New York City Mayor and Governor of Virginia are Democrats. What does it indicate?

[skeptic]

Just wonder what the thoughts are on these outcomes, as well as others that I have yet to see? These two are pretty important I would think.

[Stosh]

I don't live in New York or Virginia. It's their problem, not mine. It's kinda like watching a car accident in slow motion. As long as you're not in the car, it ain't gonna hurt.

 

Stosh

[Horizon]

New York City is expected. Virginia is a more "purple" state, strong mix of both parties. It would have probably gone Republican if not for the Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis.

[TABLE=width: 300]

[TR]

[/TR]

[TR]

Governor VOTES % WON [/TR]

[TR=class: winner]

[TD=class: office] Terry McAuliffe[/TD]

[TD=class: number votes]1,065,205[/TD]

[TD=class: number pct-won]48.0[/TD]

[TD=class: pct-sign]%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: office] Ken Cuccinelli II[/TD]

[TD=class: number votes]1,010,335[/TD]

[TD=class: number pct-won]45.5[/TD]

[TD=class: pct-sign] [/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: office] Robert Sarvis[/TD]

[TD=class: number votes]145,560[/TD]

[TD=class: number pct-won]6.6

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

[Nike]

It would have gone Republican if current Lt Gov Bill Bolling had been the R's candidate. Virginians don't like fringe. Most people voted less for a candidate and more against the other.

[blw2]

If you're getting at a big picture trend of not rejecting Obama and such.....

 

I personally am thinking that it's too early for any such of a trend. The uniformed masses are still uninformed..... way too many people just don't care enough about politics to open their eyes......and the existing conservative establishment isn't strong enough all around. The radical shift that's needed doesn't have enough really strong candidates yet to get behind and the ones that exist don't have enough traction in the media, etc to get through to said uninformed voters....

 

I want to think that it's gonna have to collapse before people start waking up, but my fear is that even if or when it collapses, history will have been re-written by the pro politicians and media, so the uniformed will remain fast asleep.

[Papadaddy]

I'm a Virginian, and held my nose and voted for Cuccinelli. I don't appreciate turning over our state government to someone who has no elected office experience, sweeps in from the Northeast with a war chest funded by out of state interests, and is a sycophant of the Clinton machine. We used to call them "carpetbaggers". He is also claimed to be a Roman Catholic, but is on the record as pro-abortion. During the gubernatorial debates, he said his first order of business would be to expand Medicaid and raise taxes to fund more entitlements, and "shut down the state" if he didn't get what he wanted. When pressed on how he was going to fund his ideas, he said, "we'll just have to see what the revenues look like." He outspent Cuccinelli 3:1 with funding from out of state. In my opinion, he got elected because a) people, especially women, hated Cuccinelli, b) he promised more free stuff, and c) he had his nose far up Billary's hindparts. Cuccinelli, on the other hand, is a far right-wing conservative who advocated NO abortion under ANY circumstances, vaginal ultrasounds, and other wacky ideas. He is also a Roman Catholic, but at least not a hypocrite, and plainly stated his beliefs and intent. I was confident that the general assembly would not have let him get very far with those ideas. The Libertarian Sarvis, it was revealed at the last minute, was bankrolled by the Democrats in an effort to dilute the vote.

[Papadaddy]

I'm a Virginian, and held my nose and voted for Cuccinelli. I don't appreciate turning over our state government to someone who has no elected office experience, sweeps in from the Northeast with a war chest funded by out of state interests, and is a sycophant of the Clinton machine. We used to call them "carpetbaggers". He is also claimed to be a Roman Catholic, but is on the record as pro-abortion. During the gubernatorial debates, he said his first order of business would be to expand Medicaid and raise taxes to fund more entitlements, and "shut down the state" if he didn't get what he wanted. When pressed on how he was going to fund his ideas, he said, "we'll just have to see what the revenues look like." He outspent Cuccinelli 3:1 with funding from out of state. In my opinion, he got elected because a) people, especially women, hated Cuccinelli, b) he promised more free stuff, and c) he had his nose far up Billary's hindparts. Cuccinelli, on the other hand, is a far right-wing conservative who advocated NO abortion under ANY circumstances, vaginal ultrasounds, and other wacky ideas. He is also a Roman Catholic, but at least not a hypocrite, and plainly stated his beliefs and intent. I was confident that the general assembly would not have let him get very far with those ideas. The Libertarian Sarvis, it was revealed at the last minute, was bankrolled by the Democrats in an effort to dilute the vote.

PS: I attended a forum lecture by Dr. Larry Sabato, Professor of Political Science at UVa, McAuliffe was going to run for Governor "somewhere" and it didn't matter where. The only two races this year were NJ and VA, and he didn't have a snowball's chance against Christie. So we got stuck with him and fell for it. Also, according to Sabato, if Hillary runs in 2016, she WILL win. The Republicans are now so dysfunctional, there's no one who can beat her. Depressing.

[Brewmeister]

It means the takers outweigh the makers among those who voted in those elections. Next question.