Even a bunch of ignorant hillbillies couldn't vote conservative this time around, huh?

Now to sound less like a crazy liberal and more on topic:

Bush himself came to Virginia and campaigned a bit for Kilgore and the shit-flinging on television was pretty intense the past month. Wondering what people think ... is this 1 "red" state electing a democrat governor in such a tight race just a fluke (I mean, it happened in New York in the reverse too) or do you think Bush's piss-poor approval rating had a large impact on the results?

I think you're a bigot

Fuck the election, I just hope those stupid commercials stop.

The whole thing could not possibly be more blown out of proportion.

The GOP was doing interesting things in VA with robo-calls. The Republican Governor's Association spliced together various out of context statements from Kaine and put them to work. Liberal leaning districts heard:

[Voice of Tim Kaine] I am running for Governor and I am not afraid to tell you where I stand.

I am conservative on issues of personal responsibility. As a former Christian missionary, faith is central to my life. I oppose gay marriage. I support restrictions on abortion: No public funding and parental consent. And I've worked to pass a state law banning partial birth abortion.

Paid for and authorized by Honest Leadership for Virginia PAC.
Registration number 05-034.
Conservative disctricts heard a different version. Some of the attack ads were pretty sharp as well but didn't net victory for the GOP.

So, Kaine wins the governorship of Virginia. Corzine (D) won in New Jersey and will appoint a replacement to his Senate seat. Bloomberg beat Ferrer handily so remains mayor in NYC. Texas voters banned gay marriage, while in Maine an attempt to override a gay rights law seems headed for defeat. And in Kentucky, Republicans are turning against their own Governor, Ernie Fletcher, who -- while not up for re-election -- may be pushed to resign over improper hirings and firings (and questionable pardonings).

Well we didn't have many state elections yesterday mostly local stuff like Mayors and DAs but the trend was ever apparent the Dems took most seats. Including the Mayoral seat in one town where the former Rep. mayor had been mayor for like .... ever. 'Twas interesting indeed.

Twas really much to do about nothing.

Fandros

Even a bunch of ignorant hillbillies couldn't vote conservative this time around, huh?


Any numbers on how the Harvard and Radcliffe educated hillbillies voted?:rolleyes:

/chuckle

Wasn't this a position already held by Dems? One could argue that indeed the "ignorant hillbillies" couldn't figure out how to vote by that result. Cuz of course everyone knows us old hicks wouldn't vote for an obstructionist party with no real goals or ideals of their own....;P

Fandros

I think it was Virginia where the Gov has not been of the same party as the Sitting President since like the Regan adminstration or something along that line...

Yeah, 5 years ago when Clinton was president the position was held by Democrats. Things have changed over the past 5 years though :)

I also noticed everything the Governator put forth also got shot down. Even a Mayor in St. Paul who was a Democrat lost simply because he endorsed Bush last election. I don't believe the Republicans won anything of importance last night -- though I could obviously be wrong, I just didn't see anything in the paper.

Thing is Kelraz, you are crowing about that victory when in truth he nearly lost. Won by what, 5%? How is that a victory for an incumbent party?

You might be able to beat the drum of victory around others, but you know we're a bit more aware of da world ;P

Even I was pretty sure Arnold's prop's would fall flat in that very liberal state. Hell the teachers union pumped 100 million into publicity to defeat it.

Nothing really to crow about this off election.

Fandros

Bush beat Kerry by 1.7% and was the incumbent president, what's your point Fandros? There was lots of GoP chest thumping here about that, when everyone can agree that Kerry was a sub par candidate.

My point is Tale, that in all honesty it would appear to me that even with the Republican's taking a blow from all sides that folks still have lil to look for in the Democratic party.

Dem's want seats, they need to come out with platforms that are more than "Hey, we're not Republicans!!!!".

Fandros

Thing is Kelraz, you are crowing about that victory when in truth he nearly lost. Won by what, 5%? How is that a victory for an incumbent party?


The irony of that statement Fandros is so incredibly deep ;)

I'd agree, but you typically find larger margins in non-presidential elections. But, that's usually due to a lack of competition.

;P Fil, Rol's point is my own.

Fandros

mmm most of the margins in the races around here were actually rather small with the exception of a couple.

The interesting thing about the margin in VA is that it matches the prediction by SUSA (a polling group) taken before Bush came to speak on behalf of Kilgore. Thus, a presidential visit did nothing for the Republicans. Obviously, 2006 will be the marker year to see if the nation trends left, but meaning can be found even in the few elections held this week.

All I know is that before the recent elections, the Republicans has just as many Governors before then they had when it was done... no big deal..


btw.. 1994-1998 was George Allen. Republican

James Gilmore III 1998-2001 republican

Pretty sure that was during Clinton...

They have 3 years to trump this up into something!!!

Right now they still have no platform, no causes ( other than obstructing) and no viable candidate. Of course in the case of the latter neither do the Republicans...

Fandros

The way things are going, I kind of wonder if I'll ever see a truly exceptional candidate in my lifetime. More and more it seems like both parties are just looking for people who know how to throw grenades and who didn't do cocaine in the 70's.

I am so in....

They have 3 years to trump this up into something!!!

Right now they still have no platform, no causes ( other than obstructing) and no viable candidate. Of course in the case of the latter neither do the Republicans...

Fandros

Can you please define your use of "obstructing"? I see this term being used so much by both parties, and from what I gather it means that the party being called that is simply not agreeing with the other party's ideas, and is voting against the other party. This has always seemed to be the way the two party system operates, so I am not sure why all of a sudden it has become such a huge buzzword to toss out.

Unless of course it can be shown that the Republicans went along with everything Clinton and Carter wanted during their terms......

By obstructing I mean do more than threaten to fillibuster. Make proposals, make alternative plans, offer up thoughtful progression of ideas.

Right now the public sentiment seems to be that Dem's atm are merely obstructing in hopes of better days in the future.

Me, I'll vote for idea and folks regardless of party. If they do more than be a blasted dead weight...see Ted Kennedy...

Fandros

who didn't do cocaine in the 70's.

Didn't Bush admit to doing cocaine?

True, but as long as the next president doesn't A) lie under oath b) use the oval office as a brothel and c) expect folks to believe he did drugs, but didn't finish inhaling/injecting etc etc....

Fandros

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I just meant that people often vote on candidates for some rather... sensationalized issues, which kind of pisses me off. Both parties are going to try to produce the most unattackable saints possible for the next election, regardless of how much of a dimwitted patsy they are.

Hmm, I guess I better add eunuch to that list, eh? ;)

I am keeping my fingers crossed that McCain is willing to run in 2008.

Having someone who is principled, who has shown an ability to forge coalitions, who has actually participated in world events rather than had advisors tell him about them......damn, what a refreshing thing that would be after the last couple decades.