For Post 1000: Why 2009 was NOT Devastating for the Democratic, but Stupak will be...

[BolivarianHero]

So let's look at what happened last week....

First, it's been over two decades since either NJ or VA have elected a governor of the same party as the incumbent President.

Second, Corzine was an unpopular governor of a state Democratic Party that is mired in corruption; Obama's relative popularity and the NJ's Democratic leanings kept things close.

Third, Deeds was a weak candidate who ran a terrible campaign; progressive voters and Democrats in general were uninspired by him and would have been far more galvanized by Moran or McCauliffe, and he only won the nomination because everyone remotely left-of-centre within the state Democratic Party was divided between his two opponents. The Democrats didn't do enough to paint McDonnell and Cuccinelli for the nuts that they were. The primary attempt I can remember, by Jim Moran, while an accurate metaphor of their opinions, was so clumsy and histrionic that it hindered Deeds (the "Taliban Ticket" remark) far more than it helped him.

Last, the seat up for grabs in the Bay Area was originally gerrymandered to be its only GOP seat and is the region's most conservative area. The Democratic who ran was well to the left of her predecessor and was facing a GOP machine that was far more galvanized than its Democratic counterpart. All thing considered, she did extremely well.

As for NY-23, across the border from my hometown in Ontario, the circular firing squad that defined the GOP's attempts to hold the district was such a sorry thing to watch that it bodes very poorly for the party's attempts at building a workable coalition to beat back the Democrats in 2010*. There was no reason for the right to lose this stronghold, and the clusterfuckery that want on there will remain the stuff of legends.

* = Fuck you Stupak. Unless things change, tons of women and progressive men will stay home next year and hand the House to the GOP...At least the Senate will stay blue...

[emulatorloo]

1. What happens if they kill Stupak in conference? Could be easy if there is no similar

amendment in Senate bill.

Harkin says stupak will not survive.

It would be good to call and put pressure on your Senators to make sure this happens.

[bigwillq]

2. Congrats on 1000!

:toast:

[cali]

3. The dems may go down in 2010 but if so, Stupak will play a relatively small part

The truth is, much as folks don't like to hear it, that it the independents who make or break the results. Oh, and this progressive most certainly will not be sitting it out in 2010. You really don't know what you're talking about if you think that the Stupak amendment will cause the dems to lose the house. And I say that as someone enraged by the Amendment.

[tonysam]

4. Stupak ISN'T fatal to the Democrats; the provision is perfectly legal

I don't like the provision, but I didn't like the Hyde Amendment of 1976, either, but it was upheld by the USSC.

I don't understand why people are all of a sudden up in arms about something that is nothing more than a reworking of a provision that has been legal for over 30 years. It tells me many people had never heard of the Hyde Amendment and think the Stupak provision was something that simply came out of the blue.

[bain_sidhe]

5. It's NOT like the Hyde Amendment

Hyde prevents the federal government from PAYING for an abortion.

The Stupak amendment prevents you from buying insurance that includes abortion coverage with YOUR OWN MONEY because some moralizing prick thinks abortion is wrong.