GOP Wins Sweeping Victories in NJ, VA Gubernatorial Races
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 at 10:27PM The Republican Party won victories in predominantly Democratic territory in New Jersey, Virginia and the Conservative candidate is leading the Democrat in New York.
GOP wins in Virginia by a landslide:
Republican Bob McDonnell will win the race for governor in Virginia, reversing a trend of the state electing Democrats.
McDonnell, a 55-year-old former state attorney general, will be the first Republican to win the state’s highest office in 12 years. Republicans will win races for Virginia’s lieutenant governor and attorney general as well.
GOP wins a stunner in New Jersey:
With 81 percent of precincts reporting, (R) Christie had 49 percent and (D) Jon Corzine had 44 percent.
In the end, all the stumping in the world from the President of the United States wasn’t going to stop regime change in New Jersey’s highest office.
Independent voters gave President Barack Obama a huge advantage in the state last year, but they heavily favored Christie on Tuesday.
Waiting on Conservative Doug Hoffman and his race in NY… UPDATE: Hoffman loses to Owens
So are these GOP/Conservative victories an anti-Obama referendum? I’d say so. Even if voters personally like Barack Obama, the policies of these defeated governors are the policies of Barack Obama.
For some odd reason, President Obama isn’t watching the election coverage tonight. Why not? Maybe he’s busier than usual contemplating whether to send reinforcements to Afghanistan instead.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (33)
I'm really excited about the New Jersey race. Being born and raised there, it's been a shame to see the Garden State run into the ground by Democratic leadership (although NJers asked for it) but it has become so bad that mom and pop stores, farms passed down for generations, and other entities have had to close up shop. Chris Christie gave a great speech tonight and I hope he can govern in a way that brings NJ back to life.
This is a win for conservatives and a big boost to the Tea Party movement IMO. If Hoffman wins it will be because of conservatives and in spite of the local elephants aka RINOs.
Looks like Hoffman won't win. That will be fodder for dem spin doctors who are already casting this race as indicative of the 'civil war' in the GOP...
Congrats to Christie and McDonnell. Amy grew up in NJ and I in VA where we met and married. I joined the US Army as a Virginian.
I don't think the Hoffman loss is nearly as big a deal as the GOP victories. It was a regional district race and although it would seem the GOP has had a monopoly on that region for some time, the reality is that Dede Scozzafava is a flaming liberal, not a moderate Republican. The policies she supports contradict the party platform at its most basic level: pro-life and pro-marriage.
I'm just throwing that out there. Just like Scozzafava wasn't really a Republican, her constituents obviously weren't, either.
It is a big deal. Even though he lost, conservatives still won. The Democrat in the race was to the right of the Republican in the race. Between the Conservative and the Democrat the loss was a mere 4000 votes and Hoffman was practically unknown and the establishment Rs went after him harder than the Democrat and he almost pulled it off.
We still won. Let them spin because we didn't expect it to get as close as it came.
We're better off with Owens than Scozzafava.
Rural Dems tend to be somewhat more conservative. It's not a victory for the nut jobs of the Democratic party. I am not sure anyone really like Corzine Dems or Republicans. The thing about VA is that Deeds is a good guy and would have been a good Governor.
I live in the NY 23rd and basically agree with StephC. the 23rd is a traditionally moderate district, and the Conservative party in NY is not even considered a remotely viable "third party" here. The NY conservative party generally endorses Republicans, only running a candidate when it considers the Republican to be a bad choice.
The fact that a very conservative candidate did so well in this three way district race is, I think, undoubtedly a concern for the Dems, no matter what kind of spin the Obama News Networks try to put on it.
There is no state level primary in NY. "Scouzz" was chosen by 11 state GOP leaders to run. The reaction of the people was not about a civil war in the GOP, rather, it was about leaders being out of touch and the constituents voicing their displeasure. That's not a civil war, its the process of a Democratic Republic at work. It's this process that the talking heads in the media fear. They seem to be under the delusion that it is up to the party leaders to set the agenda while the constituents should fall into lock-step behind them.
"A political party ought to be a big tent," they say. But if that's the case then what the hell is the point of having political parties at all? The problem with the big ten theory is that under a big ten you usually find a lot of clowns and confusion; witness Rangel, Pelosi, Frank, and the more dubious members of the President's cabinet and his czars. It's hard to move among the clowns under a big tent if you're one of the dwarfs. Just ask the blue dogs.
Quite a bit of dung, too, considering nobody wants to clean up.
Well dim, to some of us it seems that the blue dogs are the ones inside the tent and the progressives (you would call them the socialist America-haters) are on the outside.
In case anyone here cares, here's my take.
1) The NJ race is inconclusive since the 3rd party candidate's vote total was larger than the number of votes separating the two front-runners.
2) This is not a good year to have a candidate who used to be CEO of Goldman Sachs.
3) Virginia only went for Obama because a lot of young people and many long-time disaffected voters were excited by all the hope-la and talk of change in the Obama campaign. A year into his administration, they are disillusioned because there is no change they can believe in and there is no reason to hope there ever will be. Given that and a less than exciting candidate, they stayed home.
4) In NY-23, and in NY and the Northeast generally, Republicans are fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives. They are not totally anti-abortion and certainly not against equal rights for gays, they just want a strong defense and to rein in spending. A candidate like Hoffman was just too extreme for them.
Is it really in America's best interest to have two parties that have "big tents", i.e., have to real ideological positions? Is it really in America's best interest to have elections dominated by money, almost all of which has to come from those who have plenty of it and lots of business to do with the government? The Republicans have decided they want a smaller tent and through their leadership in the media are enforcing an ideological litmus test on candidates. The Democrats want a big tent and hope to delude enough voters into believing they are really interested in change and helping the little guy to get elected. It is a sick system.
America is beginning to realize that we defeated the Soviets only to find we elected a Bolshevik to the White House and the Pelosi Reid Obama troika is straight out of Politboro authoritarian Central Planning:
"The six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR: in America ”Now “”
How to speak and understand Socialism .. Their words don’t mean what they say …. here’s their secret code .
There is full employment — yet no one is working.
No one is working — yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.
The factory quotas are fulfilled — yet the stores have nothing to sell.
The stores have nothing to sell — yet people got all the stuff at home.
People got all the stuff at home — yet everyone is complaining.
Everyone is complaining — yet the voting is always unanimous.
Economic justice:
America is capitalist and greedy — yet half of the population is subsidized.
Half of the population is subsidized — yet they think they are victims.
They think they are victims — yet their representatives run the government.
Their representatives run the government — yet the poor keep getting poorer.
The poor keep getting poorer — yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
They have things that people in other countries only dream about — yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
Hollywood cliches: all for freedom of the people while they love on Castro and Hugh Chavez .
Without capitalism there’d be no Hollywood — yet filmmakers hate capitalism.
Filmmakers hate capitalism — yet they sue for unauthorized copying of their movies.
They sue for unauthorized copying — yet on screen they teach us to share.
On screen they teach us to share — yet they keep their millions to themselves.
They keep their millions to themselves — yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity.
They revel in stories of American misery and depravity — yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on conservatism.
They blame the anti-American sentiment on conservatism — yet conservatism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible."
Amy, you sound sooo desperate...a sweeping victory and a referendum..please. 2 gov races, that's it, lets have a little context. And from what I understand those states traditionally have a governor from a party opposite of the president:
VIRGINIA GOVERNORS BY PARTY
John N. Dalton January 14, 1978 January 16, 1982 Republican (Carter)
Chuck Robb January 16, 1982 January 18, 1986 Democratic (Reagan)
Gerald L. Baliles January 18, 1986 January 14, 1990 Democratic (Reagan)
Douglas Wilder January 14, 1990 January 15, 1994 Democratic (Bush)
George Allen January 15, 1994 January 17, 1998 Republican (Clinton)
Jim Gilmore January 17, 1998 January 12, 2002 Republican (Clinton)
Mark Warner January 12, 2002 January 14, 2006 Democratic (G.W. Bush)
Tim Kaine January 14, 2006 Incumbent Democratic (G.W.Bush)
Bob McDonnell January 2010 Governor-Elect Republican (Obama)
If both of these states had picked a democrat it wouldn't have been a "sweeping" endorsement of Obama's presidency either.
Amy: you wrote, "The policies she supports contradict the party platform at its most basic level: pro-life and pro-marriage." So if someone is pro-choice and in favor of equality for gays is there no room in your republican party for them. Lets assume they are strict constitutionalists, pro-gun rights, limited government, low taxes etc., are these 2 issues really all that matter to you??? Its this exclusionary thinking that hurts the republicans.
Desperate? If you say so, but Virginia and espeically New Jersey are Democratic strong holds.
You tell me your take on the DNC defeats then, timo. Go ahead, spin it. I'll listen.
If you want desperate, watch Democrats in Nov 2010...
I don't spin Amy, that's the difference between you and I. The country's in a tough spot right now, there's a global recession. When things are bad, regardless of who's in power I say "throw the bums out". That's what has happened here. If Obama doesn't produce some results by 2010 then I say get rid of the dems in power, and that could very well happen. But I'm not ready to say that's it, 10 months in and he hasn't solved the economy, health care, 2 wars, global warming, North Korea/Iran/Pakistan etc., I'm more patient than you and realistic as well...I'm a moderate/independent so I don't have 1 or 2 issues that demand party allegiance. If i vote for a democrat and he stinks up the joint I will vote for the Republican challenger. Absolute power corrupts and blind allegiance in either party is ingorant in my opinion. There's my "spin".
Mike, I hope that big post back there is meant as a joke. No one would seriously believe that would they?
Yes Charles, You are way too serious, Sir. Perhaps a pernod, a steak, and cigar and we can hash it out?
Charles,
This was on Salon, you might find it interesting:
Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.
How has "liberty" become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? (A prominent example is radio host Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto," which was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly three months without receiving major reviews, including in the Times.) I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party -- but I must be living in the nostalgic past. Remember Bob Dylan's 1964 song "Chimes of Freedom," made famous by the Byrds? And here's Richie Havens electrifying the audience at Woodstock with "Freedom! Freedom!" Even Linda Ronstadt, in the 1967 song "A Different Drum," with the Stone Ponys, provided a soaring motto for that decade: "All I'm saying is I'm not ready/ For any person, place or thing/ To try and pull the reins in on me."
But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it's invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote "critical thinking," which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism, sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it's positively pickled. "" Camille Paglia / Salon
Gotta love how instant gratification has taken over, timo. Any read through history sees that it takes years for things to pan out completely. I don't expect everything to be solved overnight, but if there aren't any changes during the next three years, by all means, vote him out. That's the best part of our republic.
49% is hardly a sweeping victory. But, I'll give you that a win is a win.
Agreed Adam...I should know by now that you can't reason with extremist on the left or right. If both NJ and VIrg. had gone dem there would have been those on the far left saying how this proves Obama is right, which would also be ludicrous. Context, Context, Context!!! Its 2 states, in the first year of his presidency...sweeping is a tad strong (and by tad i mean WAY WAY WAY).
Amy the GOP winner in NJ was certainly a moderate the con got beaten badly in the primary. I look also at the 2 national races the one in CA which the Dem won as expected, and the NY 23rd where the Dems won for the first time in 100+ years. In the last 6 elections the Dems had averaged only 25% of the votes, tghis year it doubled because moderate Republicans voted for the Dem. Despite Palin Rush Beck et al the Republicans were able to throw away a seat that they had a lock on for EVER The NJ govenor has been Dem/Repub for just about even amounts of time it is common for northeastern states to vote solid blue in Federal election and alternet D/R in state offices. Examples are the 2 bluest states VT and MA both of which have/had Republican governors
Mike, Camille Paglia should stick to subjects she knows something about like sex and feminism instead of spouting nonsense about politics. This is not a matter of some elite professionals "complacently servile toward authority". It is a party captured by special interests, specifically the Wall Street banks and the huge corporations. The voters who put Obama over the top - and stayed home yesterday - are hardly affluent elitists. They are people who are sick and tired of our dysfunctional government and believed Obama when he said he was going to change the way Washington works. They are pretty disappointed now.
The article is full of ridiculous statements like the one about "anti-authority and anti-establishment" 60's radicals. Every 60's radical I knew and know now was always for government intervention to help people live a better life. They were against the established authority because the authority was bombing farmers in Southeast Asia and despoiling the planet. Every sentence of that a
There certainly are some educated middle class Americans who reflexively vote Democratic because they find the Republican "values" repellent. They don't want to be associated with the Limbaugh/Beck/Palin party but are not liberals either.
I am thrilled about the victories, but this does not mean that it is going to be a landslide for the GOP in 2010. There is a lot of work to be done. Hoffman lost and that is a huge shame, but it was was partly due to the GOP being so divided about the candidates. They need to unite.
Letiticia, I can't agree with this. The GOP establishment keeps trying to tell us that we need to be more like the Democrats and keeps serving us candidates like Scozzafava, and John McCain for that matter. We've told the GOP establishment that we want no more Dem-lites and yet they continue on as if our wants don't matter. Bush was a squish. He was a national security hawk but a social and fiscal liberal.
Nobody expected Hoffman to win until that Sienna poll came out and still, he came extremely close. He wasn't even the slightest bit charismatic and still he came extremely close. Three weeks ago he was an unknown. Imagine what might have happened if the GOP had backed him instead of an R to the left of the D.
I agree with Leticia that this is no gaurantee of a 2010 sweep, but if the economy continues to suffer it is an indicator of things to come.
I also agree with StephC about the significance of Hoffman almost defeating the Democrat in that district. I think we're seeing a purging, not a war, and maybe there needs to be a Conservative Party, especially since more people identify themselves as conservative than liberal or Republican.
If uniting means going moderate, we should not unite, we should fight.
I agree Amy, please help split the Republican Party. It's the only hope the Democrats have. The Democrats, you see, have only one principle - they would like to win. They will nominate anyone from a strong progressive to a conservative who votes with Republicans half the time as long as they have a (D) after their name. The entire party platform is "We aren't as wacky as those guys."
The level of polarization in the country now could result in both parties splitting. We could get a right-wing party (we could call it the Tea Party :>) that will win enough Senate seats in small conservative states to block any good legislation.
Then we could have a progressive party - sort of a Dems with no Blue Dogs party. It would carry the big northern cities and probably have a strong block in the House but they wouldn't get the money to mount a decent Senate campaign so would have few seats except in the Northeast and on the West Coast.
Then the Olympia Snowe Republicans and the Blanche Lincoln Democrats along with Joe Lieberman could form the middle-of the-road party. They would get lots of corporate money so they would probably have the other big block in the Senate and a fair number of House seats.
My guess would be that most Presidents would come from the centrist party or the conservatives (progressives won't get enough corporate cash). They will bounce back and forth until a conservative wins with a conservative control of Congress and enacts their agenda. After that they will never win another seat except in the Deep South.
One-comment-wonder John Ryan's drive-by contribution to this post:
You sure about this? Or just parroting a talking point? Too bad you don't revisit threads to answer challenges to your comments.
No, Amy, it's not true. It not only untrue, it's so far from the truth as to be laughable. It's something he heard on TV from some stupid Democrat shill. Of course being Democrat he took it as gospel rather than research to see if it's true or not.
Media Meme on NY-23 Dead Wrong, and the NY Times Can Prove It
Honestly, if Scozzafava would have won, it would have been a Dem victory, too. She is no Republican.
Steph, so the last Dem in the 223rd District was in 1992? Interesting!
There certainly are some educated middle class Americans who reflexively vote Democratic because they find the Republican "values" repellent. They don't want to be associated with the Limbaugh/Beck/Palin party but are not liberals either. -Charles
Yes. That is a very true statement. I personally know a lot of folks whom espouse all the same things Amy does, yet vote Democrat everytime. It's not like the Dems have made things better all that much for the poor. Bill Clinton with the help of congress proved that a balanced budget seemed to improve the economy. We know insane spending does not do that. Especially when the economy improves on it's own and then we add to the debt it may serve to tank the economy once all the spending gets under way.
I find that hard to believe. They "espouse" the same things, like the rights of the unborn, a strong national defense, personal liberty, small government, states rights, family values, and yet they all vote for people who stand for the opposite? That's bizarre.
They must not believe very strongly.
They are Boomers whom have it in their heads that the Democrats are the Good guys and the Republicans are the bad. Some are devout Catholics and are from the JFK school of their youth. They have not looked hard at the parties, and feel that the Republicans do not care about the poor at all. My mother was (when alive) and my father still is a a firm believer in the party of FDR,JFK, and RFK. My father knew RFK and worked with Pete Seeger to get Nixon to start the EPA. If you ask my Dad about Government he wants it not making life choices for him. He wants a strong defense. He thinks abortion is murder (end of story). As far as family values go he is the biggest prude on earth. He votes for the Democrats every time. He complains about them later of course. He wanted to see the terrorists tortured for real and not just dunked in the water on a board.
It's because they accept what the Democrats say about those guys (Beck, Limbaugh, et al) rather than take the time to listen to them long enough to discover that what is said is a lie. You can't listen to just one day, one thing, and make a judgment on them because it's an ongoing education. It's really funny to me that the people that other people can't stomach being associated with espouse the very things those other people espouse but those other people don't know it.
Conservatism isn't about imposing one view on people over another view but about mutual respect, adhering to the Rule of Law, and states' rights more than a centralized federal government. It's a live and let live philosophy that hardly anybody gets these days.
An example would be what happened in California with Proposition 8. Gay marriage was voted down and the left went wild, attacked churches and people, and a whole lot of violence. Gay marriage was voted down in Maine, day before yesterday. Can we expect the same thing?
If it weren't something the gay community couldn't live without, then it would be a shame. But it isn't something they can't live without so why is it a big deal? Because the politicians who like divisiveness and chaos say so.
On the flip side, if some states want it and others don't, conservatism says you don't interfere. The Constitution says you don't interfere. But here we are, wrangling over every little p and q that is thrown out there like dogs over a wishbone.
I have Gay friends who are puzzled at the idea. Of course some Gays feel like they should have the right to adopt and the marriage gives them those rights. I heard George Michael say that marriage was for the protection of children, and since he was not going to have any he did not see the point. Of course their are many childless heterosexual couples whom would be offended by such a statement. I have friends whom want hate crimes laws passed, but I have explained to them that I want to know what is a good crime before I will sign on to a hate crime law. To me there is a lot of muzzling of free speech under the auspices of equal rights. We live in a society that is torn between what some call immorality and others call civil rights. Some things never seem to change.