*Official Election 2005 Results Thread*

[AuH2O]

Well, Camden is basically a depopulated ghetto... % wise Corzine will dominate but I don't think high turnout there is particularly important to him.

[AuH2O]

McDonnell has taken the lead from Deeds. Bolling retains lead. Kilgore doneski.

At least the Dems won't be able to build a bench for 2009.

[AuH2O]

This NJ site is good:

http://www.nj.com/elections/electioncoverage/

[AuH2O]

Maybe Va Beach?

[AuH2O]

I've looked at some counties and cities and cross-checked them with 2004 and 2001. I don't think Kilgore can win, regardless of a good performance in the SW.

[AuH2O]

I call VA for Kaine. He's up 50.80%-46.95% with 72.30% reporting.

Republicans are leading for Lt Governor and Attorney General.

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm

Great, we were all waiting on your "call."

I'll go ahead and call the Lt. Gov race for Bolling, and AG race for McDonnell, though the AG race is razor tight.

[AuH2O]

Interestingly, Democrats got pasted in VA state house races. With the GOP also taking the Lt Gov and AG race (though the latter will feature a recount), Kilgore's loss looks like a failure on his part, not some kind of massive anti-GOP groundswell.

Though the CA initiatives are struggling, the leftist efforts in Ohio were blasted.

Democrats are going to spin these various votes rather vigorously, but there is no "there" there. Heck, in VA the GOP did better in 2005 than in 2001, and in NJ Corzine was never expected to lose and not widely expected to face a close race. The props in CA are doing better than many polls indicated, though losing is losing.

[AuH2O]

But some are more important politically than others.

Also, bad news for Arnold does not equal some wider political meaning. Arnold is just one Governor, and he can't even run for President.

[AuH2O]

Can someone quantify how pasted the Dems were in the VA and NJ state legislative races (if they were in NJ)?

I may have spoken too soon. I guess the GOP had so many seats already that, though they won a lot of close races, some of them shouldn't have been close.

Right now it looks like Dems are +1 in VA.

note: an independent defeated a GOP incumbent by 44 votes, though that could change with a recount or absentees.

[AuH2O]

OK, NJ has some kind of weird assembly election system, where each party has 2 candidates and there's a runoff with the top 2. We won't know much until the runoff in a month, then.

In VA, basically the House of Delegates was a wash, with Kaine probably responsible for the Dems picking up 1 seat (there are 100 total). A Kilgore win probably meant GOP +1 or 2.

In local NH elections, the GOP apparently did very well, but I have no numbers.

[AuH2O]

I thought 87 had a Dem incumbent, Paula Miller? I'm pretty sure that's the case.

Also... Kaine straight up won Virginia Beach. Wow. Bolling and McDonnell, however, won solidly-- which was critical to their statewide wins (especially McDonnell).

[AuH2O]

Kaine's victory backs up the argument that VA is probably the southern state, excluding Florida, that's most likely to go to the Democrats in the '08 presidential election.

How so? Warner's victory in 2001 and further successes and high approval ratings still kept Virginia solidly Republican on both the state, national, and presidential levels. Winning one of three elections this time around, combined with zero of two Senate seats, puts you nowhere near winning Virginia, except with the current Governor at the top of the ticket.

Let's not forget that Kerry managed to get 46% of the vote in VA last year without spending a dollar or a minute in the state. Unless Allen is the GOP's nominee, it's going to be a battleground state in '08.

Kaine, a Democrat who opposes the death penalty, wasn't supposed to win. Kilgore had a ten point lead on him just a couple of months ago. Kaine managed to pull off a nearly sixteen point swing in two months, and you're trying to tell me that Democrats can't be competitive in the state at the national level? There's no doubt about it: VA is a purple state now, and its Democrats know how to get out the vote.

A lot less purple than PA, WI, MN, and other states Democrats rely on.

A Democrat will only win VA in 2008 if it's not a real close race... unless Warner is the nominee, in which case its hard to say.

[AuH2O]

At least Sanders torched Frye in San Diego.

All in all... a status quo election. Ballot measures defeated in CA and OH, NJ and VA retain Dem Govs and by similar margins as 2001 (though the GOP only got the AG in '01, this time Lt Gov and AG).

Totally meaningless with regard to 2006. Totally. Anyone suggesting otherwise on either side is just not rational.

[AuH2O]

OK, Arnold is in trouble. Who cares. Personally, I think Commando alone is reason to vote for him, but if CA voters disagree, it's not a big deal.

Republicans don't need to score major victories... they just need to hold the line. That's how it works when you're a majority. I see no evidence Democrats are any stronger now then they have been in the last 5 years.

Dems will add some Governorships in '06, but won't retake either House of Congress-- the status quo will win there as well. Considering Bush's troubles, such an outcome is a loss for Democrats.

[AuH2O]

Oh, thanks.



Final point: there is an intrinsic flaw in the Democrats current approach, one that victimized Boris Yeltsin, among others. Their campaigns are totally devoid of real ideas, and mainly criticize Republican failings (often perceived versus real).

The problem with this strategy is that, once in power, voters expect results. Without ideas, it's pretty hard to produce results through anything other than dumb luck (i.e. the economy happens to be growing, and the media covers it as such rather than sayings its bad when it is, in fact, solid).

Now, this is the case with the national party, not necessarily state and local officials (though NJ Democrats are not only insanely corrupt but totally worthless on policy as well). For 2006, when there are a lot of races going on, national message will matter... in 2005 it was mutually non-existent for empirically obvious reasons.

If the Democratic plan is to attack Bush in place of proposing real, workable ideas (and workable is key-- mostly Democrats propose even greater spending), they will lose in 2006.

[AuH2O]

If the Democratic plan is to attack Bush in place of proposing real, workable ideas (and workable is key-- mostly Democrats propose even greater spending), they will lose in 2006.

Lose as in... Lose seats?  Or lose as in fail to capitalize on an opportunity to make big gains?

Regardless of your answer I agree the Democrats need a clear and nationally unified message in 2006 if they plan on making gains.

"Lose" is sort of subjective. I would say that failing to make clear gains in the House and Senate, along with Gov pickups, would historically constitute a "loss" for the opposition party.

In the current environment, I might describe these as the "break even" points:

Senate: Dems +2
House: Dems +4
Gov's: Dems +2

Those demarcations are arbitrary. But, I mean, if Democrats gain 1 House seat and no Senate seats, I'm sorry, that's a loss in the current environment. And if they lose seats... that's a crushing blow.

Keep in mind, Bush is more or less gone come 2008, because he isn't running, his Veep isn't running, and I doubt Iraq will be as serious an issue by then (it may even turn in the GOP's favor).

The Democrats have one chance to take advantage of Bush's unpopularity: 2006. Let me repeat: that is their only opportunity. If Dems blow it... well, that's all she wrote.

[AuH2O]

LoL

Quick, raise your hand if you think jfern isn't crazy.




Just Scoones and Beet Red Though Dumb?

[AuH2O]

LoL

Quick, raise your hand if you think jfern isn't crazy.

Raises hand halfway.

Compared to you, he's a model of sanity.

Compared to a more 'normal' poster :shrug:

ha haha

[AuH2O]

What polarization? There ARE no Republicans in Detroit... it was D vs. D, and super dirty D beat competent D.