What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
193 Comments
- Jordan117, on 11/04/2009, -18/+98This article has a serious framing problem. I mean, it's easy to make it sound like you're resurgent if you ignore all of the races you lost.
There were four major races that were decided last night:
Virginia Governor = Republican blowout
New Jersey Governor = narrow Republican victory
NY-23 Congressional = Democratic upset*
CA-10 Congressional = Democratic victory*
* (note how the article fails to mention these two Democratic wins)
That looks like a pretty divided result to me. And while the Virginia race can be explained as a terrible campaigner (Deeds) failing to win the purplest state in the country, and the New Jersey race as a ridiculously unpopular incumbent (Corzine) meeting his justified end, the NY-23 race is a much more surprising and uncomfortable truth for the GOP. They failed there for the first time since the freakin' Civil War, and they failed because they rejected a moderate Republican for a Glenn Beck acolyte. Because of their infighting and refusal to accept moderation, they lost to the Democrats a district with a 46,000-strong Republican registration advantage. That should be seriously troubling to anyone hoping for a new Republican revolution. - FredFredrickson, on 11/04/2009, -26/+96It's really a great sign of how insignificant the Republican party has become when they celebrate nationally over two governorships won.
Did you guys miss the story about how conservatives in upstate New York ousted their middle-of-the-road candidate in favor of a far-right zealot, who then went on to lose the vote?
The Republican party wants the nation needs to move backward, and less and less people agree with them every day. - Maddoktor2, on 11/05/2009, -12/+56Sorry, GOP - Governors don't get to vote on health care and employee rights.
Congressmen do.
And guess what? That's right, there's 2 more Democrat Congressmen who have just been added to the existing Democrat majority in the House.
Oh, and in case you still don't get it:
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/hollo ...
Read. Learn. - emailowndme, on 11/05/2009, -9/+40The message I seemed to get was that, the voter's don't want Republicans involved in national politics. Which I'm actually quite fine with. 2010 is looking a hell of a lot brighter. I'm carrying torches.
- detcade, on 11/05/2009, -12/+43More WSJ blather. Making a mountain out of an anthill to try to gain readership from the slowly dwindling GOP herd. They're just widening the gap between the sensible, intellectual people who look at the facts, and the backwoods crazies and staunch old republifarts who think they're starting a "revolution" just because they can overstate protest numbers and compare everyone to Hitler.
- BasalCellBossk, on 11/05/2009, -12/+40Ha ha ha ha Murdoch's echo chamber in full use, I see.
Dream on, !right wing shills. - seltaeb4, on 11/05/2009, -6/+27The Republicans spent $900,000 on Scozzafova's run before the Talibangelicals swooped down of their own accord in the last week and firebombed her.
As a result, they cost themselves a sure win, gave a seat to the Democrats, and caused their own Party to waste nearly $1,000,000 in campaign funds at a time when donations to their Party are at an all-time low.
If this is a Republican "victory," I wish them continued and expanded success. - jhbarr, on 11/04/2009, -5/+24@mnocket -- I see it as neither victory or loss. I see it as people over-analyzing, over-stating and reading too much into off year elections with small turnouts.
- Insightful, on 11/04/2009, -8/+25Agreed Joran117. They conveniently ignored results that are unfavorable to them as if ignoring it will make the reality of losing two federal elections go away
As for whether GOP gets some love? Is this an indication that Steele's “off the hook” public relations offensive applied to urban-surburban hip-hop settings is working? - Jordan117, on 11/04/2009, -7/+24"On the other hand, "collective state" governments (Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism) have advanced only human tragedy, misery and death (over 100 MILLION in just the last century). Wise up."
Exactly! Which is why the liberal social democracies of Scandinavia have some of the lowest standards of living on Earth and rank last in virtually every measure of health, happiness, economic well-being, and crime. - ThantiK, on 11/05/2009, -6/+21This is one SERIOUSLY played up headline. Anyone with a brain knows the facts...
- novenator, on 11/05/2009, -7/+22Oh, this sounds fun. Can I play?
"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them."
-Mark Twain
or how about this one?
“Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals”
-Mark Twain - Jordan117, on 11/05/2009, -2/+17She dropped out because the national GOP abandoned her and actively supported Hoffman. Palin, Hannity, Huckabee, Beck... all the party superstars went to bat for him at Scozzafova's expense.
- jhbarr, on 11/04/2009, -10/+24This election showed Teabaggers/Beck followers are in it to lose:
New Jersey -- a state that's had Republican governors for 16 of the past 28 years.
Virginia - where the last eight governors were each elected a year after a presidential election and none of whom was of the president's party.
New York's 23rd congressional district - Where a Democrat had not been elected to Congress since the Civil War - boulderbum, on 11/05/2009, -3/+16In my view, any corrupt governor needs to go, and NJ's was corrupt AND a former bank executive who likely partook in the shenanigans that lead to global economic collapse. As an independent, I say "Good riddance!", though I'm surprised the race was so close, especially because the incumbent is usually at a disadvantage in troubled economic times.
That said, I think it's telling that the Republican replacement in NY-23 ended up being a Democrat for the first time in a century, going in the face of the candidate Glen Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh endorsed! I don't think voters like extremism and the "tea party" crowd, and the latest round of elections should serve as a message.
Also, I think the only way the Democrats can lose big in 2010 is if they prove impotent in enacting any sort of major reform in health care or climate change, despite their overwhelming majorities in Congress. Again, as an independent, that's the only thing that would disgust me enough into not caring about the races anymore because I'd lose confidence in the Democrats to get things done. - xOrion73x, on 11/04/2009, -10/+22damn.. I must have hit some nerves there. It would appear that none of you fools read past the first paragraph, let alone discern the actual message there.
My point is confirmed. Extremism is only bad when it's not on "your side".
I find it funny you use the term hypocrite.. Jesus helped the poor, Republicans help themselves. I want my taxes to go towards taking care of my fellow Americans when they need it. Republicans want taxes to be cut, and screw those who can't help themselves. We brag about how we provide Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, but then tell someone they can't get married because their idea of love is different.
Those of you who insist on maintaining some idiot status quo are the hypocrites. While in theory this is a free country, in practice it is becoming less and less as such. It is more often based on lies designed to keep mindless sheep making money for your owners, and then tossed aside into poverty when they are no longer useful.
So go ahead.. call me an unappreciative ass if it makes you feel better. At least I can think for myself and realize that we have some serious issues. Perhaps when you can admit that the point I tried to make in my initial post has some validity, I will give you some credit as more than a bleating puppet. - UniversalGuy, on 11/05/2009, -12/+24Dems GAIN a house seat and the right wingers are celebrating because a couple republican governors were elected?
Hilarious.
2010 is going to be a comedy show. - Jordan117, on 11/05/2009, -1/+12(Speaking of using English, the correct term is "Democratic Congressmen.")
- emailowndme, on 11/05/2009, -6/+17There's a lot of talk about this being some sort of new zeitgeist(thanks google). I'm not seeing it.
I will say this, and I have been saying this, Becks new political power is interesting. He has the power to seriously destabilize American politics, turning us into a new 1 party system. As long as him, and his looney bin 20% (I would guess less than 5%, but 20% of the off election electorate) of the country continue to split votes and push out more moderate candidates, the Democrats will continue to win in places they have no business winning.
Who knows maybe this will lead to a proper purging of "Conservative" democrats from our ranks, so we can continue making the country better. Either way, interesting... - xOrion73x, on 11/04/2009, -25/+35Given the choice, I'd rather live in a Socialist country than a Capitalist/Theocratic Republic. Just because someone is as good at making money doesn't necessarily mean they are good at running a society, and I don't need my country run by someone's inspirations gleaned from their ideas of spirituality.
"True Conservatives" seem stuck in the past for the most part, and hanging on tooth and nail to The Way We Have Always Done It. News Flash... The lack of ability to adjust to an ever-changing world is a dire weakness which is showing through.
Capitalism and Socialism must be balanced better for this country to hear the popping sound. The old adage "Everything in Moderation" wasn't a joke. I hear Greed is one of the Deadly Sins, and Charity is a virtue.. but yet we can't seem to stop outsourcing jobs, and there is insane resistance to helping those who can't help themselves.
You suspect the majority of Independents are right of center? With the constant propaganda bombardments suggestively aiming at emotions and contextual warping, this "right of center" pose is a cunningly aligned biasing lens on reality. At this point, it's the sore losers working harder to beat the other team in the next game at all costs.. even if that cost is more instability in the nation. After all, aren't Winners are the only ones who are right? We couldn't possibly be stronger with diversity, eh?
So yes, I hope that the "New Socialists" can overcome the propaganda of the Butthurt Elephants, and maybe actually work together to fix what was once a great country rather that perpetuate this childish ePeen contest. - 3tcp, on 11/04/2009, -0/+10Extremism is always bad. It encourages an 'ends justify the means' type of political process and distorts the public dialogue in a fallacious manner by focusing on one extreme or the other as the only viable options.
This is a moderate country that ignores middle of the road options because the congressional system rewards seniority with power and that kind of seniority can only be achieved in the most politically extreme districts. - deanjarvis, on 11/05/2009, -1/+10Revisions history has already started. It doesn't matter if the candidate was technically in the so called "conservative third party", he was endorsed by the GOP and their cronies Beck, Palin and Limbaugh as their candidate. This makes him their candidate. They lost. The Republican's lost. Period.
- kemp34, on 11/04/2009, -18/+26The most high-growth strain of political thinking at the current time is that government is doing too much and overstepping its bounds. Right now, Republicans are offering a more restrained stance in relation to government activity, even if they are a very imperfect party on core liberty issues. The reason the GOP is seeing success is that more independent and liberty-minded folks are beginning to see the big government doctrine of the Democrat party as a problem and they are really doing little, at the leadership level, to reach out to those who desire limitations on government power and scope.
I predict this trend will continue. - magamiako, on 11/05/2009, -10/+18The unfortunate thing is that from the ashes of the Republican Party will come the "Libertarians". US Libertarians I would say are the more "educated" bunch of the Republican Party. That is not to say that they're smart by any means, they're just educated. They are better speakers, better presenters, and god awfully good at manipulating facts with proper grammar which makes them sound intelligent. (To many people, whether or not you actually know what you're talking about falls behind the appearance that you know what you're talking about).
So while the Republican Party will continue lose its base, in its place will be something far worse, and far more difficult to get rid of. It's easy to knock on the Republicans right now because the far right-wingers are not ashamed or don't try to hide their social views. If it was legitimate to say "I hate fags and *****" on Fox News, you can guarantee those two words would be flying around like no tomorrow. However, the Libertarians are far better at manipulating their words or hiding their views.
"Keeping government out of your life" is an old-world, idealized view that does not hold merit when you have MULTINATIONAL, MULTI-STATE corporations capable of manipulating ***** far above your individual ability to keep them in check. "OH, VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR!" Yes, because if you, or even a large chunk of you, in one state, one area, hell, your entire state, stopped purchasing the company's products, it's going to seriously put such a MAJOR dent in Walmart's (or insert other large corporation here) profits.
Let's see how many buries I get on this one :P - detcade, on 11/05/2009, -10/+18The deep south is alive? Oh and nice job quoting Mark Twain, a strong liberal.
Here's a quote for you: All that glitters is not gold.
Yesterday meant nothing, your party is just looking for ways to advertise itself. Its decline is documented, it'll be gone before long. - jbella, on 11/05/2009, -0/+7Virginia is a strange state. It's a state that usually votes republican for president, but it's governors have been pretty mixed. In fact, since 1977 Virginia has elected a governor of the opposite party from the president.
That said, there is no doubt that democrats have a lot to lose, and they will pay dearly in 2010 if the economy isn't doing much better. I think it begins and ends there. - MartiniD, on 11/05/2009, -0/+7Just because Fox News and the rest of you right-wing nuts keep repeating that Obama is a socialist (and a fascist/Marxist/communist) doesn't make it so. The head of the American Socialist Party has said that Obama is anything but a socialist and Europeans laugh at you when you say he's a socialist. If you want to see what a real socialist democracy looks like head on over to Europe. Until then please refrain from speaking on subjects you know nothing about.
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
-Inigo Montoya (The Princess Bride) - BotchaMcCoola, on 11/05/2009, -11/+17One thing for sure. When Democrats or Republicans win so do the Chinese.
- mijopo, on 11/05/2009, -0/+6battle not with trolls, lest ye become a troll....
- jbella, on 11/05/2009, -2/+8Still not bad for a district that has been in republican hands since the 1800's
- c010rb1indusa, on 11/05/2009, -10/+161992 Clinton won in a landslide
1996 Clinton won in a bigger landslide
2000 Bush won after a recount in Florida and BS Supreme Court ruling all while losing the popular vote
2004 Bush narrowly won by 1 state, Ohio
2008 Obama won with the most votes for a Presidential Candidate in US history
Please explain to me why you think this is a center-right country again? - Jordan117, on 11/05/2009, -1/+7"Scozzafava," sorry. (I'm starting to understand why Wonkette gave up on the spelling front and just started calling her "Scuzzlebutt"...)
- bjornski, on 11/05/2009, -3/+9Congressional seats, sorry. My bad.
Yep. Great strides for conservatism. - govsucks, on 11/05/2009, -2/+8bdork,
Democrats and republicans have been running our nation for the last 100 years. What shape are we in?
None of you closed minded collectivist tools have ANY idea what libertarians would do because they have never had the opportunity to show it.
WE are the utopian fools????!!!! Yeah the FREE healthcare moron thinks we are utopian fools. The Government will do this right THIS TIME IDIOT thinks WE are utopian fools.
I guess we are fools for thinking that herd member ***** lemmings like yourself could wipe your own ***** ass if mommy government didn't regulate and educate you on how to do it.
What a ***** joke. - exspasticcomics, on 11/05/2009, -5/+11Democrats? Republicans? At the end of the day.. it's just some guy getting paid by a lobbyist.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 11/05/2009, -3/+8Job creation is something the Economy does - not politicians.
- scottc, on 11/05/2009, -1/+6So meaningless that several million dollars was spent trying to win that House race in New York...
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/11/democrats- ... - VitriolAndAngst, on 11/05/2009, -3/+8Next WSJ article; "Is Rush Limbaugh sexy, or the sexiest talk show host?"
Yeah, keep lining the puppy cage WSJ. - Jordan117, on 11/05/2009, -4/+9For a president that wasn't "actually conservative," you guys sure gave him your unconditional support for those eight years, huh?
- MartiniD, on 11/05/2009, -1/+6As a native Virginian, I can say that the politics in the state can get extremely confusing for someone not familiar with the state. Virginians will send one party to the white house and then another to the governor's mansion. As holding the title of "purplest" state I can say with some confidence that state and local elections are far less partisan, politically, than at the national level. We are divided more on geography than politics or anything else. I will more readily vote for a Northern Virginia Republican before a Southern Virginia Democrat (usually not always) for example. We just want it to work regardless of your party. The best person for the job usually wins, and even though I do not agree with many of McDonnell's policies, I fear that Deeds would have been a train wreck. A governor you disagree with is better than an inept one.
I of course can't speak for the rest of the state, only my little corner of Northern Virginia. - gizram84, on 11/05/2009, -0/+5It was his own money, campaigns aren't publicly financed for millionaires..
- Maddoktor2, on 11/05/2009, -9/+14There's only one reason why the South could ever rise again:
***** floats. - Jordan117, on 11/05/2009, -3/+7They didn't say they didn't want Democrats running their states. They said they didn't want Corzine or Deeds running their states, or at least not as much as Christie or McDonnell. Congressional elections are more about national issues and party politics because Congressmen vote on national legislation and must decide to go with or against the party line. Governor's races,OTOH, are about state issues and executive leadership on a regional level, and can't function as a good referendum on the national mood.
Corzine was a hugely unpopular incumbent, and Deeds ran a terrible campaign. You can't really expand those realities to the entire Democratic Party, especially not after a Democrat won NY-23 (a Congressional seat, btw) for the first time in a century. - seth553, on 11/05/2009, -3/+7Just glanced at your profile, jaycalgary, to find out if you had a history of wry sarcasm. You don't. But I do have a few process comments:
1) "Libtard" is not a real word
2) The default setting for your caps lock is OFF
3) Your penchant for Joker 'shops does not corroborate your age - emailowndme, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4So, you're saying, 8 years ago, you reserved that user id, so as to confound and piss off the shadowy organization who wanted to get a man elected to president who wasn't even a Senator yet?
You are some sort of super telepathic troll, a super well connected proof that the birther conspiracy is real, or a complete *****. - foster5652, on 11/05/2009, -1/+5Thank you for your thoughtful comments and contribution, jay.../s
- inactive, on 11/05/2009, -8/+12You conviniently left out the '80, '84, and '88 elections in which the Republicans dominated all three. McCain won 173 electoral votes in 2008. Democrats won only 174 in those three elections ('80, '84, and '88).
In 1984 the Dems one a paltry ONE state and D.C. Reagan won 525 electoral votes compared to Mondale's 13. That's a landslide.
Also in 1992 and '96 Clinton was never able to win 50% of the popular vote. - jamesmetham, on 11/05/2009, -2/+6Libertarians wouldn't have the economy recess every 10 years, and so you wouldn't have these giant job losses that we've seen under Obama and Bush.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 11/05/2009, -3/+7We wouldn't need to try, honest money would do it automatically. You blame libertarians for statist ***** even though ONLY statists like you have been in political control over my entire lifetime (calling Bush's additional $20 Billion in inflation adjusted regulatory spending "deregulation" is especially dishonest of lefties on Digg). It's not terribly bright to be so consistently dishonest, you know. You might want to study some elementary economic history to look less foolish in the future. Google Mises.
- Jordan117, on 11/05/2009, -2/+6Supporting third parties under the current political system will always be a fool's errand. America's "first past the post" system is inherently predisposed to two parties -- it's called Duverger's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
If you seriously want to see influential third parties, you have to work to change the electoral system first. Otherwise, not just the Democrats and the Republicans but the very nature of elections will be rigged against you, and voting for your third party of choice will help split the vote and end up hurting the major party that's closest to your beliefs. -
Show 51 - 100 of 197 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is