Thursday, November 04, 2010

Cruising the Web

Timothy Carney breaks down the House seats that the GOP won in this election and determines that almost all of them were either seats that the Republicans had lost in either 2008 or 2006 or part of the long-term realignment in Southern or rural districts. There were five seats won in districts that split their votes in choosing a president and a representative. There were only five victories in districts that both Obama and Kerry carried. The upside of his analysis is that these districts will be easier to hold in the future than if the majority of seats had been won on Democratic turf.

With the victories on Tuesday, Republicans have won big in state legislators and a bunch of state school superintendents. This might be a chance to address needed school reform, especially since some of the necessary reforms that rein in benefits for the teachers unions or charters are actually good for the budget.

Residents of India wonder why Obama has to come to their country and to Mumbai right in the middle of Diwali. Major parts of the city will be shut off and they won't be able to have fireworks (part of the regular celebration for Diwali)in the part of the city where Obama and his entourage will be staying.

Add one more election
where the result is in dispute - governor of Connecticut. The Republican, Tom Foley, has pulled ahead of the Democrat, Dannel Malloy. The AP has had to withdraw its call of Malloy as the winner.

Bernard Goldberg has a good question: why are voters only "angry" when they're voting against Democrats? They weren't considered angry or throwing a temper tantrum when they threw Republicans out of office. Then they were full of hope and optimism.

George Will explains why the election was a rejection of big government liberalism.

The NYT looks at how the Republicans began plotting their comeback, starting in January, 2009. Yes, they could.

What a shame: no UFO panel for Denver.

2 comments:

equitus said...

That NYT article was interesting, but I wonder how much of it was made up and speculation.

The constant reference to "huge sums of outside money" extends the bogus narrative. Sure there was a lot of money, but it's ridiculous to pretend that the Democrats didn't have even more "outside money." The article even admits (parenthetically on like the 20th paragraph) that Labor spent even more. What, is Labor money "inside money" and so it's ok? Perhaps that's the real take-away from this article.

tfhr said...

equitus,

To expand on your Big Labor point, many labor unions have overseas affiliates and as such they can and often do draw upon funding from abroad. Or a Progressive can always go to Sugar Daddy Soros for quick cash.