I think there are four obvious lessons to draw from tonight’s election returns:
1. For Conservative Republicans: The America people reject Barack Obama and obviously want true conservative leadership. The Governorships of two states have switched to the “R” category, showing a grassroots conservative movement that is alive and well.
2. For Moderate Republicans: The American people obviously want old-fashioned economic conservatives who are moderate on social issues. McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey won by downplaying social issues; Hoffman in New York-23 lost because he was too extreme.
3. For Moderate Democrats: The party out of power usually does well in off-year elections like this, and this year was no exception. But obviously there is no sign of any substantial shift in public opinion from the election of 2008.
4. For Liberal Democrats: NY-23 was the race to watch this year, given that right-wing extremists like Palin and Beck threw all their support behind Hoffman. But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years. Obviously this shows that the American people reject right-wing extremism.
Obviously.
Off Kilter says:
Actually, Orin, if what you say in #2 is true, the obvious lesson would be that the libertarian independent swing vote can win races for Republicans who focus on economic issues and lose them for Republicans who focus on social issues...
[Meanwhile, the most worrisome finding of the night for Obama: the new ABC show “V” has an obviously anti-Obama theme. :-) ]
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:46 amyankee says:
I think you forgot:
For conservatives: Maine’s support for traditional marriage has shown that the American people reject the radical homosexual agenda to redefine marriage.
For liberals: the defeat of marriage equality in Maine shows that Mainers are a bunch of bigots.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:00 amDangerMouse says:
I think it’s incorrect to distinguish between social cons and economic cons. While libertarians like to play up the distinction, in reality an abortion supporter is going to want to fund abortions, fund planned parenthood, and that opens the door for big government. Almost every so-called moderate republican who is pro-choice ends up voting for big government at some point. Look at Arlen Specter as a perfect example of that.
I think that in NY-23, it was a win even though the Democrat won. It will tell the GOP not to nominate union-supporting, stimulus supporting libs who dress up and play Republican. Frankly, I honestly wonder if the Democrat is more to the right than the lib Republican that the local GOP nominated. Either way, that Dem knows he has to watch his back and that the Conservative candidate will probably come on strong in 2010, so the guy will probably caucus with the Blue Dogs that are currently tearing apart the national Dems right now.
Still, I think that far too much damage has been done by Obama and the libs for these races to matter much. And even if the Republicans take over in 2010, it’s unclear if they’ve learned their lesson to be a choice and not an echo.
[OK Comments: quod erat demonstrandum]
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:03 amSarcastro says:
In a small tent, we all just get closer together!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:13 amdjh5 says:
One might say that Hoffman lost because the GOP thinks it has to push candidates like Scozzofava who are liberal on social issues when they don’t. Is there any doubt that Hoffman would have won a head-to-head race instead of having to take fire from Scozzofava?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:19 amJ. Aldridge says:
I wonder what details, if any, will come out over Scozzafava and the WH brokering a deal to seal the deal for Owens.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:20 amArrowSmith says:
I the lesson is that in purple districts libertarians can swing the result to a Republican who doesn’t campaign on abortion and anti-gay rights.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:22 amCornellian says:
I think these elections show the folly of reading too much into a handful of off-year elections. Or maybe they show that columnists and pundits will seize any opportunity to meet their words/minutes quotas.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:45 amCornellian says:
Actually, Orin, if what you say in #2 is true, the obvious lesson would be that the libertarian independent swing vote can win races for Republicans who focus on economic issues and lose them for Republicans who focus on social issues...
The problem being that the Republicans destroyed their credibility on economic issues during the Bush administration, so all they’ve got left is abortion and gay people.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:47 amD.O. says:
Hey! Everyone won! “This land is your land, this land is my land...”
Actually, this positive thinking (aka spinning) theme is good for the country, obviously.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:48 amOrin Kerr says:
Obviously.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:52 amPerseus says:
3. For Moderate Democrats: The party out of power usually does well in off-year elections like this, and this year was no exception.
Which means that President Obama’s rhetorical and political abilities aren’t so extraordinary after all.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:02 amzuch says:
yankee:
Actually, the message is that we’re evenly split. That is an improvement — a great improvement — from even a generation back, and we will eventually leave the anti-SSM forces impotently stewing in their bile, just as the racists of a couple generations back are right now.
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:03 amConstantin says:
This is cute. But there really are actual lessons to be learned. Who learns them, in reality, will matter going forward.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:03 amravenshrike says:
Pfft. Hoffman lost by less than 5% with an extremely short campaign and the woman he was attempting to displace throwing it in with the opposition. Being too extreme had little to do with it IMO.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:20 amBaseballhead says:
That’s a good attack point. “Obama: Only human!” Still, it’d probably be more effective if Obama had been the one who lost in NJ and Virginia instead of two undeserving candidates (and in Corzine’s case, a terrible human being as well).
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:20 amDavid Welker says:
I will tell you the real obvious lessons of tonight’s elections. It is simply this. When Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the Presidency, they will be held accountable. And rightly so. Ordinary people want to see legislative success and the promised change delivered. So far, Obama and the Democrats have promised, but they have not delivered. That violates a very basic rule if you have a majority: Do not promise, if you are not going to deliver.
Democrats in the Senate need to have the courage to declare the filibuster unconstitutional. The political reality is that Democrats do not really have 60-votes and Republicans are united in their obstruction. They have even gone so far as to prevent a quorum in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The basic political calculus by the Republicans is very politically savvy and is basically correct. If they throw a wrench in the workings of government, then that combined with high unemployment will lead voters to blame Democrats in 2010. This is hurting the GOP in the sense that they have the lowest approval ratings in at least a decade, but at the end of the day, it will be Democrats and not Republicans who will be held accountable for the Democrats’ failure to deliver on their promises. Democrats have strong majorities in Congress and control the Presidency. Therefore, it is Democrats and not Republicans who will be held accountable for not doing enough to fix the economy.
The Democrats are weak. While President Obama should be focused on getting the unemployment numbers down through more stimulus, what he is instead focused on is lowering deficits. He is thus failing to act responsibly in the face of a basic fact of life. You cannot have everything, right now. You cannot simultaneously stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit. Obviously, polls show that voters are concerned about the deficit. But, even more obviously, what matters to voters more than anything is their ability to put food on the table for their families and pay their rent and have a decent standard of living and a sense of security. That is, what voters REALLY care about much more is their ability to get a job if they want one. And guess what, if people are insecure about their economic prospects in 2010, they will throw Democrats out of Congress in large numbers and say it is because of the deficit. That is because the public is economically illiterate. What matters is jobs. Period.
So, what do we hear from Democrats? A bunch of excuses. We can’t pass a bigger stimulus, because the votes are not there. Give me a break. The American People do not want and will not accept excuses. They want action. In the White House, you seriously have a process where people were trying to keep the stimulus below a trillion dollars. Not because that is economically sensible. But because a “trillion” sounds like a scary number. But do you want to know what a really scary number is for Democrats? 10% unemployment. That is a much scarier number than a trillion. A lot of people don’t understand or care about the difference between 700 billion or 1.2 trillion or 1.7 trillion. All they know is that these are really big numbers that are very difficult to conceptualize. These numbers are just abstractions. In either case, Republicans are obviously going to be able to convince the public that 700 billion or 1.2 trillion or 1.7 trillion are big numbers. But you know what those people do understand. They understand if they can’t find a job. That affects their security on a very basic level. So, here you have Democrats not providing enough stimulus because they want to avoid a few negative headlines. Talk about stupid. Democrats need to provide enough stimulus to fix the economy. If they do that, then voters will not care about the difference between 700 billion or 1.2 trillion or 1.7 trillion or whatever number makes sense economically. If they fail to do that, they will be thrown out in 2010. And you know what. They will deserve it.
And here you have Democrats worried about appearing too tough. They don’t want to be responsible for the “nuclear option.” But the real problem is that they both appear to be weak and really are weak. Republicans know no limits to their obstruction. For example, the Republicans have no problem not even showing up for committee hearings in order to obstruct. Then, to top it off, they have the gall to assert that a process to hold hearings without them would be to exercise the “nuclear option.” Apparently, the “nuclear option” means doing anything whatsoever that overcomes Republican obstruction and thereby vindicates the democratic process. This is ridiculous. Republicans have already exercised the “nuclear option” by entering negotiations on healthcare reform in bad faith and by being totally united in their obstruction for political advantage. Democrats should have the courage to use their majorities to end this obstruction without apologizing. It appears that the Republican party consists of fierce tigers and the Democratic party consists of passive sheep. Democrats need to get over themselves and do what is best for the country and deliver the change they promised. If they fail to do so, they will lose control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and they will have deserved it. There is no reason to be get elected if you do not intend to lead.
{Ok Comments: David, I think you and Dangermouse need to go into a room to settle your differences.]
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:22 amDangerMouse says:
[Deleted by OK on civility grounds. DangerMouse, I realize David Welker and you polar opposites — sort o the same idea, in many ways, but on opposite ends — but you have to be civil.]
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:37 amOff Kilter says:
Cornellian: I don’t disagree about your observation of a problem for Republican candidates. I was speaking of the libertarian swing vote, identified and discussed by David Boaz of Cato, amounting to about 20% of the electorate.
I’ve been saying for some time that if a Republican candidate really wants to win these people, he has to apologize for the Bush years, explicitly renounce the “big government is OK if Republicans are in charge” meme that ran for years in DC.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:38 ampot meet kettle says:
Great post. Brilliantly summarizes every NYT article, as well as the NYT front page. Their indecisive punditry seems to be fractal, in how it manifests itself both within paragraphs of an article, as well as headlines of different articles.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:44 amCato The Elder says:
“In New Jersey, a sprawling corruption case begun by Mr. Christie, which culminated in July with the arrests of dozens of politicians and others, appeared to have taken its toll on the Democratic get-out-the-vote machinery.”
NYT’s words, not mine.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:44 amAlan K. Henderson says:
What’s extreme about Hoffman? Opposition to the $787 billion “stimulus” and card check?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:07 amRicardo says:
To be a true swing voter, you have to maintain a credible threat to switch parties. Libertarians who vote at all tend to be firmly ensconced in the Republican Party. Not surprisingly, the Republicans feel as though they can ignore their libertarian supporters when it benefits steel workers in Ohio, retirees in Florida or low-income homeowners. Those groups, unlike libertarians, are true swing voters and can change the outcome of an election.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:13 amJames N. Gibson says:
I think everyone is putting too much into the New York 23rd. Scozzofava dropped out too late to not have her appear on the ballot, which is why she had 5% of the vote. Once the early ballots (absentee) are counted I suspect her vote total will rise. As a result the election was too close to call it a denouncement of conservative values.
Also, it seems the vote turnout was low: somewhere around 130,000. Just a few years ago the vote was 225,000 and the district supposedly has 650,000 people.
Finally, the election is just to fill out the term of McHughs who is now secretary of the Army. I suspect when the next election occurs in 2010 Hoffman will be back, the turnout will be higher, and so will the Republican numbers
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:16 amPerseus says:
The lesson to be drawn was precisely that both parties can largely discount the influence of President Obama in off-year elections (like most presidents in the modern era), and that they will (or should) act accordingly.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:19 amundertall guy says:
One lesson from Christie’s NJ victory: A stunning defeat for sizeism! Fighting agains people with fuller figure (Rubens-people?) does not pay off!
So for all you thin people: Give up the war against fat, start mandating wider airline seats
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:32 amgwinje says:
AWWWW, I wanna see DangerMouse’s comment. [stomps off]
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:34 amDavid Welker says:
I fail to see DangerMouse and I as having “sort of” similar ideas, only polar opposites. I would not make illogical assertions like support for abortions rights logically or inevitably entails support for government funding of abortion or for big government. I am sure that many libertarians would take issue with that logically problematic assertion. I am all for criticizing libertarians, but I try to do so in a logically coherent manner. Furthermore, I do not want to purge Blue Dog Democrats out of the Democratic party, whereas DangerMouse apparently would prefer to have some sort of litmus test for Republicans on abortion.
My concerns are much more structural. It was never intended by the Founders nor the plain language of the Constitution that a 60-vote majority be required to pass legislation in the Senate. Further, historically the filibuster was never employed in the early years of the Republic and until recently was never employed as a routine matter. I believe that this is an unconstitutional innovation and should be declared by Senate Democrats as such. I think that worrying about whether this will hurt the feelings of Republicans is silly. First of all, because keeping the Senate true to the Constitutional vision is more important that the Republican’s sense of entitlement to obstruct on a routine basis. Second, because Republicans obviously do not worry about how Democrats feel when they employ ridiculous and immature tactics of using the filibuster in a historically unprecedented manner or trying to kill legislation in committee by preventing a quorum. The unanimity and party discipline of the Republicans is remarkable. But it is also fundamentally harmful to the democratic process, because if left unchallenged will prevent voter preferences from being expressed due to elections to the degree that they should.
I further think that the Obama administration has been promising too much and delivering too little. A view shared by many and I think rightly reflected in popular opinion and reflected in the recent SNL skit about Obama. I also think that Obama is making the wrong choice in prioritizing deficit reduction (which implies tax increases or spending cuts) over stimulus or worse acting like you can do both simultaneously when that is a mathematical contradiction. What matters right now both for the this country’s well-being and for Democratic reelection prospects is job creation. Despite this obvious alignment of interests, Obama is advocating for exactly the wrong policies. I think the only reason you can explain the timid initial stimulus proposal and the new focus on deficit reduction is probably some sort of timid short-term poll-driven thinking. My question is simple: where is the leadership? I think Obama is incredibly smart and certainly able, but I think he needs to take advantage of the limited window of opportunity that he has with more clear and strong leadership. When the window of opportunity closes, it will probably not open up again for the entirety of Obama’s presidency.
The bottom-line is that excuses are no substitute for leadership. And when Democrats fail to deliver, they will rightly pay at election time. Stating these facts does not imply that I wish to impose some sort of liberal purity test on members of the Democratic party or that my arguments are riddled with obvious logical flaws, as is clearly the case with the superficial “analysis” above by DangerMouse. I think your argument that I am the am “sort of like” DangerMouse simply cannot withstand logical scrutiny.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:53 amDavid Nieporent says:
All this appears to be based on the weird misconception that deficits are a political matter rather than an economic one. That it really doesn’t matter whether one spends an extra trillion dollars that one doesn’t have. That it’s headlines, as opposed to, say, bond markets, that Democrats are worried about.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:14 amBrett Bellmore says:
One might say that, but I suspect the truth is that the GOP establishment pushes candidates like Scozzafava because they’re in agreement with Democrats on social issues. Electability is just an excuse.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:04 amRicardo says:
Given that the bond market currently says the U.S. government should not have to pay more than 4.34% on money borrowed for 30 years, the Democrats would be largely correct for worrying more about headlines than bond markets in crafting fiscal policy.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:24 amArkakdy says:
Ha! If there’s a Mark Twain award for legal blog writing, I nominate Orin.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:40 amdavod says:
“Hoffman in New York-23 lost because he was too extreme.”
“But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years. Obviously this shows that the American people reject right-wing extremism.”
Your conclusions read like election talking points, not reasoned analysis.
What is your definition of right-wing extremism. How does this compare to left-wing extremism.
Hoffman was a fiscal conservative.
Scozzofava was a fiscal and social liberal. She supported Card Check and the stimulus, ad pushed tax increases in NY State, as well as being pro-abortion.
She was to the left of the Democrat.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:46 amSarcastro says:
davod is quite the reasoned analyst! Other might see some hints of a Republican in Scozzofava’s NRA rating, her signing of Taxpayer Protection Pledge, her opposition of cap and trade. But davod knows that nuanced and totally-not-from-right-wing-blogs analysis (the kind Orin somehow neglected to do when poking fun at each side’s election talking points) indicates she’s more liberal than the Dem.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:27 ammikeyes says:
Hoffman was just a poor candidate.
He knew nothing about the local issues, brought in all sorts of interlopers to push his campaign, and apparently didn’t even live in the district until recently.
His performance before the editorial board of the most important local paper was abysmal and 95% of his funding was from out of state.
He should have easily won the seat. Instead he lost to a veteran who scored “A” from the NRA and was a local. The GOP shot themselves in the foot by a) nominating a candidate who had close ties to the NY GOP bosses and b) did not support that candidate. From what I can tell from my relatives in that area all the candidates were mostly reflective of the social and fiscal consevatism in that area.
The lessons learned? 1) All politics are local. 2) Select the best candidate.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:02 amDerrick says:
That’s almost always the answer. Virginia independents defintely moved from the Dem’s a bit, but Deeds was a horrible candidate who was easily the worst of the final 3 Dem’s. And McDonnell ran a good, but non-Republican campaign that brought in those independents. Neither side needs to crow much about NY-23 or NJ/VA.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:28 amFedya says:
NY-23 doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. After the census and next year’s elections, Democrats will still have a majority in the State Senate, and will use that to gerrymander the few remaining Republican seats out of existence.
They’re going to have to do some serious redistricting, since the state is probably going to lose a seat in reapportionment.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:30 ambillo says:
“I think it’s incorrect to distinguish between social cons and economic cons. While libertarians like to play up the distinction, in reality an abortion supporter is going to want to fund abortions, fund planned parenthood, and that opens the door for big government.”
Pish posh. Believing in liberty does not imply that one is obligated to *pay* for every decision people make. On the other hand, those who want to legislate morality *do,* by definition, want to strictly regulate what people do, which requires government force.
In fact, all this stuff about how social conservatives are the only “real” conservatives is nothing more than a replay of the Moral Majoritarian affair 20 years ago in the Republican Party. And, as it was 20 years ago, it was a poison pill. As long as the Republican party is bound to government regulation of the bedroom, of expression, and imposition of a particular religious moral code on our lives, it will never have a long-term majority. It will only come to power when the Democrats do a demonstrably poor job — as is happening this year.
The Republican may rise, but they will not last, because just as Americans like economic liberty, they also like personal liberty.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:32 amJoseph Slater says:
This is a great post, because it really does summarize what all four of the main political points of view on the internets are going to say/are saying/have said. I’m a bit surprised that on this blog, Orin omitted the quick/dirty spin from libertarians (fortunately, we got that in some of the comments). But overall a fine effort which will only be made better by commenters attempting to disagree — in a serious way — with the original post.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:37 amB-Rob says:
This makes no sense on many levels. Scozzofava was out of the race. That helped Hoffman, not hurt him. She was selected over him because she fit the district and she was a known quantity. Hoffman had never run for office before.
Hoffman also appeared to know nothing about local issues and furthermore did not care about such “parochial” concerns as representing the constituents. Heck, he did not even bother to get an apartment in the district he was running to represent.
Add those things together (Scozo fitting better, Hoffman a rookie, Hoffman ignorance, and Hoffman not living in the district) and I ask myself another question:
who thought it was a GOOD IDEA to run this particular conservative candidate in this moderate R. district?
Newt Gingrich, God bless him, gets an “I told you so” as the Northeastern Republican caucus just gets one body smaller.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:44 amTamerlane says:
If the Republican party had supported Hoffman from the beginning he would have won handily. Instead insider politics made Scozzafava, who is to the left of Arlen Specter on most issues, the Republican candidate running against a very conservative Democrat in a traditionally conservative district. From the beginning Scozzafava appeared to be a spoiler candidate, always running a distant third compared to the two conservative candidates. Even with this spoiler and the lack of support from the Republican party, the more conservative candidate nearly won. I don’t think OK has made a good case — or any case at all — that this race was somehow a lesson for “radical” GOP conservatives.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:44 amB-Rob says:
Mikeeyes, I totally disagree for the reasons stated above. He was the worst last minute choice to give moderate voters.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:46 amdavod says:
“her signing of Taxpayer Protection Pledge, her opposition of cap and trade.”
Her actions as a politician did not support either of these positions.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:58 amTTC says:
Where the heck are people getting that?
NY-23 has sent a bunch of Democrats to congress in the past 100 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district#1843_-_present:_one_seat
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:59 amrarango says:
I rely on Tip O’Neil’s aphorism that all politics are local.
I think the GOP as a party is still on the ropes and hasnt figured it out as evidenced by NY23.
I believe the Obama “magic” is gone as demonstrated in NJ and VA. And I suspect team O can’t be happy by where the independents went in NJ and VA.
And also noted: (1) Reid says health care gone until the new congress; (2) and now with the elections over perhaps the President can articulate an Afghanistan strategy.
Of course, in political commentary much like legal commentary: YYMV
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:17 amrarango says:
TTC: don’t confuse OK with facts–his HO is for right wing extremism versus left wing extremism which permits him to ignore VA and NJ and focus on NY 23
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:23 amPubliusFL says:
Note that for most of the 20th century, the NY congressional district designated as the 23rd covered a completely different region of the state than it does today. The claim is properly that most of the region currently covered by the 23rd district has not sent a Democrat to Congress in over 100 years.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:25 amAultimer says:
Absurd. Many of us at the Libertarian Lodge vote D with some regularity — especially when it has the effect of weakening the self-perceived dominance of the Rs. I’ve voted against Santorum and WBush (the vanguard of the illibertarian right), and I regularly pick school board and town council candidates to keep a balance between the parties.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:28 amCalderon says:
I haven’t read the comments (which usually is the best course of action), but I’m painfully disappointed that Orin did not include the lessons for either moderate or not so moderate libertarians. How am I supposed to know what to say about the elections?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:32 amOren says:
Wouldn’t that be like the Pat Robertson award for excellence in evolutionary biology?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:39 amCalderon says:
Also, for conservative Republicans, Orin forgot to add “Moreover, the repeal of gay marriage in Maine shows that the silent majority of real Americans are conservative on social issues and thus the Republican party should continue to highlight and fight on such issues in its campaigns.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:39 amOren says:
To add to what Calderon said, Washington Prop 71 shows wide support for giving gays all the substantive benefits of marriage without the title.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:04 amPubliusFL says:
Right! That explains why the Republican gubernatorial candidates won big among voters who were concerned most about the economy and jobs. Voters who expressed the highest levels of economic discontent heavily favored the Republican candidates in both states. Such voters prefer candidates with no credibility on their most important issues. Obviously.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:04 ammikeyes says:
That’s why I said he should have won, not why he didn’t win. He was a poor candidate and a poor choice (as was the Republican in many ways) going up against a local veteran with obvious conservative ties.
By the way, I disagree with the analysis that wins for the Republicans in VA and NJ represent a rejection of President Obama. His popularity ratings are still above 50% in both states, something that many pundits are commenting on. Instead we have a Republican governor in a state (VA) that has voted Republican most of the past 20 years and one in a state (NJ) that flips parties for governor on a regular basis. There is not that good a correlation between the blueness or redness of a state and who is governor as this office is very local in issues.
I do agree that in general the population tends towards social and fiscal conservatism these days. But then so do half of the Democratic party pols on many issues.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:24 amrpt says:
Sublessons:
1. NJ shows the power of the anti-Goldman Sachs vote.
2. Did any R win a congressional seat at risk: Owens, Garamendi? Any others in play?
3. the power of the Limbaugh-Palin-Beck endorsement.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:26 amTamerlane says:
The Washington Prop 71 drafters and proponents very cleverly clouded the issue by throwing in a reference to domestic partnerships for the elderly. Even so, the proposition won by only a very narrow margin. I suspect that if this had been presented to the Washington electorate as a straight up or down vote on homosexual marriage it would have been defeated by a wider margin. This is what has happened in every other state where a vote on the issue occurred without politically motivated subterfuge.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:27 amSenatorX says:
Given that the bond market currently says the U.S. government should not have to pay more than 4.34% on money borrowed for 30 years, the Democrats would be largely correct for worrying more about headlines than bond markets in crafting fiscal policy.
Except of course that they are issuing bonds with the right hand and buying them with the left to keep rates artificially low.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:29 amwfjag says:
From the same US “news” media that discovered — today — that President Obama has another half-brother — this one living in the People’s Republic of China.
What passes for journalism in the US now more closely resembles the children’s game of whispering rumors around a circle, than it does any activity involving investigating and reporting even basic facts. Fortunately, the President’s half-brother wrote a book, and held a professionally managed press conference in China, so US “journalists” need only selectively quote from his book and play sound-bite clips to report “the news.”
Accordingly, TTC, for “liberal Democrats” (and everyone else) what NY-23 means is that the DNC’s press releases were more effectively circulated and more quotable than the RNC’s. Did you expect more?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:42 amAllan Walstad says:
The question for Republicans is: Who are you? If you are warmongering, big-government neocons, then you are finished. As Obama’s presidency now reveals, the warmongering big-government slot is firmly occupied by the Democrats. Social conservatism is too narrow a base to ever get back to national power. But if you are traditional limited-government, foreign non-interventionist conservatives, you’ve got a good chance. The country has not become more liberal. Rather, Bush and his band of neocons turned their back on the ideas that led to the Republican resurgence in ’94, and party pols lined up behind them like lemmings for the most part.
Ricardo:
I’m not sure how you know that about libertarians, but even if it’s true that libertarians vote R when they vote, Republican candidates who pursue warmongering big-government policies may still turn them off enough to stay home, so they still can lose that vote.
B-Rob:
He was the Conservative Party candidate, so I guess they thought it was a good idea. And he was apparently a lot more popular than Scozzofava. The real question is, who thought it was a good idea to run Scozzofava, and why?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:46 amPubliusFL says:
As I pointed out to TTC, the claim is legit, though imperfectly worded in the original post. NY-23 has moved around a lot over the past 100 years, from metro NYC to the very northeast corner of New York. Obviously NY-23 sent a lot of Dems to Congress when it was downstate. But the area where NY-23 is located now has been solidly Republican for over 100 years.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:46 amrpt says:
4. NJ is also another W for Karl Rove’s USA strategy.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:51 amRandy says:
Tamarlane: “Even so, the proposition won by only a very narrow margin.”
Sounds like sour grapes, Tamarlane.
We lost in Maine, ‘by only a very narrow margin.’ A loss is a loss, but the significant thing for our side is that it WAS a narrow margin. Ten years ago, even five years ago, our loss would have been much greater. Five year from now, it’s much more likely a win.
” I suspect that if this had been presented to the Washington electorate as a straight up or down vote on homosexual marriage it would have been defeated by a wider margin.”
Most likely, which is exactly why it was not. Since much opposition to SSM is over the word but not the actual rights, it makes much more sense to first get the rights. Later, we can fight over the words.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:05 amDangerMouse says:
For those of you who wished to see my comment, it was laughter. I was laughing at Welker.
billo,
Hey, it’s just the facts. Name a so-called “moderate” Republican, and you’ll find a Republican that routinely gets in bed with the libs on big government. Olympia Snowe? Arlen Specter? Do they ring a bell?
Oh, and as for the morality business, I think the voters of Maine have somethin g to say about that.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:27 amDangerMouse says:
Hey Randy,
What do you think of the attempt by homosexual activists in Maine to punish a school worker who appeared as a private citizen in one of the pro-marriage ads? Do you support that sort of activity?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:29 ampot meet kettle says:
i agree. we should all live in a society where rights are voted upon and decided by a tyranny of the majority. pity we didnt have a referendum instead of that activist brown v board court.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:36 ampot meet kettle says:
dont know about maine, but in general, the problem is that elections are decided by those who go out to vote, which often turns out to be the elderly — who are more socially conservative than the norm. i think the best solution here is death panels, one of sarah palin’s few good ideas, to give credit where credit is due.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:38 amzuch says:
Prof. Kerr:
What was objectionable about Welker’s long post there? Was it not on topic? And it wasn’t addressed to DangerMouse; on the contrary it had a lot for people of all political stripes to read, disagree or not.
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:39 amDangerMouse says:
pot,
Fundamental Rights ARE decided on by a majority. In case you’re inaware, the Bill of Rights had to be voted on by Congress and the States. Same with all amendments to the constitution that protect fundamental rights. All submitted to the voters, etc.
Honestly. It’s as if people think that courts just write the frigging constitution as they go...
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:43 amzuch says:
mikeyes:
Pretty much sums up a teabagger.
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:47 ampot meet kettle says:
i think rights should be periodically voted upon too, rather than just rely on people from 200 years ago. personally, i am still upset with reading the constitution as positing equal rights for blacks. would that it were decided by referendum!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:47 ampot meet kettle says:
in this case, hoffman had the distinction of being both a teabagger and a carpetbagger.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:48 amTamerlane says:
Randy:
Not sour grapes, just an observation: A clearly worded proposition in Maine won by 5.8% while a deliberately complicated proposition in Washington won by 2.0%.
I don’t see a clear temporal trend in votes against homosexual marriage. The pattern I see is that votes against tend to be higher in states that are generally perceived as conservative and lower in states that are perceived as liberal. So I’m not sure I fully accept your “time is on our side” argument.
Abortion is an example of another social conservative issue where “time is on our side” has proved to be wishful thinking on the part of liberals. Opposition to the consequences Roe v. Wade has remained pretty constant for a long time.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:52 amzuch says:
Oren says:
Wouldn’t that be like the Pat Robertson award for excellence in evolutionary biology?
More like the Philip Johnson award. ;-)
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:52 amgeokstr says:
Pretty much the foul comment I would expect from a fudge packer.
See, how do you like it?
Cheers to you too.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:00 pmzuch says:
Tamerlane says:
Why, it’s terrible that a measure advancing equality for all might actually advance equality for all. Why teh gay that actually wanted a sodomite homosexual ascendancy regnant supreme didn’t phrase things properly, I really don’t know.....
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:01 pmOff Kilter says:
Me: I was speaking of the libertarian swing vote, identified and discussed by David Boaz of Cato, amounting to about 20% of the electorate.
Ricardo: To be a true swing voter, you have to maintain a credible threat to switch parties. Libertarians who vote at all tend to be firmly ensconced in the Republican Party.
While this may be true of Libertarian voters, it is simply not true about the 20% of the electorate described by Boaz who desire both less government involvement in economic issues and less government involvement in social issues. See http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:08 pmzuch says:
geokstr:
Pretty much the foul comment I would expect from a fudge packer.
It’s hard to determine whether your ignorance is exceeded by your lack of class. Could you elucidate?
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:08 pmDangerMouse says:
It’s quite funny that bitter libs think that using slurs to describe grassroots activists is going to work. I wonder if those posts will be deleted? Probably not...
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:13 pmRandy says:
Dangermouse:
I would suggest — just a suggestion — that you get your facts correct. The school guidance counselor wasn’t punished by ‘homosexual activists’, but rather a complaint was filed against the counselor by a person with the licensing authority for counselors in the state. And only a complaint was filed, no action has been taken. Furthermore, the real homosexual activists, the spokesman for No on 1, said it has no connection with his organization, and that he condemns such actions.
I agree with this.
Now that we agree on this matter, I suppose you will also agree with me that when the homophobic activists punish someone for speaking their mind, you will also condemn it. For instance, a woman in Maine who served as a lay minister with the Catholic Church was removed from her position when the church found out that she supported No on 1. Equally abhorrant, wouldn’t you agree?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:37 pmRandy says:
Tamarlane: “deliberately complicated proposition in Washington won by 2.0%”
How would you have worded the WA proposition then to make it clear?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:39 pmwfjag says:
I disagree with your conclusion. If you check the maps of NY-23 and its surrounding districts for the past 100 years, you find that in none of them have only Republicans been elected for over 100 years. Although in upstate NY, especially in the rural areas, predominently the US Reps are Republicans, as occurred last night, Democrats can be elected. What was reported as “news” was a DNC talking point, not a “fact.” And, as TTC’s link demonstrates, the talking point could have easily been challenged — or, at least the effects of gerrymandering demonstrated. Instead, our “news” media uncritically repeated the talking point as fact. (IMO, CNN would do better by fact-checking its own news reports than fact-checking SNL skits).
Still, it will be interesting to see how the Dem controlled NY legislature gerrymanders the district (given the fairly realistic prediction that NY will lose a US Rep). It is a heavily Republican district, but one Owens showed that he can win. Maybe the NY legislature will shoot a branch down through the Syracuse Univ. area to Ithaca to pick up the colleges, and try to off-set the Republican numerical advantage in the current district.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:42 pmMark Buehner says:
I don’t think that’s true. Moreover i’d say that Libertarians tend to float away from the party in power, since each side has major party planks they find intolerable.
That being said– the Republicans have found less success instituting their social agenda than the Democrats have their economic and Big Government agenda, at least thus far. Republicans could easily have brought the majority of libertarians home to roost, had they not taken power in Washington and almost instantly turned into big spending kleptocrats, which is about the only thing D’s and R’s can agree on protecting.
In the long run, the Democrats present a greater danger to libertarianism because the changes they strive for become almost impossible to undue. Look at our entitlements, its utterly inconceivable to dream of disbanding social security or medicare, even cutting them back to fiscally tenable levels seems an impossible challenge. Meanwhile social issues can be changed with the stroke of a pen. The war on drugs, for instance, has a great deal of institutional leverage and inertia working for it, but nonetheless it could be defunded within a few weeks if the political will was there. The tentacles liberalism tie us up with tend to be impossible to undue precisely because they are so obtrusive to so many people and institutions.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:51 pmJK says:
wfjag,
So at what point in time was Plattsburgh represented by a Democrat in the last 100 years before Owens?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:53 pmDJR says:
Orin,
I can’t decide whether it bothers me that people fail to get your posts like this one, which are brilliant, or if the commenters actually prove the genius.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:00 pmPubliusFL says:
It would definitely have to be before 1913. At various times before 2003, Clinton County (where Plattsburgh is located) was part of the 33rd, 31st, 30th, 26th, or 24th district. Each of which only elected Republicans while Clinton County was in it.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:29 pmzuch says:
DangerMouse:
What slurs? You mean like “fudge packer”? Or did you mean “teabagger”? I didn’t come up with the term; that’s what they called themselves (or at least some did). And how is that a slur?
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:36 pmAlan K. Henderson says:
I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh today and he pointed out a mistake that everyone should have caught: the candidate was selected by smoke-filled back room deal and not by primary. He’s absolutely right on that. Candidates must be picked by the party grassroots, not the party leaders. Legislators represent the public at large and not elites, after all. Voters resent being treated like children being force-fed their medicine.
I guess that’s why they call it the Empire State...
Hoffman didn’t have time to mount a decent campaign, but he’s got plenty of time for next year’s race. He should hold town hall meetings — especially in districts that didn’t vote for him. As any Republican should, should seek to identify issues where those voters differ from Bill Owens, especially those that hit people’s pocketbooks.
In the meantime, the NY-23 grassroots should organize a campaign for new state GOP leadership. Do political parties have recall elections?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:40 pmSarcastro says:
My theory: Dangermouse hates testicles. It’s the only explanation why he thinks treating them with loving care is a slur.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:41 pmTamerlane says:
Randy:
Prop 71 gave domestic partnerships between homosexuals and between the elderly all the rights associated with marriage. In other words it distinguished two classes — homosexuals and the elderly — for special treatment by the state. It would have been more just to write the proposition so it gave all domestic partnerships equal rights, e.g., so it gave two heterosexual males who decided to partner all the rights of a married couple. But this would probably have been voted down.
Alternatively, if two classes were being sincerely distinguished for special treatment then, absent a good and explicated reason for combining these classes into one, it would have been better to have had a separate proposition for each. In this case, I suspect that the one for the elderly would have passed and the one for homosexuals not. I believe that the proposition, as written, was a clever political ploy.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:44 pmVirginian says:
Can you really not distinguish between these two situations? Perhaps you might take a moment to re-read the First Amendment.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:49 pmRandy says:
“Can you really not distinguish between these two situations? Perhaps you might take a moment to re-read the First Amendment.”
Certainly. The church has a right to associate with those who agree itself. So does the licensing organization of school counselors. If you disagree, please explain why one deserves 1st amendment protection and the other does not.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:14 pmRandy says:
tamarlane: Here is the exact wording of the ballot:
“The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.”
I don’t see how this is unclear. Furthermore, the opponents of 71 never made the argument that the ballot is ‘unclear’. What you are objecting to is lumping two categories together. The majority of Washingtonians disagree that it is unfair to lump the two together, as they could have just voted it down, right? Apparently, a majority agree that gays and seniors should have everything but marriage rights.
Even if its true that some people are for these rights for seniors but not for gays, they could have voted it down. And in fact, many people voted against the referendum, so you may be correct. But enough people said that they had no problem with granting these rights to both seniors and gays. The ballot is quite clear about that, so I really don’t think there was any confusion on the issue.
You said that these are special rights. In a way, they are — carving out a section of rights that some won’t have. But these group of rights is no more than what anyone else has. In fact, they are still less than marriage, as they don’t carry any rights or benefits at the federal level, nor any constitutional rights.
If you really think that gays are getting a better deal out of this, then please inform me what specific rights they have that you (or someone else) as a married person doesn’t have.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:23 pmuh_clem says:
Wins thread.
You might recall that in the first year of the GWB administration (2001) the Democrats took both NJ and Virginia governorships. This didn’t presage the 2002 election season as unusually favorable to Democrats. Neither should yesterday’s result presage a GOP resurgence.
Corzine was a scandal plagued incumbent in a down economy. Deeds was just a lackluster candidate. Both Christie and McDonnell ran as centrists and downplayed the ‘social conservative’ card. I don’t think there’s a lot of trend in these results.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 2:35 pmAlan K. Henderson says:
I’ll read this into the NY-23 election results: any reputation that Mr. Newt had as one with his finger on the pulse of political trends (e.g. discerning what candidates fit their districts) has met the fate of an anonymous security officer in a Star Trek landing party. He’s politically dead, Jim.
When concocting those political potions, leave out the aye of Newt.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:00 pmTim McDonald says:
Orin, you refer to Palin as a “right wing extremist”. Exactly which of her stated positions do you regard as extreme right wing? Looks pretty much like a Reagan conservative from what I can tell?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:03 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Four Obvious Lessons from Tonight’s Elections -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by paulhsieh, ilcrawford and Jeff Walden, James Rothstein. James Rothstein said: Four Obvious Lessons from Tonight’s Elections http://bit.ly/3DQ0By [...]
wfjag says:
Sorry, JK, but I never made that argument. That, after gerrymandering, there is an upstate NY county (Clinton) that has never been represented by a Dem in the US House isn’t the same assertion as that NY-23 has not elected a Dem in over 100 years.
Still, Dems are elected to the Clinton County (NY) government — or else, county legislators Harry McManus, Sara E. Rowden and Dr. John W. Gallagher would likely be surprised that their party affiliation has been changed from “(D)” to “(R)”. Granted, the Dems are in the minority, as they are only 3 or 10. Still, I did say that upstate NY was “predominately” Republican, not exclusively.
However, discussion of things “Plattsburgh, NY,” hardly seems worth the effort. It is, after all, best known as the site where Peter Frampton made the live recording of the song Do You Feel Like We Do for his album Frampton Comes Alive, and so indirectly inspired the name of the album. That seems to be a sufficient curse for any one town.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:21 pmLN says:
Looks pretty much like a Reagan conservative from what I can tell?
Reagan was a left-wing radical: he raised taxes, ran large deficits, and negotiated with terrorists.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:34 pmMLS says:
It is one thing to have personal views, and quite another to actively seek to impose such views on others using the force of law. I am unaware of either Palin or Beck (or Limbaugh for that matter) proposing and lobbying for “social” legislation to impose their personal views on others.
The above is merely a general observation. I am sure it can be parsed by those inclined to do so, but this would miss my basic point. A pejorative label has no educational value, and for an educator to assign such a label in my view does nothing to promote intellectually honest and thoughtful debate.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:35 pmzuch says:
Alan K. Henderson:
Ummmmm ... Armey, Palin, Hannity, and Limbaugh didn’t do any better. Can we hope for the best here? ;-)
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:53 pmPubliusFL says:
Alright, pick any other county in NY-23. Has any of them been represented by a Democrat in the House of Representatives in the past 100 years?
Prof. Kerr’s statement was: “But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years.” I’d say the most natural reading of that statement is that the voters in the region currently constituting NY-23 elected a Democratic Representative for the first time in one hundred years. Saying it refers to the voters of whatever combination of regions may have had that numeric designation at various times in the past is a much more strained interpretation, in my opinion, because there’s no rational connection between those groups of voters in completely different places except the numeric designation.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:54 pmzuch says:
Tim McDonald:
Ummmm ... how do I tell you this....
FWIW, Sean insHannity also regales himself as a dyed-in-the-wool “Reagan conservative”. What result?
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:57 pmJoseph Slater says:
DJR:
I’m with you 100%. I especially love the comments that assume that one (or more) of the four entirely contradictory “spins” Orin listed reflected Orin’s actual thoughts.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:00 pmA changing political philosophy? : The Public Philosopher says:
[...] “the” conventional wisdom after three significant races yesterday, Orin Kerr at Volokh offers this amusing note: I think there are four obvious lessons to draw from tonight’s election [...]
uberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by jswalden: http://bit.ly/UL1UQ The four obvious lessons of today’s elections, along with which observers will be quickest to recognize them as such...
Tim McDonald says:
Zuch, for what it’s worth, Sean Hannity can call himself whatever he wants, but which of PALIN’s stated positions are extreme right wing?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:21 pmLeo Marvin says:
Amending the “frigging” Constitution requires super-majorities. It’s as if you think it’s just another law.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:13 pmOren says:
This is why you don’t have people out of the district nominating and evaluating candidates. She is apparently well-liked in her district and has an actual command on local issues.
Ideology isn’t everything.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:14 pmVirginian says:
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the licensing organization is a governmental organization. If I am incorrect, then I would tend to agree with you. If I am correct, I hope that you would agree with me.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:39 pmElais says:
To claim the entire population of America has rejected Barack Obama is an absurd statement to make. I would suggest that you either modify it or remove it.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:22 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Apparently well liked? Did you see the polls? She was in the single digits by the end; that’s why she dropped out.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:30 pmwfjag says:
PubliusFL — Please review my original comment. I did not make a statement concerning whether any particular county in upstate NY has been represented in the U.S. House by a Republican or a Democrat in the past, and I likewise did not comment on Prof. Kerr’s conclusion.
I commented on the breathless and uncritical statements of what passes for “news” reporting in the U.S. — reporting uncritically a DNC press release that the NY-23d district has been represented by a Republican for over 100 years (and, in some “news” reports, since prior to the Civil War). This “fact,” as reported as “news” as an unqualified assertion, is simply untrue.
Actually, the statements you and JK have made appear much more accurate than those of persons who call themselves “journalists”. True, based on the district maps over time, I disagree with your conclusion that Owens election is the first time that the area now covered by NY-23 has ever been represented by a Democrat in the US House, your assertion is not obviously wrong on its face (nor, is it breathlessly made). If overlay maps of the area now within NY-23 over time, showing the party affiliation of U.S. Representatives over time were available, it would be possible to determine if your reading of the available maps is correct or not. However, that is the sort of work one would expect of an investigative journalist, who has the time to investigate facts, and resources of a large news corporation to aid in that investigation — not what one would expect of someone who comments to a blog.
So, while my review of the available maps leads me to disagree with your conclusion, I don’t think that your conclusion is based on parroting a DNC talking point.
IF there is a change in the willingness of the majority of upstate NY voters to support a Democrat (vs. viewing the dustup between the Conservative and Republican Party campaigns as resembling a circular firing squad which Owens was smart enough to duck), that would have a number of interesting implications — especially for the NY Governor’s race. However, as our “news” organizations report talking points instead of facts or analyzing facts, it is not now possible to reach any conclusions on the meaning of the NY-23 election. Accordingly, I’m not willing to agree or disagree with Prof. Kerr’s assertion, because I do not believe that enough facts have been reported to support an analysis that is not largely speculation based on assumptions.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:58 pmLN says:
According to the polls a majority of voters in NY-23 support the public option and approve of Barack Obama, which is why it makes perfect sense that the voters rebelled against a moderate Republican candidate by electing a Democrat, and why this outcome is good news for conservative Republicans everywhere.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:59 pmChrisTS says:
Who are these people who fly by and scold Orin for purportedly espousing one or another of the FOUR satirical options he presented?
Does anybody read anymore?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:28 pmwolfefan says:
Alan K Henderson noted, “I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh today and he pointed out a mistake that everyone should have caught: the candidate was selected by smoke-filled back room deal and not by primary. He’s absolutely right on that. Candidates must be picked by the party grassroots, not the party leaders. Legislators represent the public at large and not elites, after all. Voters resent being treated like children being force-fed their medicine.”
FWIW, Republicans in Virginia don’t like primaries; they typically select their candidates through caucus.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:51 pmTTC says:
While only looking at the NY 23 maps, McNulty (D) covered NY 23 during years of overlap.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:12 pmArthurKirkland says:
Time is on the side of those who oppose criminalization of every abortion (or whatever some choose to call an abortion, such as the effect of morning-after pills); over time, their position prevailed, and losing that ground seems unlikely at any foreseeable point.
Time similarly is on the side of those who oppose criminalization of homosexual conduct or figurative shackling of homosexuals. Bigots have, over time, lost the power to arrest or incarcerate people for being gay. As the young and elderly move toward their next categories, bigots seem almost certain to lose their ability to deny homosexuals the opportunity to benefit from the interpersonal arrangements currently available to heterosexuals (including infertile heterosexuals).
Among the beautiful things about America is its long-term trend away from racism, bigotry, superstition, inherited opportunity, dogma, mistreatment of minorities, abuse of power and many other wrongs.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:57 pmDave N says:
ChrisTS,
I agree about people a) demonstrating a lack of reading ability; and b) not recognizing satire.
Everyone will spin yesterday’s election however they want to spin it. Ed Morrissey on Hot Air notes that Rahm Emmanuel (as was his job then and his job now) gave completely different spins in 2005 and 2009.
The most interesting take on the election I saw was made by Michael Barone. Barone noted that not only did Corzine and Deeds do much worse than President Obama in their respective states, but that McDonnell and Christie also ran better than President Bush did in their states in 2004.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:32 pmrpt says:
According to the [Count] Chocula of the Club for Growth, everything is good for the GOP. Losing NY-23 is good because DS endorsed the D. No comment re CA10. Did any R win an open congressional seat?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 12:11 amRSS agregator » Blog Archive » The meaning of the 2009 elections says:
[...] meaning of the 2009 elections The single best analysis of yesterday’s results comes from Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy. That’s a website I read a lot, a group blog by a bunch of law professors that was founded by [...]
PubliusFL says:
McNulty represented NY-23 when the district was located in the Albany area. The people of the area currently covered by the district never had a chance to vote for him.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 8:35 amOren says:
In a plurality election, the poll numbers (and the election results themselves) don’t accurately reflect the underlying voter preferences because of strategic voting.
People ditched her because she wasn’t going to win, and that mean that the no good extremists (Democrat/Conservative) might win. In a 3-way race, the center candidate is at a huge disadvantage because most people will have a strong preference for one extremists over another.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 10:33 amAlan K. Henderson says:
Identifying Scozzafava as a “center candidate” presumes she has a lot in common with conservatives. Does she? On what issues?
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:40 pm