http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/local/2003-11-04-elections_x.htm Two swings from Dems to Repubs. Is this just a matter of the South's continued progression to the GOP or is this a indication for next year's presidential election? I wasn't expecting either MS or KY to vote for the Dem ticket next year so I hope it is the former rather than the latter. Murf
I don't know about Mississippi, but in Kentucky traditionally Democratic areas either voted for Ernie Fletcher (Gov. elect) or very narrowly for Ben Chandler. In Jefferson County (Louisville) Chandler had "hoped to carry by at least 12,000 votes but his margin was only 5,536." According to todays Courier-Journal the win "was built in places like Breckinridge County, where most people are registered Democrats but increasingly are voting Republican." I think that if this continues it does not bode well for the Dems in next years election. On another note the C-J also reports that there were no problems with Republican monitors and if anything "spurred many to go to the polls." There were twelve calls to the voter fraud hotline. Including an anti-abortion group giving out a sample ballot with the regular ballots at a church used as a poliing place. There was also a call about vote buying in Clay County that is under investigation. In one precinct with a challenger three people were not allowed to vote because they were not registered...and the challenger was not involved in turning away these voters. It seems that the worse thing that happened in these precincts with challengers was a few people being sent to other polling places. All of this comes from an article on page A9 in todays C-J.
After my intial post, I learned about the Dems winning both of the legislative houses in New Jersey. Since NJ is more likely to "be in play" next year, perhaps this is a more significant indication of next year than the GOP wins in the South. http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1068017806182200.xml Murf
It went as expected in my view. The South is a lost cause for whatever Democrat runs so losing these Governorships, while it sucks for the people of Miss and Kentucky (15 total electoral votes), is not that big of a deal. The Mayoral election in Philly and New Jersey are a bigger deal. Pennsylvania is a big prize in 2004 (23 electoral votes) and the Dem candidate needs to carry Philly in a huge way to win the state. New Jersey is 15 electoral votes.
If New Jersey is "in play" for the 2004 Presidential election, Bush is in until 2008. The Dems are basically done in the South for the foreseeable future. Between the conservative religious voters who won't buy a Democratic platform on social issues (i.e., pro-choice and pro-gay rights) and the NASCAR voters who see the Dems as a party of pu$$ies, they haven't got a chance. Hell - Haley Barbour is as Washington-insider as they come, but I notice he made sure to give props to Darrell Waltrip in a clip I heard on NPR this morning.
Alot of the Democratic success in the South recently has been due to the lottery issue. But you can only use that once.
Kentucky, Mississippi, and New Jersey are all off the table next year. Pennsylvania is a Dem must-win, and they probably will unless the Dem nominee can't turn the base out to save his life. You can make a case that Jersey is now the most Dem-friendly state in the country with a Democratic governor (McGreevey), two Democratic Senators (Lautenberg & Corzine), a Dem majority for its 13 House seats, and Dem majorities in both the State Senate and Assembly.
We cannot understate the significance of the results, particularly in Kentucky. This is only the second republican governor in Kentucky since the civil war. The democrats in Kentucky tried to make the election into a referendum on president Bush and his policies, and they lost badly. Democrats can try to justify it by saying 'it is the South', but they should understand that the more the democratic party gives in to the radical left, the more they will continue to lose among regular Americans. We will have to wait and see if they learned their lesson.
really weak analysis. Kentucky gov had been democrat for 30 something years. Further, the sitting governor was hit really bad by a sex scandal (good lesson to learn, good luck running after your predecessor has been marked by a sex scandal). The important lesson for Dems in this race is the Bush connection. Attacking the Bush-Fletcher economy got attention for the Dem and brought him close to even in the polls, however, he didn't discuss policy beyond the attacks. Important lesson, attacking Bush record can work, but you also have to have your own policy recommendations. Attack the faults of the incumbent, then tell why you are different. To be balanced, Dems won a lot of the races below Gov meaning Kentucky can still be a swing state in state races (Senate, maybe) but for President, that's not a question. On a state level, MS probably only loses to Utah as the most Republican state in the country. It's not surprising at all that Barbour won, he was probably the favorite from the beginning. He did win slightly bigger than expected however. I don't think these are good national indicators. While there might be slight strategy lessons, the most important aspect of these races were probably get out the vote (GOTV) efforts. It's very clear that R's did a good job in MS with this, and it sounds the same in KY. Dems used to have the advantage in GOTV, it seems that R's have it currently. Not sure if its a loss of soft money for the Dems or bad organization. The Dems got beat pretty bad on the ground, which is an indication of the national party (read Terry McAullife) isn't doing its job. If Dems lose LA in a couple weeks because they get beat on the ground, some heads will need to roll.
What I'd really like to see happen is for somebody to challenge the tentative results for the emergency school levy in my town. With under 17K votes (very low turnout), the levy passed by exactly 50 votes (absentee & provisional ballots to be counted). Oh, and we use punch-card technology. Wouldn't it be a hoot if the Supreme Court had to handle this one?
It could also, by the same logic, be seen as a referendum on incumbency in general. But it's neither; it's just another acknolwedgement that the South is trending social conservative and the GOP is the more socially conservative party. It has nothing to do with party affiliation. If the GOP candidate was George Pataki, he would have gotten killed. Neither Kentucky or Mississippi is in play in '04, nor would they have been had the Democrats pulled off upsets.
Maybe you are right. Perhaps the fact that democrats are moving further to the left and the fact that Republicans keep winning elections is purely coincidental.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Or is that just what happens to your leg when we hit your kneecap? Seriously, this is such a pathetic reflexive response. I doubt you used your brain at all. The signal just went to your spinal cord and back, like when you touch something hot.
I dont think either Mississippi or Kentucky would have any chance of going Democrat in 04 regardless of who won the governorship. And I dont think Arnold's victory in California will make a bit of difference. If the democrats nominate Dean I would imagine that he will make a decent effort at winning some borderline democratic states in the south and just throw in the towel on states like MS and KY. Just the perception of Dean being a east coast liberal from, of all places, Vermont will guarantee the Republicans 50% of the vote in the South right from the start. Dean's confedarate flag/pickup truck comment could actually serve him well at this point (in the south) if he doesn't back down. (Disclosure: all numbers pulled from rectum)
Two late articles on Election 2003: Dems will gain 2-3 seats in the Virginia House and the GOP will gain 1 seat in the Virginia Senate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A841-2003Nov4.html GOP gained 8 seats in the Mississippi House, but at this moment there is no change in the Mississippi Senate (GOP could end up with a net lost of one, though). http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0311/06/ma08.html
Louisiana, though, turns Democrat The Democratic candidate for governor beat out the "Republican whiz kid who served as an assistant health secretary under President Bush." http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/16/elec04.louisiana.result.ap/index.html