Red Jersey: Christie Wins NJ
The Associated Press calls it for the Republican:
The Democratic Party and the White House spent a tremendous amount of time and resources campaigning for Corzine in a traditionally Democratic state (outspending Christie 3-1), and they still appear to have lost by a substantial margin. There are going to be all sorts of attempts by Democrats and the left-leaning media and blogosphere to say this is not a judgement of Barack Obama's short but inept Presidency thus far. I just wonder if any of those claims will be looked upon with the least bit of credibility. Jonah at NRO:
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. Republican Chris Christie ended Democrat Jon Corzine's four-year run in Trenton with a narrow victory on Tuesday, The Associated Press projected. Independent Chris Daggett, thought of by many as the wildcard who could upset the order of things by siphoning off votes from Christie, finished well back. With 4,507 of 6,305 precincts reporting, Christie led Corzine 50 percent to 44 percent. Independent voters gave President Barack Obama a huge advantage in the state last year, but they heavily favored Christie on Tuesday.
Wow. That's just amazing. I don't see how the White House can spin it away. Remember their explanation for Deeds' loss was that Deeds didn't embrace Obama enough. Corzine hugged Obama and made the election about Obama in a state Obama carried by 15 points and where Dems outnumber Republicans by a wide margin. And he lost.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:26 PM
Comments
1
So Christie wins the NJ governorship.
So what?
The state legislature is still run by Democrats. Christie will be a figurehead, nothing more.
So what?
The state legislature is still run by Democrats. Christie will be a figurehead, nothing more.
Posted by: wolfwalker at November 03, 2009 10:56 PM (dDYdj)
Posted by: ECM at November 04, 2009 01:30 AM (q3V+C)
3
Any News on California 10?
Posted by: Douglas at November 04, 2009 03:23 AM (uU+Ss)
4
So Christie wins the NJ governorship.
So what?
motivation in off elections, is motivation that is reliable.
This is a demonstration of an active peoples. This is a sign.
The 'pubs delivered big in not just an off election but in an off off election. Think it will be less of a turnout next year when the nationals are a big deal?
If you think otherwise you are a a fool.
So what?
motivation in off elections, is motivation that is reliable.
This is a demonstration of an active peoples. This is a sign.
The 'pubs delivered big in not just an off election but in an off off election. Think it will be less of a turnout next year when the nationals are a big deal?
If you think otherwise you are a a fool.
Posted by: Douglas at November 04, 2009 03:25 AM (uU+Ss)
5
ecm: I'm a complete and incurable cynic where politics are concerned. I consider NY-23 more important, more of a bellwether, than either governorship. In a "reliably Republican" district, the GOP power structure nominated a RINO who then threw the election. Now the seat is Democrat and likely to remain so because of the power of incumbency. The GOP leadership still has no clue what it's doing wrong, and I have no confidence that it will ever learn.
I'll go further than that. With the election last year of Barry Lackwit and a controlling socialist majority in both houses of Congress ... with the national GOP leadership talking about compromise on socialized health care and cap-and-tax, while they get hoodwinked on hate crimes and other longstanding lefty goals ... I don't believe anything is going to make a difference anymore. Liberals act as if they have power whether they're a majority or not, and they always succeed in pushing forward the liberal agenda. Conservatives always act like the minority whether they are or not, and they rarely even manage to slow the liberal assaults.
I've given up. I still vote, but I don't pretend that it makes any difference. Neither should you.
I'll go further than that. With the election last year of Barry Lackwit and a controlling socialist majority in both houses of Congress ... with the national GOP leadership talking about compromise on socialized health care and cap-and-tax, while they get hoodwinked on hate crimes and other longstanding lefty goals ... I don't believe anything is going to make a difference anymore. Liberals act as if they have power whether they're a majority or not, and they always succeed in pushing forward the liberal agenda. Conservatives always act like the minority whether they are or not, and they rarely even manage to slow the liberal assaults.
I've given up. I still vote, but I don't pretend that it makes any difference. Neither should you.
Posted by: wolfwalker at November 04, 2009 06:57 AM (dDYdj)
6
Begone, Grima Wormwalker!
Posted by: Gandalf at November 04, 2009 10:19 AM (N95d1)
7
Gandalf! right when we needed you. If it weren't for republicans and tea parties we would have had Obama care in it's original incarnation in July. The fight is worth it even if it's a mammoth struggle against mighty forces - as all fights are. Thanks for still voting wolfwalker. I spoke to a few while working for the Harmer campaign (ca - 10) who had your attitude but would not vote. If we had turned out 10,000 more we could have won in Pelosi's backyard.
Posted by: Jayne at November 04, 2009 10:40 PM (dwIL0)
8
wolfie is right, unfortunately. Reagan himself managed to slow the rate of growth, and that's all. The government has gotten bigger and bigger every year, no matter who's Speaker or who's President. The fight is over, they won. Because every socialist advance is only ten years later something the theoretical anti-socialists consider part of government. The Federal Reserve, the FDIC, Social Security, Medicare/aid, progressive taxation, deficit spending, etc.
They win even win they lose. A Republican President oversaw the federalization of education and the largest welfare programs in the history of the country. Both candidates last year were in favor of the bailouts, which means they were both socialist bastards. So why exactly should I walk over a cliff rather then drive over it? If get in the shiny O-mobile, at least I get to hear music before the sickening crunch on the rocks of tyranny.
They win even win they lose. A Republican President oversaw the federalization of education and the largest welfare programs in the history of the country. Both candidates last year were in favor of the bailouts, which means they were both socialist bastards. So why exactly should I walk over a cliff rather then drive over it? If get in the shiny O-mobile, at least I get to hear music before the sickening crunch on the rocks of tyranny.
Posted by: Britt at November 05, 2009 02:42 AM (DcWbe)
9
Republicans should be less impressed with the two governorship victories in New Jersey and Virginia and be alarmed and concerned over the two congressional losses in NY and CA.
It isn't a good sign when a seat your party has held since the Civil war is suddenly lost, no matter how much spin you put on it. This should be a wake up call to all of those who embrace the hateful, fearful, deceitful rhetoric of people like Bachman, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh. Their candidate was rejected.
It isn't a good sign when a seat your party has held since the Civil war is suddenly lost, no matter how much spin you put on it. This should be a wake up call to all of those who embrace the hateful, fearful, deceitful rhetoric of people like Bachman, Palin, Beck and Limbaugh. Their candidate was rejected.
Posted by: Oggie Oglethorpe at November 09, 2009 11:21 AM (h/EEo)
10
Oggie, does it help to by serially dishonest to be a liberal?
NY-23--the New York seat you claim was held by a Republican since the Civil War--has been held by Democrats the majority of the time, with 1993 being the last time. Wikipedia has a nice listing of all those who have held the seat in NY-23.
As for the CA race, it never was race... it was in a reliably left-wing part of California, and the vote was actually closer than Democrats expected... they won the race, but were shocked that they lost votes.
Try pedaling your lies somewhere else. We deal in facts here.
NY-23--the New York seat you claim was held by a Republican since the Civil War--has been held by Democrats the majority of the time, with 1993 being the last time. Wikipedia has a nice listing of all those who have held the seat in NY-23.
As for the CA race, it never was race... it was in a reliably left-wing part of California, and the vote was actually closer than Democrats expected... they won the race, but were shocked that they lost votes.
Try pedaling your lies somewhere else. We deal in facts here.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 09, 2009 11:27 AM (gAi9Z)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0101 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0083 seconds, 18 records returned.
Page size 10 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.