Virginia GOP winner Bob McDonnell (AP)
Independents who swept Barack Obama to a historic 2008 victory broke big for Republicans on Tuesday as the GOP wrested political control from Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a troubling sign for the president and his party heading into an important midterm election year.
Conservative Republican Bob McDonnell's victory in the Virginia governor's race over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds and moderate Republican Chris Christie's ouster of unpopular New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine was a double-barreled triumph for a party looking to rebuild after being booted from power in national elections in 2006 and 2008.
Elsewhere on Tuesday, Maine voters rejected a state law that would allow same-sex couples to wed. If supporters had prevailed, it would have marked the first time that the electorate in any state endorsed gay marriage.
And Democrat Bill Owens captured a GOP-held vacant 23rd Congressional District seat in New York in a race that highlighted fissures in the Republican Party and illustrated hurdles the GOP could face in capitalizing on any voter discontent with Obama and Democrats next fall.
California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, also a Democrat, won a special election to a vacant congressional seat, Ohio voters approved casinos and a slew of cities selected mayors, including New York, which gave Michael Bloomberg a third term.
The outcomes of Virginia and New Jersey were sure to feed discussion about the state of the electorate, the status of the diverse coalition that sent Obama to the White House and the limits of the president's influence — on the party's base of support and on moderate current lawmakers he needs to advance his legislative priorities.
His signature issue of health care reform was dealt a blow hours before polls closed when Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid signaled that Congress may not complete health care legislation this year, missing Obama's deadline and pushing debate into a congressional election year. Democrats in swing-voting states and moderate-to-conservative districts may be less willing to back Obama on issues like health care after Virginia and New Jersey showed there are limits to how much he can protect his rank and file from fallout back home.
The president had personally campaigned for Deeds and Corzine, seeking to ensure that independents and base voters alike turned out even if he wasn't on the ballot — and voters still rejected them. Thus, the losses were blots on Obama's political standing to a certain degree and suggested potential problems ahead as he seeks to achieve his policy goals, protect Democratic majorities in Congress and expand his party's grip on governors' seats next fall.
Interviews with voters leaving polling stations in both states were filled with reasons for Democrats to be concerned and for Republicans to be optimistic, particularly about independents — the crown jewel of elections because they often determine outcomes.
Independents were a critical part Obama's victory in Virginia, New Jersey and across the country. But after more than a year of recession, they fled from Democrats in the two states, where the economy trumped all.
The Associated Press exit polls showed that nearly a third of voters in Virginia described themselves as independents, and nearly as many in New Jersey did. They preferred McDonnell by almost a 2-1 margin over Deeds in Virginia, and Christie over Corzine by a similar margin.
Last year, independents split between Obama and Republican John McCain in both states.
In Virginia, McDonnell won by big margins in rapidly growing, far-flung Washington, D.C., suburbs — places like Loudoun and Prince William counties — that Republicans historically have won but where Obama prevailed last fall by winning over independents and swing voters. Republicans swept all three statewide Virginia offices up for election: governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general.
"Bob McDonnell's victory gives Republicans tremendous momentum heading into 2010," declared Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association. "His focus on ideas and pocketbook issues will serve as a model for Republicans running next year."
Said Tim Kaine, the Democratic National Committee chairman and the term-limited Virginia governor: "We are disappointed."
In both states, the surveys also suggested the Democrats had difficulty turning out their base, including the large numbers of first-time minority and youth voters whom Obama attracted. The Virginia electorate was whiter in 2009 than it was in 2008, when blacks and Hispanics voted in droves to elect the country's first black president.
Democratic victories in both Virginia, a new swing state, and New Jersey, a Democratic stronghold, in 2005 preceded big Democratic years nationally in 2006 and 2008.
Tuesday's impact on Obama's popularity and on the 2010 elections could easily be overstated. Voters are often focused on local issues and local personalities.
Yet, national issues, like the recession, were clearly a factor, with voter attitudes shaped to some degree by how people feel about the state of their nation — and their place in it.
And, voter attitudes — particularly among independents — could bode ill for Democrats in moderate districts and in swing states like Ohio, Colorado and Nevada, should they remain unchanged when the party seeks to defend its turf next fall. In 2010, most governors, a third of the Senate and all members in the House will be on ballots.
It's also difficult to separate Obama from the outcomes after he devoted a significant chunk of time working to persuade voters to elect Deeds in Virginia and re-elect Corzine in New Jersey.
More than four in 10 voters in Virginia said their view of Obama factored into their choice on Tuesday, and those voters roughly split between expressing support and opposition for the president. People who said they disapprove of Obama's job performance voted overwhelmingly Republican, and those who approve of the president favored Deeds, the Democrat.
The Obama factor was similar in New Jersey, though there were slightly more voters who said the president did not factor into their choice.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press
Technorati Tags: 
The duty pundits were claiming that these races were not a reflection on Obama's performance last night at least the major network talking heads.
You bet these elections were a preview of 2010 and if this President continues on the same course; ie., sucking up to Wall Street and the banking cabal while punching main street's t.s. card with simple statements that jobs will be the last to recover, then there's going to be one mighty "flush" of Dems along with non-performing Republicans in 2010.
The real tragedy of our election system is that an Independent challenger can't get elected more often. It seems American's are phase locked with the idea that it can only be one or the other while completely disregarding the idea that an Independent or non-party affiliated candidate in office might be both refreshing and progressive once in a while.
Carl Nemo **==
Really? You mean the democrats extending their majority in congress by 2 seats is an omen? If that's any indication of a future "flush", you better get out your plunger - your toilet's clogged.
And let's see: 1/2 of 40% of all voters... That's about 20% who said that their vote against Dems was influenced by Obama's actions.
Wow. Quite a sweep. Keep it up the great strategy, GOP.
Yo neondesert,
I've been registered as an Independent since I could first vote over 40 years ago.
My wife and voted for Obama. He and his entourage of retreads from past adminsitrations have turned out to be a major disappointment, possibly wreaking deadly havoc on this nation with his mind-boggling expenditures of national 'debt treasure' that will far eclipse eight years of the Bushista's reign of t(errors).
You sound like a partisan to me. Beware, history shows how Joseph Stalin treated partisans.../ : |
Carl Nemo **==
While I think the only meaningful difference between a Repub and a Dem is the spelling, I would have to ask, which is politically more useful, capturing the governorships of two electorally significant states or capturing a couple of congressional districts?
Yours,
Issodhos
I agree with Carl, and this election is an indication of the rise of the GOP.... No, the rise of the right wing. The loss of gay marriages in Maine was an indication that our minorities will never be accepted as equals. The greatest Lobby in D.C. is the combined efforts of all the religious institutions. They will not quit until our government reflects the kind of values they preach.
I had great hopes of seeing the end of the GOP starting yesterday and finishing up in 2010. The Independents are the only hope of individual freedoms.
I don't think this election really shows anything that beneficial for the GOP to get excited about.
A moderate GOP house candidate is chased out by the right wing, she supports a Democrat, and the Democrat wins. In California, a Democrat wins that house seat as well.
The Mayor of NY has to spend $100 million to retain his seat.
GOP governors elected in NJ and Virgina are more moderate (arguably) than right wing.
Gay Marriage lost again, no surprise. All 31 attempts to pass it in front of the electorate has resulted in failure. But even with large organized pushes by numerous religious and conservative elements across all sections of the US, Gay Marriage usually only fails by a relatively small percentage. I think it's just a matter of time before we start to see changes.
Here on the Central Coast a large effort by conservatives to take over Santa Barbara was pretty much a failure. Conservatives didn't do as well as expected even though big money supported them. Measure B was also strongly supported with Republican money and lies but narrowly passed, and finally, a Liberal Democrat won Mayor.
I personally think the only reason conservatives continue to perform is that they are strongly organized for specific people and measures, while Democrat's seem to be all over the place with ideas and prospects.
Mo, I spent the last 26 years in Cambria just south of the Hearst Castle. California has changed in the last 70 years with gangs replacing neighorhoods. I hope some day to get back to the Central Coast and this time settle east of Highway 101. I was involved with the Performing Arts Building on the grounds of Cal Poly and on the board of directors of the SLO Symphony. I still read the Tribune and get all the information from San Simeon to Santa Barbara.
Sandra, I have known people opposed to gay marriage with no religious affiliation. It's unfair to paint those who oppose gay marriage with such a broad brush. I guess they all have their reasons.
The one I hear most is that since this has become a national debate every TV show has a token "gay" character, and ABC even received recognition from "The Advocate" magazine. These characters play to stereotypes and I am unclear as to how this is such good idea. My gay friends are just regular people. They are who they are. These TV characters certainly don't represent them.
I have no children, but the story I hear from parents is this is an issue THEY would like to address with their children, and not the politically incorrect crowd, and certainly not every prime time TV show.
As for me personally, I'm on the fence. Never had to vote one way or another and glad I haven't had that responsibility.
Doesn't mean sh**
Too much can happen between now and 2010, let alone 2012.
The biggest questions are whether the GOP will turn away from the Christian Taliban and/or whether the Dems will find the courage to meaningfully regulate their Wall Street owners, errrr, I mean contributors. Either party could change course and win the support of the independents who put Obama in the White House.
Who are the "Christian Taliban"?
Yours in curiousity,
Issodhos
That's easy, the misguided Christians of this nation who think that we all should give up our freedoms to live under their umbrella of "self rightousness". Problem is they don't even know who's umbrella we should live under, maybe a Mormon one, Pentacostal possibly, maybe the tried and true Catholic one. As far as I'm concerned, they are America's Taliban and they are as dangerous and misguided a group as any other group of religious fanatics, and they must not be allowed to accomplish their agenda. I lived in Utah for 6 years after I retired from the military. I left because I absolutely hated being a second class citizen in my own country because I did not fit their mold of acceptable.
I must admit that I have not seen any marauding Mormoms, Catholic hordes, or packs of Pentacostals in America engaging in Taliban-like armed insurrection for control of the state. Indeed, I have not even seen these organizations advocate using a gruff voice to force someone to believe as they believe.
If someone from one of these groups moved to a place you found to be personally comfortable, would you think that person fit your "mold of acceptable" in your personally comfortable community, or would he be treated as a "second class" citizen? Just curious.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos
Anyone not subscribing to the most liberal of agendas can only be opposing due to their Christianity. Thanks to the democrats, Christian is the new cuss word.
The GOP on the other hand uses them like a rented whore.
The end result however, is the same.
Nice summation. Having a simplistic explanation for everything certainly makes it easy to exercise their own brand of ignorance.
Regarding the Maine vote, I think it's a perfect illustration of the way our system was designed to function. That is for the states to decide for themselves in such matters. Any one that doesn't live in Maine has no business complaining about their decision. You may not like the way the vote swung, but since this issue has been pushed to the fore, the best place to decide it is among the individual states.
That being said, I think both sides are guilty of provoking the other in this fight. A ridiculous battle that I believe has no place in politics. What gets lost in all the emotion and vitriol from both sides is the very core principle of America's creation...That all men are treated equally under the law.
Our current laws regarding marriage are unequal. That should be the basis of any argument. The problem is that when government is given the right to sanction such personal decisions through the act of licensing or special priveleges (i.e. tax incentives), it will naturally cause others to seek out those same benefits.
On the Republican side, I think it's high time for mainstreet republicans and conservatives to force the party to cast off the religious right and its lingering, putrid stigma in wholesale fashion. I'm tired of being lumped together with these cretins.
If you wish to portray yourselves as being the party of limited government and personal freedom, the Constitution and rule of law then start showing it. We are supposedly guranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By all means, if the simple act of marriage will make an entire group of people happy, then who are you to deny this pursuit?
Either we do away with all government involvement in marriage or we stop discriminating. End of story. There's no middle ground here and nothing more to discuss.
But again, if we didn't have all these wedge issues to keep us distracted and discordant, then what pray tell could we spend our valuable time on? The economy perhaps? Nah...Too boring. The wars? Nah...Too profitable.
As for the other side - and I'll try to tread lightly here, I have no dog in this fight and try to be objective and honest - I think that a very vocal and visible minority of you folks enjoy being provocative. You want to force acceptance of your lifestyle in the political arena while provoking the other side into forcing acceptance of their own.
Being accepted socially and politically are different things. It seems to me that part of the goal of this debate is one of social acceptance. Using politics to try and force social change never works. It tends to force both sides further into their crusade and leads to even more irrational acts. The religious right has no more right to force their values on you than you have the right to force yours upon them or any one else.
There will always exist some forms of bigotry. That will never change. As with the civil rights and other cultural movements, government had far less to do with its progress than did the passage of time itself, but complete social acceptance is unachievable. Simply being allowed to wed will not deliver social acceptance, I'm afraid.
Most gays I know of don't want to get married anyway. It's only a small minority that actually wish to get married, the rest are dragged into the fight to stand with their friends or stay out of it altogether. Most gays I know just want to go about their business.
We need to end this debate once and for all. It's unproductive and I'm sick to death of it being such a divisive and emotional issue every stinking election cycle. There are far too many pressing issues that need to be tackled. In my view, the onus falls on the Republicans to man up and either stand true to your rhetoric or be replaced by someone that will.