Tuesday Night Election Takeaway

Dem Losses, GOP Inter-Party Fracases: What Parties Need to Focus on 2010

(CBS)  Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., said that with the Congressional race in upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, in which conservative Republicans (such as Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson) pushed the party's own candidate off the ballot by backing a Conservative Party nominee (who ultimately lost), "the civil war that ripped a gaping hole through the Republican Party exposed itself."

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, she told host Bob Schieffer, "The Republicans really have demonstrated that they have an internecine battle going on, and it's going to really cause them some problems."

The congresswoman did not believe that the Democratic Party's losses in other races on Tuesday were any sort of referendum on President Obama's influence down-ticket. "In the elections where national issues were on the ballot, in the Congressional District in New York and in California" - where Lt. Gov. John Garamendi won a special election in the 10th District, keeping it in Democratic hands - "both Democratic candidates won, and they ran on health care reform and turning the economy around," she said.

But Tuesday's losses to the GOP "definitely demonstrated that we need to make sure that we focus for the next year and be singularly focused on the issues that matter to the voters, which is the economy," Wasserman Schultz said. She also preached the importance of getting out the vote, so that those who came out for the 2008 presidential election will be back at the polls in the midterms, "to vote for our congressional candidates up and down the ballot next November."

Republican political consultant Ed Rollins said the results of Tuesday's elections, such as the governor races in Virginia and New Jersey which went to the GOP, "the bottom line is what this election was about is that the country is extremely concerned about deficit spending. The president is still popular, but he cannot take his political machine and make it work for other candidates. And I think that was what was proven out."

Likewise the political machine of the GOP did not usher its own hand-picked candidate to victory, but rather allowed its conservative members to sweep her aside. Democratic candidate Bill Owens defeated the Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman by 4% in a district that has been a Republican seat for a century.

Rollins said such inter-party dust-ups are positive: "I think primaries are good things. I find primaries basically create a competition, create a clarity.

"I think we'll win that 4%, we'll win that seat back again. The bottom line here is when you go to the trenches, which is what congressional mid-term elections are about, there's no national themes. If there is, usually it goes against the party that is in power."

"Historically, the party in power always loses seats. I think three times in our history it hasn't happened." Alluding to 40 incumbent Democrats and 10 incumbent Republicans whose seats he deemed to be at risk, he said, "We should pick up.

"The good news for us is we lost two elections in a row, 2006, 2008. We lost more than 20 seats for the first time in 75 years." Tuesday's wins were "a positive sign for us. We have two new governors that can rebuild states and rebuild parties."

Rollins added that, "What's happened is that Republicans are intense. We now think we can win again." Democrats, Rollins said, are "a little disillusioned" and have got to get "back in the game."

Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz said Democrats are ready for next year's midterm elections: "Most of our Democratic incumbents, they are ready. They have Republican primaries set up to run against them as individuals. They're battle-tested. They are out reaching out to their constituents, talking about health care reform, talking about turning the economy around. They're going to be ready . . . for prime-time next time."

[govmess]

President Obama:
Today I read of your administrations' plan to re-define September 11 as a National Service Day.
Sir, it's time we had a talk.........
During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken. You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.

YES, "We noticed."

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say that you intended to visit all 57 states.
We all know that Islam, not America has 57 states.

YES, "We noticed."
When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.

YES, "We noticed."

Every time you apologized to other countries for America 's position on an issue we have wondered why you don't share our pride in this great country. When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us. In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.

YES, "We noticed.."

When your pastor of 20 years, "********** America " and said that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost" and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be. You later disassociated yourself from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.

YES, "We noticed."

When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why. With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth. Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, "if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn't be sitting in the White House now." Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.

YES, "We noticed."

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them. Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions.

YES, "We noticed."

You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you. You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care/insurance reform package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.

YES, "We noticed."

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled "un-American","racist", "mob". We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are. You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant. Until your appointment, Americans had the right to speak out.

YES, "We noticed."

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans. And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could. The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.

And YES, "We noticed."

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation. In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11. You have failed us.

YES, "We noticed."

September 11 is a day of remembrance for all Americans.. You propose to make 9/11 a "National Service Day". While we know that you don't share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is...a disgrace.

YES, "We noticed."

You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold. You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.

YES, "We noticed.."

We have noticed all these things. We will deal with you. When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you and your Democratic cohorts from office.

[rayvillegas1]

The answer to the problem is, "Do not vote for any of the imcumbents". Period-nothing else to add.

[ToolMangler1]

"We need to be thinking in terms of 'kicking out incumbents'...NOTHING has changed! Also, look at people in other parties! There's some good men and women running in alternate parties...it's time we give THEM a chance...we certainly have nothing to lose!"





With those feeling exposed, instead of 'kicking out incumbents', wouldn't it be better to force a vote (nation wide) on "term limits???? That will accomplish the same thing. I prefer to have someone to vote 'for' not 'against'.

[stn_sage]

I have no objections to term limits!

But, a 'nation wide' term limits, is created by Congress itself! It has never acted against it's OWN self-interest in this regard...nor should we expect them to...in the future!

The other possibility is EACH state enacting term limits! This means it would take varying amounts of time to accomplish...some never would!

So, to 'force a vote' on it, at the Federal level...as you say...would best be handled by voting against incumbents AND aligning behind a candidate who SIGNED a written LEGAL agreement to endorse and VOTE FOR term limits IF voted into office!

The agreement would REQUIRE him or her to step down if they failed to keep their pledge! Because let's face it, people...most of our politicians ARE thorough-going liars! That's the only way to see that it actually happens!

[bradkt1]

McDonnell may be a conservative, but he is not a wingnut. He promptly debunked the idea that his victory in Virginia was somehow a repudiation of either President Obama or the national agenda of the Democratic Party. The election in Virginia was decided on state and local issues, the quality of the candidates and the quality of their campaigns...as most statewide campaigns for state offices usually are. He was a strong candidate and he ran the best campaign.

With that said, there are lessons for the Democrats to learn from both Virginia and New Jersey for the 2010 and 2012 elections. A key for the Democrats in both elections will be voter turnout...the higher it is, the better for Democrats. In addition, while you have to be able to appeal to independents, you also must be able to motivate and hold the base of the party. Part of the Democratic base stayed home. Candidates who try to straddle the fence and have it both ways are going to wind up like Deeds did in Virginia...losing. This may be as big a political risk for the Blue Dog Democrats as being portrayed as being too far to the left. Why should Democrats vote for a Democrat who doesn't vote like the Democrat on the big issues such as health care? In the primaries, you have to run to the left and in the general election, you have to run to the center....you can't just start out in the center. Incumbents have to be able to show that they can get results. Personal attacks like those made by the Corzine campaign in New Jersey turn people off. In addition, President Obama's personal popularity is, for the most part, not transferable to other Democratic candidates...and probably won't be in 2010.

For the Republicans, conservatives can win, but they must also be able to appeal to moderates and motivate their base. The wingnuts didn't help anyone in New York's 23rd Congressional District, but they can hurt GOP candidates if they split the vote between GOP moderates and conservatives. In the primaries, you have to run to the right and in the general election, you have to run to the center....you can't just start out in the center. Personal attacks turn people off...as do wild and unsubstantiated charges. Carpetbaggers who come in from the outside are going to be treated like carpetbaggers...with disdain by the voters.

For both parties, national political figures don't appear to have political coattails. They only motivate those who were already motivated in the first place. With President Obama on the ticket in 2012, however, that may be a different story because he will definitely attract a much larger voter turnout in most states...which should favor the Democrats.

Finally, for both parties, it's the economy, stupid! That will be the key issue. The rest is a series of sideshows...at least that's what the vast majority of voters in Virginia and New Jersey said.

[stn_sage]

But Tuesday's losses to the GOP "definitely demonstrated that we need to make sure that we focus for the next year and be singularly focused on the issues that matter to the voters, which is the economy," Wasserman Schultz said. (from the article)
------------------------

I'd point out the following:

1. WHY JUST 'the next year'? You should be focused on the issues from the time the voters GAVE you control of Congress!!

2. And, why JUST 'singularly' focused on the economy?! THERE ARE A LOT of other things as well...that the public EXPECTS Congress to take on than JUST economic issues!

But, why does SHE choose to singularly focus on economic issues? Because it releases her and the other Democrats from doing anything about the other issues they PROMISED to rectify! Convenient, huh?!

NO! I'd say they better focus on ALL those things they promised...there's time to do it! It just requires EFFORT, that's all!

I think the voters need to proceed under the belief that they are being 'played' or 'diddled' once again! Promises don't mean 'diddly'!

We need to be thinking in terms of 'kicking out incumbents'...NOTHING has changed! Also, look at people in other parties! There's some good men and women running in alternate parties...it's time we give THEM a chance...we certainly have nothing to lose!