This past Tuesday proved, with absolute certainty, that [some] Americans have finally figured out that they were scammed -- big time -- by Democrats.

Fixed that for you. You shouldn't read any less into this election than it really meant, but you shouldn't read any more into it either. All it really means is that enough voters to make a difference figured out that the Dems' promises were a pile of equine-processed hay.

Virginia? Pah. A traditionally Republican state elected a Republican governor. So what?

New Jersey? Means a bit more. But I think it was more an anti-incumbent and anti-corruption vote than it was anti-liberal or anti-Democrat. Similar things have happened before in traditionally-Republican states and districts where the current officeholder was hopelessly corrupt.

However, in both cases it was a relatively small percentage of voters who really "swung." I'll believe that this is a sign of a sustained swing against the Democrats if next year's elections produce similar results, consistently, across the country.

I blame Bush.

A few? I thought 53% was a "huge mandate from the people" which indicated that "a huge majorority of right-thinking Americans" really wanted to get even for years of racist, union-busting, greedy, out-of-control rich people out to destroy Gaia for profit.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Turns out that Obama knows a lot more about casting blame and stirring up the petty jealousies of the left than he knows about fixing actual problems in the three dimensional world. And a heck of a lot more about feeding the endless chattering of the hard left than he knows about actual governing.

History will not be kind to Mr. Obama. Nor should it.

Well the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner on this one. They say the results had nothing at all to do with the President which leaves only that enough people were fed up with Dem corruption and spending to switch their votes.

But they also try to say that the Republican party has to move to include "moderates" if they expect to start winning again. Question: Why would you ever listen to your enemy when they tell you how to win? They are obviously scared of the conservative movement and the tea parties.

If we wish to define a "moderate" Republican I say what we really need is Conservative Libertarians running as Republicans. Socially Conservative but willing to ignore social issues in favor of Fiscal Conservatism. I do not necessarily agree with the "libertarian"(small L) idea of completely ignoring social isues. But I do agree that you can be a Social Con without harping on the issues and making it a major part of your campain and governing mantra.

What the Dems want us to believe, is that what the Republican party needs is moderate democrats running as Repubs not conservative democrats who are willing to overlook things like abortion and medicare in favor of fixing the budget, cutting programs and reducing the deficit.

Forgive me for being a bit scatterbrained, I haven't finished my coffee. But in the end I think people voted both Against the dems AND for conservatism at the very least in the fiscal arena. They don't necessarily agree with social cons but they know that it is much more important to fix our spending addiction than to forward social issues at this point.

To quote South Park "They took ar Jeeeebs!"

OH:

Also after looking into Owens in NY23 I am still convinced that he is at the very least a bluedog if not even more "moderate" and that he is by far a better choice than Scuzzy ever was. Owens is still better for this country as a Democrat that Scuzzy was as a Republican.

Once again reaffirming my Independant Status. If I lived in NY I would have voted Dem rather than vote for Scuzzy, I would have voted for Hoffman as a protest against both parties but I am happy with the current pick.

If only we could get more Dems like this in congress.

The election of "O" was the big crescendo of the radical far left from the 60's. When the over throw of the government that started on America's college campuses stalled, a lot of them stayed in school and became teachers and lawyers but, they clung to their politics. They were too radical even for most of us liberals back then and now too radical most of America. They rode into positions of power behind the euphoria of "O" and thought their day had come. They knew he was one of them but, America was not able to see that clearly because of the outright conspiracy of the press and those close to him. "O" hid behind fluffy platitudes and made most America think he was one of them. Those of us that looked at his back ground and his associations knew he was far from moderate about anything. We had heard it and seen it before. He just had a fresh face and energy. Yesterday the radical liberal left found out forty odd years later, they were wrong again.

The only thing these elections and the 2008 elections mean is that in hard economic times people vote their pocketbook first. Voter's blame the party in power when the economy slows and the more it slows the greater the hit the party in power takes. Interestingly, most voters consider the party in power to be the party that holds the white house, not the party that controls congress. Even if Republicans take control of the house in 2010 and make gains in the senate, voters will still blame or credit Democrats for how the economy looks going into the 2012 elections.

The lesson for Democrats is that they had better get started fixing the economy, and passing bills that increase the deficit is a sure way to get thrown out of office.

"If only we could get more Dems like this in congress."

Agreed. McArdle is pushing the pap that Hoffman lost because Northern repubs don't take kindly to Southerners dominating the party with social issues. She noted Repub affliation there is quasi-genetic like Roman Catholicism.

Hoffman lost by less than the total DNF Scuzfrau raked. The undecideds broke 3:1 for Owens.

Rather begs the question these voters were informed, eh? Where did those unhappy with the NRCC paternalism run?

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Or for that matter, the One in front of the teleprompter.

This past Tuesday proved, with absolute certainty, that Americans have finally figured out that they were scammed -- big time -- by Democrats.

Interesting take. But a look at the historical record shows otherwise.

In all eight gubernatorial elections since Ronald Reagan's first term, Virginia has given the party of the incumbent President a loss. In New Jersey, the President's party has lost six gubernatorial elections in a row

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Senate/Maps/Nov04-s.html

In case you didn't get it, that's 100% of the time for VA and 75% of the time for NJ over the last 30 years. Regardless of party. That includes 2 terms of Reagan and 3 terms of Bushes.

Your analysis does not mean what you think it means. In fact, it means nothing.

That's a first...

For #10: Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with Corzine. Nothing....

Right?

Of course it does. Being a scumbag certainly doesn't help an already-established anti-incumbent bias.

What an odd, pointless comment for you to make.

Im bias against all scum bags.

I had said here a year ago that there is no way Obama or any other person could live up to the persona his handlers and the press made him out to be. The PR blitz was extensive and way over the top with none of it based on reality. Liberals bought what they were selling and fortunately independents only rented the idea. They have awakened. Obama is oposite everything he said he would be. Close
Gitmo. No. Stop earmarks? No. Control spending? No. Transparentcy? No. No hiring of lobbyists? No. There is not one thing Obama has lived up to. He didn't even attempt it. He actually thought the citizenry is stupid.

I did know this day would come but I have to say I am surprised it happened this soon. ww

John,

correlation does not equal causation ...

voters in both NJ and VA told us why they voted the way they voted and NONE of them ... NONE of them said it was because there was a Dem in the White House ...

The real problem doesn't rest with Democrate or Republicians. These days they are pretty hard to tell apart from each other.

ALL the politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike want power, larger government and more control over your life.

The sooner Americans understand this, the sooner we can take our country back.

This past Tuesday proved, with absolute certainty, that Americans have finally figured out that they were scammed -- big time -- by Democrats

Wtf, really!? Is this what you guys really cling to? We just increased our house majority to 86 seats by winning a seat that Republicans had held since the 1800s. Nice victory GOP. Lol you guys haven't learned a damn thing, and I love it.

Ryan,
Really, since the 1800s. Why don't you go look
up who held that seat from 1989 to 1993.
Wikipedia is your friend.

"What an odd, pointless comment for you to make."

And your comment was nothing more than an interesting observation. It doesn't prove a thing.