November 09, 2005


What It All Means

When I heard Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) working hard to distance himself from President Bush on Imus in the Morning, there was little doubt about how Republicans were interpreting the election results last night. He flatly stated he didn't want Bush to campaign for him next year. After all, he saw how an 11th hour campaign visit by Bush to Virgnia sealed the victory for Democrats.

In 1993, Republicans swept the off year gubernatorial elections and predicted big gains in 1994. They were right then and they should be worried now.

Some other opinions:

Josh Marshall: "Few will admit it publicly. But I think a lot of Republicans will look at what happened tonight and see that something has changed. President Bush was a liability, even for a Republican in a tomato red state like Virginia. They won't say it. But watch what they do. Actions speak louder than words."

PoliPundit: "The fate of the ballot initiatives indicates a real need for the GOP to make an ideological case to voters. This president typically makes the case for competence, not ideology. However, in the wake of Iraq-gas-prices-Katrina-Libby-Miers, competence is no longer an argument that works in favor of the GOP."

Daily Kos: "Off-year elections are rarely harbingers of future performance. Dems actually did quite well in 2003, to little effect in 2004. Let's work to make this year an exception to that rule."

Talk Left: "It looks like President Bush officially begins his lame duck status this morning."










POLITICAL WIRE PODCAST

Political Wire Podcast Engaging conversations about elections and the political issues of the day. Subscribe via iTunes or RSS to get episodes automatically downloaded.


FREE NEWSLETTER




PARTNER STORIES








TRENDING VIDEO


FOLLOW US