Corzine in big trouble!

Originally posted by Soothfast
Meanwhile a Democrat has won in a New York House district the Republicans have held since the Civil War days, which is riotously amusing to me. And it all happened thanks to Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck!

Also the Republicans had a shot at winning a House seat in California, and not only did they fail, the seat is being taken by a more progressive Democra ...[text shortened]... Dems thanks to attacks on their right flank by theocratic nutters backing third-party wackos.

I love the WH/ liberal spin that NY-23, which was one of the oddest elections in recent history, with the Republican candidate dropping out and endorsing the Democrat and in any case, is one House District; and the retention of one California district, have national implications; but the governorships of two fairly big states are really just local.

That truly makes me laugh.

Rather than re-write the idea myself, I'll let Jay Cost do the talking for me.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/

The Most Absurd Post-Election Spin

There are a lot of absurd post-election memes floating around out there. For instance, I've seen people suggest that NY-23 has national implications, but the GOP takeover of the NJ governor's race and its running of the tables in VA (winning all three statewide races and extending its majority in the House of Delegates) were purely local. That one makes me chuckle. If there was an Olympic medal to be had for pretzel logic, it would probably win the silver.

But not the gold. The gold must go to the ridiculous notion that the GOP is in so much trouble because it is divided, as evidenced by the results in NY-23. Never mind the fact that the party came together in New Jersey and Virginia. No: the divisions in a district that saw just 135,000 votes cast is a sign that the GOP is divided.

I think this is ultimately a faulty argument, but I can see how one would make it (kind of). The reason it gets the gold is not by an error of commission, but of omission. For, the GOP's divisions - whatever they may be - are utterly, totally dwarfed by the continuing divisions in the Democratic Party. Not only in scale, but in significance. Republicans might be divided over the symbolic role of Sarah Palin in the party, but Democrats are divided over what to do about health care.

Consider: three Democratic House committee chairs have committed to vote against Pelosi's bill on Saturday: Bart Gordon of Tennessee (Science), Colin Peterson of Minnesota (Agriculture), and Ike Skelton of Missouri (Armed Services).

Consider: up to 30 House Blue Dogs are considering voting no.

Consider: they're still going to lose at least a few pro-life Democrats on the vote, even if they adopt the compromise language proposed by Brad Ellsworth.

Consider: the House has decided to punt on the issue of immigration reform in the bill, knowing full well it will explode the fragile coalition they are putting together. Here's Politico:

And gone, for the moment, is an immigration fight that threatened to derail the entire bill when Hispanic lawmakers protested a move to include Senate verification language that would bar illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance through the exchanges.

That fight, like the one over biofuels, will be waged on another day, in a showdown with the Senate over just about everything else in the bill. For now, it seems Speaker Nancy Pelosi has finally exhausted enough of her weary troops into the "yes" position.

And lest you think that the House Hispanic Caucus is kidding around, consider the following from The Hill:

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus was also weighing its options on what to do about a push by some vulnerable centrist members to block illegal immigrants from being able to buy insurance on the bill's "exchanges," even with no subsidy.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said he "would have a hard time voting for" a bill or procedural measure that did that.

"I'm tired of feeding hatred and bigotry," Gutierrez said.

He's talking about "feeding hatred and bigotry" on the Democratic side of the aisle. Remember, no Republicans are involved in the House process!

This does not even get into the tensions between the House and Senate. As significant as the tensions within the House are, I still expect Pelosi to get to 218 on her bill. The real fireworks will come if/when they get around to merging the bills (assuming that Reid can produce something that get can to 60 votes in his own chamber...substantially more difficult than Pelosi's task). After all, it was John Conyers, the Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who once said that the Democrats were "in trouble" because of Max Baucus, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Senate Finance's product, incidentally, is well liked by the Blue Dogs, who want the final product to be more like it. But then again Raul Grijalva's reaction to it was that it did not have "legitimacy." He's the co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus.

But divisions are a Republican problem this week! Yep.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Also, wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that Corzine lost because he was being wracked by insurmountable scandals and corruption charges? And isn't Virginia a purple state that can be expected to bounce back and forth between Dems and "Other" like a ping-pong ball?

I don't think I see much of a reflection on Obama in any of these election results -- whether they be Dem wins or losses.

And isn't Virginia a purple state that can be expected to bounce back and forth between Dems and "Other" like a ping-pong ball?

Okay; so then you'll tell us that Obama's win in VA last year also didn't have much meaning. Right?

Originally posted by sh76
I love the WH/ liberal spin that NY-23, which was one of the oddest elections in recent history, with the Republican candidate dropping out and endorsing the Democrat and in any case, is one House District; and the retention of one California district, have national implications; but the governorships of two fairly big states are really just local.

That trul aucus.

But divisions are a Republican problem this week! Yep.[/i]

the issue isn't whether a party is "divided", but what the division is about.

the Democrats' divisions involve the effort to put together a particulary complex piece of legislation that has a number of delicate sub-issues (maximizing access to healthcare, minimizing the impact on the budget, dealing with immigrants, maintaining free market choices, avoiding incr taxes or premiums for middle class people, etc). All of these are topics on which adults can be expected to have legitimate disagreements. It would actually be very worrisome if the Democrats didn't have lots of divisions - it's a sign that a lot of these lawmakers are asking hard questions and not just marching in lockstep with the party leadership or the president.

On the other hand, the Republicans' divisions involve largely the question of whether or not to kiss the pinky rings of Limbaugh & Beck. Whether to be mature adults, or to join in with the paranoid fringe that claims Obama etal are plotting a Communist and-or Fascist coup. It's worrisome that the adults in the party have frequently been unable to keep the fringies on the fringes where they belong. Election day showed that when the Republicans backed the adults (or at least people who've move past grade school), they're still very capable of winning elections, even in blue states. But when they back the whackos (as in NY23), they're going to lose even in seemingly safe GOP districts. The future of the party depends on which side the Republicans back in upcoming elections (such as the one involving Crist in Florida).