Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Nov '09 03:12 / 4 edits
    What a big fat win for the GOP (no pun).

    The White House can spin this any way they like, but this has GOT to hurt.

    Obama basically lived here for the last week stumping for Corzine. This is a reliably blue state and Corzine had the incumbency, unlimited $$ and the whole state machinery at his beck and call. And, he apparently got beaten pretty clearly.

    NY-23 notwithstanding, this is a brutal night for the Dems.

    Update: MSNBC joins in calling the race for Christie.

    Update: Fox calls the race too. CNN refusing to call it as of yet.

    Update: CNN calls it as well. It sure seems to be over now.
  2. 04 Nov '09 03:24
    Originally posted by sh76
    What a big fat win for the GOP (no pun).

    The White House can spin this any way they like, but this has GOT to hurt.

    Obama basically lived here for the last week stumping for Corzine. This is a reliably blue state and Corzine had the incumbency, unlimited $$ and the whole state machinery at his beck and call. And, he apparently got beaten pretty clearly.
    ...[text shortened]... ing the race for Christie.

    Update: Fox calls the race too. CNN refusing to call it as of yet.
    I have heard that polls indicate that when Obama is out campaigning for someone or for something, his approval ratings go down. However, when he goes on vacation and keeps his trap shut, the opposite tends to happen. Have you heard this?
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Nov '09 03:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    I have heard that polls indicate that when Obama is out campaigning for someone or for something, his approval ratings go down. However, when he goes on vacation and keeps his trap shut, the opposite tends to happen. Have you heard this?
    No, I haven't.
  4. 04 Nov '09 03:26
    Originally posted by sh76
    CNN refusing to call it as of yet.[/b]
    It may take them anotther couple of years to do so. In fact, I saw one of the commentators on CNN saying that it appears that the Republicans have www....wwww...wwwo.......had another close election tonight.
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    04 Nov '09 05:19
    Originally posted by sh76
    What a big fat win for the GOP (no pun).

    The White House can spin this any way they like, but this has GOT to hurt.

    Obama basically lived here for the last week stumping for Corzine. This is a reliably blue state and Corzine had the incumbency, unlimited $$ and the whole state machinery at his beck and call. And, he apparently got beaten pretty clearly.
    ...[text shortened]... NN refusing to call it as of yet.

    Update: CNN calls it as well. It sure seems to be over now.
    Congratulations sh76. Now hold Christie to his promises. He's definitely got his work cut out for him.

    It's too bad about Hoffman. That would have been the cherry on top. Either way though, NY-23 sent a message to the GOP that backing RINO candidates is very dangerous. The next battle on that front will be Crist vs. Rubio. It's going to be a very interesting 2010 election.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Nov '09 07:50
    In British politics, people vote 'against' incumbents during recessions, pretty much invariably. Is that not the case in U.S. politics?
  7. 04 Nov '09 12:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    In British politics, people vote 'against' incumbents during recessions, pretty much invariably. Is that not the case in U.S. politics?
    Well the poll numbers showed thta McCain was ahead of Obama right before the credit crisis hit the fan, so yea. Then under Obama the unemployment rate increased to 10% as well as Obama favoring policies that more than likely would be punitive to the economy in terms of tax increases and economic growth once in place.

    On the one hand, the economic collapse put Obama where he is but, on the other hand, it will detour Obama, or at least should, from doing what he wants.

    Ironic, eh?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Nov '09 12:36
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well the poll numbers showed thta McCain was ahead of Obama right before the credit crisis hit the fan, so yea. Then under Obama the unemployment rate increased to 10% as well as Obama favoring policies that more than likely would be punitive to the economy in terms of tax increases and economic growth once in place. On the one hand, the economic collapse pu ...[text shortened]... the other hand, it will detour Obama, or at least should, from doing what he wants. Ironic, eh?
    Er... in British politics, people vote 'against' incumbents during recessions, pretty much invariably. Is that not the case in U.S. politics?

    You apparently clicked "Reply & Quote" when you might have meant to click "Reply".
  9. 04 Nov '09 13:05
    Originally posted by FMF
    In British politics, people vote 'against' incumbents during recessions, pretty much invariably. Is that not the case in U.S. politics?
    I think that's characteristic of any two-party system. In multi-party systems things are not so clear-cut, because coalition parties might blame each other for economic woes. Also, parties might lose seats, but gain a spot in the ruling coalition.
  10. 04 Nov '09 13:08
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Congratulations sh76. Now hold Christie to his promises. He's definitely got his work cut out for him.

    It's too bad about Hoffman. That would have been the cherry on top. Either way though, NY-23 sent a message to the GOP that backing RINO candidates is very dangerous. The next battle on that front will be Crist vs. Rubio. It's going to be a very interesting 2010 election.
    Now hold Christie to his promises. He's definitely got his work cut out for him.

    The only person in this race that made any real promises is the guy who only got 6% of the vote.
  11. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    04 Nov '09 13:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well the poll numbers showed thta McCain was ahead of Obama right before the credit crisis hit the fan, so yea. Then under Obama the unemployment rate increased to 10% as well as Obama favoring policies that more than likely would be punitive to the economy in terms of tax increases and economic growth once in place.

    On the one hand, the economic collapse ...[text shortened]... e other hand, it will detour Obama, or at least should, from doing what he wants.

    Ironic, eh?
    Whodey, I've got to correct you here. The high unemployment rate has next to nothing to do with Obama. You could have put in McCain, Palin, or (supposing we had a time machine) Ronald Reagan. We'd still have unemployment near 10%.

    Also where are the tax increases that Obama has put in the tax code? Maybe in the future taxes will increase, but so far he hasn't been increasing taxes.
  12. 04 Nov '09 13:42
    Originally posted by telerion
    Whodey, I've got to correct you here. The high unemployment rate has next to nothing to do with Obama. You could have put in McCain, Palin, or (supposing we had a time machine) Ronald Reagan. We'd still have unemployment near 10%.

    Also where are the tax increases that Obama has put in the tax code? Maybe in the future taxes will increase, but so far he hasn't been increasing taxes.
    But the average Joe doesn't know that.

    The 10% unemployment is happening on the watch of Obama and the Democrats. So people who are upset about the economy are going to take it out on the party in power. Just as they did last year.

    Regardless of the actual effects of anyone's policies, the election in 2010 is going to depend a great deal on how the economy looks a year from now.
  13. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    04 Nov '09 13:48
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    But the average Joe doesn't know that.

    The 10% unemployment is happening on the watch of Obama and the Democrats. So people who are upset about the economy are going to take it out on the party in power. Just as they did last year.

    Regardless of the actual effects of anyone's policies, the election in 2010 is going to depend a great deal on how the economy looks a year from now.
    I agree. Just trying to dispel myths where I can.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Nov '09 14:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    In British politics, people vote 'against' incumbents during recessions, pretty much invariably. Is that not the case in U.S. politics?
    I wouldn't say invariably, but that certainly is more likely than not. Perhaps that can explain the VA election.

    But NJ is a horse of a different color. It's a solid blue state with a big voter registration edge that Obama took by 14 points last year. Plus, Corzine had the big edge in money since he financed his own campaign. In addition, Obama stumped for him a ton last week. Obama sensed that VA was gone and so they put all their efforts into salvaging NJ, which they could not do.

    No doubt the results can and will be spun (you can spin any election results), but this is a hit for Democrats. Plain and simple.
  15. 04 Nov '09 16:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    I wouldn't say invariably, but that certainly is more likely than not. Perhaps that can explain the VA election.

    But NJ is a horse of a different color. It's a solid blue state with a big voter registration edge that Obama took by 14 points last year. Plus, Corzine had the big edge in money since he financed his own campaign. In addition, Obama stumped for h ...[text shortened]... e spun (you can spin any election results), but this is a hit for Democrats. Plain and simple.
    If they had done an Obama-McCain do-over election this year, I'm sure Obama would still have won in NJ -- perhaps the margin would have been a bit narrower, but Obama likely still wins by at least 10 points.

    I think one thing going for Obama was that lots of people liked him last year (and still do), and made a special effort to get out and vote for him. But Corzine isn't nearly as likeable, he used to be a top dog at Goldman Sachs (only AIG could have been worse), and he didn't seem like he had any clue about how to deal with the big issues currently facing the state (property taxes, property taxes, and property taxes). Christie's strategy was mainly to speak softly and carry no sticks and just keep out of Corzine's lost way. For awhile, it looked like Daggett was going to mess up this strategy, but he didn't.