The meaning of the 2009 elections
 

The single best analysis of yesterday's results comes from Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy. That's a website I read a lot, a group blog by a bunch of law professors that was founded by Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school (he is one of the country's leading First Amendment scholars). Anyway, here is what Prof. Kerr says, which strikes me as totally obvious:

I am comforted by and/or worried about those conclusions. Thanks.

It's not so much the partisans who like to spin these stories, but the media who always needs a sort of grand narrative. You need something is unprecedented and completely shocking if you want to keep the viewers tuned in.

I believe that off year elections generally come down to the candidates and local issues and not national parties. Any discussion of narrative should include a discussion of the individual candidates. Being that I don't live anywhere near any of the 3 races I don't know much about these candidates. But I have heard Deeds was not a very good Candidate and Corzine had all kinds of image issues (Goldman Sachs).

I also found NY-23 very interesting as the Republican candidate endorsed the Democratic candidate over the tea-party candidate.

FWIW, I subsequently saw photos of the three candidates in NY-23. The Democrat, Owens, is ex-military and looks like a regular guy, healthy and friendly. Hoffman, the Conservative, looks like the geeky accountant he is, only more so, to the point that he looks almost like a plucked chicken. And Scozzafava (the Republican who dropped out and endorsed Owens) looks like she could have been a guest on Jerry Springer if only she was missing more teeth.

It looked to me like the most attractive candidate on appearances was the Dem. I also think - this is me looking north from NYC to a part of the state that I sort of know but not really - that the social conservatism doesn't sit well with people in the North Country. A fiscal conservative without heavy fundie baggage (a GHW Bush type, similar to McHugh, who represented that district for a long time) probably would have won. The one who was closest to that model, oddly enough, was Owens.

~60% of Virginia voters said that Obama and/or his administration was not a factor in how they voted in the governor's race.

The meaning of the 2009 elections? Easy! Some crooked people were running for an elected position. Someone sold their pack of lies more convincingly than the other guys. A few people turned off NCIS long enough to go fill in a little oval with a #2 pencil, and...viola...another self serving sack of doodoo is employed for a predetermined period of time.

An that, boys and girls, is the sum total of the meaning of the 2009 elections.

Yeah, they voted Republican because the Democrat smelled like a cheesed-up blowup doll.

Don't be bitter. You have to believe Change is possible. You just have to Believe.

Do you believe in fairies? Say quick that you believe. If you believe, clap your hands!
James M. Barrie
Peter Pan 1911

There's basically no meaning whatsoever, even with the NY congress seat. The 2009 elections were a weak-handed attempt by pundits to drum up ratings. It's not some magical sign of what's going to happen in 2010 or on the first year of the Obama administration. It's a few tiny races.

I'm with ya, brother. The only magic in my life hides behind the gauzey material of a G-string.

I wouldn't call two governor races tiny. What it does represent is the first opportunity for voters to put their vote where their mouth was, so to speak. In that regard, it represents....something. I just don't think one can take it to the extreme that the pundits would like to take it. It certainly doesn't mean anything in terms of a change in the approach the federal government is going to take over the next 12 months. That will be identical - perhaps even more urgent.

If people are expressing anything about the federal government via their vote in state or local elections.......well, they're doing it wrong

One could look at it as "If my federal taxes are about to rise 20%, then I want a governor who is likely to lower my state taxes to counter it." Are they still "doing it wrong"?

The president carried the day in Maine, where 53% voted to void a law permitting same-sex marriage. This was a great affirmation of public support for one of the President's stated beliefs. It's odd that the "news" media isn't reporting it as an Obama victory.

Wouldn't waiting until 2010 be the most practical thing when approaching where Barry Obama is at? I mean I know everybody is all about this cult of personality, but why not wait until the entire house is up for grabs to make a hub-bub about the Messiah and his policies.

You have the subtlety of dialogue in a Star Wars movie.

I would say those who hope for change in 2010 need the victories of yesterday to encourage them to keep up the fight. It's a long two years if one isn't allowed to draw on small victories.

You have some inside info you'd like to share with the class?

Arithmetic.

Hilariously hyperbolic arithmetic

That's almost Shakespearean in it's awesomeness as an insult.

Really, I think there's more lack-of proof than proof in any of these outcomes. To those that believe the Republican party is on it's last legs, the races show that they aren't right yet. To those who think extreme-right is the way to go, the races show that they aren't right yet. To those who think that Americans are tired of the president already, the races show that they aren't right yet.

There's information to be found and studied, just nothing worth drawing national conclusions from. Basically, New Jersey and Virginia like the Republican candidates more than the Democrats for governor, the 23rd District in New York thought the "Conservative" candidate was too extreme, and Maine as a whole doesn't want to see homosexuals receive the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

isnt the outcome a rorschach test anyways. Obama supporters will insecurely cling to the threatening notion that right wing IS extreme, and it was defeated.
Conservatives will cling that this is the beginning of the end for Obama.


Either way, 20% of you will be out of a job in 2 years. Now THAT'S change!

what's the obsession with 20%?

Yeah, you'd think the obsession would be over a figure closer to the tune of 3.5%.*

______________________

Do these elections serve as a reflection of wider political implications, or is this just speculation? You'll have to help me out. I'm not up to speed on the impact of these elections in American politics. Voter ignorance/enlightenment aside, what does it mean to the players?





* U.S. GDP increase in the third quarter over the second quarter. (Hint: it's the first posted quarterly gain since Q2 2008. Read: there wasn't a continued recession.)

I heard that 20% of the letters on Obama's birth certificate are Kenyan.

20% is the actual umemployment of CA and FL, in contrast to the 9% the administration keeps touting. 9% is the people CURRENTLY accepting US unemployment checks. Those checks end after 6 months regardless if you get a job or not. But the ostrich with the head in the ground refuses to see more than 9%.

So the running joke is that 20% is reality, unless you blindly follow the administration, then you agree that 9% is reality to make yourself feel better. At least among my unemployed friends.

Im not sure where you got those numbers, but that is not how unemployment is calculated at all. The number of people getting unemployment checks plays no role in determining the unemployment rate.

Oh, you mean the unemployment rate that includes those not looking for work and certain part-time employees? (Not to mention prisoners.)

I'm guessing the administration knows about this data. It's produced by the Department of Labor.

Basic Math: 20% is ONE in FIVE.

Say what?

to expand on Baraka Guru

The unemployment rate is calculated through a survey that asks people whether they worked for money, and, if not, whether they looked for a job. You have to have actively looked for a job the past month to be counted as economically active, and therefore be counted as employed or unemployed.

That is the basic unemployment rate.

On top of that, the department of labor also looks for what is called "hidden unemployment." I.e., people who are not counted as economically active because they gave up on searching for a job (discouraged workers) or who have a job but are still looking for one (underemployed).

So the administration is not trying to hide anything, and people who quote the 9% figure are actually quoting the figure that has always been quoted.

Really? Because cap and trade is going to cost me $1800/year by Obama's estimate. So there's a 10% increase already. That doesn't count any other things the federal government has done...such as the $1,400,000,000,000.00 they overspent just last year that we are responsible for paying back. Hilariously hyperbolic, huh?

You really think Obama is going to raise your income taxes 20%? REALLY?

I don't think Obama is going to do it. Unlike the rest of you, I don't see this as a Retardican/Dumbocrat battle royale. These problems and their consequences started long before Obama or Bush. Yes, I foresee my federal taxes being raised that much over the next 10 years.

The CBO estimated the cost of cap and trade at 175, so the 1800 is false.

As far as making up for the deficit, the only reason it was so large was because the total amount of taxes collected this year has been about 25% less than the average of the past few years...

I am SO not looking up the report that the White House issued 6 weeks ago and said it was $1800. Feel free to find it yourself, though.

Right. It wasn't the $787B stimulus that wasn't in the budget? It wasn't the $700B bailout that wasn't in the budget? It wasn't all the other untold billions that were added and I can no longer remember? Yes, I know it wasn't all spent this year, but don't for a second accredit it solely to a lack of tax revenue.

Here's a novel idea: don't spend money you don't have.

Having to argue with people's feelings and what they think are their recollections can be tiring.

Here's the info you are looking for:

Cap And Trade Will Cost Households Just $175 Annually



And here's the info on taxes:

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

One year increases in spending are nothing compared to tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts in the long run.

What, you thought the American way of life was sustainable?

I am not debating the CBO number. I am telling you the White House said it was MUCH higher, and if the White House says it, they will make sure it comes to pass (as far as taking our money.)

---------- Post added at 10:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 AM ----------

My "American Way of Life" is sustainable. I go to work, pay my taxes, and only spend the money I have in my pocket. When I want something, I save up and buy it. I prioritize my needs above my wants and I do not put my financial well-being in jeopardy because I "want" an iPhone or a nicer car. My government does the exact opposite knowing that, ultimately, I will foot the bill.

I'm talking about the bigger picture. Those things you buy with the money in your pocket...the factors that go into their production have far-reaching implications. It's not about balancing personal budgets; it's about how Americans have had it good in terms of globalization. This whole cap & trade is just one of many factors. The American way of life will only get more expensive and out of reach as time goes on.