[TheRealVille]

I agree, being ranked 49th is way, way to low for us...however, I looked at Beshear as the lesser of two evils. David Williams really put me off when it came to his criticism of the E-town Hindu thing Gov Beshear took part in. Understand the point he was trying to make, just a non-issue though, in my opinion. I still voted for him though. I've always been good at being able to tell when someone is full of horseshit, and when I met Governor Beshear, I got that impression.

So, what in your mind was so bad about Beshear as to make him the "lesser" of "two evils"? What did he do bad? So, you vote party lines, even when it means voting for the person you like best?

[TheRealVille]

Nobody with an IQ over 7 believes that statement, but I'll play along because it's so easy with you; go ahead and try to explain how.

So you were happier with a corrupt Ernie, over a conservative,money saving, pro coal, Beshear?

[jetpilot]

So you were happier with a corrupt Ernie, over a conservative,money saving, pro coal, Beshear?

Again, only the gullible and ignorant really believe Ernie's regime was any more or less corrupt than all the Dem regimes.

[TheRealVille]

Again, only the gullible and ignorant really believe Ernie's regime was any more or less corrupt than all the Dem regimes.

They were all indicted, and all were pardoned by Ernie, except for himself, then he made a deal to get himself off. What's your brain damage? :please:

[jetpilot]

They were all indicted, and all were pardoned by Ernie, except for himself, then he made a deal to get himself off. What's your brain damage? :please:

"That grand jury would indict a ham sandwich." They didn't have squat on those people. I'll play along again, what did they have on Fletcher and what deal did he cut to "get himself off"???
And again, did you read how Obama fared in Va after you called it a great night for democrats???

[TheRealVille]

"That grand jury would indict a ham sandwich." They didn't have squat on those people. I'll play along again, what did they have on Fletcher and what deal did he cut to "get himself off"???
And again, did you read how Obama fared in Va after you called it a great night for democrats???

:please: Fletcher acknowledged that evidence "strongly indicated wrong doing by his administration"? What part of "Fletcher acknowledged wrongdoing" do you not understand.

[vundy33]

So, what in your mind was so bad about Beshear as to make him the "lesser" of "two evils"? What did he do bad? So, you vote party lines, even when it means voting for the person you like best?

No, I don't vote vote strictly Republican...my votes this election day were way more Dem than Republican. I didn't vote for Gov Beshear because the guy just gives me a really bad feeling, like he's just meek or something. His commercials, his speech in front of us, and his lack of knowledge did it for me. When it came down to it, I asked myself if he's a leader and if he was genuine when he came to down to see us. I really felt like he wasn't and isn't.

Most of Kentucky's greatest leaders have generally been Democrat, to my knowledge. But Beshear just isn't one of them. I hate politician flip-floppers, and he's flipped quite alot come election time. I described him as the lesser of two evils because I think both candidates suck, and Beshear had 4 years in office already and comes with less risk. But, again, I didn't really like either candidate. Just like our country, I want our state to be the best it can possibly be, and I don't think it is.

[TheRealVille]

No, I don't vote vote strictly Republican...my votes this election day were way more Dem than Republican. I didn't vote for Gov Beshear because the guy just gives me a really bad feeling, like he's just meek or something. His commercials, his speech in front of us, and his lack of knowledge did it for me. When it came down to it, I asked myself if he's a leader and if he was genuine when he came to down to see us. I really felt like he wasn't and isn't.

Most of Kentucky's greatest leaders have generally been Democrat, to my knowledge. But Beshear just isn't one of them. I hate politician flip-floppers, and he's flipped quite alot come election time. I described him as the lesser of two evils because I think both candidates suck, and Beshear had 4 years in office already and comes with less risk. But, again, I didn't really like either candidate. Just like our country, I want our state to be the best it can possibly be, and I don't think it is.

But Vundy, you are a republican, and voted for the "big spender", over the "conservative" in this case. Beshear has been a great leader, he has saved KY tons of money by cutting spending, and supporting KY's biggest industry, coal. He even cut his own salary, and his staff 10%.

[vundy33]

But Vundy, you are a republican, and voted for the "big spender", over the "conservative" in this case. Beshear has been a great leader, he has saved KY tons of money by cutting spending, and supporting KY's biggest industry, coal. He even cut his own salary, and his staff 10%.

Didn't know some of that. I really don't like how bad our state is doing though, I know that it's not all his fault by far, but he's our leader, has to take some responsibility. I voted on that, and just the really weird feeling he gave me.

I thought about not voting because I really hadn't had much time to research all the candidates that I got to vote for because of our workup to deployment, and I was new, spent alotof time feeling out the place. But, when I thought about it, I thought that it'd be better to vote based on the knowledge I did have, instead of not voting at all and feeling bad about it. I'm a firm believer that if I don't vote, and I am able too, that I don't have the right to bitch.

You are definitely right about Beshear being pretty conservative...I'm in agreement with that. Just couldn't shake the feeling I got from him. Got the same feeling from Vice President Biden. Hopefully, he gets Kentucky close to where we used to be. I do appreciate his stance on coal and he sent me a letter, it was a Kentucky day for coal miners or something, and talked about how they were going to honor him and other miners that have died on the job. I really liked that he took the time to actually write it out, when my dad had died two years prior...I know he was busy. Gov Fletcher sent me a letter typed up and mentioned dad, I really appreciated that too, it just meant a lot to me that the Governor took time out of his schedule to write me a letter and tell me to give him my address for care packages when I deploy. Thought that was nice, apparently he and his family do that for alot of troops, so I'm going to send him my address this time around.

I wanted to vote for him based on that, but I wanted to follow what my gut told me. I'm sure the Governor is a great guy, and the fact that he wrote the letter instead of just signing them really showed that. My feeling I got from him was that he wasn't really genuine when it came to politics, like trying to distance himself from President Obama.

I hate when people dump all the blame on a single person, like alot do to Pres Obama and acted like Pres Bush lied about Iraq. I'm definitely not singling Gov Beshear out. Like I said, hopefully he can bring even more businesses to our state and work on our unemployment. He's done a good job at bringing business to our state, and to towns that really need it.

[jetpilot]

:please: Fletcher acknowledged that evidence "strongly indicated wrong doing by his administration"? What part of "Fletcher acknowledged wrongdoing" do you not understand.

DID? YOU? READ? HOW? OBAMA? FARED? IN? VIRGINIA?
I'm out of the idiot's game of Fletcher was more or less corrupt than Dems.

[TheRealVille]

DID? YOU? READ? HOW? OBAMA? FARED? IN? VIRGINIA?
I'm out of the idiot's game of Fletcher was more or less corrupt than Dems.

I'm not in VA, and the topic isn't about a one seat gain in VA. The topic is about the controversial issues that the conservatives got handed their ass on. Are you hanging your hat on a one seat gain in VA? You should get out of the game, because you don't have a clue.

Democrats also hung onto the Iowa state Senate and appeared poised to at least hold the GOP to a tie in the Virginia Senate. As of late Tuesday, Virginia Republicans had gained one seat and led by less than 100 votes in another, but needed to gain three to take over the chamber. And in Maine, voters threw out the legislature's attempt to tighten voting restrictions.

The trend was not absolute. Conservatives were victorious on other ballot issues, including one in Ohio to ban health-care mandates -- a symbolic strike against President Obama's health-care reform -- and one in Mississippi to require photo ID to vote. As expected, Republican Phil Bryant easily won Mississippi's gubernatorial election.

But there was no question that on the most controversial questions, voters seemed to recoil from the GOP's attempts to push further to the right. Pearce, in Arizona, was a case in point: He had proudly declared the state's upper chamber a "tea party Senate" and inspired similar immigration proposals across the country. Yet his heavily Republican district threw him out in favor of a fellow Republican with a more conciliatory stance.

Similarly, the "personhood" initiative in Mississippi worried not just liberals but some in the pro-life movement, who thought it could hurt the anti-abortion cause by alienating independent voters or tempting a Supreme Court smackdown. And in Ohio, conservative-leaning blue-collar voters took labor's side against Gov. John Kasich's attempt to roll back union protections even for police and firefighters.

[jetpilot]

I'm not in VA, and the topic isn't about a one seat gain in VA. The topic is about the controversial issues that the conservatives got handed their ass on. Are you hanging your hat on a one seat gain in VA? You should get out of the game, because you don't have a clue.

Dumbest human on the planet.

[jetpilot]

Of all the noise of this week's state election results, what mattered most for Election 2012 came out of Virginia. It was the sound of the air leaking out of the Plouffe plan.
That would be David Plouffe, President Obama's former campaign manager and current senior strategist, who is focused today on how to cobble together 270 electoral votes for re-election. That's proving tough, what with the economy hurting Mr. Obama in states like Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania that he won in 2008. The White House's response has been to pin its hopes on a more roundabout path to electoral victory, one based on the Southern and Western states Mr. Obama also claimed in 2008.
Virginia Republicans added seven new seats to their majority in the House of Delegates, giving them two-thirds of that chamber's votes—the party's largest margin in history. The GOP also took over the Virginia Senate in results that were especially notable, given that Virginia Democrats this spring crafted an aggressive redistricting plan that had only one aim: providing a firewall against a Republican takeover of that chamber. Even that extreme gerrymander didn't work.


Democrats were trounced in Tuesday's state legislature election, despite the president's heavy investment of time in the state.



States like Virginia. Mr. Obama was the first Democrat to win Virginia since 1964; he beat John McCain by seven percentage points; and he did so on the strength of his appeal to Northern Virginia's many white-collar independents. Along with victories in North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada, the Obama Old Dominion win in 2008 inspired a flurry of stories about how Democrats had forever altered the political map.
So the White House is pouring resources into what Tim Kaine, the state's former Democratic governor, now pridefully refers to as Democrats' "New Dominion." The Obama campaign has held some 1,600 events in the state in the last half-year alone. Only last month Mr. Obama hopped a three-day bus trip through Virginia and North Carolina. Obama officials keep flocking to the state, and Tuesday's election was to offer the first indication of how these efforts are succeeding.
Let's just say the New Dominion is looking an awful lot like the Old Dominion. If anything, more so.
Every Republican incumbent—52 in the House, 15 in the Senate—won. The state GOP is looking at unified control over government for only the second time since the Civil War. This is after winning all three top statewide offices—including the election of Gov. Bob McDonnell—in 2009, and picking off three U.S. House Democrats in last year's midterms.
Topline figures aside, what ought to really concern the White House was the nature of the campaign, and the breakout of Tuesday's election data. Mr. Obama may have big plans for Virginia, but the question is increasingly: him and what army?
Elected state Democrats—who form the backbone of grass-roots movements—couldn't distance themselves far enough from Mr. Obama in this race. Most refused to mention the president, to defend his policies, or to appear with him. The more Republicans sought to nationalize the Virginia campaign, the more Democrats stressed local issues.
State House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong felt compelled to run an ad protesting that it was a "stretch" for his GOP opponent to "compare me to Barack Obama." After all, he was "pro-life, pro-gun and I always put Virginia first." (Mr. Armstrong lost on Tuesday.)
Virginia Democrats were happy to identify with one top official: Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, who is providing a lesson in the benefits of smart GOP governance in battleground states. Criticized as being too socially conservative for Virginia when he was elected in 2009, Mr. McDonnell has won over voters by focusing on the economy and jobs. His approval ratings are in the 60s, and he helped raise some $5 million for local candidates. He's popular enough that Democrats took to including pictures of him in their campaign literature, and bragging that they'd worked with him.
Mr. McDonnell has been particularly adept at connecting with the independent, white-collar voters Mr. Obama used to win Virginia in 2008. That crowd lives in North Virginia's booming exurb counties of Prince William and Loudoun, and presidential races hinge on their votes. Mr. Obama's 2008 victory in Virginia rested on his significant wins in both Loudoun (8%) and Prince Williams (16%).
Yet Tuesday's results showed the extent to which that support has reversed. Loudoun in particular proved an unmitigated rout for Democrats. Republicans won or held three of four of the county's Senate seats. It swept all seven of the county's House seats. It won all nine slots on the county's Board of Supervisors, and pretty much every other county office. In Prince William, the story was much the same. This is what happens when a recent Quinnipiac poll shows Mr. Obama's approval rating among Virginia independents at 29%.
Democrats are now arguing that turnout (about 30%) was too low to prove anything, but then again, the particularly low Democratic turnout suggests that, on top of everything else, the White House really does face an enthusiasm gap. It's still got time to try to remedy that problem, and some other Virginia fundamentals. But going by Tuesday's results, Mr. Plouffe might need to start considering Electoral Plan C.

[jetpilot]

^^^For people who don't know how to click on a link.

<<I'm not in VA, and the topic isn't about a one seat gain in VA. The topic is about the controversial issues that the conservatives got handed their ass on. Are you hanging your hat on a one seat gain in VA? You should get out of the game, because you don't have a clue.>>

Does that article sound remotely like the crap you spewed? No, you are full of crap as a Christmas turkey. You spewed the ultralib MSNBC version, which is all you are ever good for. Read the article over and over, or get someone to read it to you. It's pretty easy to understand.

[TheRealVille]

In state elections across the country Tuesday, voters rejected Republican attempts to pursue a far right-wing agenda

Democrats had a very good election night on Tuesday.

Their cherished causes prevailed, they kept their statehouses, and they saw one of the Tea Party's biggest champions unexpectedly lose a recall election in Arizona.

Though it's easy to read too much into the sparse data points of an off-year election, liberals were jubilant as the returns came rolling in Tuesday night, and the trend, in nearly every contested race across the country, was too obvious to ignore:

* The Republican governor and legislature in Ohio saw their attempt to roll back collective bargaining for public employees soundly repudiated by the state's voters.

* Mississippi's "personhood' initiative, which would have defined a fertilized human egg as a person and created a new front in the abortion wars, went down to defeat by a wide margin, despite leading in pre-election polls.

* Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear sailed to reelection -- though widely anticipated, his win showed Democrats can still prevail in red states with good candidates and campaign strategy.

* Russell Pearce, Arizona's state Senate president and the author of that state's controversial anti-illegal immigration law, lost a recall election to a Republican challenger who portrayed Pearce as an extremist.

Democrats also hung onto the Iowa state Senate and appeared poised to at least hold the GOP to a tie in the Virginia Senate. As of late Tuesday, Virginia Republicans had gained one seat and led by less than 100 votes in another, but needed to gain three to take over the chamber. And in Maine, voters threw out the legislature's attempt to tighten voting restrictions.

The trend was not absolute. Conservatives were victorious on other ballot issues, including one in Ohio to ban health-care mandates -- a symbolic strike against President Obama's health-care reform -- and one in Mississippi to require photo ID to vote. As expected, Republican Phil Bryant easily won Mississippi's gubernatorial election.

But there was no question that on the most controversial questions, voters seemed to recoil from the GOP's attempts to push further to the right. Pearce, in Arizona, was a case in point: He had proudly declared the state's upper chamber a "tea party Senate" and inspired similar immigration proposals across the country. Yet his heavily Republican district threw him out in favor of a fellow Republican with a more conciliatory stance.

Similarly, the "personhood" initiative in Mississippi worried not just liberals but some in the pro-life movement, who thought it could hurt the anti-abortion cause by alienating independent voters or tempting a Supreme Court smackdown. And in Ohio, conservative-leaning blue-collar voters took labor's side against Gov. John Kasich's attempt to roll back union protections even for police and firefighters.

Thus, Tuesday's results were more of a rejection of far-right proposals than a signal of approval to Democrats -- a sign that Republicans may have overreached their 2010 mandate and pushed the pendulum in the other direction.

[TheRealVille]

In Tuesday’s Election Results, Democrats See Hope for 2012
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Just hours after polls closed Tuesday night, Democrats seized on scattered results across the country as evidence that voters are rejecting Republican policies and will return President Obama to the Oval Office in 2012.

They point, most excitedly, to the lopsided decision in Ohio to turn back anti-union efforts. The result, Mr. Obama’s top strategists said, is proof that the president’s most ardent supporters in a critical swing state are passionate, organized and ready to do battle on his behalf next year.

“To earn 270 electoral votes, we will continue to strive toward our core goals: build strong neighborhood teams; expand the electorate; reach out to voters in all communities, and drive voters to the polls,” said Jeremy Bird, the national field director for Mr. Obama’s campaign, in a memo to be released Wednesday. “This week – one year before Election Day – and during yesterday’s elections across the country, we all took huge strides in accomplishing these goals.”

But the enthusiastic Democratic analysis leaves out some trouble spots for the party as it heads into a presidential and Congressional election year. And it may overstate the importance of victories that were heavily influenced by local factors that will be less important during a national campaign in 2012.

In Ohio, voters who rejected the Republican governor’s anti-union law also easily passed a measure that rejects health care mandates in the state — another sign of how unpopular Mr. Obama’s health care measure is in many parts of the country.

“Ohioans voted down a state collective bargaining initiative but overwhelmingly voted to repudiate one of Obama’s signature first-term policies in Obamacare,” said Sean Spicer, the communications director for the Republican National Committee.

And the union vote in that state — while a significant victory for labor, a key constituency for the president — played out in recent weeks as a very Ohio contest — highly personal (about the governor, John R. Kasich) and heavily dependent on local dynamics involving the state’s firefighters and police officers.

Even Democrats in the state acknowledged on Tuesday evening that their victory may have been the result of a curious mix of local factors. Mr. Kasich, who was hailed a year ago as part of a new crop of Republican governors, was contrite at a news conference after the vote.

“It’s time to pause,” he said. “The people have spoken clearly.” He added that the people of his state “might have said it was too much too soon.”

But the biggest warning sign for Democrats may have been in Virginia, where major Republican gains in the state legislature highlighted just how competitive that state remains — and how difficult it will be for Mr. Obama to keep the state’s 13 electoral votes in his column next year.

Virginia Republicans made big gains in the House of Delegates, moving toward a two-thirds majority in the House. And they may have seized effective control of the State Senate from the Democrats; a Republican challenger in a crucial Northern Virginia exurb was just a handful of votes ahead of a Democratic incumbent Wednesday morning.

“Next year when we have a chance to hire a new president of the United States, I think these elections will give us a lot momentum going into next year,” the state’s Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.

Still, the Democratic excitement about the Ohio results and Democratic victories elsewhere may help to shape an otherwise gloomy narrative for their party and for the president in 2012.

Brad Woodhouse, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee, called the election results a “wide-scale repudiation of extreme and divisive Republican policies,” pointing to the defeat of an Arizona lawmaker who had backed anti-immigration policies and an anti-abortion measure in Mississippi to declare a fertilized egg to be a person.

“Republicans were rebuked for their partisan overreach and their anti-worker, anti-middle class, anti-immigrant and anti-women policies,” he said.

The word “overreach” was clearly the buzzword for Democrats on Wednesday morning as they tried to connect the dots between the various ballot measures and elections for local, state and national offices. In part, that is a mirror image of the successful Republican message from a year ago, when that party sought to make the Congressional elections a referendum on Mr. Obama.

Democrats also very quickly have suggested that Tuesday’s results were bad news for Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates for president. Democrats were quick to point out that Mr. Romney heartily endorsed the anti-union law in Ohio (after at one point hesitating on the issue) and found himself on the losing side of a lopsided vote.

But the most important Tuesday result may have been about process, not substance.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...-for-2012/

[OrangenowBlue]

It is kind of ironic that Paul Patton's tenure as governor was much better and more productive then the two governors that have followed. Governor Fletcher was a good guy but surrounded himself with some of the biggest Republican crooks in the state of Kentucky. The Democrats have done some of the same in the past but when you run on a platform against the "good ole boy" system and cronyism like Mr. Fletcher, then you set yourself up for failure when do the same thing when you take office. People are discussing the referendum pertaining to the election. The only referendum was that the Republican candidate is one of the most arrogant, obnoxious, and apparently ignorant candidates who has ran for office. It was also a referendum on the ignorance of the Republican party in Kentucky for nominating him in the primary. He apparently had plans to run for Governor four years ago when Beshear took office. This led to him being an obstructionist to any idea that Beshear may have had. When he and Sir Richard of Manchester won the primary, they were dubbed the "Dream Team". Well that dream turned into a nightmare. As you have one of the most obnoxious, do nothing politicians in state history teamed up with an Ag commissioner who was not qualified for his job, but got it because he was a UK legend. This time the luster has wore off of ole Rich and he couldn't carry enough votes to help ole Davy(who could pass for John Gotti's brother) to victory. Of course it is the medias fault. It always is when they now lose. The media excuse is starting to get abused as much as the "race card" is. If the Republicans would have ran anyone else, they probably would have won. I love how Republicans brag on the Kentucky voters when they elect Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell to office but they chastise them as uninformed, ignorant, entitlement drawers when electing a Democratic Governor.

[TheRealVille]

It is kind of ironic that Paul Patton's tenure as governor was much better and more productive then the two governors that have followed. Governor Fletcher was a good guy but surrounded himself with some of the biggest Republican crooks in the state of Kentucky. The Democrats have done some of the same in the past but when you run on a platform against the "good ole boy" system and cronyism like Mr. Fletcher, then you set yourself up for failure when do the same thing when you take office. People are discussing the referendum pertaining to the election. The only referendum was that the Republican candidate is one of the most arrogant, obnoxious, and apparently ignorant candidates who has ran for office. It was also a referendum on the ignorance of the Republican party in Kentucky for nominating him in the primary. He apparently had plans to run for Governor four years ago when Beshear took office. This led to him being an obstructionist to any idea that Beshear may have had. When he and Sir Richard of Manchester won the primary, they were dubbed the "Dream Team". Well that dream turned into a nightmare. As you have one of the most obnoxious, do nothing politicians in state history teamed up with an Ag commissioner who was not qualified for his job, but got it because he was a UK legend. This time the luster has wore off of ole Rich and he couldn't carry enough votes to help ole Davy(who could pass for John Gotti's brother) to victory. Of course it is the medias fault. It always is when they now lose. The media excuse is starting to get abused as much as the "race card" is. If the Republicans would have ran anyone else, they probably would have won. I love how Republicans brag on the Kentucky voters when they elect Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell to office but they chastise them as uninformed, ignorant, entitlement drawers when electing a Democratic Governor.

Exactly how was Paul more productive than Beshear?

[vundy33]

lol..

[garathnormanmtts]

Thanks for your informative post