Election Impressions
By Bronwyn's Harbor on November 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM in Current Affairs
(Bumped up from Wednesday.)
Here are impressions from all over the ‘net, even bloggers like the yoyo Taylor Marsh and sensible shoes columnist Ruth Marcus:
“The Obama magic has faded,” Glenn Reynolds for the The New York Post:
The Obama invincibility that was so much in evidence then seems to have lost its power. People can argue the reasons why these elections, all in places Obama carried handily, were so close. But if he were the political marvel he was thought to be, these races wouldn’t have been contests, but walkovers. So one consequence of this Election Day is the end of his special political magic.
That’s no surprise — as that magic was a largely substanceless froth whipped up by campaign consultants and compliant big-media cheerleaders. [MORE below from this excellent column]
“Election Night Blogging II: Christie is NJ’s New Governor,” The Confluence:
Corzine’s loss should have Obama peeing his pants right now. … And all you Obots out there? Be afraid. Be very afraid. Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!
“Obama Not a Factor, But Independents Flood to GOP,” Taylor Marsh at taylormarsh.com:
…and I want to take you back to the National Journal’s new media poll from last week. What are the two big issues for 2010? I said economy, but also added my own category to include GOTV. Tonight I’ve been proved correct on both. [WOW, that was deep.]
“NY-23: [UPDATE] Hoffman Accuses Democrats of ‘Stealing the Election’,” Washington Independent (before results in):
“There are reports that they’re bringing in the troops and they’re bringing in ACORN,” said Hoffman. “I think the Democrats are doing anything they possibly can to steal this election away from the 23rd district.” … The campaign is pushing [a slashed tire] story hard after a wave of morning reports that Hoffman’s grassroots supporters were misbehaving. [Turns out the driver ran over a broken bottle.]
It’s not unheard of for a candidate to make an accusation like this without having all the facts, but it’s a strange sideshow in the final hours.
“As Virginia goes, so goes not much,” Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:
Finally, do the off-year results foreshadow anything for a president’s reelection three years down the road? Hardly. Of the 10 elections in which one party won both states, a president of that party was elected six times in the following presidential contest. …
[A]s to the question of whether Tuesday’s results portend very much for Congress in 2010 or Obama in 2012, the answer is: not really, all the commentary notwithstanding
More key points from “The Obama magic has faded,”:
The truth is, Obama wasn’t ready to be president when he ran in 2008. When he started, he probably thought he had no real chance — he himself admitted upon entering the Senate that he wasn’t qualified to be president — and that his first run would simply be a PR effort that would lift him to the top ranks of Senate Democrats.
When, to everyone’s surprise, resentment of the Clinton machine crystallized around him, he wound up beating Hillary for the nomination, and found himself riding an out-of-control express train. He rode it to victory, with some help from erratic McCain actions.
But he was right the first time about not being ready for the Oval Office. As president, he seems confused and a bit distant on the issues, leaving the details to congressional Democrats and an ever-growing number of “czars” while he golfs and launches attacks at Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
With the economy tanking (unemployment is much worse after Obama’s deficit-swelling stimulus than Obama’s advisers predicted it would be with no stimulus at all), with the promised post-partisanship dissolving into witch-hunts against hostile media and the promised post-racial America devolving into the awkwardly staged “beer summit,” with the “necessary war” in Afghanistan the subject of endless dithering and the promised “smart diplomacy” materializing as a series of awkward missteps by Hillary Clinton, the froth has become a lot less frothy.
Republicans, who were prepared to give Obama the benefit of the doubt a year ago, now can’t stand him. Independents who voted for him are deserting in droves. And Democrats don’t seem that happy either.
The good news for Obama is that he doesn’t have to run for re-election for three more years, so he still has a chance to get his feet under him. But for Congress members facing elections in a year — including but not limited to the famous “blue-dog” Democrats — the lesson of this week is that Obama can’t save their seats if the public is unhappy (and, equally, that Obama probably can’t hurt them much, either). So what Obama wants is nice, but it’s what the voters in their districts want that will control.
That makes Obama’s health-care “reform” package look iffy and his other big plans for remaking America look even iffier. With the hope having faded, enthusiasm for change seems much diminished. From a mythic figure, Obama has shrunk to an ordinary politician — and, so far, not an obviously deft one. It’ll be politics as usual from now on, and we can thank Obama, at least, for making politics-as-usual seem not so bad after all …
“CBS’s Schieffer Denies Vote a Referendum on Obama, Compares Conservatives to McGovern,” NewsBusters.org:
Shortly before the polls closed, CBS’s chief Washington correspondent, Bob Schieffer, rejected any effort to tie President Barack Obama to two the Democratic gubernatorial candidates for whom Obama campaigned, insisting on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News that the contests were more about local issues and so “I don’t think they had much to do with anything but New Jersey and Virginia.”
Citing the special congressional race in New York, Schieffer rued “this third-party conservative who literally pushed a moderate Republican out of the race,” and proceeded to analogize Republicans this year to leftist activists who in 1972 pushed Democrats to pick an un-electable presidential candidate:
The Republican Party is really split and it is the conservatives who seem to have the juice right now. It’s very much like what Democrats went through in 1972. The party activists on the left were so upset with mainstream candidates that in an effort to purify their party they pushed it so far to the left that they nominated the very liberal George McGovern for President. Now it’s conservative Republicans who are upset with their mainstream candidates. They want to push the party to the right.
[...]
And you all? What say you?
I’m with Glenn Reynolds. Last night, in the Election thread, I wrote this about the over-rated Obama voters of 2008:
There was a phenomenon in 2008 with a lot of irregular or never-vote-at-all voters showing up to vote for Obama. The Democrats cannot count on these erstwhile people to show up. And let’s see if they turn out even in 2012 when Obama’s running for a second term as a president whose “fire has gone out,” as Arianna Huffington said on Morning Joe today. I wonder.
Those 2008 voters are not reliable citizens, in my book. They voted for a personality. They saw a symbol. That is not rational voting, and if they aren’t mesmerized and overwhelmed emotionally, they’re flat out not going to show up. Ever again.
As Charles Krauthammer noted yesterday on Special Report, Obama had coeds swooning in 2008 but they fell for charisma, not substance. And people so easily duped are just like people who fall in love because it’s romantic, not because it’s about developing a substantive relationship that is durable.
by Ronald Scott
* More novels by 
* 
(
)
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
