Election Results II
It has only taken me one day to distill at least the following from Tuesday night's election results: it was not the massive repudiation of the war effort that all of the pundits are claiming.
First, I point to the following two U.S. House Races:
In Illinois, Peter Roskam (R) defeated Maj. Tammy Duckworth (D) by a vote of 85,821 to 81,591 (courtesy of cnn.com at 5:00 pm today).
In Ohio, Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) defeated Ms. Victoria Wulsin (D) by a vote of 115,817 to 112, 952 (again, thanks to cnn.com).
For those that are regular readers of this space, you'll recognize the name Maj. Tammy Duckworth because I've written about her several times (most relevantly on February 28, 2006). She is an American hero. She lost both of her legs to a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq. She ran on an anti-war platform. Sen. John F. Kerry was a major backer of hers. If this election was such a repudiation of the war effort, surely, Maj. Duckworth would have won.
For those that are regular readers of this space, you'll recognize the name Rep. Jean Schmidt. She's the Congresswoman who read an excerpt from a letter from a Marine officer stationed in Iraq that read in part, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." She was viciously attacked by Democrats for she made the comments in the wake of Rep. Jack Murtha's call for surrender in Iraq. Rep. Schmidt apologized for something she didn't say and she had her entire speech withdrawn from the offical record of the U.S. House of Representatives. She was specifically and purposefully targeted by the "Democrat hate machine" (again a phrase I borrow, with a slight modification, from the Great Healer, Sen. John F. Kerry). If this election was such a repudiation of the war effort, surely, Ms. Wulsin would have won.
Second, in looking at all of the election results on cnn.com, I'm struck by how almost all of the contests are decided by 50 - 49; or 49 - 48; or similar. These election results are extremely, extremely, close. If they were 60 - 40, I'd say the Country has spoken as the pundits are saying.
Yes, the war impacted the election (though I'm still confused how people can vote for Senators that have never voted against war funding and think that they are voting for someone that is against the war.) No, the war did not impact the election as much as the pundits are saying.
Oh, I almost forgot, I just shared all of these thoughts, and more, with Jay Severin and the listeners of 96.9 FM Talk. For those outside the greater Boston area, Jay hosts the most listened to radio station during afternoon drive-time.
It has only taken me one day to distill at least the following from Tuesday night's election results: it was not the massive repudiation of the war effort that all of the pundits are claiming.
First, I point to the following two U.S. House Races:
In Illinois, Peter Roskam (R) defeated Maj. Tammy Duckworth (D) by a vote of 85,821 to 81,591 (courtesy of cnn.com at 5:00 pm today).
In Ohio, Rep. Jean Schmidt (R) defeated Ms. Victoria Wulsin (D) by a vote of 115,817 to 112, 952 (again, thanks to cnn.com).
For those that are regular readers of this space, you'll recognize the name Maj. Tammy Duckworth because I've written about her several times (most relevantly on February 28, 2006). She is an American hero. She lost both of her legs to a rocket-propelled grenade in Iraq. She ran on an anti-war platform. Sen. John F. Kerry was a major backer of hers. If this election was such a repudiation of the war effort, surely, Maj. Duckworth would have won.
For those that are regular readers of this space, you'll recognize the name Rep. Jean Schmidt. She's the Congresswoman who read an excerpt from a letter from a Marine officer stationed in Iraq that read in part, "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." She was viciously attacked by Democrats for she made the comments in the wake of Rep. Jack Murtha's call for surrender in Iraq. Rep. Schmidt apologized for something she didn't say and she had her entire speech withdrawn from the offical record of the U.S. House of Representatives. She was specifically and purposefully targeted by the "Democrat hate machine" (again a phrase I borrow, with a slight modification, from the Great Healer, Sen. John F. Kerry). If this election was such a repudiation of the war effort, surely, Ms. Wulsin would have won.
Second, in looking at all of the election results on cnn.com, I'm struck by how almost all of the contests are decided by 50 - 49; or 49 - 48; or similar. These election results are extremely, extremely, close. If they were 60 - 40, I'd say the Country has spoken as the pundits are saying.
Yes, the war impacted the election (though I'm still confused how people can vote for Senators that have never voted against war funding and think that they are voting for someone that is against the war.) No, the war did not impact the election as much as the pundits are saying.
Oh, I almost forgot, I just shared all of these thoughts, and more, with Jay Severin and the listeners of 96.9 FM Talk. For those outside the greater Boston area, Jay hosts the most listened to radio station during afternoon drive-time.
posted by Zack at 5:08 PM
1 Comments:
i agree the election was hardly a sea change...in fact i think the dems have peaked in a mid-term (actually late term) election. GOP will nominate mccain/guiliani (or both) on a plank of "finish the job" and roll to victory. middle america may have spoken but i hold out hope that middle america and the "red" south will not disappoint in '08. Let the eileen mcnamara's and the rest of the Bost. Globe exult in this week's victory...but it will be short lived without an agenda!
Post a Comment
<< Home