Did Obama get the message?

04SCTLS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
7
Location
Lockport
Did Obama get the message?

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/11/05/11640516-sun.html

It was a victory for the American people who, once again, defied expectations and voted for pragmatism over ideology.
That's probably the kindest way to explain why two Democratic governors were bounced a year after Barack Obama was elected president on the promise of change, reducing Republicans to also-rans.
The election of Republican Chris Christie as governor of New Jersey was the biggest upset, ousting incumbent Jon Corzine, especially when Obama had campaigned for Corzine, taped "robocalls" for him, and sent Vice-President Joe Biden into the state to lobby.
New Jersey is Democrat country, rarely has a governor lost re-election after serving only one term.
But it was Virginia that really put the boots to Democrats -- or to Obama, if you want to be mean.
Under the magic of Obama's campaign last year, usually Republican Virginia voted Democrat. On Tuesday, the Republicans scored a hat trick.
By almost a 2-1 majority, or by 20 points, Republican Bob McDonnell ousted Creigh Deeds as governor, by stressing the economy over every other issue. He rarely mentioned Obama.
Republicans also swept the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, spelling bad news for the Obama White House's agenda -- especially controversial health care reforms which Americans are increasingly uneasy about, and which critics dismiss mockingly as "Obamacare."
Most agree that health care reform is necessary. Maybe long overdue. What seems to make Americans uneasy is the government getting embroiled in providing (i.e., paying for) health care. While the administration tries to reassure people that government would only help those with no health insurance, skeptics suspect if a generous government program is launched, private health care providers might opt out of insurance for employees, and let the government bear the costs.
That's not an unreasonable assumption.
While adjustments have been made to the Obama plan (surely, it's the old Hillary Clinton plan of 1993 in disguise, or with a facelift?), the results in New Jersey and Virginia may well result in the administration easing off, and/or Democrats in congress and the senate re-thinking their vote on the issue.
Dick Morris, the campaign impresario who repeatedly rescued Bill Clinton when he was in trouble, has turned Republican and provides useful political insight into whatever he writes about.
Morris says the New Jersey and Virginia outcomes send a message to some 83 Democratic congressmen and 20 Democratic senators who come from so-called red states that John McCain carried in the last election.
The message is Obama can't be counted on to carry them to victory. If they support his health care plans, his economic simulus, his hesitation in Afghanistan, etc., and if the people don't like it, these guys are on their own.
"If Obama couldn't bail out Corzine in a blue state, and couldn't bail out Deeds in a borderline red state, he can't bail you out," says Morris to red state Democrats.
In any event, the Obama White House has to be concerned. Republicans are back in the game, albeit not as "conservative" as some might wish.
Perhaps Obama has been too ambitious for change, too cocky, too sure of his charisma, too prone to ignore warning signs.
As Joe Lieberman says, perhaps "change" is better introduced by small bites, incrementally instead of by huge gulps that cause indigestion.
Maybe, just maybe, Americans can spot phonies better than wise guys suspect.
________________________________________________________________

Now the republicans just need to keep dillitante Obama tied up and dithering for a while longer and his failure will be assured
 
No, Obama will not get the message. He's not as smart as Clinton. He's a leftist, through and through, and his goal is to take over the United States. He'll go down in flames.
 
I've repeatedly said, I think Obama is comfortable being a one term President. He's a movement guy, a revolutionary- they know that they have to ram this agenda through quickly, before the opposition has time to identify it and effectively oppose it. There's inevitably going to be a political backlash, but he thinks it's worth that personal cost.

It could take decades to roll back some of the massive programs he's hidden in the omnibus spending bills this past year, if it's even possible to roll them back at all. Mission Accomplished.

I don't think they anticipated the push back from talk radio, the internet, some of the commentators on FOX, and the public.

So will Obama get the message.
Yes.
He's going to increase the rate and intensity that they pursue these arguably marxist, progressive, big government (call it want you want) policies and they'll have the SEIU and ACORN thugs acting as the muscle on the street.

Bring a cup and a video camera to any rallies you go to .
 
Deeds cut his own throat by distancing himself from Obama. Democratic turnout in both states were down. Exit polling shows the vast majority of voters cared less about sending Obama a "message", and those who DID it was split evenly between those who voted to send a message of support vs opposition towards Obama.

What is MUCH MORE significant was the REJECTION of the CONSERVATIVE candidate in NY-23 where a BLOOD RED district elected the first Democrat to represent them in ~150 years. Do you think the tea-bagging Palin/Army/Beck/Limbaugh party will get that message?

NJ Exit Poll.JPG


VA Exit Poll.JPG
 
Exit polling shows...

And exit polls are always so accurate. ;)

Exit polls are notoriously unreliable due to inherent error unavoidably being injected into the polls. But, if you want to look at those polls, then how about looking at the area that is more relevant and the most accurate indicator of weather or not this says anything about Obama; weather those who voted for the conservative candidate did so to express opposition to Obama. That was a resounding YES. To look only at the total instead of the vote for the conservative candidate is to mislead and mischaracterize.

Also, citing the NY-23 race and ignoring the Scazzafaba factor (she was even on the ballot and got a percentage of the vote) and how that effected the race is to misrepresent that race.
 
Deeds cut his own throat by distancing himself from Obama.
Once the writing on the wall, the national Democrats starting frantically trying to change the narrative of the Deeds race, insulating Obama from it.

I don't think Obama lost the campaign for Deeds, but to say that Deeds distanced himself from Obama is silly. How many times would Obama or Biden have campaigned for Deeds if they hadn't been "distanced" from it?

This was an 18 point victory. That was a huge win.
And what about the rest of the ticket?
The GOP swept.

What is MUCH MORE significant was the REJECTION of the CONSERVATIVE candidate in NY-23 where a BLOOD RED district elected the first Democrat to represent them in ~150 years. Do you think the tea-bagging Palin/Army/Beck/Limbaugh party will get that message?
You repeat this stuff, yet you don't even understand it.
To think that a local Congressional seat where the Democrats won against a third party candidate with a minority win is the same as losing both Virginia and NEW JERSEY in the governorship demonstrates how clueless you are.

First, NY 23 wasn't a "BLOOD RED" district.
Never was.
Why do you think they were having a special election? Because the administration deliberately picked 'moderate' Republican Rep. McHugh to be Secretary of the Army. This was done because they were confident that largely due to the redistricting, that they'd be able to pick up another Democrat seat in the House or a milquetoast Republican.

Second, the 150 years comment is a myth, again, due to redistricting.
Here's a recently article addressing that lie from the NY Examiner. NY 23rd

In the past 140 years, the New York 23rd has been redistricted from the 24th district (four times), the 22nd district (four times), the 20th district (two times), the 21st district (two times), and the 28th district (once).

Eleven of the 24th’s last twenty reps have been Democrats, one belonged to the near-socialist American Labor Party, and the district has not been overwhelmingly Republican, again, since Republicans were Lincoln-Teddy Roosevelt style progressives.

The 22nd district has had only three Republican representatives since World War One, out of fourteen total. Like the other districts in question, the district has not been dominated by Republicans since the Lincoln-Teddy Roosevelt era.

Of the 20th districts last twenty representatives, only six have been Republicans.

The 21st district has only been represented by a Republican three times since 1911.

The 28th district has been represented by Democrats eight times and Republicans five times since 1913.

So even factoring in redistricting, it is not true that New York’s 23rd Congressional District has been Republican for the past 140 years. Axelrod is wrong, and so are the other people pushing this lie.

And lastly, Doug Hoffman was a third party candidate.
The Republicans spent about $900,000 running against him.
The Democrats were running against him.
The guy, understandably, had the charisma and political charm of an accountant.

Despite this, he still won 45% of the vote.
The Republican won about 6% of the vote.
And the Democrat WON with 49% of the vote.

So if the Republican and an unknown, underfunded, 3rd party Conservative split 51% of the vote, as a Democrat, how can you find that inspirational? I understand how it's a positive news that you picked up a seat in the Congress... congrats. But other than the short term political victory and the irrelevant, and likely, short term expansion of the majority, what's there to celebrate. You should be alarmed.

It's intersting, at the same time the Democrats started frantically trying to minimize the significance of the New Jersey and Virginia governor races, they suddenly wanted to pretend that this 23rd race was the most important thing taking place. The only real significance of the 23rd race is in regards to the INTERNAL politics of the GOP, and that was the case from the beginning.
 
As to the Deeds thing, Charles Krauthammer made some interesting points today in this article:
White House apologists will say the Virginia Democrat [Deeds] was weak. If the difference between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds was so great, how come when the same two men ran against each other statewide for attorney general four years ago the race was a virtual dead heat? Which made the '09 McDonnell-Deeds rematch the closest you get in politics to a laboratory experiment for measuring the change in external conditions. Run them against each other again when it's Obamaism in action and see what happens. What happened was a Republican landslide.​
 
Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
Deeds cut his own throat by distancing himself from Obama.
So how do you explain the Corzine loss, then? He didn't distance himself, and he was in the bluest of states.

LOL You're such a sucker for HuffPo talking points, Johnny. At least you come here to get your head knocked straight.
 
As to the Deeds thing, Charles Krauthammer made some interesting points today in this article:
White House apologists will say the Virginia Democrat [Deeds] was weak. If the difference between Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds was so great, how come when the same two men ran against each other statewide for attorney general four years ago the race was a virtual dead heat? Which made the '09 McDonnell-Deeds rematch the closest you get in politics to a laboratory experiment for measuring the change in external conditions. Run them against each other again when it's Obamaism in action and see what happens. What happened was a Republican landslide.​

Only an idiot like Krauthammer would make an apples-and-oranges comparison in a pathetic attempt to explain Deed's trouncing is the result of "Obamaism". It's not surprizing weak-minded folks like you would believe that garbage.

#1: Different time: This was a much different country four years ago.
#2: Different RACE: You can't compare AG to GOV.

If you even remotely think this was a "lab experiment", you have shat all over any credibility you'd hope to have to understand one iota about the scientific method. Go back to reading your "debate tactics 101" book little boy.


Deeds said he'd opt-out of the public option, thereby distancing himself from Obama. That alone was enough to shoot himself in the foot and keep Dems and independants who are in favor of the public option from turning out for the vote. It is not at all surprizing he got trounced. :sleep:

You RWWs really have to stand on your head and perform logical cartwheels to conclude that election results where 2 Dems won congressional seats (NATIONAL issues) and 2 Repugs won governer seats (LOCAL issues) is somehow a "message" for Obama to reverse directions. Furthermore, to claim Hoffman's loss is a "victory" for conservatives is sheer lunacy. But if you want to continue running fringe candidates from outside districts in local races, by all means knock yourselves out. This is great comedy. :bowrofl:
 
So Deeds lost by 18 points because he'd "opt out of the public option."
Another politician who just wasn't radical left enough to win?

Your simpleminded, stubborn ignorance knows no limits, Johnny.
 
So Deeds lost by 18 points because he'd "opt out of the public option."
Another politician who just wasn't radical left enough to win?

Your simpleminded, stubborn ignorance knows no limits, Johnny.

Why do you continue to act like the public option is an idea embraced only by the "radical left"?? To continue supporting your strawman argument that "tea-bagger" conservatism that will throw themselves on the tracks to stop healthcare reform and the public option is "mainstream"?? Even Brit Hume had to correct Bill O'Reilly on the popularity of the public option:

O'REILLY: They call it, you know, the public sector. What is the -

HUME: Public option, you mean?

O'REILLY: Public option, whatever. The folks don't want it. ... But it looks to me like they have maybe 55 votes to pass it. And that means they could be filibustered and never come up for a vote.

HUME: That's what it looks like right now. The public option, actually some polls show that the public option standing by itself is not at all unpopular, but it is kind of popular. But that depends on how the poll question is raised. ... We don't need to go into all that right now.

Seems you are the one who needs to pull your head out for some sunshine.
 
Why do you continue to act like the public option is an idea embraced only by the "radical left"??
A single payer system is embraced by the radical left.

YouTube- Hacker admits Public Option is Trojan Horse for Single Payer

And simply saying, some kind of "a public option" has no meaning.

The polling that you like to reference is vague and only indicates that many people want some kind of public system for the destitute to be able to receive health care. It doesn't go much deeper than that. It's a compassionate answer that has no specifics or policy associated with it. They just don't want to hear about people being sick or denied care.
YouTube- Rep. John Conyers on single-payer healthcare 5/09
So do the majority of people support a public option if it requires everyone to buy health insurance or incur fines or jail time?

Does everyone support a health bill that redistributes the cost and forces companies to charge young people more because congress has decided that they must limit the amount they charge old people?

And does the majority of the public think that government should heavily regulate the insurance industry and eventually take us to a single payer system?

NO

YouTube- Public option will lead to Single Payer Barney Frank

Seems you are the one who needs to pull your head out for some sunshine.
It seems like you continue to think being bitter compensates for your intellectual deficiencies. It doesn't.

I oppose this so-called health care reform on principle.
However, what do you support it based on? Which version? And what's going to come out of the committee? You blindly support it, yet I would bet that you have no idea what's even in it.

Ultimately, BE HONEST, are you supporting this because you KNOW the goal is to create a single payer, government system?

Also, WHERE DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET THE RIGHT TO DICTATE THAT THE PUBLIC MUST HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. Where in the constitution does the federal government get that authority.

YouTube- Obama on single payer health insurance
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top