Damn you New Jersey

Well, it looks like right wing Republican Chris Christie will win the governors race in New Jersey, giving Republicans a full sweep of the 2009 governors races and putting the Democratic majority in governorships at a tiny 26-24.  

What this is going to result in is a rash of retirements from Democrats in swing and red leaning districts and major surge in Republican recruiting and fundraising.  In short, we will be the underdogs in the fight to hold the House in 2010.

We worked so hard for a majority in 2006 and 2008 and now all of our work is about to be flushed down the toilet.  Our last hurrah as a majority could be the passage of healthcare reform, but now that rat bastard Joe Lieberman is going to screw us on that.  

This has been the shortest era of dominance for one political party in history.  When we lose Social Security and Medicare, I hope everyone is happy.  

Tags: Democrats, Jon Corzine, new jersey (all tags)

Comments

50 Comments

Re: Damn you New Jersey

"When we lose Social Security and Medicare, I hope everyone is happy."

Huzzah!

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-10-27 08:23PM | 0 recs
I hope you're happy

when the world ends in 2012 because of the race in NY-23.

by JJE 2009-10-27 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

I thought the shortest era of dominance in one party rule ended in 2001.

Must have been wrong.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 09:17PM | 0 recs
Seek professional help

Seriously. For your sake as much as ours.

by Charles Lemos 2009-10-27 09:20PM | 0 recs
um...

When we lose Social Security and Medicare, I hope everyone is happy.

We didn't lose SS in 2006, when your hero Karl Rove predicted a permanent Republican majority, and Republicans had their only opportunity to gut it to hell.  

After your hero George Bush FUBARed the stock market up in 2008, and millions of people lost relative fortunes in their 401(K)s and 403(B)s there is no chance in hell that SS and Medicare are going to disappear.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 09:22PM | 0 recs
If Bush had higher approval ratings, we would have

If they regain Congress, Medicare and Social Security Privitization will be one of the first things that they introduce.  They want this bad.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 09:48PM | 0 recs
Um...

they couldn't win it in 2006, when there hadn't been a sustained bear market in 20 years.

They will not win it if they were to succeed in this little Republican fantasy of yours.  It will take a long time for people to forget that their 401(K)s lost 45% of their values.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

I guess I need not show up and vote for Corzine.  Kent has spoken.

by Steve M 2009-10-27 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

BTW - I am not worried at all with Democratic prospects even if Christie wins in November.  It is not predictive of these prospects AT ALL if we lose Virginia, NYC and New Jersey, and a congressional seat on the Canadian border our party hadn't won since Democrats supported slavery.

It is a given that the incumbent party in the White House loses Virginia and New Jersey the year later.  For over forty years, it is far more uncommon for the incumbent party to win even one of the two races, and impossible for the incumbent party to win both.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

When was only time in the last forty years that an incumbent was defeated in the New Jersey or Virginia races?  The answer is 1993.  

I am not worried about losing Virginia, but New Jersey would be a sign that no Democrat is safe anywhere.  That is a very Democratic state with a very corrupt and right wing Republican running.  

If we lose 3 of 3 races or even 2 of 3, I suspect healthcare reform is over.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:06PM | 0 recs
Um....

Governors in Virginia are limited to one term in office.  They cannot be defeated.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

Look, Corzine's unpopularity has nothing to do with the national mood.  Even when Democrats were on top of the world everyone knew this would be a very difficult race for Corzine.

I'm not sure why I even bother going through this with you since it's clear you just post these things to get a rise out of people.  Gee, there's a poll a week before the election where the bad guy is up by a couple points, time to throw in the towel!

by Steve M 2009-10-27 10:41PM | 0 recs
It is nowhere near a given

The only time the party holding the White House dropped both of these races after holding them were 1993 and 2001.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: It is nowhere near a given

And how did the party in power fare in the 2002 midterms Upstate Kent?

by spirowasright 2009-10-27 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: It is nowhere near a given

2001 was a special case.  The nation was still shocked over 9/11, which basically froze the campaigns in place(the environment was pro-Dem before 9/11).  In December 2001, Karl Rove took over the Republican campaigns and decided that they would be about nothing other than terrorism.  You cant compare 2001-2002 to any other period.

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:24PM | 0 recs
time for a song
We've been together since way back when
Sometimes I never want to see you again
But I want you to know, after all these years
You're still the one I want whisperin' in my ear
by Khun David 2009-10-27 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: It is nowhere near a given

Florio in 89 was a Democrat.  Whitman in 93 and 97 was a Republican.  McGreevey in 01 was a Democrat.  Corzine in 05 was a Democrat.

Wilder in 89 was a Democrat.  Allen in 93 was a Republican.  Gilmore in 97 was a Republican.  Warner in 01 was a Democrat.  Kaine in 04 was a Democrat.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: It is nowhere near a given

In 1997, Republicans already held both of those offices and in 1989, Democrats already held Virginia.  Both of these elections signaled a pro-incumbent environment that wasnt favorable or unfavorable to either party.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It is nowhere near a given

You are right, Democrats held the governorship in 1982 and 1986.  And a Republican won the presidency in 1980 and 1984.  

Oops... kind of defeats your argument.

and a Republican held the governorship in 1978.  Oh, and which political party won the presidency in 1976?

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:40PM | 0 recs
Re: It is nowhere near a given

In 1977, Republicans already held the governorship of Virginia.  In 1981, Republicans compensated for the Virginia loss by picking up New Jersey from Democrats.  In 1985, Democrats and Republicans held the two governorships that they already held.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: It is nowhere near a given

In other words, you haven't disproven anything that I had argued.

Nice try.

by Khun David 2009-10-28 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey
Nice to know that someone around here has studied history.
Now, let's talk about that pasage of time thing and please, could someone get Upstate Kent to listen for a change?
by spirowasright 2009-10-27 10:18PM | 0 recs
His history is wrong

Its very rare for a political party to lose an incumbent in either the New Jersey or Virginia governors races in the off-year.  If it does, it means that that party is in very tough shape.  The only time that happened was in 1993 and we all know what happened a year later.

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: His history is wrong

Your are joking, right?

Each and every very governors race in New Jersey and Virginia since 89 has been won by the party not occupying the White House.

I don't know what your definition of 'very rare' is, but that is not my definition.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: His history is wrong

It was only 1993 and 2001(which you cant possibly include) in which the party holding the White House LOST(meaning they had held it prior to the election) both races.  If Republicans currently held both New Jersey and Virginia, them winning them again would not be a huge story.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:35PM | 0 recs
Re: His history is wrong

Actually, given the politics of the past 20 years, had Republicans held both NJ and VA in 1998 and 2006, that would have been a big story.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: His history is wrong

Republicans did hold New Jersey and Virginia in 1997, while Democrats held New Jersey and Virginia in 2005.  Nobody lost anything those years.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:49PM | 0 recs
Mia culpa

meant to say...

had Democrats held NJ and VA in 1998 and Republicans in 2006...

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Mia culpa

It would have been huge if Democrats had picked up either races in 1997 or Republicans either races in 2005, since they didnt already hold them.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:58PM | 0 recs
Um...

had either scenario taken place, your argument today might have had a bit more merit.

You argue that it is complete disaster if both VA and NJ fall to Republicans in November.  Yet the scenario you claim to fear (the opposite party to the party that holds the White House) has been the reality for 20 years.  If Democrats hold even one race (NJ or VA) this year, then the reality that your can't acknowledge unravels.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: His history is wrong

Will you hold your tongue already?

Jeez!  Kant has spoken and all you can do is argue.  This is nothing more than a meaningless gesture.  Nobody in the history of this blog has provided dire predictions with the accuracy and thought of the hard-typing Kant.  Instead of thanking him for his tireless work and setting out to worry, you try to hijack the diary for your own pathetic reality-based agenda.  Well I'll tell you Mr. last-name-first, hijacking is frowned upon here.  If you can't quake with fear and the right type of righteous anger upon reading Kant's rants (TM) then you are clearly not understanding the depth of our collective error in focusing on the Executive and throwing away Congress --- forever!!!

by January 20 2009-10-27 10:50PM | 0 recs
Re: His history is wrong

Last I saw, it was Kent with an 'e'.  However, if he would rather go by another vowel, he might get himself banned here as he did over at dKos.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: His history is wrong

True, but his message is can't so I just go with the kool spelling.

by January 20 2009-10-27 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

You mean that Democrats were both governors of New Jersey and Virginia in 1998 and Republicans were governors in New Jersy and Virginia in 2006?  

by Khun David 2009-10-27 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

What I am saying is that Republicans had already held New Jersey and Virginia in 1997 and Democrats had already held New Jersey and Virginia in 2005.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

Um... I can go to Wikipedia and find that out for myself.  I don't need you telling me that.

You have been self-flagellating because the incumbant party loses the election of NJ and VA in the year after the election of the incumbent.  Yet ever year since 1989, that has been the case.  A Republican wins in 88, Dems win in 89...

A Dem wins in 92, Rethug win NJ and VA in 93...

and so on...

by Khun David 2009-10-27 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

In 1989, Democrats had already held Virginia and held it again.  

by Kent 2009-10-27 11:21PM | 0 recs
Um...

and a Republican held the White House in 1988.  

So, what's your point?

by Khun David 2009-10-27 11:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Um...

My point is that Democrats were winning a seat where they were basically an incumbent.

by Kent 2009-10-27 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

which seat?  NY-23?  NJ-GV?  VA-GV?  NYCMY? not one of these races a year ago was predicted to go to the party that won in November 08.

by Khun David 2009-10-27 11:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

Many had thought Democrats would win Virginia and New Jersey in 2008.  According to your logic, it would be OK if Democrats lost Congress in 2010 because in all but two midterm elections(1978 and 2002), the party holding the White House has also lost control of Congress.  

by Kent 2009-10-28 12:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

And yet a latest poll out of NJ has Corzine up by 5 points, go figure.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/ 10/poll-corzine-ahead-of-christie-by-43- 38.php

by jsfox 2009-10-28 05:17AM | 0 recs
the world ends

on Dec 21, 2012. NJ will go to hell in a handbasket.

by nikkid 2009-10-28 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: the world ends

actually, if you read this entire diary and comments from beginning to end, the world does not end, but the nap sure does begin.

by QTG 2009-10-28 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Damn you New Jersey

the polling data is pointing to a corizine win. I have no idea where you are getting your views from. like i told you before, you make yourself look bad with this sort of factually inaccurate prediction.

by bruh3 2009-10-28 07:54AM | 0 recs
I will make it simple

a.) I agree with bruh3 and I don't like being put in that position. (Mostly joking Bruh3)

b.) I will be you any amount of money up to 25k on the grounds that you put your amount in an escrow account that Corzine will win.

That is all.

by JDF 2009-10-28 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: HELP

I'm trying to figure out what a factually inaccurate prediction is. You evidently made one, so can you explain?

by QTG 2009-10-28 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: HELP

When did I make a factually inaccurate prediction? And how can a prediction be factually inaccurate?

My point was that I will make a wager of significant size with Kent, and only with Kent, that Corzine will win another term as Governor.  

by JDF 2009-10-29 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: HELP

As for agreeing with Bruh, what I meant was that he pointed out how ludicrous Kents position was and therefore I had to agree with him...

by JDF 2009-10-29 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: HELP

I still have trouble with the indents. My bad.

by QTG 2009-10-30 04:06AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads