• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What was the 2009 election lesson

What is the lesson to be learned from the 2009 election


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Now that the results of the 2009 election are in, what is your personal spin on the election....was it bad news for Democrats/Republicans, good news...
Pick your best choices
 
(snip ... )

So why – in what was clearly a Republican year – did Hoffman lose? Well, there are several reasons and, yes, the Democratic victory was narrow, thinner than the five or so percent that went to withdrawn Republican nominee Scozzafava who herself endorsed the Democratic candidate. Still, the 23rd is a safely Republican, even conservative, district. In a year where the GOP racked up a 20% margin in Virginia and coasted easily in Jersey, a state in which Obama romped in ‘08 by 16%, what was the problem?

Well… I might as well say it… social conservatism. America is a fiscally conservative country – now perhaps more than ever, and with much justification – but not a socially conservative one. No, I don’t mean to say it’s socially liberal. It’s not. It’s socially laissez-faire (just as its mostly fiscally laissez-faire). Whether we’re pro-choice, pro-life or whatever we are, most of us want the government out of our bedrooms, just as we want it out of our wallets.

more...

Roger L. Simon Election 2009: The Strange Case of NY23


I think Roger Simon of Pajamas Media is saying lose the religious right, and the lesson is Republicans will win.
 
I think Roger Simon of Pajamas Media is saying lose the religious right, and the lesson is Republicans will win.

As much as I would like to agree....I don't think the Republicans can win without the evangelical/right-wing vote.
To win...the GOP has to find a way to bring them into their fold while not alienating the moderates and independents. Its not an easy job for the GOP.
 
I agree with Jay Cost's assessment. The conclusions we can draw are:

1. The voters of Virginia declared a preference for Bob McDonnell over Creigh Deeds.
2. The voters of New Jersey declared a preference for Chris Christie over Jon Corzine.
3. The voters of New York's Twenty-Third Congressional District declared a preference for Bill Owens over Doug Hoffman.
 
Last edited:
Corzine got his ass whupped hugely, and by extension the Messiah, who went to NJ six times to help. A 20 point swing in the polls, now solidly against the Messiah in NJ.

An inexperienced no-name conservative third party candidate almost won that election, against the full political might of the corrupt DNC and without support from the corrupt RNC.

Virginia is free at last, free at last, free at last. A 25 point swing in the polls, now solidly against the Messiah in NJ.

Practically every "independent" voter is anti-Messiah now. That's amazingly good.

And conservatives once again witnessed the treachery of the RINO in NY23.

If the Tea Party folks can make the RINO extinct, they'll have done a true patriotic service for America.

Overall, an excellent outcome.

The disaster the Democrats saw in 2009 was much worse than their debacle in 1993, which presaged the turnover of the House in 1994 under their Rapist President.
 
Last edited:
No vote...poor selections.
The true losers are the American people who do not vote, who do not participate.
Something is seriously wrong, our people must wake up....
Should I walk around with a sign saying "vote" ??
And I think this is worsening...
 
Corzine got his ass whupped hugely, and by extension the Messiah, who went to NJ six times to help. A 20 point swing in the polls, now solidly against the Messiah in NJ.

An inexperienced no-name conservative third party candidate almost won that election, against the full political might of the corrupt DNC and without support from the corrupt RNC.

Virginia is free at last, free at last, free at last. A 25 point swing in the polls, now solidly against the Messiah in NJ.

Practically every "independent" voter is anti-Messiah now. That's amazingly good.

And conservatives once again witnessed the treachery of the RINO in NY23.

If the Tea Party folks can make the RINO extinct, they'll have done a true patriotic service for America.

Overall, an excellent outcome.

The disaster the Democrats saw in 2009 was much worse than their debacle in 1993, which presaged the turnover of the House in 1994 under their Rapist President.


That's one spin on it.

Another is that NY-23 proved that the Republican party is in serious trouble if they try to move further to the right and run more conservative candidates. If a conservative couldn't win in a district that has been safely Republican by a minimum 30 points for two decades, what hope do they think they have in the rest of the country?

Loses of two governorships by Democrats - spells potential trouble for Democrats in 2010 as well. However, the Dems picked up 2 house seats in this election as well.
 
That's one spin on it.

Another is that NY-23 proved that the Republican party is in serious trouble if they try to move further to the right and run more conservative candidates.

In NY23 the GOP candidate was further to the left than the socialist Democrat.

And it was a three-way race. You need to get off your turntable and discover what was really spinning.
 
The status of moderates was elevated from its very temporary silencing in both parties (we are talking about a matter of months-it was never anything long term).

Republicans can have their two victories to make themselves feel better.

Democrats have more potential supporters for healthcare reform efforts on their behalf.

All in all, a benefit for everyone in one way or another.

So, really, I don't understand how "RINOs" and "DINOs" are somehow eliminated from the equation, because they were not. Well, I suppose it allows partisans to somehow think that so they can have more mental masturbation material, until they discover that little has changed and they still need moderates of one flavor or another to tip themselves in the lead.
 
Last edited:
I think Roger Simon of Pajamas Media is saying lose the religious right, and the lesson is Republicans will win.

Well, the religious right has to vote for someone, so I don't see why the Republicans should be actively discouraging them to vote for their party unless they want to shoot themselves in the foot.

Plus, McDonnell was basically a member of the "religious right" (whatever that even means) and won by 17% in a state that Obama carried, so...yeah.
 
Well, the religious right has to vote for someone, so I don't see why the Republicans should be actively discouraging them to vote for their party unless they want to shoot themselves in the foot.

Plus, McDonnell was basically a member of the "religious right" (whatever that even means) and won by 17% in a state that Obama carried, so...yeah.


Yes, McDonnell is a social conservative, but he did not campaign on those issues, in fact, he sought to downplay them and run on Bob's for Jobs, or something like that.
 
I think Roger Simon of Pajamas Media is saying lose the religious right, and the lesson is Republicans will win.

That article hits the point right on the nose for me. I believe a social live-and-let-live policy from Republicans will pull in a ton of independent and Democratic votes. The biggest complaint young people have with the Republican party right now is it's stance against gay marriage and abortion.
 
That article hits the point right on the nose for me. I believe a social live-and-let-live policy from Republicans will pull in a ton of independent and Democratic votes. The biggest complaint young people have with the Republican party right now is it's stance against gay marriage and abortion.

Yeah, but until young people prove themselves as a vital demographic that will consistently vote, what real ambition does a party really have for capturing that audience?
 
What I really think is this:

We had a few elections in a few states and they really mean nothing for the overall parties, either in favor or against dems or republicans. It's far too small of a group of people to have such an overwhelming impact. That said, I will take two house seats and give the Republicans 2 governorships any day of the week.
 
Yeah, but until young people prove themselves as a vital demographic that will consistently vote, what real ambition does a party really have for capturing that audience?

Getting them registered. People that consider themselves Dems/Repubs at 18 or 19 will most likely consider themselves the same thing at 30 when they actually think it's important to vote.

Also, where are you in ND? I used to live in Fargo.
 
Getting them registered. People that consider themselves Dems/Repubs at 18 or 19 will most likely consider themselves the same thing at 30 when they actually think it's important to vote.

Also, where are you in ND? I used to live in Fargo.

Yes, but that social demographic does not pull itself out in large enough numbers to justify changing a giant portion of the platform. Those social issues are huge draws to the large portion of the voting Republicans.

I go to school in Grand Forks, but lived in Bismarck for most of my life.
 
Yes, but that social demographic does not pull itself out in large enough numbers to justify changing a giant portion of the platform. Those social issues are huge draws to the large portion of the voting Republicans.
It's the changing views of society. Right now it doesn't seem worth it, but as new and younger conservatives join the party and run for office they will see the way the wind is blowing and make the changes necessary to get elected. I don't see social conservatives having very much power at all within the party during the, lets say, 2020 elections.

I go to school in Grand Forks, but lived in Bismarck for most of my life.

Nice. I have a lot of friends up there.
 
Yes, McDonnell is a social conservative, but he did not campaign on those issues, in fact, he sought to downplay them and run on Bob's for Jobs, or something like that.

Maybe so, but that still means that the Republicans can win without having to "lose" the "religious right", but rather, just focus less on religious/social issues (and depending on the state, they might not even have to do that). They can do this while still maintaining religious social conservative voters and candidates.
 
Maybe so, but that still means that the Republicans can win without having to "lose" the "religious right", but rather, just focus less on religious/social issues (and depending on the state, they might not even have to do that). They can do this while still maintaining religious social conservative voters and candidates.

Maybe. I don't think so, but ... maybe.
 
As much as I would like to agree....I don't think the Republicans can win without the evangelical/right-wing vote.
To win...the GOP has to find a way to bring them into their fold while not alienating the moderates and independents. Its not an easy job for the GOP.

Yes, they can win, they just need to return to their actual conservative roots, boot the religious right to the curb and be an actual political party instead of a mouthpiece for fundamentalist Christians. There are far, far more people who would vote for an actually conservative GOP than they'd ever lose by telling the fundamentalists what to go do with themselves. After all, what other choice does the religious right have?
 
It's the changing views of society. Right now it doesn't seem worth it, but as new and younger conservatives join the party and run for office they will see the way the wind is blowing and make the changes necessary to get elected. I don't see social conservatives having very much power at all within the party during the, lets say, 2020 elections.



Nice. I have a lot of friends up there.

It's going to be an evolving situation, to be sure, and perhaps likely those issues will fall away. However, I see social conservatism lasting for quite some time, if not till the end of our republic. It's just an attitude, not specifically based on issues.
 
Yes, they can win, they just need to return to their actual conservative roots, boot the religious right to the curb and be an actual political party instead of a mouthpiece for fundamentalist Christians. There are far, far more people who would vote for an actually conservative GOP than they'd ever lose by telling the fundamentalists what to go do with themselves. After all, what other choice does the religious right have?

I hate to break this to you, but the so-called "religious right" have to vote for someone, unless they all just disappear or collectively leave the country or something. Since most of them are conservatives, they vote for the Republican Party (which is not a "mouthpiece for fundamentalist Christians", or else it would be entirely made up of fundamentalist Christians, which it is not).

Instead of telling a huge base of voters to leave the party (and essentially telling them to go join the opposing party), it would be a lot smarter to just play down religion as an issue altogether. Of course, this is exactly what is happening. When McDonnell's thesis came up as an issue, nobody defended the thesis, but rather, McDonnell had to repeatedly insist that he no longer believed in the things he said in it to not look like he wanted to violate separation of church and state, which would have made him tremendously unpopular. If he had defended the thesis, he probably wouldn't have gotten elected.
 
Last edited:
Maybe so, but that still means that the Republicans can win without having to "lose" the "religious right", but rather, just focus less on religious/social issues (and depending on the state, they might not even have to do that). They can do this while still maintaining religious social conservative voters and candidates.

Can they? I think that is the big question. The GOP has been so afraid of not carrying the evangelical social agenda which is why they have done so.
The religious right always claim that they will stay home if the GOP doesn't push their agenda.
I'm not as confident that the GOP can rescue their party from the evangelical right-wing.
 
Yes, they can win, they just need to return to their actual conservative roots, boot the religious right to the curb and be an actual political party instead of a mouthpiece for fundamentalist Christians. There are far, far more people who would vote for an actually conservative GOP than they'd ever lose by telling the fundamentalists what to go do with themselves. After all, what other choice does the religious right have?

I would like to believe that you are correct. I'm just not so sure that you are.
 
Back
Top Bottom