Tonight's three nationally-observed elections can be summed up simply as the status quo.
New Jersey: A Democrat replaces a Democrat as Governor.
Virginia: A Democrat replaces a Democrat as Governor. (Republicans may win the other two statewide races, a wash or a pickup of one.)
New York: Republican Michael Bloomberg re-elected Mayor.
Texas: Following the lead of 11 states in 2004, voters overwhelmingly approve Constitutional amendment defining marriage.
Local Coverage: Beltway news jumped constantly between Virginia House of Delegates races, often leaving out party affiliation, and without any big picture analysis. (It will remain Republican.)
National Coverage: The gubernatorial races will be reported as Democrat victories when they are in reality merely not GOP takeovers. New York City, with a population greater than the Commonwealth of Virginia, will not be comparably reported as a Republican victory.
So what does all this mean for 2006?
If nothing changes, nothing changes.
4 comments:
I submit that the New York "victory" might be given a bit more pro-GOP spin if Michael Bloomberg wasn't involved. I'm not saying his victory wasn't better than the alternative. I'm just saying it's kind of a "blah" thing for conservatives. And if conservatives aren't excited about a Republican, the media sure as heck won't be. Unless it's John McCain.
Liberals could say the same thing about Virginia.
You mean they aren't enthusiastic about Kaine?
Only to the extent that he is labeled a Democrat.
He was elected because he was viewed as the continuation of a popular Democrat administration (getting 51% of the vote following a governor with a 70% approval rating). On some issues the "independent" Republican candidate (Potts) was more liberal. Potts was the only truly pro-abortion candidate in the race, although Kaine ran pro-abortion ads in Northern Virginia while describing himself as pro-life everywhere else.
Post a Comment