Posted on 11/09/2005 1:56:20 PM PST by jcb8199
The MSM is obviously leaving something out of the stories about the NJ and VA governorships--I seem to recall reading that a Dem was in power, and is replaced by a Dem in both cases--is this true? Forgive my ignorance on the matter, but I've not seen a specific quote.
Correct
Being a Virginian, it is hard to believe....but true.
Yes, but why bother the audience with useless facts like that when you can infer the states changed leadership in favor of a particular party?
Here it is in a nutshell
http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2005/11/tuesdays-election-results-mixed.html
I think the spin is that the President's endorsement wasn't enough to elect a Republican in a red state. The rest of the story (i.e. the nagging fact that the current governor is already a Democrat) is indeed conveniently ignored.
Yes. But two Republicans replaced a Dem and Rep for the next two statewide offices (Lt. Gov ande Attorney General).
I've heard Kaine is quite conservative for a Dem, meaning that a conservative Democrat won the election.
This proves that Bush lied and Karl Rove is mean.
Get with the program.
also neglected is we won the undercard fights. Attorney General and Luitenant Governor
Yeah, but to hear the Dems talk, this has been a complete rejection of the Bush agenda...
The Democrats havent won anything in the past 5 years...If it was the opposite with the Republicans holding onto power...the headlines would be "Republicans fail to gain more power"
If holding on to the governor's mansion in a state that leans GOP is a great victory for the Democrats, then winning a fourth mayoral election in a row in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 4-1 is an absolutely stupendous victory for the GOP.
Granted Bloomberg is anything but conservative, however Keane had to pretend to be conservative in order to even have a chance.
a.k.a We are making the decisions...
in Virginia is that a) Kilgore went out of his way to piss off the Republican Base and b) Potts sucked up 2% of the vote. Note that the Republican candidates for Lt. Gov and the Atty. General were (barely) elected. I suspect that if Kilgore had run a competent campaign he'd have won handily, rendering Potts' 2% irrelevant.
Was it a win? Only if one understands that the Dem'crats were only holding place, and actually gaining little if anything. These two outcomes do not mean that the Dem'crats have much of a mandate even yet, or that any significance for the 2006 elections is in the cards.
It is like being dealt a pair of deuces on the shuffle. Still a long ways to go to fill a hand that stands a serious chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.