Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Extremist Tea Party Candidate Cuccinelli Loses to Democrat McAuliffe
It's a great day for the state of Virginia and for the Democrats.
Virginia voters said NO! to extremist TeaPublicans Ken Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson
McAuliffe's defeat of Republican Ken Cuccinelli ends Virginia's nine-cycle streak of electing a governor from the opposing political party of the sitting president dating back to 1977.
Cuccinelli tried to rally his supporters in the waning days of the campaign by pronouncing they would "send a message to Washington" as he pounced on the Affordable Care Act's implementation problems and controversial Obama administration statements on the ability of Americans to keep their health care plans.
Despite a bit of a surge in Cuccinelli's favor, Virginians opted to vote Democratic on Tuesday, and with it ended the state's streak as the 'nation's naysayer' that began 36 years ago.
The last time Virginia elected a governor from the same party of the sitting president was 40 years ago in 1973 when GOPer Mills Goodwin edged out independent Henry Howell by 1.4 points with Richard Nixon in the White House.
In other good news, New York has a new Democratic Mayor, Bill DeBlasio
"Bill de Blasio was elected New York City's first Democratic mayor in two decades Tuesday, running on an unabashedly liberal, tax-the-rich platform that contrasted sharply with billionaire Michael Bloomberg's record during 12 years in office. With 21 percent of precincts reporting, De Blasio, the city's public advocate, had 72 percent of the vote compared with 26 percent for Republican Joe Lhota, former chief of the metropolitan area's transit agency. De Blasio, 52, will take office on Jan. 1 as the 109th mayor of the nation's largest city."
Democratic State Representative Martin Walsh is Boston's new mayor.
State Rep. Martin Walsh will be the next mayor of Boston. In a tight race, he defeated City Councilor John Connolly. Walsh replaces Thomas Menino, who’s led the city since 1993.
INFIDEL753 has a great analysis on the election HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Not exactly celebratory ground in Virginia. He won with what, 47.6 percent of the vote. Under 50 percent means a majority of the state voted against McAuliffe.
Who's the new governor of Virginia?
For the first time in 40 years, Virginia elected a governor of the same party as a sitting president.
That's very significant.
Voter turn-out is generally low in non-presidential elections.
In the 2010 elections when the Republicans took the House, IIFC, less than 30% of the electorate turned out to vote. Does that make the winners of those election less legitimate?
I'm not sure I understand why you need to throw a wet blanket on Mr. McAuliffe's victory.
It's sounds partisan to me.
.
Am happy that Cuccinelli did not win! Unhappy McAuliffe won. Maybe this will stop the RepublicanT TeaBaggists. Who knows?
Virginia deserves better. Maybe Virginia will get lucky and McAufiffe will have to resign from office soon.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
"Christie’s win, contrasted with Cuccinelli’s loss, could hardly provide a starker contrast for the GOP and a clearer message about how it wins in the future. Exit polls showed Christie winning among women and running even with his Democratic opponent among Latinos. If Republicans could emulate that in other states, they would win just about all of them. Christie is a pragmatic conservative politician who won a massive victory in a blue state; Cuccinelli was a very conservative tea party-esque candidate who lost to an unheralded opponent in one of the nation’s premier swing states. Tea partiers often argue that Republicans can only win presidential races with a true conservative on the ballot. The problem for the broader GOP is the definition of a true conservative has become increasingly stringent. As Tuesday’s elections demonstrate, the GOP — at least in places like Virginia and New Jersey — would be much better served nominating a Chris Christie conservative than a Ken Cuccinelli or Ted Cruz conservative. Of course, this message has often fallen upon the GOP base’s deaf ears (think Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Christine O’Donnell, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin) and it likely will again."
"Alabama Election 2013: Bradley Byrne Defeats Dean Young In Congressional Runoff"
--------------
Young was a Bagger darling, the next Louie Gohmert.
They can't even win in Alabama.
Earl Jackson also lost for Lt. Governor in Virginia. Wasn't a good day for the fringe right.
It's interesting to read the conservatives excuses for their stunning defeat in Virginia.
They blame the Democrats and their "big government" giveaways for luring people to vote for them. They blame stupidity on the voters part, they blame the media for spreading lies against their candidates.
They blame everyone but themselves and their self-destructive extremism.
Cuccinelli was a BIG GOVERNMENT candidate. He wanted the state of Virginia to insert itself in the most personal aspects of it citizens' lives. E.W. Jackson was an anti-gay idiot who said President Obama was "forcing schools to teach homosexuality to children." And that President Obama declared war on God.
No, conservatives, Democrats didn't win by promising to give "stuff" to the people. Democrats won because the public sees how crazy and fringey the GOP has become.
As long as you cons keep denying the truth, you'll keep losing.
BTW, remember how the TeaPublicans howled at Christie for cooperating with President Obama during hurricane Sandy, and how they called him a traitor?
Now explain to us how Christie's respect for President Obama hurt him?
The modern TeaPublicans are blind to their craziness.
Here's an example of your typical bagger blaming everyone but themselves for being rejected:
"Whats to Come? We have all ready seen "Whats to com! Our Dear Leader has already shown us that Socialism isn't really about raising up the poor, it́s about tearing down the successful businessman, the Corporations, the hard-working family man who wanted to leave his children something that he worked for all his life! Not to have some Socialist inept community organizer take his hard earned money away to give to some lazy, stupid jerk who waists for handouts."
The person who wrote that idiocy has his/her head so far up his/her wazoo that he/she can't see that big businesses and corporations have done exceedingly well under this president, that the stock market has performed well under this president, that rich people have gotten richer under this president, that the deficit has shrunk under this president, and that if anything, this president has been great for capitalism.
The stupidity and willful ignorance of the baggers is something rare to behold.
They're hoping this country will see the world in their apocalyptic terms and vote for the candidates who want to drag us back into the 18th century.
Puts more meaning to money talks. The GOP did not offer much support to Cuccinelli and he was out spent 10 to one. The idiots allowing a shutdown in the state with the most federal workers sealed his defeat.
The same can be said for New Jersey where the democrats spent little on their candidate and she got trounced.
Interesting thing in Virginia is the percent the libertarian candidate received and they were mostly under 30 crowd.
Spin it how you wish Shaw. The fact is as I stated.
The partisanship is all yours.
Let's not be too quick to crow...
Cucc lot a winnable race to be sure, but it way too close to consider this a big anti tea party vote. The gap closed considerably as people heard, and experienced, how the ACA sites are not working.
Maybe if the GOP money men had not sat out this election, the result might have been different?
For me the key will be whether the Tea Party will get behind the man they consider a traitor for working with President Obama to help his people after Hurricane Sandy when he bolts Trenton for a White House run.
But here's what I am really wondering and perhaps Anon, Skud, Silver or some of the other conservatives can answer...
The GOP keeps saying it is not eh message but eh messenger as they continue to lose elections.
What if it is not the messenger and America is really telling the GOP and the extreme right that is really is the message?
Then what?
The Tea Party candidate lost a race in Alabama. I'm thinking it's the message if they can't win in that state.
A win is a win.
To try to make it seem like a loss, is, IMHO, spinning and showing partisanship.
"Christie looked like a damn fool when he slobbered all over Obama and then learned months later "Hey, he promised, but he hasn't done much!" There are still people struggling but Obama's gone to trying to put the fire out on his next scandal."
Ed Kilgore of The Washington Monthly has the best analysis of Virginia's election:
"Yes, we all play the expectations game, and Terry McAuliffe only won by two-and-a-half percent, which is less than most of the late polls anticipated. But to read this morning’s spin, you’d think he (and the Democratic Party) actually lost. The results are being widely read exactly as Ken Cuccinelli wanted them to be read: a negative “referendum on Obamacare.”
Politico’s James Hohmann, in a piece entitled “Why Terry McAuliffe barely won,” draws bright red arrows pointing to an exit poll showing that 53% of voters said they opposed Obamacare.
That’s entirely in line with about three years of polling about the Affordable Care Act, and doesn’t indicate any last minute “surge” against the law.
Aside from suggestions that voters were sending some sort of specific message by not turning out and voting exactly as polls predicted, we’re hearing that the only reason Ken Cuccinelli lost was that he didn’t have enough money. There’s even some “stab in the back” talk circulating, viz. this j’accuse! from anti-same-sex-marriage crusader Maggie Gallagher at National Review:
They said he was “unelectable.” The RNC put only $3 million into this race. Ken was outspent by a margin of something between 4:1 and 10:1, if you believe the Associated Press.
The Democrats poured everything into trying to lie to voters and portray Cuccinelli as an extremist — and they barely pulled this one out.
Would another $3 million have swung 50,000 votes? The Republicans, starting with Bill Bolling, who undercut Cuccinelli as unelectable have egg all over their faces.
This was a winnable election. How did we give this away to Terry McAuliffe? Some serious soul-searching should be taking place among the anti-tea-party faction."
Before anyone gets too far down the trail of “moral victories” and woulda-shouldas, it’s worth observing that any Democratic statewide victory in a purple state in an off-year election is a pretty remarkable accomplishment, given the turnout patterns that typically prevail in these events."
Shaw, Alabama was a bigger loss for the TP in my opinion...
So RN thinks he is not a "legitimate" Gov.
No surprise there, he feels the same way about Obama.
As for Terry McAuliffe winning I’m sorry to say it but the once great state of Virginia is doomed. He's a bleeping CROOK! And another ex Clinton sleaze bucket opportunist who will cynically exploit the people and the system, as he already has in the past. McAuliffe won because he had loads of money and he was able to flood the population with ads targeted at ignorant people. And I am sick of the Clinton’s acting like their God gift to the world.
McAuliffe won majorities among women, African Americans, moderates, college graduates, people who said they were affected by the shutdown, and both low-income and high-income voters, according to exit polling data. Cuccinelli won among white men, gun owners, people who believe abortion should be illegal and middle-income voters.
In Manassas, Daniel Teddla, 36, a nurse, said he usually votes only in presidential elections but felt compelled to cast a ballot against extremism and in favor of the new health-care law.
“Cuccinelli is beyond conservative,” said Teddla, an independent. “He is too extreme.” He said he voted not so much for McAuliffe as against Republican attitudes toward women’s health and the Affordable Care Act. “Obamacare isn’t perfect, but they are not working to make it better. They are just totally against it.”
Helen Ross, a 67-year-old landscape gardener from McLean who voted for McAuliffe, called herself “very pro-Obama health care — assuming it works. I have a Hispanic gardener who has cancer” but no health insurance, she said. “I’m just hoping Terry McAuliffe can come in and accept some of the money from the federal government. It would help Pedro so he doesn’t lose everything.”
As of late Wednesday afternoon, Cuccinelli had not called McAuliffe to congratulate him on his win.
Crappy candidate; crappy loser.
Whats to Come? We have all ready seen "Whats to com!
Really horrible grammar, apparently.
RN's comment is what I expected in my own post (thanks for the link) -- de-legitimize the victory so as to avoid learning the lessons it teaches. Since I make no apologies for being partisan, I'm quite happy to see the Republicans deliberately blind themselves to truths which could make them more effective wreckers of our country.
David,
I think it is both the message and the messenger. The established gop feels threatened by the tea party so they don't support them.
The last presidential election was the messenger. They chose a establishment republican who had to much baggage and the democrats used that against him, like taking away the free stuff.
Virginia is not a very good barometer because the republicans defeated themselves by allowing the government to shut down when most of N. Virginia are government workers.
Congratulations to Terry McAuliffe and the Democrats! A win is a win.
The conservatives/Tea Party are angry because their guy didn't win and so they blame Mr. Obama for their loss. None of it makes any sense, but do they ever make any sense? This is more of the same sour grapes and sour whining from the right. The people of Virginia in the most concentrated population centers rejected the extremes in the Tea Party. Now lets get behind Governor-elect McAuliffe and support his liberal agenda.
Sorry, skud, "FREE STUFF" didn't lose the election in Virginia for Cooch, lousy messaging, i.e., anti-women, anti-science, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-gay, and anti-macassar (I threw that last one in to confuse you.) lost the election for him. The Tea Party messages are fringe messages. The country is moving ahead and leaving the angry, loud, unhappy TPers behind.
Who's trying to make it seem like a loss? Sure it's a win Shaw. Had Jackson not been on the ballot the results may have very well been different. McAuliffe has an opportunity. We'll see how it turns out for him and the state.
You see that as partisan, so be it.
Infidel757, I did not say the win wasn't legitimate. Of course it was legitimate. My point is had it been only a two man race Cuccinelli might have won. The reason for this statement should be obvious.
I assure you I see your point and I, like many non partisans are not blind. But perceive as you will.
AHL is a fine example of a true partisan. Carry on.
RN,
Your lack of writing skills makes your reply not understandable. Your original comment did point out that he won without majority. Just as Clinton won without majority. He went on to two terms and the last president who submitted a balanced budget, that Bush ruined shortly after he took office. I'll wait til the 2014 elections to say there is a tide turning, but last night was for Democrats. Yes!
There is no shame in standing up for something--a politician or a party--that reflects one's philosophy. If that's partisan, so be it. If everyone were to slavishly try to come off as strictly non-partisan--always and on every issue, what would that person stand for? Nothing?
For example: The liberal Republicans and the liberal Democrats of Lincoln's day were rabid abolitionists who did not trust nor have any sympathy for people who did not see slavery as the evil that it was. Were they "partisan?" Of course they were. How would anything get done anywhere if people didn't feel strongly about their ideals and philosophies on political issues?
Being "non-partisan" is fine when trying to look at an issue and suss out the pros and cons, but eventually one has to come down on either one or the other side of an issue. If one regularly supports a liberal side of an issue, then that means one has a liberal view. And vice-versa for conservatives.
Even a Libertarian/Randian is partisan, since he or she holds to the Libertarian/Randian philosophy. And if that L/R person sticks with the party that most reflects his or her ideals, then is that person a partisan?
Ideally one votes for the person who most closely reflects one's political views, not just the political party, but in today's political climate where most of what you know about any issue or candidate is skewed and inflated.
The conservatives believe Mr. Obama is the Devil incarnate, a Communist, Kenyan-born, America hater.
That's nuts of course, because the far left sees him as not liberal enough.
I hope Mr. Obama ignores all that hell-fire and hate being directed at him because of the glitches in the roll-out of the A.C.A. and I hope he continues to work to get the law implemented so that we can join the other civilized nation on this planet that offer universal health care to their citizens.
It was the correct thing to do. It's just too bad that the GOP had nothing to offer but sabotage and obstruction. When the law is finally up and running, and it is successful and Americans are happy with it, I wonder how much credit the GOPers will try to assume for themselves.
That happened with Medicare and other safety net programs the liberals/Democrats got passed.
And I'm pretty sure that will happen again.
SHOULD HAVE READ:
Ideally one votes for the person who most closely reflects one's political views, not just the political party, but in today's political climate where most of what you know about any issue or candidate is skewed and inflated, THAT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.
That's what happens when you get a phone call in the middle of a comment.
@Dave Miller -- Let's not be too quick to crow...
------
I wouldn't crow, Dave but it wasn't a bad election for progressives.
On the right it was pretty clear that the Tea Party is losing the civil war in the Republican party. In Virginia, NJ, and Alabama the winners had big money backing from business groups. The Baggers are scaring the clientele and they made that point loud and clear.
But minimum wage increases passed in a number of states including New Jersey. Christie was elected but his program's future is less clear.
Colorado communities voted to ban fracking.
I believe a socialist was elected to the New York City city council.
Bottom line, whatever the future of politics in America, it isn't the Tea Party.
Please remind me to send Ted Cruz a gift basket.
"The conservatives believe Mr. Obama is the Devil incarnate, a Communist, Kenyan-born, America hater."
"That's nuts of course, because the far left sees him as not liberal enough."
That tells me he's doing something right.
Is it the message or the messenger? It is always both; how can it be otherwise!
I do not think McAuliffe is not a legitimate Gov. and I did not say that he isn't.
I have never said Obama is not the legitimate president either.
You are correct, my initial comment was not understandable. I was rushing and didn't proof read. Thank you for pointing out my bad.
Yep Shaw, I agree. Simply put I view non partisan as being able to view issues aside from party loyalty and politics, make a decision based on merits as the individual sees it and go with it.
Which is why I have no party affiliation and am registered accordingly. O do not vote primaries.
I have tired of tit for tat. When all is said and done one only has to answer to their own conscience.
Good evening Shaw.
If the meaning behind the results of the Virginia race remain controversial and unclear, then the GOP will bluster over why they lost. Good! They can delude and fight amongst themselves even longer.
Post a Comment