Just got back from my sojourn up to Saranac Lake and figured I'd share a few thoughts. I haven't had a chance to read any coverage, so I'm not sure how much of this has already been covered.

First, the results have a little something for everyone.

Obviously, the Democrats have a seat and a high profile win in an otherwise awful night. They also get the "Republicans are cracking up" talking point.

Mainline Republicans and the "we have to live with RINOs" group have their, "if we split, we lose and Democrats win" talking point. Note that these groups aren't really the same but I'm throwing them together for the purpose of this discussion.

And finally "pure conservatives" (for want of a better term) can point out that a guy who was a less than ideal campaigner went from nowhere, to knocking out the anointed Republican candidate, to coming damn close to pulling off the win in a short few weeks.

So, who is right? In a sense they all are. This race was so unique it's hard to draw any definitive conclusions, so pretty much anyone can read into it what they want. Ultimately, the conclusion one draws from it says more about the person drawing it than the result itself (and that applies to me as well).

Personally, I think it was a net gain for Republicans and conservatives. I'm sick of party hacks picking their own in these special elections and even anointing the chosen ones in open primaries. I was pissed about the selection of Tedisco in NY-20 this spring and think it's outrageous the support Crist is getting from the NRSC.

Insurgent conservatives who want to work within the Republican Party should have the same opportunity as anyone else. Will that lead to the occasional niche candidate who can't win in the general? Probably. But these party anointed hacks don't exactly have a sterling track record either. Elections by definition are uncertain things. It's life, deal with it. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 10:35 AM | Comments (137)
Post contains 708 words, total size 4 kb.

Peaches reported that someone left this bon mot at Newt Gingrich's blog.

"I like you and hope that you will eventually find something you're good at."

Not only is that LOL funny, but I see the comments are filled with anti-Gingrich animus, so I figured maybe you'd want a thread for that.

I don't think Gingrich is a bad guy. But he has badly, badly read the political situation here, and that is, after all, supposed to be his forte. Without that, what is he?

Just a big fat dude like Governor-Elect Chris Christie, except without the Governor-Elect part.

Posted by: Ace at 10:18 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

He's still awesome!1!!!1!

Stop saying mean stuff about him or he'll kick your azz!! bc he is tuff and he is a football hero and u shut up!!! kthxbai.

Victories in New Jersey and Virginia Tuesday provided a major shot in the arm for the Republican Party heading into the 2010 elections, but the Democratic losses of these two governorships should not be interpreted as a significant blow to President Obama.

Should not be. We're warning you.

While the economy and jobs were the chief concern for voters in both states, 26 percent of New Jersey residents said property taxes was also a major issue, while another 20 percent mentioned corruption, according to CNN exit polling. In a similar CNN survey taken in Virginia, health care was the most important issue for 24 percent of the voters, while 15 percent named taxes and transportation was mentioned by 7 percent.

Ah, the top concerns were merely the economy and jobs; those have nothing at all to do with President Peter Principle.

And taxes and corruption? Pshaw! Even less to do with the socialist Chicago machine pol.

Further proof that this election was not solely focused on Obama, 56 percent of Virginians said that the president was not a factor when it came down to their vote. In New Jersey, that number increased to 60 percent of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday.

Yes, only 44% and 39% considered the election to be a referendum on Obama in those two states so of course it was not a referendum at all.

now shut up and stop talkin shit or i swearz I will take u outside the quad and beat u up!11!! hez TEH ROXXOR and i love him so much it hurtz

Via the perspicacious Slublog.

Posted by: Ace at 10:14 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

The realignment that didn't quite align.

tÂ’s hard to imagine that the 84 House Democrats from districts won by either John McCain in 2008 or President Bush in 2004 are now more inclined to support either an expensive health plan or a cap-and-trade energy plan. Already Democrats are hinting at shrinking the former and putting the latter on the backburner. (One policy that might get more attention is a second stimulus package to create more jobs.)

TuesdayÂ’s election results are a roadmap for political gridlock in Washington and a possible Democratic electoral disaster in 2010.

A respected political forecasting model by Ray Fair Yale University calculates that Democrats and Republicans should split the 2010 vote because of the economy. If that scenario unfolds, then David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, according to an interview with The Hill, thinks “Republicans will probably be winning back the House.”

Did Candidate Obama really transform the American electorate a year ago? Perhaps. (Though, then again, having the economy collapse right before Election Day may have helped artificially inflate his vote totals just a bit.)

But dissatisfaction at the policies of President Obama looks to have quickly transformed it right back.

Dick Morris cranks out the snazzy headline "A Deathblow to ObamaCare."

Polls indicate a declining level of popular approval of the Obama policies (Rasmussen shows his job approval at 46 percent), but to see actual Democrats losing or barely squeaking out victories in solidly blue states sends a far clearer message to the Democrats in Congress.

Until last night, Democratic moderates, the so-called blue dogs, could bask in the light of their candidate's success in 2008. But now they must hear hoof beats behind them. The party discipline on which Obama depends to pass a health-care program that Americans reject by 42 percent for, 55 percent against (Rasmussen again) will only work if beleaguered Democratic incumbents can wrap themselves in Obama's cloak and tough out the popular criticism. But the limits of Obama's drawing power are readily apparent in the Republicans' 20-point victory in Virginia and the race in New Jersey.

In the coming weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be asking their troops to cast potentially career-ending votes for health-care changes, Medicare cuts, higher taxes and fines on the uninsured. Whether they take that risk depends on their faith in Obama's drawing power.

But the votes in Virginia, in particular, show the limits of Obama's appeal. The winner, Bob McDonnell, won the attorney general's race in the last election by a few tenths of a percent over the same opponent. That he coasted to so huge a victory in the swing state of Virginia now has to send a message to red-state Democratic congressmen: Obama may be able to survive in the deep water into which he is leading his party, but you can't.

Even before last night's results, "the fierce urgency of now" vis a vis healthcare was quickly becoming "the fierce urgency of next Shevouot." (That's a Jewish holiday, for you squirrel-plinkin' moonshine-drinkin' NASCAR-thinkin' rednecks ; only heard of it in Scorcese's King of Comedy myself.)

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad said he spoke with CBO Director Doug Elmendorf last week and that it sounded like “it would be quite a while” before the estimates were ready. The news makes a Christmas completion “a challenge,” Conrad said.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also asked Elmendorf when the estimates would be ready. So how long is a while?

“I asked Mr. Elmendorf that question, and I get the same answer: We just don’t know,” Baucus said.

That perception is shared on K Street.“It doesn’t sound to me that they’re ready to go. They still have moderates hanging out there,” said a former Republican Senate leadership aide turned lobbyist.

In order to have a shot at a year-end bill signing, Reid would have to introduce a bill this week and wrap it up by Thanksgiving, giving House and Senate leaders the month of December to reconcile the differences between the two bills and pass the conference report through both chambers.

That scenario is looking more unlikely by the day. In fact, some health care insiders who had once assumed that Reid would introduce a bill by the Veterans Day recess are now bracing for the possibility that its introduction could be delayed until after Thanksgiving. And that speculation has insiders moving the goal posts once again.

And it's not just the Democrats who are put on notice. Politicians are a superstitious, cowardly lot, as Batman observed of their close relatives criminals; many Republicans have been willing to at least entertain voting for ObamaCare if it meant a better chance for their own precious political survival.

But the tea leaves in New Jersey, Virginia, and NY23 (yes, there too) say that there is no benefit to one's political fortunes to voting for more big-government spending; indeed, quite the opposite seems to be the case. And so maybe that's why few Republicans, if any, will be giving the Democrats the "bipartisan" cover they crave on ObamaCare.

Republicans will overwhelmingly reject the Democrats' healthcare reform measure when it is reaches the House floor, according to a key lawmaker.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who serves as deputy GOP whip, told The Hill that the number of Republicans supporting the sweeping legislation will be “very, very close to zero.”

“I don’t know of a Republican out there advocating it," the lawmaker said.

...

Three centrist GOP lawmakers have told The Hill that they will likely vote against the Democrats' 1,990-page healthcare measure.

Republican Reps. Mark Kirk (Ill.), Mike Castle (Del.) and Joseph Cao (La.) all say that without significant changes, they will oppose the bill.

Cao, I remember offhand, had earlier suggested he could very well vote for the bill.

I repeat the take-away that the media doesn't want to mention:

It's not just that Democrats have overwhelming majorities, including a filibuster-proof sixty votes in the Senate, in both Houses of Congress.

It's not just that Obama keeps blaming the Republicans as if our votes are even needed.

The dynamic here is more perverse than that. Obama wants Republicans to vote for ObamaCare so that at-risk Democrats don't have to. That is, he wants Republicans to cast an unpopular vote, putting their own re-elections at risk, so that his Democratic buddies can vote against the very same measure and increase their chances of re-election.

And that is why it is so critical Republicans vote for this piece of shit: It is important that Snowe and Collins vote in favor of cloture so that Nelson and Landrieu can vote against cloture.

Why does no one else notice this? Why is this never mentioned in the media?

Isn't it strange that the Democrats' key to success here is that their political opponents vote for an unpopular bill so that they are disburdened of that unpleasant task themselves?

Why on earth would any Republican agree to do such a thing in the spirit of "bipartisanship"? All I see happening here is the Democrats insisting that the health care bill they claim is so vitally important get passed, but without their fingerprints on it.

If Democrats themselves don't have the courage to vote for this festering shit sandwich, why should Republicans exhibit courage on their behalf?

Obama and the Democrats don't ask much. Only that Republicans take the political hit for their political program so that they can vote the safe Republican way on it.

This has nothing to do with health care per se. What is really being asked here is not that Republicans "help" with ObamaCare, but that Republicans actually assist Democrats in being elected in 2010.

Um, I personally am going to have to go ahead and decline that particular request. That seems to me -- and pardon me if I am a bit rude about this -- to be you all's fucking problem, and not ours.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (169)
Post contains 1350 words, total size 9 kb.

Mmmm... she was instrumental in moving a guy from 13% to 46%.

So, does that demonstrate her power? Nah.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The bottom line, when there is a civil war inside the Republican Party, a Democrat can squeak through in a district that has not gone to the Democrats since about the Civil War. So, this is a big surprise for the Democrats here. I think it was a big loss for Sarah Palin. A big win for the Democrats who poured it on in the final days especially Vice President Biden who came in the final day.

Do the big Republican wins in NJ and VA similarly mean "a big loss" for Barack Obama, who stumped multiple times for Corzine and Deeds?

Of course not; those elections are merely reflections of anti-incumbent fervor, not any sort of "big loss" for Obama.

STEPHANOPOULOS: In both states, Diane, this is really, really important. Independents now are the largest voter group in the country. They outnumber Democrats. They outnumber Republicans. And if you look back to the last three elections, 2006, 2008 and last night. These independents have become the predators of politics and incumbents are their prey. The number one issue out there right now, Diane, is the economy. Look at the exit polls in Virginia and New Jersey last night. 89 percent of voters said they were very- were worried about the economy in New Jersey. 84 percent said they were worried about the economy in Virginia. That's what is on independents' mind and the successful Republican candidates last night really focused on that.

Merely "anti-incumbent" feeling.

I'm sorry -- but can you remind me again about whether the man holding the most powerful office in the free world is currently an "incumbent" or not?

Posted by: Ace at 09:06 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 320 words, total size 2 kb.

And that documentary was named "V."

No, but really, he watched the other Obama documentary on last night, the one on HBO.

"This election is not about Obama," Gibbs tells us.

Dude, seriously? What the hell happens in Obama's blessed life that isn't about Obama?

Genius Christmas! How long is this malignant narcissist going to stroke himself over the single accomplishment on his adult resume? How many victory laps is this guy going to take? At what point is he going to stop admiring his splendor in the mirror and start taking a hard look at the unemployment numbers?

More: 11 more school songs praising Obama found.

Thanks for both to Breitbart's twitter feed.

Posted by: Ace at 08:43 AM | Comments (149)
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

What I want to know is which 31% of the electorate still believes he will be able to "keep federal spending under control."

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 08:35 AM | Comments (50)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

These elections had nothing to do with the president. Except the one maybe where we won.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today said that Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey do not portend anything for President Obama, but the dynamics and the Democratic candidate's success in the special election in Upstate New York has ramifications for the GOP.

"I think the data from the gubernatorial races demonstrates that voters went to the polls in those two contests to talk about and work though very local issues that didn't involve the president," Gibbs said, invoking exit polls indicating that most voters in those two states said that President Obama was not a factor in their votes.

In the New York race, Gibbs said, "we watched a party pick a candidate and then purge that candidate. And I think the result was an election (in which) that district sent its first non-Republican to Congress since before the Civil War."

In related news:

President Obama, looking very indifferent about
Creigh Deeds' candidacy, distancing himself and keeping
completely out of this meaningless affair
which concerns, after all, nothing but intensely local issues,
and not at all yoking Deeds' political fortunes to his own

As a formal matter Jake Tapper is simply wrong; in Virginia, for example, 39% of voters said Obama was a factor in their vote. About half of that 39% voted to support him and about half voted to oppose him. This may be a wash, but it is incorrect to say Obama was not "a factor."

The only lesson Gibbs wants to draw from a big Republican victory is that Republicans are in disarray. In such a bad state that we nearly won an election even though the Republican candidate suspended her campaign and endorsed the Democrat.

Here's another lesson: Democrats were handed a victory on a sliver platter due to shenanigans in the Republican nominating process and party strife and our actual official candidate endorsing her Democratic opponent, and even with all these normally-disastrous circumstances, we very nearly won.

There is no doubt that the GOP in NY23 was in disarray. And yet: We very nearly won anyway.

Now, what does Gibbs think will happen in races in which there is a primary, one candidate prevails, and the party goes forward united without splitting the vote between a candidate and spoiler?

Or is he counting on Dede Scozzofava to play spoiler in every election in 2010?

And here's yet another lesson, noted well by the Blue Dogs and the twenty Democratic Senators in red states:

n New Jersey, the news is even worse. Chris Christie beat Jon Corzine by four points in a state that went for Obama by 15 points — and where a Republican hadn’t won in over ten years. Unlike Virginia, Obama campaigned heavily for Corzine, calling him his “partner” and putting his prestige on the line. Joe Biden made a couple of campaign appearances, too, and the White House supervised the campaign in the final weeks after Corzine initially fell behind. Obama made the argument for Corzine all about Obama — and New Jersey, one of the bluest states in the nation, rejected him.

Obama will still be president for another three years, but the mystique is gone. New Jersey just taught Democrats in Congress a big lesson — Obama can’t get them re-elected. Being the President’s “partner” on his radical agenda is not a winning position; it wasn’t for Corzine in what should have been a secure blue state, and it certainly won’t be in moderate or conservative districts and states held by Democrats in the House and Senate.

That is a huge blow to Obama and his agenda, as Democrats now have to consider unpopular bills for ObamaCare and cap-and-trade in an entirely new light.

Indeed, a Blue Dog representative even said as much, pretty much offering up last night's election results as significantly influencing whether the Blue Dogs will bow to liberal pressures, or if they'll start exerting some serious pressure back on the liberals.

Here's yet another lesson, and one that should give the Democrats shivering douchechills: Rasumussen, the oft-derided "Republican Robopoll" currently putting Obama's job approval at 46%, pretty much nailed New Jersey's final results:

obopolls. Rasmussen's final poll, showing a 46-43-8 Christie win, was pretty damn accurate. Polls using conventional human operators tended to show Corzine ahead. They were wrong.** ... If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the presitigous N.Y.Times, go with Rasmussen! ... Why this is important: Rasmussen's polls tend to show the highest level of opposition to health care reform. If they accurately predict who will turn out to vote, they may signify big potential trouble for Democrats in lower-turnout mid-term elections. The Democratic Congressional id--at least the part that represents primordial existential fear of non-reelection--is throbbing.

Need Spin? Go to the Moderate, Centrist Kos! The cobloggers tell me that Gibbs' factoid about Democrats not losing that seat "since the civil war" is in fact wrong, and comes from Kos' post last night.

Unless the "civil war" you're talking about was the 1992 election. A Democrat won that seat in 1993.

Posted by: Ace at 07:49 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 885 words, total size 6 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:10 AM | Comments (313)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

"Obama is against Same-Sex Marriage, so he might get a win in Maine!" -- justkarl, on Twitter

And so he has.

Gay-marriage opponents are claiming victory in a closely watched referendum in Maine on a new state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed.

The law in question was passed by the Legislature in May but never took effect because of a petition drive by conservatives.

With more than 84 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday, the side seeking to repeal the law had 53 percent of the vote. Their campaign organizer, Frank Schubert, claimed victory and declared that Maine voters had helped preserve the institution of marriage.

Gay-marriage supporters refused to concede, holding out hope that that the tide might turn as the final returns came in. They had been hoping Maine would become the first state to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

Thanks Obama! That was a close one! Whew!

Oh, and by the way, we quickly have to embrace gay marriage because opposing it is so obviously a losing issue.

I mean, the anti-gay-marriage forces can only manage a bare majority in the Deep South states of California and Maine.

Posted by: Ace at 09:30 PM | Comments (178)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.