Media in 2001: Off-year elections have little national significance
Conservative media are attempting to use the results of gubernatorial elections to suggest President Obama's agenda and Democrats' 2010 electoral prospects are in trouble. In the wake of Bob McDonnell's apparent victory in the Virginia gubernatorial race, Media Matters has documented examples of media arguing that Democratic victories in 2001 had little national significance.
Media figures attempt to cast gubernatorial races as referendum on national progressive agenda
Fox News graphic: If GOP wins Va., NJ governors races, "no gov't-run option" in health care reform. As an example, during the November 2 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, an on screen graphic read: "If GOP wins both races" in Virginia and New Jersey, "Impact on health care: no govt-run option." [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 11/2/09]
In 2001, commentators argued Dem wins in NJ and VA had little national significance
Mort Kondracke: "We have no way of knowing" how 2001 outcome would affect 2002 midterms. On November 5, 2001, Mort Kondracke commented: "I don't know what effect this will have on the 2002 election. And the 2002 election is -- could be decided on the basis of terrorism, and the fact that law enforcement -- the Republicans have an advantage in defense and law enforcement. And the Democrats, if it's a lousy economy, that may be the big issue. We have no way of knowing." Kondracke continued: "But the history of the matter is that in 2002 the chances are that the party in control of the White House will lose. It's almost -- lose seats, yes, in the House and Senate. In which case, the Republicans could lose control of the House." (Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 11/5/2001; via the Nexis database)
Mara Liasson: "A handful of off-year elections can't be used to predict" outcome of 2002 midterms. On November 7, 2001, Mara Liasson said: "A handful of off-year elections can't be used to predict what may happen next year when all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is up for election. But last night Democrats proved they could run to the middle and keep their base in both a conservative state like Virginia and a classic swing state like New Jersey." (NPR's Morning Edition, 11/7/2001; via Nexis)
Dick Morris: "If you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republicans." On November 6, 2001, Dick Morris said of the "two Democratic victories" in New Jersey and Virginia: "If you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republicans. That's why the Republicans got 37 governorships while Clinton was president." Morris added: "[N]ow the Democrats are picking them all off because Bush is president. People want divided government, and that's what you're seeing, and that's what you will see in '02, a Democratic trend, not because they don't like Bush" (Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 11/6/2001; via Nexis)
David Broder highlighted the difference between open gubernatorial races and congressional races with "popular incumbents." On November 6, 2001, David Broder said in an appearance on CNN: "The striking thing about these races was that Republicans did not have incumbents to run, and the candidates that they came up with as the successors that they hoped to elect were -- did not have nearly the breadth of appeal, not nearly the personalities of the people that they were trying to sec -- to replace." He continued: "And that carries some warning signs, I think, perhaps more for next year's governors' races where the Republicans will be in the same position, trying to replace popular incumbents, not so much in the congressional races where we expect most of the incumbents will be running again." (CNN's Greenfield at Large, 11/6/2001; via Nexis)
Michael Barone: "I don't think that the issues and personalities" in Virginia and New Jersey races "are going to be congruent with very many" races in 2002 or 2004. On November 5, 2001, Michael Barone said: "[I]f you're talking about a harbinger -- are the odd-year elections a harbinger of the off-year elections and the presidential-year elections, I think the answer is, only to the extent that the issues and personalities are congruent." He later added: "I don't think that the issues and personalities in that race in Virginia or in New Jersey are going to be congruent with very many Congressional and House and Senate races in '02, or the presidential race in '04." [Special Report, 11/5/2001; via Nexis)
Laura Ingraham: "Both sides are going to spin this," but "to call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense." On November 7, 2001, Laura Ingraham said of the election results: "Both sides are going to spin this, Alan [Colmes], but to say -- to call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense." (Hannity & Colmes, 11/7/2001; via Nexis)
Similarly, some media have warned against reading too much into 2009 races in NJ, VA
WSJ: "[I]solated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators of what will happen in the wider federal and state races held in even-numbered years." In a November 3 article, The Wall Street Journal noted that "isolated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators of what will happen in the wider federal and state races held in even-numbered years." Observing that "Democrats and Republicans are jostling to glean messages" from the races, the article pointed out that "it can be difficult to draw broader conclusions from off-year contests, which often turn on local issues. ... Each of Tuesday's three high-profile races has unique factors that could confound efforts to discern national trends."
Christian Science Monitor report highlights the importance of local issues in NJ, VA. In a November 2 article, The Christian Science Monitor noted that "the big issue in New Jersey is property taxes -- the highest in the country," while in Virginia, "the big local issue is transportation" as well as "quality of the candidates."
David Frum said claim that a Republican sweep would be "a mighty victory for the fire-breathing style" of conservatism "is a deeply unrealistic assessment." In a November 2 blog post, conservative columnist and former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote: "Conservatives on radio and the web are preparing to hail a Doug Hoffman victory in NY-23, if it occurs, as a mighty victory for the fire-breathing style." Frum added: "This is a deeply unrealistic assessment. In two of the three most watched races in the country, the candidate of the president's party is running neck and neck against his main challenger -- in the midst of the worst recession since World War II. This is what you call a conservative politics that is "working"? What would it look like if conservative politics were failing?" [Emphasis in original]
Chuck Todd: "[T]hese races say much more about Deeds/McDonnell or Corzine/Christie than they do about Obama." From Todd's November 3 blog post:
If Democrats lose in New Jersey and Virginia, that certainly would be a shot in the arm for a Republican Party that hasn't fared well in the in the past two election cycles (losing control of Congress and the White House). That outcome also could give Democrats pause that the voter coalition that propelled Obama to victory last year (liberals, young voters, minorities, independents) appears dormant or is no longer intact. But is that a referendum on Obama? Not so much. For starters, how much does Creigh Deeds losing in Virginia say about Obama, when the president's approval rating in the state is at 57% among registered voters and 54% among likely voters, according to the most recent Washington Post poll? And if Jon Corzine's favorable rating in the Quinnipiac poll was at 38% back in March (near the height of Obama's honeymoon), and it's at 39% now, how does that say much about Obama and his popularity/presidency? Likewise, if Democrats are able to split the races by winning in New Jersey or even pull off the upset in Virginia, does that mean Obama's presidency is on easy street? Absolutely not. In short, these races say much more about Deeds/McDonnell or Corzine/Christie than they do about Obama.
There's a somewhat relevant example at this link:
"To be a hypocrite, one has to hold the beliefs one criticizes in others or one has to have ideological commitments to beliefs one criticizes in others."
This sounds awfully similar.
------------------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
Another way of looking at hypocrisy is whether your professed moral values coincide with your behavior in practice (ethics).
Anyway, I was pretty mad when I saw the "referendum" headlines start to appear.
Say,
If it's a big deal that Hoffman wins, isn't it also a big deal if he loses (which he did...)?
I guess the rules are different when Dems. win, eh? It never seems to mean much, because Republicans are our default party.
That's pretty significant.
I also think it's a repudiation of the teabaggers.
Hoffman lost by six thousand votes. Want to take a guess as to how many votes the quitter RINO garnered even after she quit?
You guessed it...Six Thousand.
We'll take the high profile Gov races in two Blue states as opposed to some backwater congressional race in a red county. If you missed The Ed Show last night just go to his website and watch the opening statements and comment on last nights elections. It is the most honest assessment I've seen from the dems. Truth to power baby!
So you are crowing about the importance of winning in VA, where they reverse parties regularly, but you are poo-pooing a democratic win in a district for the first time since 1871.
We have Palin to thank for it. Way to go! All you did further our cause.
Looking further down the tickets in several states, Dems won big.
That is the truth.
So you are crowing about the importance of winning in VA, where they reverse parties regularly, but you are poo-pooing a democratic win in a district for the first time since 1871.
We have Palin to thank for it. Way to go! All you did further our cause.
Looking further down the tickets in several states, Dems won big.
That is the truth.
The only reason the republican in the race quit, was because she was repudiated by her own party leaders. Hoffman garnered funding, and support from the RNC, not the actual republican (who probably would have won).
VA has never really been a blue state. It went for Obama in 08, which makes it a blue presidential state, but living here in VA, it's definitely nowhere near a blue state.
NJ, the guy who won was up almost 15 points, and won, just barely. But yes, that is actually a blue state, and well won.
Governor races really mean, well, nothing on the stage of national politics, it's a local state thing. They don't really influence federal policy much, or at all.
And remember, we, the democrats, picked up 2 more seats in the House last night. Making for an even larger majority.
The rural areas of Virginia are traditionally republican-leaning, but those rural areas aren't as densely populated as, say, northern VA, Richmond, and the Virginia Beach area - which are all democratic-leaning.
Virginia has voted for the Republican President in almost every election in the past 60 years except for the most recent one - only LBJ got their nod.
Truth to power, baby!
Oh, and quoting Ed Schultz? Most people I know, including me, can't stand the creep. Sorry, if any of you folks here like him. Personally, I find him to be offensive as heck.
Turn off the radio . . . talking points are very rarely true.
From then until now, there have been an equal number of Democratic and Republican Governors. However, how about the legislature, a better measure of the state's political leanings? It's been controlled by the Republicans for the past decade, with them having a large majority!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Becasue you missed the point wider than Adam Dunn chasing a curveball in the dirt. What's YOUR excuse?!
He says "Are you guys already making excuses? The votes haven't been counted."
But the issue is not the results. Not at all. It doesn't matter who wins or loses in the debate that MMFA is discussing.
It's that the MSM said back in 2001 that off-year elections don't mean a thing, but this year the MSM is saying that they do mean something.
And that's because they are buying into the rightwing spin about these things.
And that's because FoxNews et al get more credibility than they deserve!!! And that's why MMFA and the Obama White House and posters like me are fighting against their nonsense getting more credibility than what they deserve.
And that's why Dave tried to derail the conversation with his post. He wants us to forget what is at stake. He doesn't want us to promote this misleading meme from the MSM that this off-year election is really relevant to the national political framework.
This is news? If they were 100% solid Democrats, they would be Independents, now would they?
Message to congressional leadership: You have a charasmatic and competent (albeit leftist) leader, the greatest discontent with capitalism in modern history, and you cant even make progress on a bill to nationalize one thing that everyone perceives the need for? Get off the front page of the newspaper and start representing the center-left and -right that voted for you before they bail like they did in NJ and VA
Because the headline should have clued you in about what the topic of conversation was going to be.
Back in 2001, the media told us that off year local and statewide elections didn't signify a whole lot about national election trends coming up the following year.
This time, we're being told that they do matter, quite a bit.
I am not sure how you missed that.
But if you don't think that this discussion "has no relevance to (your) life", then why are you posting on this thread? Because this IS the topic here!
Man, I am still amazed at the uneducated people who come here and without knowing what the heck they're talking about, try to tell us what it's all about.
In order for the debate to stop being around the nonsense that they raise, there's going to have to be some time committed to bringing up that they raise nonsense.
I'm not sure why you think this is a wondrous insight to suddenly have - it's not. It makes you look shallow and uninformed.
And when all you have is strawman arguments, you'd personally be better off refraining from confirming your deficiencies here.
There is plenty of bandwidth to talk about the issues and FoxNews' complicity in derailing the important conversations our nation needs to have. For too long, too many rightwing pundits got too much attention and too much credibility with too little oversight and criticism. It wasn't good to ignore Rush Limbaugh for the first 15 years he was on the air. It wasn't good for John Kerry to ignore the Swiftboat Vets for as long as he did.
And yes, there are known facts that describe and deliniate the behavior of FoxNews. We are right about how we describe FoxNews, and MMFA provides the evidence every day. We can't stop you from arguing about it, but we can stop you from getting credibility your nonsense doesn't deserve.
The rest of your post is unintelligible.
And no thanks, we don't need any concern trolls telling us that their opinion is that we shouldn't worry about what Sean Hannity says or does.
If you don't want to participate in stories about things like that, then this site is not for you. But I already explained that to you. You came here with unclear expectations, and started off immediately throwing stones at us because your expectations weren't met and you think that this site is a waste of time. And you want to complain about how I accurately pointed out that your portrayal of this thread was totally off the mark despite the clear headline and body of the story? Really? I think that speaks volumes.
If you want to see people who are out actively "doing something", then this is not the place for you to hang out.
But we are doing something, and MMFA is doing very important stuff. Complaining about the toxic nonsense that FoxNews, et al, pushes out, and highlighting how that nonsense gets much more credibility than it should, is a very important thing to be doing. It's so important that the White House has taken up the fight.
It poisons our national debate to have to debunk death panels, for example, instead of getting to talk about how valuable it would be to patients to have Mediare pay for end-of-life counselling! We want a fair debate among the different political philosophies out there. Your side doesn't. We're not going to ignore that behavior any more! Too bad, so sad.
For the past one week, the entire media, not just Fox News, has been bloviating on how a Republican winning NY 23 (which they have done for a century), and VA gov, where for a long time, the Gov. was not the President's party was somehow a test, referendum on President Obama and his policies.
The only significant race was NJ. I am personally not sure if that is any referendum on the President either.
I see it as the news media coalescing towards a story, be it fictitious, they can narrate and make their salaries.
And a few minutes ago, Fox News chyron said Republicans sweep Virginia.
Go figure.
Where is responsible reporting?
MMFA is spot-on that the media does a lousy job of actually researching and presenting balanced reporting when they are really just trying to push their theme.
But this is a really, really bad night for Democrats AND this is very typical after their party wins the WH in the previous election.
On top of that, your failure to differentiate between the old South before 1970 and since then is noteworthy.
Virginia's legislature has been overwhelmingly Republican for a decade.
VA is a traditional GOP state that the Dems captured in the past 2 election cycles and just gave back.
You need to read your history a bit . . . This election followed a 30+ year pattern wherein if a Republican is elected President, the next year, a Democrat is elected governor of Virginia and vice versa. What you are posting here is spin and has no basis in fact.
You can continue to believe it is insignificant. But if you care at all about the 2010 elections, you may want to give this one another thought.
As for the race in Virginia, Deeds was not considered to be a good Democratic candidate in the first place and in the second place the Virginia voters have established a pattern of voting.
The significant elections last night ended up with the Democrats winning them all and picking up two new seats in the House.
The election of two Republican governors does not affect anyone except the people in their states. The election of two new Democratic representatives means that the House majority is even more solidly Democratic.
Even the voters in their exit polls said that this had nothing to do with Obama. His popularity ratings were rather high.
There are lots of Democrats in New Jersey, and they typically elect Democratic legislators and often elect Republican governors. They didn't just recently get a Democratic majority among voters in the state. New York state is overwhelmingly Democratic, but they often have had Republican Governors. Texas has had Democratic governors, and the last one was dethroned by dirty political tricks from Karl Rove!
And the loss in Virginia doesn't mean that all the gains have been negated.
The Democrats picked up two new seats in the House and won every other national election that was held yesterday.
And since the president is elected via electoral college, Obama & Dems must maintain high approvals in places like VA, no matter what state you live in.
Dems won 5 congressional races,
CA-32
NY-20
NY-23
IL-5
CA-10
IIRC
These winners will vote in Congress. McDonnell and Christie, NO.
One election when the Governor and a couple of down ballot Republicans were elected doesn't mean that all is lost.
That's black and white thinking.
Texas A&M has a better football team this year than last year, but it's still struggling. They won a few games early in the year, then lost a big one a few weeks ago. Given your calculus, that means that they had lost all their momentum and were back to the terrible team they had been. Well, they came back and won the past two games, and they might even get a bowl bid!
One loss in an off-year election in Virginia doesn't mean that all the gains have been negated.
Nope, because VA was never a Dem state. The really big news was NY-23, where Republicans actually crossed over to vote AGAINST a right-winger.
But of course, crickets from the MSM on this. Oh, but if Hoffman had won... yikes-- there would have been calls for Obama to resign ASAP.
Now would you like to explain the reasons behind the Leftward lurch in the California special election? I suppose that doesn't mean anything, right?
Here's a description of the district from the AP....
Yeah, quite a landslide and yet he won by what, a whole 10 percentage points in a district that includes Berkeley!
C'mon stdcasino, an 18 percent advantage in a gerrymandered district and he still gets 42% of the vote? My guess is that that is an improvement from previous elections there.
You seem to be one of those "team" players, pc. You don't care what happens to the country as long as your "team" wins. Me, personally, I'd just as soon that BOTH of the major political clubs faded away . . . the only team I'm on is my country's.
As far being a team player, I am fighting for our country and opposing the lefty leanings of this administration and what stands for the democrat party these days. I don't want to live in Venezulamerica, do you?
Speaking truth to/about progressives
Funny, Steele seems to be not only whistling past the graveyard, but he's doing a touchdown dance on it.
P.S. -- Turning a red seat blue for the first time in 150 years is not a defeat for Obama.
Never heard of him...
I'm willing to bet a lot of money that he doesn't.
Let's see if the WSJ says something like this - "[I]solated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators of what will happen in the wider federal and state races held in even-numbered years." In a November 3 article, The Wall Street Journal noted that "isolated, off-year contests aren't always reliable indicators of what will happen in the wider federal and state races held in even-numbered years." Observing that "Democrats and Republicans are jostling to glean messages" from the races, the article pointed out that "it can be difficult to draw broader conclusions from off-year contests, which often turn on local issues. ... Each of Tuesday's three high-profile races has unique factors that could confound efforts to discern national trends."
I'm willing to bet a lot of money that they don't.
Most of the heavy hitters in gop politics became involved in that congressional race in upstate New York.. Yet now, all the "experts" suddenly seem to think that it didn't matter as much as the two gubernatorial races. If it didn't matter, why did Gingrich, Armey, Palin, Thompson and Lord knows who else spend their political capital up there? If the 2010 congressional races are important, why isn't the 2009 race important? If this district has been mostly republican since the Civil War, that seems like a back story as important as the NJ and VA races.
And suddenly NY-23 drops off the map and you hear nada about it.
It's really no big deal anyway. Come 2010 the Left will be in big trouble. Expect to lose double digits in the House and a few Senators as well. Normal Americans have seen the smoke and mirrors of the Obama administration.
Oh, and BTW, all the polls say the majority of New Jersey and Virginia weren't voting as a rebuke to Obama. But don't let facts get in the way.
And whatever you do, don't respond to the heart of the article above -- which is pointing out the hypocrisy of the right in 2001 vs. 2009.
Is the Republican Party that corrupt or inept that the leaders of the party aren't members in good standing of the party?
And she didn't "conveniently quit". She was brutally forced out by interference from outsiders.
And any former candidate who actually supported her district should have chosen to support the best candidate remaining. That was undeniably not Hoffman. He was ill-informed about the district, and had pledged to not try to get funds for Fort Drum, the biggest thing in that whole district!!! He would have been horrible for that district!
You do understand, don't you, that the "little bitsy NY23 congressional race" affects the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just the state of NY, right? You see, the governor of NJ and the governor of VA have NO bearing on my life whatsoever; however that "little bitsy NY23" representative does. So, the "little bitsy NY23" and the "little bitsy California" representative, both Democrats and therefore an increase in the House majority, are MUCH MUCH more important to the lives of Americans than those two governors.
Why don't you give up the pretense? You aren't a "conservative," you're just someone who thinks that he has to pull for his "team." Why don't you try pulling for the real team? Our country.
CA-32
NY-20
NY-23
IL-5
CA-10
IIRC
These winners will vote in Congress. McDonnell and Christie, NO.