Midterm Elections
Why didn't I vote?
Ted Kennedy (D) 69% winner of Senate seat for Massachusetts
John Olver (D) 76% winner for House seat in 1st District
Richard Neal (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 2nd District
James McGovern (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 3rd District
Barney Frank (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 4th District
Marty Meehan (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 5th District
John Tierney (D) 70% winner of House seat in 6th District
Edward Markey (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 7th District
Michael Capuano (D) 91% winner for House seat in 8th District
Stephen Lynch (D) 78% winner for House seat in 9th District (my district)
William Delahunt (D) 65% winner for House seat in 10th District
I don't think my vote would have made a difference in a Commonwealth that is very solidly blue (Democratic).
The Governor's race was the only one I particularly cared about. Deval Patrick (D) was the only candidate that seemed to want to continue Massachusetts's role as a leader for socially liberal ideals. Just didn't feel a spark with Healey. And Mihos, all he talked about was the fucking tolls on the Mass Pike in Western Mass. Who cares about Western Mass? Nobody, not even the people in Western Mass.
Deval is the 71st Governor of Massachusetts, a list which includes names like John Hancock and Samuel Adams. He is also the 1st black Governor of Massachusetts, and the 2nd black Governor in US history.
He is a supporter of single-payer health care, stem-cell research, gay rights, Cape Wind (a proposed wind energy farm off the shore of Nantucket that would provide power for 75% of Cape Cod residents who currently use a natural gas plant for power), and affirmative action. I don't like affirmative action, but the rest of those issues are things on which I agree with Patrick on.
Another thing about Patrick is that he probably isn't looking to use the Governorship of Massachusetts just as a springboard for higher offices. The Governorship was held by the Republican party since 1990, but each elected Governor has left for better offices on the national political level. Dukakis ran for President, hilariously. Bill Weld tried to become the Ambassador to Mexico. Paul Celuci was appointed Ambassador to Canada but actually fucked that job up so much he had to resign. Mitt Romney will try to run for President in 2008.
On a national level, the Democrats took the House, and it looks like the Senate. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean much. I know Howard Dean and a lot of Democrats are going to go nuts and celebrate this victory, but in reality, the true victory isn't winning control over Congress, it's WHY they won control over Congress.
The Senate race in Rhode Island is a great demonstration as to why Republicans lost seats in the 2006 election. Chaffee (R) vs. Whitehouse (D). Chaffee is a very moderate Republican. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he's an anti-Bush Republican. He's against the war in Iraq, and is against a great many of the extreme things the Bush White House is for. Not only that, his approval rating was 63% among Rhode Island voters. But he lost. Why? Because he has an R next to his name. Of the voters polled in Rhode Island, 75% disapproved of George W. Bush, and 67% of those disapproved voted for Whitehouse, not Chaffee. 73% of Rhode Islanders disapproved of the war in Iraq, just like Chaffee. But among those voters, Whitehouse took 65% of their votes. 63% of voters approved of Chaffee, but 34% of those voters voted against him.
Rhode Island was a microcosm of America, in my opinion. People just found it hard to vote for the same party as George W. Bush, and the same party that had scandal after scandal in its ranks. In other words, the Republicans lost this election, the Democrats didn't win it.
Controlling Congress probably won't do much for the Democrats. Even with Republican House and Senate, the Bush White House was very fond of Executive Orders and actions taken without Congressional approval. Moreover, with a Republican President with veto power, getting anything done for the Democratic Congress will be quite difficult. We've entered a 2 year log jam phase in American politics.
But the backlash against the GOP is important for the 2008 elections. In the next 2 years, the Republicans will have to re-convince American voters to elect them into office. Are they going to do this by going further right, or going further towards the middle? That's the big question facing them. The fucked up thing is, they could regain votes by going further right. The flyover states are all about moral issues and family values. The Democrats just don't do well on those things. They have this attitude about them that's basically "we're right, only a moron would disagree." They don't try to convince the people enough, which if they did try, they'd probably be able to show them that stem cell research can be good, and things of that nature.
So this election was a victory for the Democrats, but a very small victory. In fact, a meaningless one if they fail to build on it in 2008. Now, if they maintain control of both houses in 2008, even if they don't win the Presidency, that will say something. It will force the Republicans to become less conservative, and less aggressive. And that's good news for all of us.
Ted Kennedy (D) 69% winner of Senate seat for Massachusetts
John Olver (D) 76% winner for House seat in 1st District
Richard Neal (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 2nd District
James McGovern (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 3rd District
Barney Frank (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 4th District
Marty Meehan (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 5th District
John Tierney (D) 70% winner of House seat in 6th District
Edward Markey (D) ran unopposed for House seat in 7th District
Michael Capuano (D) 91% winner for House seat in 8th District
Stephen Lynch (D) 78% winner for House seat in 9th District (my district)
William Delahunt (D) 65% winner for House seat in 10th District
I don't think my vote would have made a difference in a Commonwealth that is very solidly blue (Democratic).
The Governor's race was the only one I particularly cared about. Deval Patrick (D) was the only candidate that seemed to want to continue Massachusetts's role as a leader for socially liberal ideals. Just didn't feel a spark with Healey. And Mihos, all he talked about was the fucking tolls on the Mass Pike in Western Mass. Who cares about Western Mass? Nobody, not even the people in Western Mass.
Deval is the 71st Governor of Massachusetts, a list which includes names like John Hancock and Samuel Adams. He is also the 1st black Governor of Massachusetts, and the 2nd black Governor in US history.
He is a supporter of single-payer health care, stem-cell research, gay rights, Cape Wind (a proposed wind energy farm off the shore of Nantucket that would provide power for 75% of Cape Cod residents who currently use a natural gas plant for power), and affirmative action. I don't like affirmative action, but the rest of those issues are things on which I agree with Patrick on.
Another thing about Patrick is that he probably isn't looking to use the Governorship of Massachusetts just as a springboard for higher offices. The Governorship was held by the Republican party since 1990, but each elected Governor has left for better offices on the national political level. Dukakis ran for President, hilariously. Bill Weld tried to become the Ambassador to Mexico. Paul Celuci was appointed Ambassador to Canada but actually fucked that job up so much he had to resign. Mitt Romney will try to run for President in 2008.
On a national level, the Democrats took the House, and it looks like the Senate. Unfortunately, this doesn't mean much. I know Howard Dean and a lot of Democrats are going to go nuts and celebrate this victory, but in reality, the true victory isn't winning control over Congress, it's WHY they won control over Congress.
The Senate race in Rhode Island is a great demonstration as to why Republicans lost seats in the 2006 election. Chaffee (R) vs. Whitehouse (D). Chaffee is a very moderate Republican. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he's an anti-Bush Republican. He's against the war in Iraq, and is against a great many of the extreme things the Bush White House is for. Not only that, his approval rating was 63% among Rhode Island voters. But he lost. Why? Because he has an R next to his name. Of the voters polled in Rhode Island, 75% disapproved of George W. Bush, and 67% of those disapproved voted for Whitehouse, not Chaffee. 73% of Rhode Islanders disapproved of the war in Iraq, just like Chaffee. But among those voters, Whitehouse took 65% of their votes. 63% of voters approved of Chaffee, but 34% of those voters voted against him.
Rhode Island was a microcosm of America, in my opinion. People just found it hard to vote for the same party as George W. Bush, and the same party that had scandal after scandal in its ranks. In other words, the Republicans lost this election, the Democrats didn't win it.
Controlling Congress probably won't do much for the Democrats. Even with Republican House and Senate, the Bush White House was very fond of Executive Orders and actions taken without Congressional approval. Moreover, with a Republican President with veto power, getting anything done for the Democratic Congress will be quite difficult. We've entered a 2 year log jam phase in American politics.
But the backlash against the GOP is important for the 2008 elections. In the next 2 years, the Republicans will have to re-convince American voters to elect them into office. Are they going to do this by going further right, or going further towards the middle? That's the big question facing them. The fucked up thing is, they could regain votes by going further right. The flyover states are all about moral issues and family values. The Democrats just don't do well on those things. They have this attitude about them that's basically "we're right, only a moron would disagree." They don't try to convince the people enough, which if they did try, they'd probably be able to show them that stem cell research can be good, and things of that nature.
So this election was a victory for the Democrats, but a very small victory. In fact, a meaningless one if they fail to build on it in 2008. Now, if they maintain control of both houses in 2008, even if they don't win the Presidency, that will say something. It will force the Republicans to become less conservative, and less aggressive. And that's good news for all of us.
posted by rob | 12:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home