Pickin' The Bones of Election 2010

political graveyard We now have various analysts pickin' the bones on election 2010, many trying to justify some political position or cause. This site already had it's say and proclaimed it was about jobs. What say others?

Public Citizen says Democrats who had strong positions on reforming trade agreements and policy won and those who didn't lost.

House Democrats that ran on fair trade platforms in competitive and open-seat races were three times as likely to survive the GOP tidal wave than Democrats who ran against fair trade, according to a comprehensive 182-race, 70-page report released by Public Citizen. The GOP tsunami obliterated many candidate-specific features of the midterm contests, but trade, job offshoring and/or government purchases of foreign-made goods were a stunningly persistent national focus of midterm election campaigns, with 205 candidates campaigning on these issues. A record number of 75 Republicans adopted some fair trade messaging as well, 43 of whom won their races. More than sixty races became “fair trade offs,” where both the Democrat and Republican ran on fair trade themes. Only 37 candidates campaigned in favor of more North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)-style trade agreements - about half of these candidates lost.

For all of you lefties out there, take heart, Public Citizen is noting many of the new GOP who ran on fair trade won their seats.

20 TARP votes lost their election bids according to Bail Out Sleuth.

Twenty legislators who voted in favor of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the 2008 legislation that created TARP, lost re-election campaigns Tuesday.

They join five other legislators who also backed TARP but lost earlier this year in primary attempts.

Those results, combined with the 11 TARP supporters who were ousted by voters in 2008, bring the total number of TARP backers booted from office to 36. (That figure includes two TARP "yes" voters who were defeated in primaries in 2008 prior to casting their votes).

Incumbents who voted against TARP fared better Tuesday night than those who voted for it, losing just 10 general election races. Additionally, no TARP opponents lost election in the primaries this year.

The problem with exit polls is so often they just report nationally. What is that phrase, all politics is local and no where did it show up more strongly than on the Comprehensive Immigration voter.

Check this out. In California as well as Nevada, the illegal immigrant vote caused blue to stay blue. Same in the Colorado race.

Yet in looking at governor exit polls, we see similar results, so it's clear Hispanics and the one issue pony, illegal immigration, are a deciding factor on whether someone wins or not. That said, on the other side, in other parts of the country, it seems to be a different story, possibly an opposite one. There were three conservatives of Hispanic ethnicity who won their races and all three have a much harder line on illegal immigration and immigration generally.

In New Mexico, voters elected the nation's first Latina governor, Republican Susana Martinez. In Nevada, Republican Brian Sandoval won the governor's race and became Nevada's first Hispanic governor. And in Florida, Republican Marco Rubio won the U.S. Senate race.

The Pew Hispanic Center notes that in Florida, a conservative, Rubio, won 55% of the Hispanic vote, while Sandoval won 33%, the general breakdown nationally of party vote by ethnicity. New Mexico of course didn't give any exit polls.

NumbersUSA is claiming 40 House members who had voted for Comprehensive Immigration Reform lost their seats. Bottom line, there are clear regional differences and differences among ethic groups across states.

Black people voted 90% Democrat, so about the most loyal voting block, and strangely not mentioned in the press.

Another exit poll shows people were not into GOP policy proposals, so go figure that one.

58% of all voters said they were sending a message or a protest vote this election. The breakdown was 40% Democrat, 63% Independent and 76% Republican.

One of the most interesting exit polls I've seen is this one attached by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. It's shocking how Nancy Pelosi generates such outrage, misogyny perhaps? In all seriousness, one must wonder. It was the Senate where all legislation was watered down to nothing, or made more special interest friendly. Case in point is Financial Reform, which was whittled down to nothing by the conferees, not that what the House passed was real reform either. So, why the laser focus on Pelosi is a very strange thing indeed. Maybe we need to force Harry Reid to wear a dress so he can share in the glory?

One most interesting note, even Republicans believe it's more important to spend on infrastructure than reduce the deficit, at the moment.

Another interesting exit poll is from the Wall Street Journal.

Earlier someone was shocked people voted against their economic interests by voting Republican. Now did they? The Democrats did not seize the moment to address trade, offshore outsourcing and did not even demand Buy American and Hire America conditions in the Stimulus. If someone claims to be helping, yet you have been out of a job for 99 weeks and your house was foreclosed on....well....what is that, the invisible hand?

What does Obama do in response to all of these messages sent by voters? He goes to Asia and claims India is a creator, not a poacher of U.S. jobs. Talk about digging one's hole deeper and I guess he's out to do that....all the way to China.

(yes, America has lost hundreds of thousands of tech jobs to India both through offshore outsourcing and importation of foreign labor, displacing U.S. workers).



Interesting cross section of comments

I'll take a meta perspective to explain it all;)

When you make big promises and get people hoping for real change, you had better deliver. The public is not stupid. They knew what the Obama message was - we'll have something vastly different from Bush that puts the people first. Obama's obviously inept inner circle thought that their carefully crafted qualifiers and weasel words would give them an excuse to "move to the center" (which means move to the corporate agenda, has nothing to do with any center except money center banks). They were wrong.

Here's how I see Obama and Democrats losing their golden opportunity.

NBC News/WSJ Poll

Early on, we had more bailouts and more Wall Street Bonuses. In the first marked time frame, Obama tried to sell the economy as "back from the precipice."

Then we had the rah-rah Afghanistan surge announced with more "Empire Speak" about making the world safe for our children and grandchildren.

And then the BP oil spill took place where our coastline was assaulted and the Gulf polluted only to see the perpetrator put in charge of the clean up.

That's how I see it. But basically, Obama, with a wink and a nod, filled people with hope then did little or nothing. Bad politics, bad governance, bad results.

sounds about right

Can you put on their health care, but not the bill, when Obama was talking to lobbyists and they killed the public option and other ideas...

then when they refused to put in Buy American, Hire America clauses in the Stimulus...

then ....Financial Reform...

I think he just really done it by this proclamation India is a U.S. job creator. OMG, what statistical fictional falsehood!

We'll never know for sure, but...

given the depth of the recession we were bound to see an increase in the election of Republicans.

One has to wonder, however, what would have happened if Obama had:

1) more directly addressed the economy, especially
- helping those who have been hit the hardest (those who have lost their jobs and the financial security it provided),
- extending additional emergency unemployment for the 99-ers (whose benefits have or will run out),
- sought to help retirees (or soon to be retirees) depending on now-depleted 401Ks,
- seeking to have large corporations (many of whose profits should embarass them) increase their payments into UI funding,
- spent some of the stimulus money to HELP people with emergency food banks, etc., and,
- spent more of the stimulus money in job creation projects;

2) insisted on maintaining a public option during the healthcare debate (such as expanding Medicare for those wanting or needing it); better yet, made a real effort to consider a single payer system (the only real way to contain rising costs);

3) clearly insisted on continuing the military draw down and ending of involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan,

4) gone after BP more directly in resolving the effects of the spill and making sure that they and their involved subcontractors such as Halliburton PAY for the disaster. (There are plenty of scientists and specialists in the field to let the "wolf be in charge of the henhouse.") And,

5) not backed down at every opportunity to name people with stirling credentials (such as Elizabeth Warren) to important positions whenever the Republican shills for corporate America cried NO;

... it's quite possible the Democrats could have kept their House majority.

There but for the grace of God go I

Corporate Melissa Bean floated as CFPA head

You can't make this stuff up folks. Corporate representative Melissa Bean is on the verge of finally losing her House Seat (cheer everyone, this is one corporate corrupt Democrat). So, what does the White House Do? Float her name as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (previously known as CFPA).

The situation is getting bleak. We have a host of conservative Populists, i.e. Tea Parties who assuredly would get an "F" on the test in Economics 101. Then, we have Obama out there dancing with offshore outsourcer India and things like this.

Me thinks a new coalition of people gravely concerned about our nation and our economy, who also know, from the statistics that x != y or z ~= w, join forces. We're goin' to the dogs in no uncertain terms in seems.