U.S. Election Extravaganza 2013

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Maybe.

So here we are. A huge, historic day for the greatest country that has ever graced the face of the earth.

Actually, that's not true. None of it.

But it is Election Day in America, and there are some important, interesting races around the country, and there are already results coming in, with votes in...

Virginia... and New Jersey... and New York City... and... and... Alabama?

Yes, the (great?) state of Alabama, where one-quarter of my family is from, including my wonderful, sadly now-deceased maternal grandfather, a WWII hero and, later, baseball broadcaster. There's a House race in that state's first district, with, predictably, two right-wing Republicans on the ballot. So whatever.

(There are also a lot of other local elections taking place, and I'm sure many of them are important and interesting, but we're going to stick to the national stories here.)

Does any of this matter, though? I mean, is there any larger narrative? Will the results tonight tell us anything about the political state of the country, about where the country may be going headed into 2014, with the midterms coming up a year from now, with President Obama's approval ratings low, though not nearly as low as Congress's, with the Affordable Care Act struggling to get going and of course under a constant barrage of dishonestly from Republicans?

I would say no, not really.

Gov. Chris Christie has won re-election in New Jersey. I believe that was called weeks ago, no? It might as well have been. He's a bully and a blowhard, but there's no denying his popularity, and he certainly qualifies as the GOP superstar du jour, with all signs pointing to a 2016 presidential run, with the media salivating over his prospects, even if in reality he stands zero chance of winning the Republican nomination because he's just so out of line with mainstream right-wing Republicanism these days (though he'd likely be a formidable national candidate, just as he might have been the best choice as Romney's running mate last year). Sure, it says a lot that he can win in a blue state, and he's certainly no ideological extremist, but Republicans have a long history of winning state-wide races in my former home state and it's not like Democrats put up a truly viable alternative. Sorry, but Barbara Buono is no Cory Booker.

So, again, whatever.

The more interesting race by far has been in Virginia, where centrist (and corrupt) Clintonite Dem Terry McAuliffe has been ahead of Tea Party social conservative extremist Ken Cuccinelli, he who hates blow jobs, in the polls and appears to be on track to win in that oh-so-purple state. Last night on The Daily Show, a somewhat funny bit suggested that it's a race between two equal evils, two equally unlikeable candidates. That's Jon Stewart's independent shtick, but it's anything but true in this case. I'm hardly a fan of McAuliffe, who has spent much of his political career wallowing in the deep underbelly of the Clinton machine, but he's an opportunistic, self-aggrandizing centrist. He's not nearly as progressive as I would like, but he's at least on the right side of the issue when it comes to, say, women's health, the environment (more or less), and poverty, while The Cooch is a far-right extremist and ideologue who represents the nefarious fusion of anti-government Tea Party radicalism and socially moralistic Christianist theocratism. There's the choice. And the choice is clear. That's what Virginia voters are saying.

As for The Big Apple, well... after years and years of Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, two right-leaning law-and-order types who were tough on crime, minorities, and Big Gulp drinkers, it's obviously time for someone who represents the city's more progressive aspirations for a better life, not just a "safer" life, and that someone is Democrat Bill de Blasio, whose toughest competition was in the Democratic primary and who will beat Republican (and former Giuliani lieutanant) Joe Lhota by, what, 40 points? More? Let's just agree it'll be a landslide. It remains to be seen how de Blasio performs as mayor, and perhaps there are questions about how effectively he'll manage the city and be something more than an aspirational figure, but there's no denying his broad support among the city's various demographic groups and the fact that he's generated a good deal of excitement during the campaign.

By the way, it's still too early to call in Virginia. Not surprising. The early votes from the more rural parts of the state tend to go Republican, while the Democratic votes from the denser northern parts of the state come later, and so The Cooch will continue to lead until, hopefully, those urban, suburban, and exurban votes turn the tide in McAuliffe's favor. But it'll take time. This is purely anecdotal, but Virginia vote-counting and reporting always seems to be a slow, slow process.

Alright, a short break... be back soon.

**********

Okay.

At 9:30 pm, it's a really tight race in Virginia, but McAuliffe has closed the gap significantly. It's now 878,515 to 875,160, or 47-46, for The Cooch, with 87% of precincts reporting.

Christie's up 59-39. Yes, yes, a big win. Let the media kick their stupid "Christie 2016" narrative into an even higher gear. Perspective, people, perspective.

In New York, the race has been called for de Blasio even though, as of right now, CNN has no votes reported. There you go.

**********

By the way, make sure to read the comments. One of our co-bloggers, Frank Moraes, is weighing in as well.

**********

McAuliffe has taken the lead. It's now 911,726 to 906,841, or 47-46, with 91% reporting. I was going to say it's hard to believe that many people actually voted for The Cooch, but, no, it's not surprising at all. It's Virginia, after all, with large parts of the state deeply rooted in the Confederacy, and of course this purple state, like the country generally, remains deeply divided along partisan lines regardless of candidate.

**********

And CNN -- and probably others, but that's what I've got up on the screen at the moment -- has called it for McAuliffe.

It's still 47-46, and so a closer election than expected (and than the polls were suggesting was likely to be the case), though the final numbers will likely show a larger McAuliffe victory, with votes still coming in from populous Democratic areas.

Why is that, this closer-than-expected race? Republican vote suppression efforts, anyone?

**********

At 11:19 pm, it's McAuliffe over Cooch 45-45.

Meanwhile, Christie won big and de Blasio is crushing it. And, for what it's worth, Bradley Byrne beat Dean Young in AL-1.

Oh, what an extravaganza it's been.

Good night, everyone.

McAuliffe surges to 17-point lead over Cuccinelli in Virginia gubernatorial race

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Richard K. Barry

MJWS:

The Cooch

Rasmussen:

Democrat Terry McAuliffe has jumped to a 17-point lead over Republican Ken Cuccinelli in the Virginia gubernatorial race following the federal government shutdown that hit Northern Virginia hard and Hillary Clinton’s weekend visit to the state.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Virginia Voters finds McAuliffe with 50% support to Cuccinelli’s 33%. Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis is a distant third with eight percent (8%) of the vote.

Let me be clear about this: Republican-friendly (and, indeed, solidly pro-Republican) polling firm Rasmussen has the Democrat ahead by a whopping 17 points.

Rasmussen may be deeply biased and often badly wrong, but the bias and wrongness is usually tilted in the Republicans' favor. So this is pretty significant.

In any event, I've said it before and I'll say it again. People really like blow jobs. Or, at the very least, it's dangerous politically to come out against them.

And of course it's also dangerous to be a right-wing extremist in a state that is rapidly turning blue.

Not to mention to be tied to a deeply corrupt and unpopular governor.

Virginia can't be rid of The Cooch soon enough.

Read more »

Why is Ken Cuccinelli losing the Virginia gubernatorial race?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's certainly interesting to see that climate change has become a central issue in the much-watched Virginia gubernatorial race between Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. It has a lot to do with the fact that Virginia has a significant coal industry, of course, but Cuccinelli is also a head-up-his-ass climate change denialist, and that has opened the door for McAuliffe to strike.

One would hope that Virginia voters abhor Cuccinelli's ideological fervor and abject ignorance, and hold him accountable at the polls for this and so many other far-right views, but it's just hard to see the electorate really deciding this race over such a serious public policy matter.

No, I think we know why Cuccinelli, the state's abhorrent attorney general, is behind even against a shifty character like McAuliffe. And no, it's not because Virginia is now a purple state leaning more and more blue.

No, it all comes down to blow jobs, and specifically to Cuccinelli's objection to them.

I mean, most people like blow jobs, right? Surely at least the slightly-less-than-half male part of the electorate to which Cuccinelli himself belongs is nothing if not enthusiastic about them, and surely there are some in the slightly-more-than-half of the other part who at least don't mind them and may even see them as central to their sexual experience, perhaps even as an enjoyable component of it, if not always a necessity no matter how desperately, if not pathetically, the other part pleads for them.

You see, Cuccinelli is the anti-blow job candidate, and really the anti-"sodomy" candidate generally, which means he objects to oral and anal generally. I needn't delve into the enthusiasm that concerns the latter, but the key here is that Cuccinelli objects not just to fellatio but to cunnilingus as well, and that should arouse the indignation of the slightly-more-than-half part of the electorate that finds itself on the receiving end of that act.

Well, and the giving end too. For both. Because, of course, we're talking not just about straight sex but about gay sex as well, and of course the far-right Cuccinelli is hardly a fan of what the gays do, nor of gay rights, nor, one imagines, of the gays themselves, because he's basically a bigot. Anyway, maybe he likes hand jobs or BDSM or something, though we don't know what and what is not, for him, a "crime against nature," but the point is that if you're not doing it like Christian procreationists, presumably with the lights out, in the missionary position, and with a great deal of guilt and shame, you're basically Satan's spawn, and that really cuts down on the fun any straight couple can have and even more of the fun any gay couple can have.

In any event, I'm sure there are any number of important issues that are animating this high-profile race and engaging the electorate, but Cuccinelli's anti-sex agenda has to be the driving force behind his poor showing in the polls, no?*

Because a lot of people really, really, really like blow jobs. Even in Virginia.

(*Okay, fine, probably not. But it should be part of it. Virginians deserve to know just what he wants to do to their sex lives.)

Behind the Ad: Terry McAuliffe, king of the platitudes

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Terry McAuliffe gubernatorial campaign.

Where: Virginia.

What's going on: Democratic candidate for governor in Virgina Terry McAuliffe says a divisive ideological agenda is bad and job creation is good. And he's a uniter, not a divider. Thanks for that, Terry.

By the way, Public Policy Polling just released a poll on the race indicating that neither candidate is much liked:

Terry McAuliffe is not popular, with 29% of voters holding a favorable opinion of him to 33% with a negative one. But we find that Ken Cuccinelli is even more unpopular, with 44% of voters rating him unfavorably to just 32% with a positive opinion. As a result we find McAuliffe leading Cuccinelli by a 5 point margin, 42/37. McAuliffe also led by 5 points on our January poll, but the share of voters who are undecided has spiked from 13% at the start of the year now up to 21%.

Last man standing!


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Behind the Ad: I thought Terry McAuliffe was smarter than this

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Republican National Committee.

Where: A webspot.

What's going on: Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat running for governor of Virginia, put an ad out recently that focused on the theme of family. Unfortunately for McAuliffe, he wrote a memoir in 2007 that was too good not to use against him to criticize where family might fit in his personal ranking of priorities, which is to say, not very high.

It's not a big deal, and it is kind of funny. The RNC took excerpts from his memoirs and made this little video below.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has an interesting perspective:

So what does this have to do with the race for governor? Actually, not a hell of a lot. It paints McAuliffe as a Type-A workaholic that puts his family somewhere below his political aspirations, at least when presented outside the context of the memoir as a whole. That could be seen as a positive, perhaps, by voters who think that elected officials should their [work] considerations above that of family while in office, although it's going to leave a pretty negative personal impression of McAuliffe in general.

Of course, that's the real point of these kind of ads, which is why people dislike negative campaigning in this sense, rather than the entirely respectable practice of rebutting policy positions and voting records. Character attacks like these purportedly turn people off to politics, although there doesn't seem to be too much evidence of that at the polling stations. On the other hand, McAuliffe wrote the memoir to bolster his political standing — advertising himself, in a real sense, for his political career — so anything he wrote is certainly fair game for scrutiny. Why he shared these passages from his life is anyone’s guess, but it at least leaves the impression that McAuliffe isn't in touch with how they make him look.

I tend to agree with Morrissey. It doesn't mean much, but it does make you wonder about a guy who seems to think the story told below is somehow cute.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Pity poor Virginia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Terry McAuliffe wants to be your governor. He's got the money, the ego, and the Clinton connections, and he'll be a formidable candidate. And maybe, just maybe, he has what it takes to be a successful governor of a purple state, and maybe he'd be able to turn it blue. Then again, maybe he'll just end up tripping around in his own spin, as usual, unable to distinguish the truth from what passes through his lips in a continuous stream of partisan happy talk.

Sorry, I just don't much like the guy, loyal Democrat though he be.

**********

For an especially critical take, make sure to read Booman on McAuliffe: "He's a glorified bagman... the nuts-and-bolts-guy of the DLC's corporatocracy. If he holds a progressive idea anywhere in his head, it is merely a branding decision that makes him distinct from George Allen-Republicanism."