November 04, 2009

11/4: The Day After

Conservative bloggers are trying to portray the GOP victories in the VA GOV and NJ GOV races as a rejection of Pres. Obama and his agenda, making pronunciations such as "The Obama magic has faded" and "The glow is gone". RedState editor Erick Erickson offers one of his typically succinct summaries of yesterday's election results: "In 2008, the American public voted for Barack Obama to prove they weren't racist and in [2009] the same public is voting for Republicans to prove they aren't socialist." Many righty bloggers are arguing that Obama's inability to save NJ Gov. Jon Corzine (D) or VA GOV candidate Creigh Deeds (D) indicates that "Obama cannot help other Democrats get elected." Conservative bloggers predict that centrist Dem lawmakers will take note of Obama's short coattails and consequently "consider unpopular bills for ObamaCare and cap-and-trade in an entirely new light."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are arguing that yesterday's election results have little national significance, noting that Obama has positive approval ratings in both VA and NJ. Several lefty bloggers are pointing out that Dems actually increased their majority in the House last night by winning the NY-23 race. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas writes: "Reminder: Democrats GAINED in the House tonight. So much for the anti-Democratic Congress teabagger wave." Chris Bowers adds: "Whenever a party gains seats in congress, the voters simply are not rebuking that party."

Not surprisingly, the NY-23 race was the one that generated the most commentary in the blogosphere. While righty bloggers were disappointed that Dem Bill Owens narrowly defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, they're still portraying Hoffman's performance as a victory, since he forced GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the race. Erickson calls the NY-23 result "a huge win for conservatives" and explains: "I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy." Michelle Malkin agrees: "Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in elephant's clothing making a complete ass of the GOP." Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are mocking the role that the conservative movement played in the NY-23 race. Moulitsas snarks: "Let's all give a hearty round of applause to the teabaggers, who took what would've been a very good night for Republicans and ruined it by helping Democrats pick up a seat they hadn't held since the Civil War."

ELECTION DAY RESULTS: Yes, This Was A Referendum On Obama

Conservative bloggers are portraying yesterday's election results as a rejection of Obama and his agenda:

• Glenn Reynolds: "The Obama magic has faded."
• Malkin: "Glenn Reynolds says the 'Obama magic has faded.' The glow is gone. The swagga has sagged. Indeed. [...] Yes, reality is finally settling in."
• Erickson: "[I]t looks like the love affair is over. In 2008, the American public voted for Barack Obama to prove they weren't racist and in [2009] the same public is voting for Republicans to prove they aren't socialist."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "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. If they fall in behind Obama instead of listening to their constituents, they will find themselves in retirement after the 2010 midterms. That's the big lesson, and it will not be lost on moderate Democrats."

RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "The record turnout among racial-minority and youth voters generated by the 2008 Obama campaign was not replicable in 2009 without his personal presence on the ballot. And of course, the same will be true in 2010, when Obama himself is not personally on the ballot and will again make every effort to explain helpfully to other Democrats that they lost their jobs for reasons unrelated to his precious historic personal popularity. The revelation that Obama cannot help other Democrats get elected is, of course, bound to affect his ability to govern; he can't convince wavering 'Blue Dog' Democrats that supporting him in return for his campaign appearances in their districts will do any more for them than it did for Jon Corzine or Creigh Deeds."

ELECTION DAY RESULTS: No, This Was Not A Referendum On Obama

Liberal bloggers are arguing that yesterday's election results don't have much national significance:

• Moulitsas: "This is not a nationalized election. Democratic special election victories in early 2004 had no bearing on the beating we took that November, while a solid Republican showing in MA-05 in 2007 had no bearing on the trashing they took in November of 2008. These were not nationalized elections, and focused mostly on local issues. Republicans will spin any gains as a repudiation of Obama, but they risk the same level of delusion that I suffered when I thought winning special elections in South Dakota and Kentucky meant anything more than 'good Democratic candidates running on local issues beat shitty Republican ones.' In Virginia, [Bob] McDonnell (R) was by far a better candidate than the Democrats' Deeds. And while NJ Gov. Jon Corzine continues to suffer from approval ratings in the 30s, the race is only competitive because the Republican has turned out to be a horrendous candidate. Incumbents with approval ratings in the 30s have no business winning reelection."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "There's not much of a lesson to be learned from a bunch of low turn-out races in an odd year. But if you didn't already know that running to the center in a state your party lost last time (I'm referring to McDonnell in VA) is smart and running to the far right in a swing district (NY-23) is dumb, this is more evidence."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "My election post mortem -- um, it's the economy stupid? Don't run crazy people in New York? Old people in Maine are bigots? I dunno, I suppose you can force a narrative out of this but I do not see one here. 2010 will be decided by what happens between now and Election Day 2010. I think there is nothing to be garnered from last night's results."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The temptation is to analyze the results in the larger national picture. That's almost certainly a mistake. In November 2001, George W. Bush's approval rating was in the 80s, and Democrats nevertheless won the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. Was it a hint of shifting political winds? Hardly -- the 2002 midterms didn't go especially well for Dems."

Most liberal bloggers are attributing the anti-incumbent mood to the bad economy:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The electorate was pretty tough on incumbents tonight. Democrats got kicked out in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans got kicked out in NY-23, and [NYC Mayor] Michael Bloomberg, who was expected to win reelection in a rout, only barely squeaked by. [...] I guess that's not too big a surprise considering the lousy economy and the generally sour mood of the voters."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I think you can see from the unexpected closeness in the NYC mayor's race that an economic catastrophe is not a good time to be an incumbent elected official."

Several liberal bloggers are pointing out that Dems actually increased their majority in the House yesterday:

• Moulitsas: "Reminder: Democrats GAINED in the House tonight. So much for the anti-Democratic Congress teabagger wave."
• Open Left's Bowers: "Democrats now have 258 seats in the House, up from 257. Whenever a party gains seats in congress, the voters simply are not rebuking that party. With the teabagger vanquished and an upgrade from [ex-Rep. Ellen] Tauscher, that is a pretty solid night in the House."

NY-23: "A Huge Win For Conservatives"

Although Hoffman lost, conservative bloggers are still proud of his campaign -- especially his success in forcing Scozzafava to withdraw from the race:

• Malkin: "Hoffman may have lost narrowly, but NY-23 is a much broader victory for conservatives who believe the Republican Party should stand for core limited government principles. [...] Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in elephant's clothing making a complete ass of the GOP."
• Erickson: "The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens. This is a huge win for conservatives. [...] I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do -- crush the establishment backed GOP candidate. [...] So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman's votes, Hoffman would have won. Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable. Third parties lack funding and ability for a host of reasons. Conservatives are going to have to work from within the GOP. The GOP had better pay attention. For all intents and purposes, NY-23 is a trial run for Florida. And in Florida, the conservative candidate is operating inside the GOP. If John Cornyn and the NRSC do not want to see Florida go the way of NY-23, they better stand down."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[A]s I said over the weekend, the actual result of this race is unimportant. The point in torpedoing Scozzafava and swinging the GOP behind Hoffman was to send a message to the Republican leadership that only fiscal conservatives will be tolerated henceforth, and that message has been sent even with Owens winning a squeaker. The loss is disappointing but it's a detail on an otherwise great night."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "Isn't it a little strange to argue that the NY-23 result should take the wind of N.J. and Va. out of Republican sails? It seems to me that that result makes exactly the same point as the two governor's races: A Republican running as a conservative alternative to the party in power at the moment, reasonably attuned to the tone and mood of his constituents, and reasonably unafraid to embrace his party and its conservative identity, can win. It seems pretty obvious that if the GOP had run such a candidate in NY-23 (for instance, if they had run Doug Hoffman rather than forcing him to run as an independent), that candidate would have won handily."

Most conservative bloggers are looking on the bright side:

• Morrissey: "It's never a best-case for the GOP when a Democrat wins, but by keeping Dede Scozzafava out of the seat, the GOP has the chance to win this seat back in a year with a better candidate -- perhaps Hoffman, perhaps another Republican who shares core principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism. Dislodging an incumbent Republican would have been considerably more difficult, and a unified GOP should win this district -- especially given the signals sent everywhere else to Democrats."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Hoffman has no charisma and the 'Republican' in the race endorsed the Democrat, yet he only lost by 3 points. Combined, Hoffman and Scozzafava pulled in more votes than the Democrat as well. What that means is that in 2010, when there is another election, there will be a stronger Republican candidate in the race and that person will be highly likely to knock off Owens. So, given how it played out, were conservatives right to challenge Scozzafava? Absolutely. Setting aside the fact that it was far from clear that she'd have won, the worst possible outcome would have been for her to win the seat because in a district like that, even a mediocre Democrat with an R beside of her name like Scozzafava might have been able to stay up there for 20 years."
• Geraghty: "Winning 46 percent of the vote, and coming 4,000 or so votes short, is nothing to be ashamed of. But there are primaries for a reason. In less than a year, Doug Hoffman will have his chance to win a Conservative and/or Republican nomination the old-fashioned way."
• NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "If Hoffman decides to run in 2010, he will probably be running against a Bill Owens whose party has forced him to take tough votes on monstrous health-care, energy and card-check bills. This is still a Republican district. Plus, Hoffman won't have to worry about zombie Scozzafava taking 5 percent of the vote."

NY-23 II: Schadenfreude On The Left

Liberal bloggers don't like Owens, a centrist Dem who opposes a public health insurance option. However, liberal bloggers were still happy about Hoffman's loss because they believe that it reflects a growing split within the GOP:

• Moulitsas: "Let's all give a hearty round of applause to the teabaggers, who took what would've been a very good night for Republicans and ruined it by helping Democrats pick up a seat they hadn't held since the Civil War. Glenn Beck? Thanks! [Ex-AK Gov.] Sarah Palin? Thanks! [MN Gov.] Tim Pawlenty? Thanks! Club for Growth? Thanks! Ironically, the NRCC, the RNC, [ex-Speaker] Newt Gingrich and the smartest Republican in the world, Tom Davis (former NRCC chair) were right -- the Republican Party needs to be more of a big tent to successfully compete in the Northeast and other non-Southern parts of the country. So let's sit back and watch the teabaggers go to war against the GOP establishment, even though it was the national and local GOP that knew how to best hold the seat."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "On behalf of the President, I'd like to thank [ex-AK Gov.] Sarah Palin for ruining what could otherwise have been a very good night for the GOP."
• Oliver Willis: "TEABAG FAIL. [...] This is a +30% seat they should win easily, but they were so damned concerned about purity control they kicked themselves in the nuts."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Will Republicans do Obama a big favor by nominating a crop of Hoffmans for 2010?"
• Big Tent Democrat: "Now, if we can only get the Teabaggers to win all the GOP primaries, Dems might be sitting pretty in 2010. It is always easier to run against someone than be run against."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "Tea Party conservatives see themselves as the base of the GOP when really they are just a fringe, and a lunatic fringe at that. But what matters in this case is their own perception of the situation. They are, I think, only more embolden to take on the GOP establishment who is frankly spineless, cowering in fear and out of ideas anyway. I suspect that the battle of the GOP's soul will continue."
• Bowers: "While I would much rather have had Corzine...this win by Owens will cause even more damage in the ongoing Republican civil war. Owens won because he was endorsed by Scozzafava, who was herself torpedoed by most of the Republican establishment. Lots of finger pointing, and no clear result. This is going to get even bloodier."

NJ GOV: Take That, Obama!

Conservative bloggers were particularly happy about NJ Gov.-elect Chris Christie's victory:

• Allahpundit: "The One can spin Virginia but he can't spin this."
• Geraghty: "The Republicans had a good, but not great night, but only one result made me leap out of my chair in the NRA News studio and dance around the room: Chris Christie's win in New Jersey."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Given New Jersey's status as a heavily Democratic state, this may be the most surprising result tonight. The Democrats can spin the result away, but the Obama folks thought this race was winnable and that Obama's involvement would make a difference. Christie was heavily outspent by Corzine. Christie had Corzine's unpopularity going for him, but didn't run an impressive campaign and had to overcome the drag of a third-party candidate who siphoned off anti-Corzine votes. The result of this race has to sting Democrats."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Even if we don't see the New Jersey election results as a rejection of Obama, at the very minimum what they show is that his campaign appearances can't carry a Democrat across the finish line, even a candidate with a huge money advantage in a solidly blue state. And if Obama -- with all of his star power and highly-touted political organization -- can't deliver in New Jersey, then why would a moderate Democrat running for re-election next year in a red district where Obama is unpopular to begin with tie himself to Obama? Why would a red state Democrat vote with the Democratic leadership on issues such as health care legislation and 'cap and trade'?"

On the left side of the blogosphere, Lemos suggests that Obama bring Corzine to DC: "Corzine is now available to [be] Secretary of the Treasury. Dump [Tim] Geithner and replace with Corzine, who is not only more experienced but an actual progressive. A Corzine appointment at Treasury would change the dynamics of the department after over eight years of lightweights in the post."

VA GOV: See? This Is What Happens When You Ignore Your Base

Liberal bloggers argue that the big lesson from Deeds' crushing defeat is that it's foolish for Dems to ignore their base:

• Bowers: "I guess Deeds just didn't swerve far enough to the right. After all, the under-30 vote was only cut in half. He could have done better than that. Another great victory for Blue Dogism."
• Firedoglake's David Dayen: "The Virginia race really looks like a case of a depressed base. Conservatives turned out at basically the same numbers as they did in 2008. The Democrats didn't turn out. And Deeds distancing himself from Democratic agenda items like health care reform and climate change is the reason."
• Willis: "Lesson for Dems: Put up candidates with guts. Deeds ran a squish campaign and got squish results. He opposed cap and trade and said he would opt out of the public option. Way to suppress the base vote, dude."

Moulitsas:

"[P]reliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

(1.) If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary 'bipartisanship', you will lose votes.
(2.) If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
(3.) If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action."

MAINE: This One Hurts

Liberal bloggers were very upset that ME voters repealed the state's same sex marriage law:

• Open Left's Adam Bink: "I don't really have much else to say except this one hurts, in my gut, a lot."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The Bishop of Maine, Richard Malone, must be quite pleased with himself. He ran a campaign of lies, hate and distortions -- and convinced enough Maine voters to vote with him. It's going to take me a couple days (or more) to get my head around this one. But, for now, suffice it so say: HATE was the winner in Maine. Hate and the Catholic Bishop. But, this isn't over. Time and justice really are on our side."
• Bowers: "[This is] enough to make your blood boil. The only bright side I can offer is that, once again, we are getting closer to winning these elections. Also, once again, we probably won them among voters under the age of 65."

Several lefty bloggers are discussing whether Obama should have gotten involved:

• Drum: "From a purely practical political perspective it's easy to understand why Obama didn't want to get involved in this, but it might have made a difference. I don't have any doubt that California and Maine will both flip within a few years anyway, but sooner sure would have been better than later."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "There's going to be an effort by many on the left to blame Barack Obama for his lack of leadership on gay rights issues; I think the criticism is correct on its face, but I don't know how much it has to do with the defeat in Maine. A more popular Democratic governor, for instance, who had been a bit quicker on the trigger in his support of gay marriage, might have helped more."

On the other side of the blogosphere, conservative bloggers celebrated the ME results:

• NRO's Maggie Gallagher: "The People have exercized their veto. This is huge. I am so happy."
• NRO's Thomas Peters: "Proponents of same-sex marriage, unlike in California's Prop 8, can't blame Maine on Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording. Their issue loses when the people decide. And it loses every time."
• Malkin: "Socially liberal Maine rejects a gay marriage initiative -- making it the 31st time (out of 31 tries) that voters have torpedoed such proposals. How long until gay marriage proponents start decrying America's 'climate of hate?' 3, 2, 1...."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "The vote preserving marriage in Maine sends a clear message: Democrats will repeal DADT at their own peril."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So What If He's Personally Popular?

NRO's Jonah Goldberg:

"After the election, we were told this is the dawn of a new progressive era. Now liberals (but the MSM even more) say everything's okay because Obama is still personally popular, even as the country is rejecting the progressive era he's supposed to be ushering in. Wah-frick'n-hoo. I for one will gladly make that trade. I am perfectly happy to have a popular Democratic president unable to push a liberal agenda, than an unpopular Democratic president with a country hungry for a liberal agenda.

Yesterday was a severe blow to healthcare reform and cap and trade. But yes, Barack Obama is still popular. But if all Barack Obama's personal popularity is good for is getting gushing profiles of his wife in supermarket magazines, 'buck up camper' essays in Newsweek and the Nobel Prize for bring hope to Norway and Sweden, that's okay with me."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Says He Has Fulfilled Campaign's Vague Catchphrases

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- Marking the one-year anniversary of his historic election to the presidency, Barack Obama delivered a major speech today in which he said he had 'fulfilled the vague and diffuse catchphrases laid out in my campaign.'

Underscoring his point, Mr. Obama said, 'When I was running for President, no one knew exactly what "Change You Can Believe In" meant. One year later, I am proud to say that that is still the case.'

The President said he was particularly proud of the way in which he had delivered on his 'Yes, we can' slogan.

'One year later, can we say that we have change we can believe in?' he said. 'Yes we can.'"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 4, 2009 12:43 PM