October 25, 2001
1:00 PM Subscribe
It looks like McGreevey Leads Schundler in NJ governors race and Virginia's race is too close to call. With election day just around the corner, which election races are you watching?
Here in New York, people haven't been watching the mayoral campaign understandably. I've never before seen a major New York election get this little coverage, though I think it's about to change. Mark Green has a commanding lead over Mike Bloomberg yet I get the feel that the race is going to be close. Bloomberg has been absolutely saturating the airwaves with campaign ads and has attempted to attack Green on several fronts. He has criticized Green for dividing the city. Bloomberg claims that when Green was in the primary for the Democratic candidacy he used racial overtones to eliminate his opponent Freddie Ferrer.
As far as a response to the September 11th events, Bloomberg has claimed that his financial experience and knowledge are crucial to help the city to get over its economic problems. He also has tried to portray himself as the heir apparent to the Giuliani mantle.
posted by wsfinkel at 1:34 PM on October 25, 2001
As far as a response to the September 11th events, Bloomberg has claimed that his financial experience and knowledge are crucial to help the city to get over its economic problems. He also has tried to portray himself as the heir apparent to the Giuliani mantle.
posted by wsfinkel at 1:34 PM on October 25, 2001
The Austin, Texas Mayor's race.
I can't decide if I'm going to vote for Leslie, the homless transvestite (who got 10% of the vote last time and has advocated teepees as an alternative to low-rent housing) or Jennifer, the transexual ex-Marine who wants to ban all auto traffic from downtown.
posted by ColdChef at 1:38 PM on October 25, 2001
I can't decide if I'm going to vote for Leslie, the homless transvestite (who got 10% of the vote last time and has advocated teepees as an alternative to low-rent housing) or Jennifer, the transexual ex-Marine who wants to ban all auto traffic from downtown.
posted by ColdChef at 1:38 PM on October 25, 2001
Let's face it... despite the tragic events of the last two months and the nation rallying around the president, this is a year for Democrats. People have faith in Democrats. Political Wire has Bloomberg way behind in NYC, Bush isn't even going to campaign for Early in Virginia, and Schundler is making desperate attacks in New Jersey. That's three races for the Democrats in seats held by Republicans now.
posted by flip at 1:51 PM on October 25, 2001
posted by flip at 1:51 PM on October 25, 2001
flip, you're forgetting to mention that all these races should be *easily* won by Democrats. Sure, there was Gilmore and Guliani etc, but these are areas that Democrats dominate come election day.
Personally, I look at the NYC race for entertainment, as Bloomberg and Green are likely to do something silly, unique or just stupid. I look at the Virginia race because it's close. I lost interest in NJ since it's already over, in my opinion.
posted by Witold at 2:02 PM on October 25, 2001
Personally, I look at the NYC race for entertainment, as Bloomberg and Green are likely to do something silly, unique or just stupid. I look at the Virginia race because it's close. I lost interest in NJ since it's already over, in my opinion.
posted by Witold at 2:02 PM on October 25, 2001
Witold, the seats are all held by Republicans! How easy is it for Democrats to win against the incumbents, unless the incumbent party is not doing their job right?
posted by flip at 2:07 PM on October 25, 2001
posted by flip at 2:07 PM on October 25, 2001
Witold, the seats are all held by Republicans! How easy is it for Democrats to win against the incumbents, unless the incumbent party is not doing their job right?
The fact that these offices are currently held by Republicans does not change the fact that these are traditionally Democrat areas. In the cases of NYC and New Jersey, Republicans took advantage of the fact that the incumbent Democrats (Dinkins in NYC and Florio in New Jersey) were so blantantly incompetent that they stood no chance of getting elected again.
The interesting question is why these places would even consider returning the Democrats to office considering their recent track record in these areas, but that's politics for you.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:22 PM on October 25, 2001
The fact that these offices are currently held by Republicans does not change the fact that these are traditionally Democrat areas. In the cases of NYC and New Jersey, Republicans took advantage of the fact that the incumbent Democrats (Dinkins in NYC and Florio in New Jersey) were so blantantly incompetent that they stood no chance of getting elected again.
The interesting question is why these places would even consider returning the Democrats to office considering their recent track record in these areas, but that's politics for you.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:22 PM on October 25, 2001
I grew up on the border between Maryland/Virginia/DC, and my father lives in Northern Virginia. VA does not strike me as a Democratic stronghold.
Have things changed recently?
posted by jragon at 2:58 PM on October 25, 2001
Have things changed recently?
posted by jragon at 2:58 PM on October 25, 2001
The interesting question is why these places would even consider returning the Democrats to office considering their recent track record in these areas, but that's politics for you.
Maybe the credit actually belongs to the policies of the Clinton administration during the last eight years for the "recent track record in these areas..." Don't tell me, it was the Repubs in Congress, right? Yeah, right!
Remember Clinton's '93 tax increase for which the Repubs howled that it would TANK the economy, and it passed with no Repub votes...
posted by Rastafari at 4:07 PM on October 25, 2001
Maybe the credit actually belongs to the policies of the Clinton administration during the last eight years for the "recent track record in these areas..." Don't tell me, it was the Repubs in Congress, right? Yeah, right!
Remember Clinton's '93 tax increase for which the Repubs howled that it would TANK the economy, and it passed with no Repub votes...
posted by Rastafari at 4:07 PM on October 25, 2001
Virginia has term limits. There are no incumbents for the governor's race. Warner will do well in Richmond, and surprisingly well in No. VA, given his understanding of high-tech. He also speaks fluent spanish, which is a big draw in the latino areas of No. VA. This may overcome his weakness in the tidewater area, and the rural rest of the state.
posted by machaus at 4:25 PM on October 25, 2001
posted by machaus at 4:25 PM on October 25, 2001
I grew up on the border between Maryland/Virginia/DC, and my father lives in Northern Virginia. VA does not strike me as a Democratic stronghold.
The current Republican governor is only the second Republican governor in 25 years in Virginia, and his election was the first time two Republicans had been elected in a row.
Maybe the credit actually belongs to the policies of the Clinton administration during the last eight years for the "recent track record in these areas..."
No, if you understood what I read, their (Florio and Dinkins) track records were quite inept. And both lost in 93. Hard to say Clinton had anything to do with it.
Remember Clinton's '93 tax increase for which the Repubs howled that it would TANK the economy, and it passed with no Repub votes...
Right, the tax increase he fought for after promising a tax cut while campaigning. Likely the economy would have been even stronger in the mid/late-90's than in was had we not had the tax increase.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:55 PM on October 25, 2001
The current Republican governor is only the second Republican governor in 25 years in Virginia, and his election was the first time two Republicans had been elected in a row.
Maybe the credit actually belongs to the policies of the Clinton administration during the last eight years for the "recent track record in these areas..."
No, if you understood what I read, their (Florio and Dinkins) track records were quite inept. And both lost in 93. Hard to say Clinton had anything to do with it.
Remember Clinton's '93 tax increase for which the Repubs howled that it would TANK the economy, and it passed with no Repub votes...
Right, the tax increase he fought for after promising a tax cut while campaigning. Likely the economy would have been even stronger in the mid/late-90's than in was had we not had the tax increase.
posted by ljromanoff at 5:55 PM on October 25, 2001
...this is a year for Democrats
Not according to Doug Ireland.
posted by ferris at 6:41 PM on October 25, 2001
Not according to Doug Ireland.
posted by ferris at 6:41 PM on October 25, 2001
Kevin Phillips, on the other hand, envisions an "emerging Democratic majority" this time around. After historical excursions through the Restorations of the Stuarts and the Bourbons, and the 1876 and 2000 US elections, he predicts:
If history is any guide, the Democrats...will likely take back the Senate and House in 2002 and then in 2004 regain the White House they should not have lost in 2000.
posted by ferris at 7:01 PM on October 25, 2001
If history is any guide, the Democrats...will likely take back the Senate and House in 2002 and then in 2004 regain the White House they should not have lost in 2000.
posted by ferris at 7:01 PM on October 25, 2001
Kevin Phillips, on the other hand, envisions an "emerging Democratic majority" this time around.
I envision a half dozen blondes in bikinis stopping by my house and feeding me candy this afternoon - doesn't mean there's any chance of it happening, though.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:17 AM on October 26, 2001
I envision a half dozen blondes in bikinis stopping by my house and feeding me candy this afternoon - doesn't mean there's any chance of it happening, though.
posted by ljromanoff at 6:17 AM on October 26, 2001
I am sooooo dreading my move back to NJ. PA has some of the lowest car insurance rates in the nation, while NJ leads the pack by astronomical rates. Maybe I can set up a Web cam, and people can donate to my car insurance fund if I show a little skin...
posted by adampsyche at 6:53 AM on October 26, 2001
posted by adampsyche at 6:53 AM on October 26, 2001
My politics are boring/moderate/good government, and I vote for folks in both parties, but one thing I despise is intentional false manipulation and disingenuousness in politicians. For that reason, I could never vote for Earley in Virginia.
His recent campaign ads are masterful exercises in shameful manipulation and deception. First came the flag-waving ad shortly after Sept. 11, in which he carefully tried to portray himself as the man for the times, thus taking political advantage of one of the nation's greatest tragedies only weeks after it occurred.
Next came the ads in which he said Warner was for tax increases -- a patent falsehood, and one that stakes out the belief that Virginians won't educate themselves before voting. That alone should send a chill through most people.
Warner actually supports letting local residents decide whether they want a transportation tax in their area -- a popular position among many in Northern Virginia, where I live and where Warner will easily prevail. That is far different than supporting higher taxes, but it also takes some explaining, and Earley's betting that most people won't pay attention. It's hard to imagine something more cynical than that.
posted by Phaedrus at 8:23 AM on October 26, 2001
His recent campaign ads are masterful exercises in shameful manipulation and deception. First came the flag-waving ad shortly after Sept. 11, in which he carefully tried to portray himself as the man for the times, thus taking political advantage of one of the nation's greatest tragedies only weeks after it occurred.
Next came the ads in which he said Warner was for tax increases -- a patent falsehood, and one that stakes out the belief that Virginians won't educate themselves before voting. That alone should send a chill through most people.
Warner actually supports letting local residents decide whether they want a transportation tax in their area -- a popular position among many in Northern Virginia, where I live and where Warner will easily prevail. That is far different than supporting higher taxes, but it also takes some explaining, and Earley's betting that most people won't pay attention. It's hard to imagine something more cynical than that.
posted by Phaedrus at 8:23 AM on October 26, 2001
Likely the economy would have been even stronger in the mid/late-90's than in was had we not had the tax increase.
You mean like the unemployment being at 3% insted of at 4% that it was? How do you even judge that an economy might have been stronger than it was?
posted by Rastafari at 8:23 AM on October 26, 2001
You mean like the unemployment being at 3% insted of at 4% that it was? How do you even judge that an economy might have been stronger than it was?
posted by Rastafari at 8:23 AM on October 26, 2001
You mean like the unemployment being at 3% insted of at 4% that it was?
Possibly.
How do you even judge that an economy might have been stronger than it was?
Well, the economy was strong but it could have been improved. You aren't suggesting that tax increases are actually good for an economy, are you?
posted by ljromanoff at 9:56 AM on October 26, 2001
Possibly.
How do you even judge that an economy might have been stronger than it was?
Well, the economy was strong but it could have been improved. You aren't suggesting that tax increases are actually good for an economy, are you?
posted by ljromanoff at 9:56 AM on October 26, 2001
On one hand, you put the taxes at 0% and the businesses rejoice while social programs/initiatives go in the toilet, which effects business in the long run.
On the other hand, you live with extraordinarily high taxes, have all kinds of federal programs, but you hold down the economy, which has effect on society at large in the long run.
As with anything, the key is to strike a reasonable balance. Everything is connected in an economy; if it wasn't, Bush's tax cut would have us well on the way to recovery by now. Clinton's 8 years found a good balance between social responsibility and economy.
posted by jragon at 9:17 AM on October 29, 2001
On the other hand, you live with extraordinarily high taxes, have all kinds of federal programs, but you hold down the economy, which has effect on society at large in the long run.
As with anything, the key is to strike a reasonable balance. Everything is connected in an economy; if it wasn't, Bush's tax cut would have us well on the way to recovery by now. Clinton's 8 years found a good balance between social responsibility and economy.
posted by jragon at 9:17 AM on October 29, 2001
« Older New Zealand's Green Party | Buffoon Of The Day? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Sorry, not trying to steal your thread.
posted by lbergstr at 1:21 PM on October 25, 2001