http://news.yahoo.com/twin-defeats-spark-democratic-fears-095700782.html
Ouch. That’s gotta hurt.
Please, could you give some detail? As it stands, that’s just link bait.
thank you.
I thought the point was that we weren’t meant to just copy and paste huge slabs of text from another article.
The gist of the article is that:
-
The Democrats lost a seat in NY which hadn’t elected a Republican since 1920.
-
The Democrats lost a seat in Nevada, which had previously been Republican until the last election. The surprise was that they lost it by 22%.
There is disagreement over the reasons. Some are calling it a referendum on Obama. Some cite in-fighting between the Democratic Party machine and unions. There is also the issue that the former NY representative had resigned due to a scandal.
There was also a bit at the end about how some Democrats are essentially playing a passive strategy and hoping that the Republican presidential candidate next year is as extreme as possible so the Republicans will lose the election (presumably because they don’t think Obama will win it, if that makes sense).
I really don’t have a strong opinion on it. Whilst I think Obama’s halo is looking a little dull these days, I suspect that the NY loss is probably due to the in-fighting. No idea about the reason for the magnitude of the Nevada loss. Maybe that was a referendum on Obama. Dunno.
the NY vote is important also because rumor has it the “Jews” are getting fed up with Obama. 
Quick! Sombody better alert Obummer of that rumor! But, how? Oh, they can contact AttachWatch!
Well, yes. A paragraph or two is fine. Your thoughts would be golden.
You’d be the first to have claimed such a thing! Seriously though, I don’t actually really know enough about these two elections to really comment on them (though that’s never stopped me before) and was hoping for some other posters’ insights. To what extent are these outliers based upon local, peculiar circumstances, or to what extent do people think Obama is going to have some real issues next year?
From where I’m standing, and I could be completely wrong on this, next year’s election will go to the person/team doing least damage to himself/itself. It would seem like the Republicans merely need to put up a very vanilla kind of candidate who will bore everyone to tears but won’t be perceived as driving the American economy off a cliff (regardless of whether that’s true or not) like Obama. Yet it would seem to the Republicans like what they need is the craziest person out there who won’t be content to win with the high card, but wants to go for the royal flush. They could very easily lose the election that can’t be lost. Of course, politics is always more interesting when the crazies get involved, so if they do pick Bachmann or Perry, I’ll be glued to my seat watching. Of course, the ultimate thrill would be if Palin did throw her hat in the ring. Fucking crazy, and scary to think about her actually getting elected, but thrilling all the same.