Sorry, Righties, Virginia Gubernatorial Race NOT a Referendum On President Obama

I guess some might say she helped the first Democrat in 150 years take that district! Annie

So would this make Obama 1 for 3?

...or that he helped Jersey and Virginia LOSE a democrat in the state house annie. the funny thing about spin, is it goes both clockwise AND counter clockwise, but it can't go both ways at once.

Well, Taskr, as we all know "hindsight is 20/20" but I really don't think I would be singing a different tune! I really don't think off-year gubernatorial elections have the much to do with the President or even with what's going on in Washington. Remember 1994 when the Republicans made such huge gains in the first midterm elections after President Clinton took office? Well, my state of Pennsylvania was one of many states that switched from a Democratic to a Republican Governor when Tom Ridge was elected. Clinton had maintained his high approval ratings throughout this time in Pa. but the truth was Ridge ran an excellent campaign as a moderate. When Governor Rendell was elected Governor here during Bush's Presidency I didn't really think of it as a repudiation of Bush's policies but as evidence that the people of my state were ready for a change here. Anyway, I think I agree that the choices were pretty bad in Virginia. I didn't follow it extremely closely but from what I do know I don't think I'd have been happy to vote for either candidate. Deeds was a horrible candidate, I remember thinking that when he won the primary. Annie

"Well, Taskr, as we all know "hindsight is 20/20" but I really don't think I would be singing a different tune!" Your post on the NY congressional election proved my point Annie. You're simply trying to downplay GOP victories while acting as though the ONE victory for democrats was a big deal. Frankly that was the most inconsequential race going on yesterday. It only got attention because of the independent candidate.

Ted, I realize many here won't believe me but I've always been of the opinion that the pundits make much too much of these off year elections and the connection they have to whomever happens to be in power at the time. When the people of my state chooses a governor, we do so based on what's going on in Pennsylvania at that moment and whether or not we've been happy with the current STATE government. I'd love to know what the reaction would have been from the right if Deeds HAD won in Virginia, becoming the first governor in that state since the eighties of the same party as the President; would they have been giving Obama the credit for that? I doubt it and I don't think it would have been warranted. Annie

What I've been hearing since last night - and I realize this is just "spin" but I think much of it makes sense - is that the two GOP Governor-Elects both ran very positive campaigns and that they both ran as "center-right" candidates. Also, the exit polls showed about the same thing in both states, that less than 20% of the voters questioned said their vote had anything to do with Obama either way but of those who said it had, it was split down the middle between the positive and negative. Then there's the usual fact of low turnout in off-year elections. For whatever reason, Obama's "base" stayed home. Since many of them are young, often first-time voters, my guess would be that they simply weren't paying much attention this time around. Annie

I can't speak for anyone else but when I decide who to vote for on the state level it has nothing to do with who did or didn't come to campaign for which candidates. New Jersey has problems, they've had problems for years regardless of who's President or who's "running" Washington D.C. Way back when, Governor Whitman bragged about lowering state income taxes but that only resulted in property taxes going through the roof, which they still are. My brother lives in New Jersey and he's happy with Obama for the most part but he's never been thrilled with Corzine. ALL President go and campaign for members of their party who are running for election or reelection. Maybe they shouldn't do it but the fact is it's been done for decades. By the way, what's your take on the NY 23rd electing the first Democrat since the Civil War despite the involvement of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and others on the right who endorsed the Conservative Party candidate? Annie

You still have to look at the fact that President Obama went there five times to campaign for this guy. What this is showing is an overall revolt to the current administration. I have a feeling a lot of incumbents are going to be voted out this year. All that influence and President Obama still couldn't inspire the people to vote for the wrong choice for their state.

I want to add when I say administration, I mean all government administrations vice just President Obama's.

I think my Governor Rendell is absolutely right and so are you; "Sometimes the people are the determining factor and not outsiders," nails it perfectly. You're also right about the Republicans! Who KNOWS which direction they'll take between now and 2010, not to mention 2012! Annie

Not quite everyone...in fact, not even anywhere near ALMOST everyone...lol! Annie

Funny, the ones he helped with personally were important enough for him to donate his time and political clout. lol

I know it will be here before we know it, but 2010 is still a year away and a lot could happen between now and then! Of course I'm up to it, I've been through it a dozen times. I don't "have to" discount anything as "unimportant", I was simply stating the facts. One of those facts is that Virginia has a long history of electing a governor from the opposite party of the President. We both know that both sides spin everything to look good for themselves. Of course, had the Democrats won in all of the major elections held yesterday there would be some pundits on TV today boasting how that was a referendum on the great job President Obama was doing, ya-da-ya-da... They wouldn't have been right either! The latest figure I've heard is that according to exit polls one in six voters said their vote had anything to do with the President and among them they were pretty much split down the middle when it came to whether they were voting to show their support or disapproval. Annie

"Easy, ROSE???" I HOPE this was a mistake! Annie

haha NOPE This was #2. I thought you were going on a 12 post rampage of the same post, basically, just rewritten. But I won't bite the hand that feeds. I'm too lazy/too busy to start discussions, so I'm thankful that y'all give me fodder for spampinions . I'm just glad to see you didn't go off the deep end. Or have you!?

"We don't want what Barry's got, so get over it." So, I guess the exit polls don't mean anything, those people were all lying, right? The election results had nothing whatsoever to do with what's happening in the states where they took place or with the actual candidates running and the kind of campaign they ran? I would guess the President "cared enough" to campaign for the Democrats - one was an incumbent, by the way - because that's what Presidents DO! Annie

Excuses. Preemptive at that. = shame. But why? Who has gloated? At least I haven't seen it yet. The only thing coming close to 'gloating' would be some of the responses I've seen to the many preemptive excuse-fests posted here today. It is what it is. If the Democrats want to win more elections, they need to show better results while in power. This is the same reason Republicans get voted out too. It's no secret; and it's certainly nothing to bend over backwards trying to explain away with thrice recycled petty (party) excuses. But to each their own. This is how things work on either side. Personally, I want more I's to win. I'm a little fed up with the back-and-forth of the two main parties.

Uh-oh...I think I detect a conspiracy theorist here... Annie

does that make you a coincidence theorist annie?