Tuesday poll results. What do they mean?

As of Tuesday night results…

GOP wins Virginia Governor’s office (+18%)
GOP wins New Jersey Governor’s office (+4%)
Dems take NY Congress spot in Ex-GOP seat(+8%)
IND Bloomberg takes NY Mayor (+5%)

These numbers will change as some areas still have most preceincts not reported yet. We will update as new numbers come in.

What is your take on the results…

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 09:17 | Posted in Measure 37 | 13 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the spending insanity that now grips Washington accelerate? Is it better to ram through more of the agenda and face greater loss of power in 2010 on from an antagonized electorate. Or is it better to not ram through, hope for less losses, and go with long term view of enacting BO’s agenda?

    The bottom line here is I don’t think there will be course correction towards a more moderate agenda. Left wing stalwarts see light at the end of the tunnel for moving America in a more socialistic direction. The question is not whether people want it or not. The question is now that they are so close, is ramming speed or compromise the order of the day?

    I would not look to any change of heart in the Democratic leadership. I predict there will be no shift away from the left wing direction of the agenda as there was with Clinton in 1994 when he changed course, shifting away from massive deficits as well as signing welfare reform.

    The other thing this means is we will have to listen to some pretty endless droning in the coming week about how this was actually a good thing for BO, and endorsement of his policies yadda yadda yadda.

  • v person

    Prediction: Both sides will claim victory, and both sides will be partly right and partly wrong, as is usual in elections. For Republicans, two new governorships, one won by a RINO. For Democrats a House seat they had not seen in over 100 years and maybe upholding of gay marriage in Maine.

    “Will the spending insanity that now grips Washington accelerate?”

    A) its not “insanity for the government to deficit spend our way out of a deep recession verging on depression. Its actually the most sane policy available.
    B) Now that the recession is abating, the spending will also abate. There will not be another TARP, nor another stimulus. But neither will there be a balanced budget. And neither would there be one if Republicans ruled the roost.

    “Left wing stalwarts see light at the end of the tunnel for moving America in a more socialistic direction. The question is not whether people want it or not.”

    Actually that is the question. And the answer is that yes, a majority wants health care reform that provides greater support for people, and a majority wants action on climate change, and a majority wants out of Iraq, and a majority wants Wall Street banking more closely regulated. That is why they elected Obama and a Democratic majority, and they had better deliver or start packing.

    “Clinton in 1994 when he changed course, shifting away from massive deficits as well as signing welfare reform.”

    The deficits closed because there was fast and sustained economic growth after Clinton raised taxes and lowered interest rates. And since he ran partly on reforming welfare (triangulation,) that was not a course change, though he would have preferred a less punitive measure than the Republicans passed.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >A) its not “insanity for the government to deficit spend our way out of a deep recession verging on depression. Its actually the most sane policy available.

      Based on what? Your say so? History sure does not show that to be true. In fact history shows excessive spending to end a recission can be a horrendous mistake. The last example would be the Japanese recession of the 90’s. Excessive government spending over a long and protracted period did little to ease the recession.

      Look, you might not like it but virtually every economist said BO’s stimulus was way too back end loaded. I said the same thing as well. The stimulus produced no where near the recovery it was supposed to, even BO had to admit that when it didn’t live up to the numbers he had predicted for it.

      >And the answer is that yes, a majority wants health care reform that provides greater support for people, and a majority wants action on climate change, and a majority wants out of Iraq, and a majority wants Wall Street banking more closely regulated.

      So the reason why getting any of this garbage passed is so difficult would be what?

      We know it cannot be because of conservative Democrats. I had argued that running conservative Democrats over the last few elections was how the Democrats had managed to take over congress, you said that was not true, so we know that can’t be the reason.

      Republicans cant do a thing, they don’t have the votes as you love to lord over us, so please let’s not hear that as a reason.

      Democrats own the press lock stock and barrel so let’s not hear unfair news coverage as a reason.

      Special interests? Hardly, big insurance was on board with health care reform until very recently. Cap and Tax? Seems like most big corporations like it, gets rid of entrepreneurial competition by making start up more expensive. Ok, so that can’t be the reason.

      Hmm, wonder why getting this nonsense passed is so difficult if everyone wants it?

      >The deficits closed because there was fast and sustained economic growth after Clinton raised taxes and lowered interest rates

      Please, check a history book, what you are saying is utter nonsense.

      When Republicans took over in 1994, Clintons tax increase had been in effect for well over two years!

      What did Clinton do? He sent up budgets projecting deficits of $300B or over for the next ten years.

      Please, lets get real, Clintons tax increase didn’t have a lot to do with cutting the deficit, Clintons own actions even prove that one.

      We got a balanced budget for several reasons, a fall in interest rates, the dot com and housing bubbles and refinancing of our debt from long term to short term. The latter was a big gamble, but it worked out.

      • v person

        “Based on what? Your say so? ”

        Based on the history you choose to ignore. First the ramp up in spending by Roosevelt early in his term (building on Hoovers ramp up prior to 33 to be fair) resulted in a high rate of economic growth and a steep drop in unemployment from 1933-36. GDP growth averaged over 10% a year 33-36. This was followed by a return to recession and high unemployment after Roosevelt abandoned deficit spending too soon (1937-38 relapse). Followed by an end to the depression and high unemployment as he returned to huge defeicit spending prior to WW2,a dn of course veven more during. Read the numbers: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth

        And based on what most Nobel winning economists have been advising during this particular recession, which is spend spend spend. No one is saying balance the budget except the lunatic fringe. You my non-friend, are with the lunatic fringe here.

        And based on simple logic and Keynes. If private sector spending tanks, that leaves a lot of unused economic capacity that can be taken up by government spending to keep the wheels of commerce churning until the private sector recovers. And what do you know? That appears to be happening before our very eyes. A severe downturn in stocks and GDP leading to high unemployment followed by huge deficit spending followed by stock and GDP recovery and now…maybe….hopefull recovery of employment. All courtesy of huge deficit spending.

        Yes, many economists thought Obama was spending too little too late. And they were probably right, which is why unemployment has rising to nearly 10%. But they did not say don’t do a stimulus did they? Too little too late is not the same as don’t bother with it because a stimulus won’t work. That you confuse the 2 is rather remarkable.

        So who are you going to believe Rupert? Your lying eyes or the reality all around you?

        “So the reason why getting any of this garbage passed is so difficult would be what?”

        Its not complicated. Republicans are refusing to play ball period, leaving the decisions to close these deals to a handful of weany Democratic moderates representing states that lean right, or kowtowing to the affected industries, like Senator Lieberman and his insurance pals. It has nothing to do with national popular opinion and everything to do with self-interest politics.

        “Republicans cant do a thing”

        Sure they can. They can withold 100% of their votes. They can lie about death panels and Medicare cuts and exaggerate the economic cost of cap and trade. They can make noise and confuse people. They can pretend Obama is not really president because he was born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim bent on the destruction of the United States. .And they appear to be surprisingly good at all these things, particularly Palin. They just can’t actually govern anything, which is a bit harder, which is why she quit mid term. But they can make it a hard as possible for the Democrats to govern, which is what they are doing.

        “Special interests? Hardly, big insurance was on board with health care reform until very recently.”

        Yeah right Rupert. They were “on board” as long as it meant 40 million more government supported, forced paying customers for their overpriced, under useful products. The minute the worm turned slightly away from them (public option for a handful,) they bolted for the door. They are still a special interest and they want their bread buttered. And Lieberman is apparently going to give them all the butter they can slather on, and this is going to cost you and me unecessarily. Once again, so-called fiscal conservatives end up spending way more than is necessary to do the job.

        “Hmm, wonder why getting this nonsense passed is so difficult if everyone wants it?”

        Pay attention. I’ll use all caps just to help you out here. Because EVERYONE DOES NOT WANT IT. A majority want it. A majority is not everyone. And the minority that does not want it is fighting very hard to prevent it. Sometimes minorities prevail, sometimes not. But a minority prevailing should not be confused with what a majority wanted.

        “When Republicans took over in 1994, Clintons tax increase had been in effect for well over two years!”

        Work on your math Rupert. Clinton’s tax bill passed in late summer 1993. The 1993 budget was the one signed into law by Bush. Clinton’s first budget took effect in 1994, the same year Republicans won the house and senate back. Thus it was in effect for mere months before that election, not 2 years.

        “What did Clinton do? He sent up budgets projecting deficits of $300B or over for the next ten years.”

        No he didn’t. Presidents don’t “send up budgets” 10 years in advance. They send up projections based on current tax policies and economic growth and expenditure expectations. They only send up budgets year to year. Clinton made projections that were overly conservative with respect to spending and growth. spending turned out to be less, and growth turned out to be higher. And this higher growth happened in spite of or because of a pretty significant tax increase. And by 98 Clinton was sending surplused budgets to Congress up until the time he left. When did our federal surpluses end? Bush’s first fiscal year. Same Republican congress that Clinton had.

        Learn to deal with reality. Its a bit painful but much better for you in the long run.

  • Jerry

    It doesn’t mean much except that people are not happy.
    When they are not happy they vote the other party in…just like the recent presidential election.
    I wonder why they are not happy?
    It can’t be Obama, can it?
    No.
    Simply could not be. He is the greatest.

    • v person

      I stand corrected. I made the mistake of repeating multiple media claims without digging further. It turns out that the 23rd has been redistricted a bunch of times, and that only part of the area now in the 23rd has been represented by Reppublicans in Congress since 1852. Other parts since the 1870s, 1890s, and on up into the 1970s. Its more accurate to say that what is now the 23rd has been substantially Republican for the past 150 or more years. This all assumes to accuracy of the source below:

      http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5072/amazing-political-history-of-ny23

      Nevertheless, that the Republicans managed to fumble this one over to the Democrats is pretty impressive and most encouraging looking ahead to 2010. That Palin girl, along with the master of phony emotion Glenn Beck, may be the gifts that keep on giving even while they rake in the dough from gullible followers.

  • John Fairplay

    “its not “insanity for the government to deficit spend our way out of a deep recession verging on depression”

    Except the government can’t spend its way out of a deep recession verging on depression. New Deal programs had virtually no impact on the course of the Depression. We’re seeing that play out right now as government stimulus like “Cash for Clunkers” provides a temporary shot-in-the-arm for individual industries which crash right back to the ground when the government money goes away.

    Government stimulus is a completely artificial construct which has no lasting impact on the economy. Remember that every dollar the government spends has to be taken away from someone first. It is a zero-sum game with no benefit to the private economy.

  • Anonymous

    My response to all the leftists will be:

    “You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.”

  • Bob Tiernan

    *Rupert:*

    We got a balanced budget for several reasons, a fall in interest rates, the dot com and housing bubbles and refinancing of our debt from long term to short term.

    *Bob T:*

    And they were made possible by that time because G.H.W. Bush had decided to quickly pay off
    the S & L payments to get that over with, instead of spreading it out beyond 1992. The reduction of the military budget (for its time) also started then, showing actual decreases rather than what the Dems were doing with all the Great Society and New Deal programs — cuts in the increase. Clinton benefited from that, but he also needed the Repub majority to force him to realize that.

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

  • Dave A.

    What a suspect yesterday’s elections signal is a once in a decade chance for the GOP to win a lot of seats in both Congress and in State races if they put up the right candidates. With the current corruption right here in the Governor’s Office in Oregon, this is a chance to take back that office after 20 years of lame, inept and crooked Democrats.

  • Bob Tiernan

    *v person:*

    For Democrats a House seat they had not seen in over 100 years…

    *Bob T:*

    More junk facts from v person. NY 23 has had Democrats holding the seat quite often during the past hundred years, as recently as Jan 93. Oh well….

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district

    Bob Tiernan
    Portland

    • v person

      Comment #3.1 above meant for Bob T #8.

  • Pingback: prediksi bola jitu()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)