Share

Obama Was Not on the Ballot

by: Scott Galindez, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

photo
In 2009 Obama's name wasn't on the ballot like it was in 2008. (Photo: freeparking / flickr)

On election night 2009, the political spin machines were working overtime. The talking heads were opining on what the results meant for the president's standing with the electorate. But the problem is most Americans didn't go to the polls, and the ones who did were not given the option of voting for the president.

In New Jersey, people who voted against incumbent Gov. John Corzine were not doing it to send a message to Barack Obama. Poll after poll showed that the state's high property taxes and John Corzine's low approval ratings were driving the race. A vote for John Corzine, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was not a vote for Barack Obama.

Election watchers have been saying that the president's late campaign efforts for Corzine show he doesn't have the grip on the electorate that he had a year ago. The real question should be why an incumbent governor who was outspending a relative newcomer 4 to 1 needed Obama to campaign heavily for him in the closing days of the campaign. Obama wasn't able to rescue John Corzine, but I'm willing to bet he would have won New Jersey in a landslide if he was the candidate on the ballot.

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds ran an old-style campaign where he tried to tear down his opponent before defining what he was for. That is not the change Americans voted for last November. Creigh Deeds was the most conservative candidate the Democrats have nominated for governor in decades, yet he was was painted by his opponent as being to the left of past nominees. The Republican, Bob McDonnell, ran a populist campaign focusing on jobs and the economy; the title of McDonnell's last campaign ad was "Hope." Creigh Deeds, not Obama, lost Virginia.

Does anyone think Bob McDonnell could have beaten Barack Obama?

Now we move to the two congressional races. The Democrats won both races, one of which they have never held before.

Probably the most absurd spin has been talk that the race in the 23rd Congressional became so heated because of voters' dissatisfaction with Obama. The special election in this district is the result of the president choosing Rep. John M. McHugh to be Secretary of the Army. A Republican has been winning in the 23rd district by large margins since it was created. There is only one other Republican district in New York. This is the district in which Sara Palin made headlines by endorsing the third-party candidate Doug Hoffman, leading to a "civil war" between conservative republicans and party moderates. The conservatives won and the Republican candidate dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat.

How can anyone make sense of the vote here? It is a solidly Republican district; the Democrats have never cracked 40 percent of the vote in the district. This race was a Republican affair, the Democrats were on the sidelines watching Republicans fight each other. Amazingly on election night the Democrat recieved close to 50 percent of the vote and won.

The pundits want to tell us that the results of two state races and two congressional districts show a trend. Why not wait until next year when everyone goes to the polls?

But ultimately, let's wait until 2012 to see how the country thinks Obama is doing. That is the next time his name will be on the ballot.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

  

»


Scott Galindez is a Senior Editor at Truthout.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

Why didn't progressives go

Why didn't progressives go to the polls? Because they realize the "change" they voted for was a lie. It's business as usual in Washington, and that means Big Money wins and the little guy loses. Take health care: Democrats are close to passing the most regressive "tax" in history. They could provide universal health care via the progressive tax system. Instead, they have chosen to support the profits of the insurance industry by passing a bill that will "tax" low and middle income individuals up to 11% of their income - that's higher than the payroll tax! The wealthy, of course, can obtain health insurance for a small fraction of their income. Health insurance premiums are increasing at a time when wages are decreasing. That's unsustainable. In a capitalistic system that would soon lead to LOWER insurance premiums. That won't happen under the crony capitalism supported by the Democrats in Washington. A combination of mandates and taxpayer dollars mean continued high prices for consumers and even greater profits for the insurance industry.

I think the above commenter

I think the above commenter only has it half right. Surely the existing health care bills could end up being a boon to the status-quo providers. The real issue for progressive voters in both VA and NJ, however, was the lack of a real progressive Democrat for whom to vote.

A week or two ago, I

A week or two ago, I happened upon a Craig Deeds fundraiser that was scarcely attended and altogether glum. It was clear to everyone present, it seemed, that their campaign's messaging had failed.

Lucky for Democrats Obama's

Lucky for Democrats Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. His popularity has plummeted.

The statement above reads -

The statement above reads - "Lucky for Democrats Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. His popularity has plummeted." Now come on now...can't you Republican/Coporate shills write something better than this? You're paid good money straight from the insurance industry to come up with lies all day long...and this bare-face lie is all you can dredge up? How pathetic...

Here's the democratic

Here's the democratic true-believers trying to put a good spin on yesterdays' GOP sweep. It's true that the Democrats appeared to stay away from the polls in droves, while the GOP showed up. And it's not hard to see why. The progressive democrats, who carried Obama to success by their spirit and vigor, have reacted to his spurning of them and their agenda with disillusion and apathy. This forewarns of disaster in 2010! By destroying the base which put him in power, Obama may well lose much of his congressional majority, and spend 2 years (6 if he makes another term) as a lame duck, unable to implement even the small part of the progressive agenda that he hasn't already repudiated. Extraordinary Rendition? We still got it! Military Commissions? We still got it! War in Iraq? We still got it! War in Afghanistan? We still got it! Patriot Act? We still got it! Stupid, arrogant border and TSA agents? We still got 'em! Warrentless Wiretapping? We still got it! Massive Unemployment? We still got it! Arrogant Bankers and CEOS? We still got 'em! An administration run by and for plutocrats? We still got it! Medicare for All? Never even on the table! A serious attack on Global Warming? Fuhgeddaboudit! Combatting unemployment by building infrastructure? Huh? Why would the activists who went to bat for Obama over these issues even bother to show up at the polls, either this time or next time? True, Obama was not on the ballot - but if he was implementing the real reform they expected, his original base would have still been energized enough to show up support that agenda!

Wonderful to see the right

Wonderful to see the right wingnuts attempt to make something out of yesterday's election nothing. Two deeply-flawed Democratic candidates were beaten in gubernatorial races and a referendum to keep civil rights from gays (civil rights are not something to be voted on, or blacks in the south would still have separate rest rooms and be riding in the back of the bus) won in a squeaker. But the right wingnuts think this is the second coming of that great imposter, Ronald Reagan. The key election was New York 23rd, where the right wingnuts' hand-picked incompetent was beaten in a heavily Republican district, sticking it to the braindead right wingnuts Limbaugh and Palin who mouthed off empty-headedly for him.

Nowhere in any of the above

Nowhere in any of the above comments do I see any sense of history. For those who remember, in the late 70s conservatism was gaining even as liberals and progressives were waging a last ditch fight for the rights of women and gays, a wedge issue, but the conservatives prevailed, and held power for 28 years, starting with Reagan. Now the roles are reversed, with right wingers fighting for their lives with the only issues they have left, to make this a Christian country and ban abortions, also wedge issues. It won't fly. Despite two gubernatorial seats won by Republicans, because the Democratic candidates were weak (see Nixon and Ford in the 70s), the country is moving left and will continue to do so. It may be a bumpy road, but no major transition is ever a smooth process.

The self-anointed pundits on

The self-anointed pundits on Fox News (and others of their ilk) obviously spend most of their time looking for ways to denigrate President Obama, so these elections were right down their back alley. So away they go again, no matter how much they stretch reality in the process. And we ain't seen nothin' yet! Just wait until we get seriously into the run-up to next year's mid-term elections. Reality will be rendered pretty much unrecognizable by these insults to the journalism profession. The Seven Dwarfs of the Apocolypse—Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Buchanan, Limbaugh, Dobbs.

Does not anyone see that if

Does not anyone see that if we continue to run candidates at the state and federal levels that can be marginalize, the status quo will be maintained. If the status quo is maintained then the Corporate interests that "own" our government and control our lives will never need to change. We have only one option in this country and that is campaign finance reform. We must get out of office those politicians that are selling this country down the river. They will never change because their survival is based upon money and that money comes from corporations. If they are not in government to control policy that benefits their donors, they are working as lobbyists to influence the politicians they are connected to. The end result is the country suffers as a whole. We need to get the "Corporate Money" out of politics by financing our elections ourselves. Only then will we have the ears and hearts of the people elected to represent "US". We own this country and are the managers of it. We need to start acting like it. Campaign finance reform is the only answer.