It begins...

SeleucusNicator

Diadoch
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
6,822
Location
America
Republicans win Kentucky, Mississippi Governorships.

This makes for three gubernatorial election victories for the GOP this year, with California being the first. Municipal elections aside, this makes the Republicans virtually undefeated in high-profile elections this year.

Some will point out the 2001 elections. Right after 9/11, the Democrats won two governorships from the Republicans. However, those were largely focused on local issues. You could argue that the big Democratic victory in 2002, the near-sweep of Illinois, was based on local issues. Oddly enough, so are all of the Senate seats that the Democrats may win in 2004. So was California, but today's elections were not. National issues were strongly touched upon and the President made visits to campaign for the Republican candidates.

I think we are seeing a similar pattern to 2002, with the Presidential campaigning and all. If Bush has coattails this on an off-off year, what kind of ultramagnetic power will he have in 2004 when he is running the best funded re-election campaign in United States history?

After 1932 the Republicans still had the Supreme Court. After 1972 the Democrats still had both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. After 1984 the Democrats still had the House, a majority of governorships, and a lot of state legislators.

For the 2004 election, the Democratic Party has absolutely nothing to defend except a large and loud minority in the Senate and the Supreme Court, and we are seeing signs that it will be a very, very, very Republican-friendly year.

Off the top of my head, I can only find two precedents for this kind of political obliteration. One would be the Republicans after 1932 and 1936. They recaptured Congress 14 years later, and if you cut off their control of the Supreme Court as ending in about 1936, they were completely out of power about 10 years. What was the result? A coalition that completely reshaped American social policy and, when mature a few years later, elected steady Democratic majorities in the Congress for decades.

The other, more distant, more liberal, yet still oddly familiar comparison I can make?

The Whigs in the late 1840's and 1850's. Losing local elections except where they seized on local issues or local Democratic divisons, shut out of Congress by Democratic gerymandering, harmed by Democratic rewrites of state constitutions, they floundered in national elections and struggled to win votes in the South.

With nothing to defend in 1852, they went into the presidential election after a primary that featured old moderates from the party's past, a wacky liberal guy that liked to point out how things were done in his home state, and an experienced general with a suspect political past and a lack of tact.

The result? The Whigs were gone as a national party within four years.
 
I doubt that the Democratic party will share the same fate. People have come to expect a two-party system.
 
Originally posted by CivCube
I doubt that the Democratic party will share the same fate. People have come to expect a two-party system.

The same held true for back then. The Whigs were displaced by the Republicans and the two-party system was maintained.

However, party death and creation is nowhere near as easy these days, with voting districts printing their own ballots instead of the parties doing it and all. I did not mean to imply that the Democratic party could be literally obliterated by this; (that would surpass the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest political surprise of our time), but just that the consequences would not be overly positive.
 
This is in Kentucky and Mississipi. Therefore I have only two comments:

1. Who cares?

2. The Democrats lost the Confederate vote to the Republicans a long time ago.

There is also an investigation going on about intimidation of minority [hell, why be PC? black] voters - reports of some observers going into the booth with voters and some even videotaping them voting!

This does not surprise me one ****ing bit. Back in 2000, I was walking around with some friends in the neighborhood trying to get out the vote, and when we got to East Palo Alto [which is mostly a poor Black/Latino community] there were handmade signs on many of the lampposts reading:

REMEMBER TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 6

B*****ds :mad:
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

REMEMBER TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 6

B*****ds :mad:

If that was in fact the wong day then I think that that was good strategy, along with being damn funny. If people don't care enough/know enough about our electoral system to even know when election day is then maybe they shouldn't vote (that goes for blacks, whites, latinos, Dems, Repubs, etc).
 
Oh sure, why don't we just reintroduce literacy tests? Ooh! How about having a certain amount of property to vote? That would certainly solve the problem!

:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Oh sure, why don't we just reintroduce literacy tests?

I think that that is a good idea, provided that the tests are fair. I also think that people should have to pass a basic history and government test before their first vote. People in the US tend to be convinced that voting in and of itself is a good, positive thing. I disagree. I see two situations in which voting is wrong: ignorance and apathy.

Ignorance: if the voter is completely ignorant of the issues, the candidates stances, what the office that the candidates are running for actually does/means,or other such relevant information.

Apathy: If the voter is simply voting to vote, with little or no preference between candidates.

I personally don't vote in national elections due to my second requirement. I am not comfortable enough with either major party or their candidates to actually vote for them.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
REMEMBER TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 6
[/B]

I live in what may rank the most extremely left-wing neighbourhood in North America. Last election we had here, some really cool guys drove around switching all the "<-- VOTING PLACE" signs to point the wrong way. Watched some do it. It's funny how clumsily and jerkily people move when they're rushing at an evil task.

But Diebold systems never stutter, never blush.
 
Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
Republicans win Kentucky, Mississippi Governorships.

This makes for three gubernatorial election victories for the GOP this year, with California being the first. Municipal elections aside, this makes the Republicans virtually undefeated in high-profile elections this year.


Next year will tell but unless the Democrats wake up, the writing is on the wall. Three people in my houslehold voted democratic in Kentucky yet still a relilgious republican won. The bottom line is the party's stand on international affairs which basically sucks.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
This is in Kentucky and Mississipi. Therefore I have only two comments:

1. Who cares?

2. The Democrats lost the Confederate vote to the Republicans a long time ago.

As I'm sure every pundit will repeat incessently in the next year, no Democrat has won the Presidency this century without winning at least one southern state, and no winning Democratic ticket without a southerner has won since the 20th century began.
 
Yeah, this has got to be sobering news for the Democrats. While I wouldn't say this marks a death blow, it certainly isn't a good sign.

But perhaps America has been a two-party system for too long. Maybe it's time to give a one-party (or at least, one relevant party) system a try. It seems to work for Chicago.
 
Originally posted by Little Raven
Yeah, this has got to be sobering news for the Democrats. While I wouldn't say this marks a death blow, it certainly isn't a good sign.

Why is this such a blow? Its not as if the Republicans won the governorship of Massachussets. These states are fairly right wing. Thus, its no surprise that they voted Republican.
 
Here in Illinois, the Dems swept both houses of the legislature and took the Governorship, something which hasn't been held by the Dems in well over 25 years, I believe. It was a great victory. But of course, you already know this ;) .
 
Republicans win seats in 2002. Republicans win big governor spots in 2003. Republicans favorites to win big in Senate and President in 2004.

Is this the start of the Republian decade?
 
Originally posted by Roundman


Why is this such a blow? Its not as if the Republicans won the governorship of Massachussets.

You're right, they did that in 2002. As well as Maryland, recently California, previously New York...........29 out of 50 and growing. :D :goodjob: :D

@cgannon64
Let us hope so!:cool:
 
Originally posted by Norlamand


You're right, they did that in 2002. As well as Maryland, recently California, previously New York...........29 out of 50 and growing. :D :goodjob: :D

The Republicans won in Mass? I didn't realize that. Very surprising.
 
Republican candidates: available wherever electronic voting machines are sold.

I'd like to see the statistical correlation there. Especially when so many of these victories are upsets, and none of these machines have paper trails.
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Republican candidates: available wherever electronic voting machines are sold.

I'd like to see the statistical correlation there. Especially when so many of these victories are upsets, and none of these machines have paper trails.


I thank Al Gore for contesting all those wonderful chads!:D
After the 2000 election the left whined constantly about the outdated voting system, now they whine about the modern electronic one. As long as they keep losing they'll keep whining. :cry: :cry: :cry:
The minute they win an tightly contested election those machines will be them most reliable that have ever been seen........:lol:
 
Top Bottom