one has to take a look at these elections with a grain of salt. These were off year elections in a crummy economy and VA had a good run of Democrats, one was bound to falter.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 01:03 |
|
|
Bashez posted:Here is an article from July, which talks about the same things I am. Your link only proves what I've said throughout this thread: that indies are almost evenly split, when leaners are pressed, between the two major parties; that the number of Republicans who've shifted to self-IDing as indy is fairly small and insignificant (according to Pew's analyst); and that indies going 2-1 for the R candidates in NJ and VA is a huge shift from their usual 50-50 political breakout.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 01:13 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Your link only proves what I've said throughout this thread: that indies are almost evenly split, when leaners are pressed, between the two major parties; that the number of Republicans who've shifted to self-IDing as indy is fairly small and insignificant (according to Pew's analyst); and that indies going 2-1 for the R candidates in NJ and VA is a huge shift from their usual 50-50 political breakout. A 5% swing for a group that usually makes up 30% results in a 15% swing for the group overall. I can see the other 15% (to make it 2 - 1) easily being caused by poor candidates with poor campaigns and not a fundamental shift in voting behavior. Though you have given me pause, and I'm going to admit to getting beaten on the internet, by a girl no less.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 01:26 |
|
|
FairGame posted:I live in NoVA. Saw plenty of Deeds ads, which were all variants of "BOB MCDONNELL IS A SONOFABITCH WHO WANTS TO PUT WOMEN BACK IN THE KITCHEN". I was getting fliers in the mail for deeds that consisted of nothing but pictures of Obama and "HOPE CHANGE" with a fuzzy Deeds sign in the background behind him. I didn't even know what the thing was for until I turned it over and saw the fine print.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 01:41 |
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I was getting fliers in the mail for deeds that consisted of nothing but pictures of Obama and "HOPE CHANGE" with a fuzzy Deeds sign in the background behind him. I didn't even know what the thing was for until I turned it over and saw the fine print. Yeah, I remember back when Deeds won the primary the general consensus was, "Welp, that's a seat lost to the Rs". The Democratic primary field was pretty weak in general, but Deeds was about the worst choice for the general election. I find it amusing that the Republicans started talking about how important the Governorships in Virginia and New Jersey were only when the polls showed them with big leads and were likely to win. They concocted a story to fit the reality, which the lazy media pundits bought. The more important story was NY-23 all along. When the Democrats, who hadn't gotten more than 38% in any election there in a century, are handed a seat due to Republican cannibalism, it's a much bigger deal.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 01:47 |
|
|
cheap sunglasses posted:The short version is a bunch of separate events occurred from the late 60s through the mid 70s. Nixon's Southern Strategy proved the efficacy of courting single-issue voters with wedge issues, Richard Viguerie figured out that if you sort information into a database you can easily create targeted communications for specific voter groups making identification of single issue voters ridiculously easy, Roe v Wade provided the major impetus for traditionally apolitical evangelicals to get involved in politics (as did the publication of The Panda's Thumb for creationism), and televangelism became a huge business and with all that money and people listening to what you say comes the opportunity to bend politicians' ears. BullitNutz posted:It's a "stop there for now" because the next stop (counties) needs to be reserved for when they think states' rights is too liberal of a system. It's political balkanization in an attempt to retain as much power and relevance as they can muster in a world that intends to leave them behind. stray fucked around with this message at Nov 05, 2009 around 02:00 |
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 01:58 |
|
|
re: Deteriorata Eh, both sets of results (gov. races and NY-23) were upsets if for no other reason than the final breakdown of votes, and of course each party is gonna glom onto the slant that fits its narrative.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 01:59 |
|
|
All right, time to head back to the old political threads on SA.com. The conservatives have driven the sanity bus off of a mountain road. I'm tired of seeing a grown man with a blond buzz cut cry on television as if he just broke his GI Joes. What was Palin thinking? I know it's been said a trillion times, but she really is the thorn in their party. On domestic issues, the Repubs should listen to Meghan McCain. This gay issue is killing them. On the same token... it's not. Okay, Maine is Haunted House Central. You'd think that the Christians there would be open to something a little scary to them, like the concept of gay marriage. Where's Stephen King when you need him? Lastly, why are people listening to Limbaugh when he was PURCHASING ILLEGAL PAINKILLERS? When I need to ask someone about moderating my heroin intake, I ask Robert Downey, Jr.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:06 |
|
|
stray posted:Best succinct summary of the fringe right as I've ever seen. It's not very accurate, though. That Roe v. Wade was the precipitating cause of the politicisation of the evangelical community is a myth; moral indignation surrounding abortion was manufactured in the late 1970s by evangelical leaders looking for a platform to mobilise evangelicals in support of Ronald Reagan. When Roe v. Wade was decided, the evangelical community were either uninterested or supportive. The real cause of the rise of the modern religious right was the IRS stripping Bob Jones University of its tax exempt status for not eradicating racial discrimination from its policies (the school was desegregated as per the Civil Rights Act, but blacks still weren't allowed to date whites). This was perceived by the evangelical community as unfair government intrusion into private religious life. They've been pissed off ever since. Now they blame it on Jimmy Carter, but he had nothing to do with it. It all happened during the Nixon and Ford administrations.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:16 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I find it amusing that the Republicans started talking about how important the Governorships in Virginia and New Jersey were only when the polls showed them with big leads and were likely to win. They concocted a story to fit the reality, which the lazy media pundits bought. Post-election punditry is always about the voters either repudiating liberal orthodoxy like this election or yearning for bipartisanship and demoralized by the lack of True Conservative candidates like 2006 and 2008.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:24 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yeah, I remember back when Deeds won the primary the general consensus was, "Welp, that's a seat lost to the Rs". The Democratic primary field was pretty weak in general, but Deeds was about the worst choice for the general election. Eh, he was better than McAuliffe. Hell, losing to the Republicans is going to be better for the Democrats in the longrun than a McAuliffe win.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:25 |
|
|
boogs posted:moral indignation surrounding abortion was manufactured in the late 1970s by evangelical leaders looking for a platform to mobilise evangelicals in support of Ronald Reagan. Which means it was a motivational factor in politicizing evangelicals. The Bob Jones incident is one part of it, as was the state of Virginia refusing to certify Liberty University's Biology program for teaching in public schools in 1980. No one event got evangelicals to become politically involved.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:31 |
|
|
quote:Bachmann vows to lead health-care reform protesters directly into halls of Congress on Thursday See, I think that this is the problem for the American left (yes, left). They turn up their noses at poo poo like this, deriding it as nothing more than a useless spectacle and grandstanding. What they don't realise is that stupid poo poo like this is what America has come to represent and enjoy. The average American doesn't want long, well-thought-out debates examining every side of the issue. They want fireworks, and action movies, and political cartoons acted out in real life. They want to see Joe Public breathing right in a politician's face and screaming about the founding fathers. The American public sees intellectuals as elitist, and unfortunately they're quite right to do it. When's the last time you heard Noam Chomsky talking about his favorite NFL team, or Obama checking out Nascar, or Biden firing a shotgun at a propane tank? Gimmicky poo poo like "storming Congress and getting in people's faces" works in the current political climate, and I hate to say it but I would love to see someone like John Stewart, Michael Moore or particulary Alan Grayson organise a counter-protest for the next day, doing the exact same poo poo but demanding a public option. Would it be stupid? Yes. Would it be a farce? Yes. Would it be modern American? Yes.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:41 |
|
|
cheap sunglasses posted:Which means it was a motivational factor in politicizing evangelicals. The Bob Jones incident is one part of it, as was the state of Virginia refusing to certify Liberty University's Biology program for teaching in public schools in 1980. No one event got evangelicals to become politically involved. It was a motivating factor from about 1979 onward, yes, but not at the beginning. You said that 'Roe v. Wade provided the major impetus for traditionally apolitical evangelicals to get involved in politics'. That's not correct. It became a major issue later on, but by then the religious right was already thoroughly politicised. The creationist controversy had more to do with it; apparently the Scopes Trial, while not politicising evangelicals so much at the time, did cause them to retreat more deeply into their self-sustaining little subculture, and to become deeply suspicious of government intervention. So if you're going to isolate principal causes, they should be the Scopes Trial and Green v. Connally (which lead to the IRS revoking the BJU tax exemption). The religious right gather around abortion and Roe v. Wade now, but it played little to no part in the genesis of the religious right movement.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:44 |
|
|
Mourning Due posted:The American public sees intellectuals as elitist, and unfortunately they're quite right to do it. When's the last time you heard Noam Chomsky talking about his favorite NFL team, or Obama checking out Nascar, or Biden firing a shotgun at a propane tank? Gimmicky poo poo like "storming Congress and getting in people's faces" works in the current political climate, and I hate to say it but I would love to see someone like John Stewart, Michael Moore or particulary Alan Grayson organise a counter-protest for the next day, doing the exact same poo poo but demanding a public option. Would it be stupid? Yes. Would it be a farce? Yes. Would it be modern American? Yes.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:44 |
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I was getting fliers in the mail for deeds that consisted of nothing but pictures of Obama and "HOPE CHANGE" with a fuzzy Deeds sign in the background behind him. I didn't even know what the thing was for until I turned it over and saw the fine print. This is why R's are running the referendum talking point. Well, they would have anyway, but out of all justifications it's the only one that is grounded with some weight in reality.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:51 |
|
|
Peven Stan posted:They see them as elitists because the media paints that picture. How can you separate reality from what's manufactured when all you see is what other people want you to see? Well, yeah, and that's the problem. Looking at what I wrote I didn't really mean it when I said that they were RIGHT to do it, it's just how the current climate is, and if smart people want their opinions heard these days they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator and deliver them in sound bite form.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 02:54 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:re: Deteriorata Sorry, I just don't buy it. Governor's races rarely have anything to do with national politics or policies. They turn on local politics and personalities. Polls in both states show that Obama is still very popular in both states, and exit polls showed that national issues had little to do with the state votes. Both NJ and VA have elected Republican governors in the recent past. Electing one now was not particularly shocking. Deeds was as exciting as cold mashed potatoes and Corzine was a corrupt bastard everyone hated. The upset is that the NJ election was even close. The same message came out of NY-23. The Teapartiers tried to turn it into a referendum on national issues and got their teeth handed to them in a bag. Owens won because he was local and understood local issues. Hoffman lost because he knew nothing about anything in the district, and the sole plank in his platform was, "Send me to Washington and I'll vote against everything Obama wants to do." So to me, the most interesting thing was the open warfare between the Teapartiers and the Republican party apparatus. That Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Palin all ganged up to destroy the Republican candidate (whom Newt Gingrich had supported) is hugely important. That they also lost the seat is merely comical.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 03:01 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:So to me, the most interesting thing was the open warfare between the Teapartiers and the Republican party apparatus. That Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Palin all ganged up to destroy the Republican candidate (whom Newt Gingrich had supported) is hugely important. That they also lost the seat is merely comical. Hoffman may have lost, but Palin and even Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity all learned something very valuable: They have a lot of power. They took out the Republican candidate in a short amount of time, and they drat near boosted their third party pick into office. If I were a moderate incumbent Republican up for reelection next year, and my name came up on one of their shows or was mentioned by Palin, I'd be scared shitless. With that huge lineup of celebrity interviewers, it makes me wonder just what she's going to be saying and doing. You take everything she has lined up for the next few months and add it all together and it's going to be interesting (and scary for Michael Steele and friends).
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 03:19 |
|
tonelok
|
boogs posted:It was a motivating factor from about 1979 onward, yes, but not at the beginning. You said that 'Roe v. Wade provided the major impetus for traditionally apolitical evangelicals to get involved in politics'. That's not correct. It became a major issue later on, but by then the religious right was already thoroughly politicised. The creationist controversy had more to do with it; apparently the Scopes Trial, while not politicising evangelicals so much at the time, did cause them to retreat more deeply into their self-sustaining little subculture, and to become deeply suspicious of government intervention. So if you're going to isolate principal causes, they should be the Scopes Trial and Green v. Connally (which lead to the IRS revoking the BJU tax exemption). The religious right gather around abortion and Roe v. Wade now, but it played little to no part in the genesis of the religious right movement. I think we're arguing different things here, and again I apologize to you like I did a few pages ago for not being clear. Obviously abortion wasn't the sole cause, or even the initial cause of politicization of evangelicals and I would never assert that. The question asked as I interpreted it was what caused evangelicals to flock to the Republican party, and I mentioned abortion as one part in a series of interconnected events most of which had little to do with religion except as one of the wedge issues exploited through newly developed processes of electioneering, which are, in my opinion, far more important than any particular issue because they can be adapted to any issue of local or regional interest. Having said that, evolution was on the backburner post-Scopes until Epperson v Arkansas in 1968, along with the publication of The Genesis Flood seven years prior. Initially I erroneously said it was The Panda's Thumb, but that was Stephen Jay Gould's book on various evolutionary biology topics, which amazingly nobody called me on. In between the Scopes trial/Butler Act and Epperson, the primary focus of religious groups in needling into school affairs was sex ed courses. It's impossible to isolate any particular issue or event as a primary cause largely because the religious right encompasses a wide variety of theological viewpoints, owing to the very nature of lay clergy/godhead at center of church/etc and in part because there isn't really much in the way of ideological consistency in modern evangelical thought to begin with. Ostensibly non-denominational evangelical Protestantism is designed to be ideologically fluid in order to react to developing social trends in order to remain relevant.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 03:25 |
|
|
Gorelab posted:The stats show people weren't using this as a referendum on the administration and the two losses for Democrats were governorships which are almost always local. The real lesson here is "lovely canidates often lose." I'm not trying to make that claim. What I'm trying to point out is that in 2008 Obama had this massive gotv campaign, and for some reason it wasn't there this year. While I agree that this is a local issue, you have to remember that the whole clusterfuck in NY-23 was due to national figures like Palin getting their voters out. I argue that if Obama had taken more drastic actions, and linked those actions to the folks he was stumping for, it would have turned the tide. For instance, how would have the Maine Gay Marriage vote gone down if Obama had done something more concrete than adding sexual ID to the hate crimes list, and gone there to support the effort? It would have connected direct action (very popular by the base) on the part of his administration with action in the state, and could have led to a different outcome. Instead, he stumped for two campaigns that simply failed. Like you said, he had no effect, and yet Palin et al did. If Obama wants to get folks voting for the folks he supports, he needs to do more to fulfill the promises made during his campaign and give his 2008 supporters a reason to be 2009 and 2010 supporters.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 03:30 |
|
|
cheap sunglasses posted:I think we're arguing different things here, and again I apologize to you like I did a few pages ago for not being clear. Obviously abortion wasn't the sole cause, or even the initial cause of politicization of evangelicals and I would never assert that. The question asked as I interpreted it was what caused evangelicals to flock to the Republican party, and I mentioned abortion as one part in a series of interconnected events most of which had little to do with religion except as one of the wedge issues exploited through newly developed processes of electioneering, which are, in my opinion, far more important than any particular issue because they can be adapted to any issue of local or regional interest. I picked up on the The Panda's Thumb thing. You had me thinking that Gould named his book after some obscure supreme court decision that I'd never heard of, or that his book of essays was a lot more influential than I thought it was. As for the rest, I couldn't agree more.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 03:32 |
|
|
Hey guys--remember Ted Haggard? Well, he's starting a new church.quote:Haggard starting new church at his Springs home I wonder if meth and gay whores will be provided to parishioners or if they'll have to bring their own?
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 03:35 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Hey guys--remember Ted Haggard? Well, he's starting a new church. That's pretty mean spirited. The guy is probably just trying to come to terms with his life, even if he's still looking within the confines of religion. He's already been humbled, no need to be a dick about it.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 04:11 |
|
|
How are u posted:That's pretty mean spirited. The guy is probably just trying to come to terms with his life, even if he's still looking within the confines of religion. He's already been humbled, no need to be a dick about it. Then why make a announcement about it?
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 04:14 |
|
|
How are u posted:That's pretty mean spirited. The guy is probably just trying to come to terms with his life, even if he's still looking within the confines of religion. He's already been humbled, no need to be a dick about it. Prior to his "indiscretion", this guy was the leader of a megachurch that spent millions of dollars telling gays and non-Christians and people who commit "amoral" acts (like, you know, sex before marriage) were going to burn forever in the eternal fires of the Pit. He deserves all the ridicule in the world.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 04:28 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Hey guys--remember Ted Haggard? Well, he's starting a new church. Ironically enough- or not really, because evangelical megachurches and their celebrity preachers are the antithesis to true Christian morals, like humbleness and charity- Jesus would hate people like Ted Haggard.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 06:41 |
|
|
Y-Hat posted:What the hell is "the Great Commission?" Is that supposed to be another slang term for money? The Great Commission is Jesus's commandment for his disciples to be fishers of men; i.e., to spread the gospel.
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 06:55 |
|
|
El Duodenum posted:The Great Commission is Jesus's commandment for his disciples to be fishers of men; i.e., to spread the gospel. 
|
| # ? Nov 05, 2009 07:03 |
|
Rate Thread:
