In this supposedly quiet off-year election, three contests taking place Tuesday are filling the void. Voters in New Jersey and Virginia will elect governors, while voters in upstate New York are filling a vacant House seat in a race with national implications.
Here are some things to look for as the results come in.
¶The nail-biter: There will probably be only one suspenseful race, the contest between Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and his Republican challenger, Christopher J. Christie. Last-minute polls suggests the race is too close to call, even after President Obama traveled to New Jersey on Sunday to campaign for Mr. Corzine.
Some Democrats said they were concerned that an early surge of support for a third-party candidate, Christopher J. Daggett, which appeared to come at the expense of Mr. Christie, is now fading as anti-Corzine voters settle on Mr. Christie. Polls close at 8 p.m. Eastern time, and if the race turns out to be as close as expected, this could be yet another American election with no conclusion by the time everyone goes to sleep. (Polls close at 7 p.m. in Virginia and at 9 p.m. in New York, and those races could be decided relatively early.)
¶Worst outcome for Democrats: A Republican victory in New Jersey. Most polls suggest that Democrats will lose the upstate New York House race and the Virginia governor’s seat, so this is the race that could decide whether Republicans get a sweep. New Jersey is a predominantly Democratic state, and one where Mr. Obama invested his own political capital on behalf of Mr. Corzine.
A loss there, particularly if it is part of a sweep, is going to produce a wave of “Obama is in trouble” commentary that, justified or not, will hinder the president at the very moment he needs all the clout he can muster to get bills on health care and global warming through Congress.
¶Best outcome for Democrats: Win in both New Jersey and in the 23rd Congressional district in New York; it would be reason for celebration in the White House. That said, even winning just New Jersey might be considered a victory of sorts for the Democrats, considering that most of the party now considers the Virginia race a lost cause.
¶Worst outcome for Republicans: Losing the New York congressional race, which has showcased deep divisions between moderates and conservatives over how the party should rebuild to return to power.
There’s a reason the White House made such an effort to get the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, who dropped out on Saturday, to endorse Bill Owens, the Democrat. Ms. Scozzafava ended her campaign in the face of a withering attack from conservatives who were upset that she supported gay rights and abortion rights, and who rallied around a conservative candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman. Conservative leaders like Sarah Palin, one of many who endorsed Mr. Hoffman, argued that the way back to power in America is to embrace the Republican Party’s conservative roots; a loss by Mr. Hoffman in a historically Republican district would cast doubt on that assertion and potentially prolong a divisive debate within the party over moving to the middle versus moving to the right.
¶Biggest potential surprise of the night: In theory, at least, it would be to see R. Creigh Deeds, the Democrat, defeat Robert F. McDonnell, the Republican, in Virginia. The state currently has a Democratic governor, Tim Kaine, who could not seek re-election because of term limits.
A little more feasible in the long-shot department would be a victory by Mr. Owens over Mr. Hoffman. Still, that seems unlikely since this district has voted Republican for more than a 100 years and Mr. Owens is no longer benefiting from his opponents’ splitting the Republican vote. For all that, the White House political director, Patrick Gaspard, has told associates he thinks Democrats can win in a district that tends to elect moderates, and he has put a lot of effort into trying to score a victory. So it is worth keeping an eye on results there.
¶Questionable spin watch: If Mr. Hoffman wins in New York, look for conservatives to argue that that the vote is a vindication of the appeal of the populist brand of conservatism pressed by leaders like Ms. Palin. But the way the race has played out in Virginia suggests otherwise. If Mr. McDonnell wins, it will be after having run a race in which he aggressively distanced himself from his history of advocating socially conservative positions. That could suggest Republicans seeking to get back in power in swing states should strike a moderate tone.
In the final hours of the campaign, Mr. McDonnell told ABC News he was unaware of automated telephone calls that were being made to Virginia households on his behalf by Ms. Palin. In October, he made a point of saying that he did not expect Ms. Palin to campaign for him, even though he said he had thought earlier that she might. “She seems to be too busy with books and other things like that,” he said. “We have 20 events scheduled down the line, and she’s not one of them.”
¶Lessons for 2010? It is probably not wise to draw broad lessons from Tuesday’s results about what might happen in next year’s midterm Congressional elections and high-profile governor’s races. That said, it is worth watching whether Mr. Obama succeeds in turning out his supporters — especially people who voted for the first time last year — in New Jersey and to a lesser extent in Virginia.
That will be an early sign of his ability to transfer his own appeal to other candidates and of whether he has succeeded in building a sustainable new coalition of Democratic voters. That is something that will not be lost on Democratic members of Congress, especially those in moderate and Republican-leaning districts whom he will be pressing to cast tough votes on issues like health care and climate change.
Similarly, in Virginia, keep an eye on whether independent voters who supported Mr. Obama so strongly in 2008 turn out for Mr. Deeds, vote for Mr. McDonnell or just stay home.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/politics/04nagourney.html?_r=1&hp=&...
Labour Of Love
All Saints
Dries Van Noten
I was watching the local news the other night and heard something that turned my stomach. They were asking people who they were voting for and why. One guy gave his reason for voting for McDonnell over Creigh Deeds. He stated that McDonnell "looked more gubernatorial". Sad but I doubt he's the only one influenced by the overall look of the candidates.
Deeds is not a "sexy" candidate. He occasionally stutters (which was mocked), he has an odd name, and he doesn't have the picture perfect looks and smile. There will probably be a lower turnout of younger and minority voters than during last years election. All this has hurt Deeds. A stronger democratic candidate could have won this race.
1These are actually the races I mentioned over on TS' thread about the election. These and the Houston mayoral race are the ones I'll be watching.
2Lili, I have also heard people give superficial reasons for voting for Deeds. I think the superficial votes generally cancel each other out.
3I do think a stronger Democratic candidate could have won this race, but I don't think that Deeds' weaknesses are primarily superficial.
4What were the superficial reasons you heard people giving for voting for Deeds. I have a list from the newscast but the one I mentioned above stood out.
5I heard that he seemed nice and the exact opposite of what you heard, that Deeds looked more distinguished than McDonnell.
6Oh, and I heard someone say they liked his smile.
7Going by looks, that guy Hoffman should be relegated to a basement office in a sleezy accounting firm.
8Many of the voters questioned that I saw discussed McDonnell's appearance as much as they addressed his policies. Few were as direct as the gentleman I mentioned earlier. But I believe it played a part in some people's mind. It's not the only reason Deeds is in trouble. Smaller turn out will be the main factor. College aged students, young adults, and minorities will cost Deeds the election by not not voting today.
9Same here, lili, but with Deeds and not McDonnell. I agree about what will cost Deeds the election, lili, but I put the blame on Deeds and his campaign for that. The way to get people to turnout and vote is to excite them, to be a candidate they believe in.
10Let's bring back the Wig party. I know a few great drag queens that would make perfect candidates
11If the issues facing your state don't get you excited then nothing will.
12I'm sure some of these people would make great candidates:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/offbeat/102709_photo_gallery_high_heel_d...
13I disagree! Look at how many people voted for the first time for Obama because he made them excited. To some extent he made them excited about the issues, but still, it was his personality, his campaign, and his ideas.
14Also, lili, a lot of what you've said on this thread negates your last statement, since apparently the way McDonnell looks is making some people excited!
15Haha I think so lil.
16Let's see what people say tomorrow when anyone says McDonnell won largely because he looked more like a winner.
17I don't think that's why he's polling so well at all. I think it's because Deeds couldn't excite those who would vote have voted for him.
18I can't see many people who would have voted Democrat had there been an 'exciting' candidate turning to someone as conservative as McDonnell in the absence of one. They'd just stay home.
19Exactly, which is what I already previously referenced.
20"I don't think that's why he's polling so well at all."
"I think it's because Deeds couldn't excite those who would vote have voted for him."
21Yes, when you take small excerpts from what people say, you can suit them to mean what you want them to.
22Lili said, "College aged students, young adults, and minorities will cost Deeds the election by not not voting today." And I responded by saying that I agree. Maybe you were skimming and you missed that comment.
When I said that he didn't excite those who would have voted for him, that simply backed up my agreement with lili's assertion that a lot of the people who would have voted for Deeds aren't voting at all.
23And the statement about why McDonnell is polling so well was in reference to his looks. How does that related to voter turnout?
24"Also, lili, a lot of what you've said on this thread negates your last statement, since apparently the way McDonnell looks is making some people excited! "
I don't think so. I'm talking about voters. There are always a certain segment of the population that will vote. I would vote for dog catcher if I could. Those voters are swayed by different things. Some are swayed by issues, abortion, education, the environment, or defense. Others are swayed by the superficial, looks, family life, their religious beliefs, etc.
These are the people voting today. Not band wagon voters.
25You stated that if issues affecting the state don't excite people, nothing will. Other things you have said on this thread negate that. You are backtracking now, but I still see it the same way.
26And, even if you are referring to bandwagon voters, my point about Obama still stands.
27Actually, if someone is what you call a bandwagon voter, it's much more likely that an exciting candidate will get them to vote rather than the issues affecting the state. If issues affecting the state are what excites them, they would vote regardless.
28# 17 Me: Let's see what people say tomorrow when anyone says McDonnell won largely because he looked more like a winner.
#18 You: I don't think that's why he's polling so well at all. I think it's because Deeds couldn't excite those who would vote have voted for him.
# 24 You: And the statement about why McDonnell is polling so well was in reference to his looks. How does that related to voter turnout?
You're tripping over yourself Lilkimbo.
29When I say band wagon voter I don't mean voting for the more popular guy. I watched people who never watched the news get involved in politics last year. They learned about the issues and had political debates. Why? I believe it was because they saw people just like them becoming involved. It wasn't just a teacher or parent. Last year people expected you to be involved and informed.
If they were as informed now as they were then they would vote.
*Will have to continue later.
30I'm not tripping over myself at all. I get that you enjoy being rude to me, but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make comments like that any longer. I think you're just confused about what I'm saying.
I took your #17 to mean that McDonnell physically looks more like a winner. My #18 meant that the way he looks isn't what's winning the race for him, that Deeds isn't losing because of his physical looks. He's losing because his campaign has been poorly run, because he's not an exciting candidate. I actually don't think he's physically unattractive in the least. He's just not able to excite those who would have voted for him, so those people are staying home. I already agreed with lili's #9 that the people who don't show up to vote are the ones who will cost Deeds the election.
Again, please tell me how I'm tripping over myself, because it seems to me like either you're just not understanding what I'm saying (which I hope is the case) or you're intentionally trying to make me look to others as though I'm "tripping over myself (which I fear may be the case).
31Lili, I know you didn't mean they were voting for the more popular guy, I never said you did. When I referenced the people who voted for Obama, I was referring to the people who never voted before because they weren't all that excited by the issues but who decided to vote for the first time because they were excited by a candidate. It happens all of the time.
32(I meant to say how does that relate in comment #24, not related.)
33Although, I have to ask again, since I never received an answer, how do physical looks relate to voter turnout?
34My head hurts.
35Lilkimbo, you're not making yourself clear and when people respond, your explanations make you less clear, and often are at odds with your previous comments.
"I get that you enjoy being rude to me, but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make comments like that any longer."
36"you're intentionally trying to make me look to others as though I'm "tripping over myself (which I fear may be the case)."
This is childish.
Steph, I kept it on topic and explained myself again and again, but you chose to attack me before I said anything personal to you. You are the one being childish.
37Please tell me where I'm being unclear instead of continuing your personal attacks. Frankly, I think you've been unclear in nearly every comment on this thread.
38Also, I am making myself very clear. Your lack of understanding is not necessarily a problem on my part, but I am willing to explain myself further if you tell me what you are still confused on.
39Forget it Lilkimbo - so not worth it.
40I'd also appreciate it if you could explain why my comment about the fact that McDonnell isn't polling well because of his physical looks somehow relates to voter turnout. I've now asked three times. I'm willing to ask a fourth if you continue to attack me personally instead of answering my question.
41Ah, I see, you don't really want to understand and now you see that you were in fact mistaken about what I was saying, so you're changing your tune and saying it's not worth it.
I guess that's easier than admitting that you misunderstood what I said, which I know you would never do.
42And again, a personal attack instead of an answer to my question. Par for the course with you!
43Lili, I know you're out for a bit, I'm off for the evening as well, but if you'd still like me to further explain my points to you, I'll be back tomorrow!
44I read this whole thing twice and I still don't follow because it's all talking in circles.
45
It made me dizzy.
46I followed along pretty well.
It's a lot easier to say something like "Lilk, not sure I get what you mean, can you clarify?" or "I'm not sure I follow"
I think everyone wants to be understood. It's not hard to be nice.
47I had no problems understanding either. Lilkimbo is being quite clear.
48Weird that I said this whole thing was hard to follow, but Lil K was the one you two chose to single out by name.
49Anyway.....
What do you guys think about the republican endorsed democrat winning in the New York representative election? I was surprised it got so much national attention, and there were Republicans who went out on a limb and endorsed the conservative over the republican candidate. Do you think they will be blamed by their party for this? Will this keep other people from endorsing 3rd party candidates in the future?
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.