November 2, 2010

Should all the many elections around the country today be seen as one big referendum on Obama and his Congress...

... and will you cast each of your votes accordingly?

Well, is it and will you?
Yes, it is and I will vote no (that is, Republican).
Yes, it is and I will vote yes (that is, Democrat).
Yes, it kind of is, but I'll still vote for individual candidates on their individual merits.
No, it's not. It's a whole lot of separate elections that should be viewed individually.
No, it's not one big referendum, but I'll still vote a straight party line: Democrat.
No, it's not one big referendum, but I'll still vote a straight party line: Republican.
I'm not voting.
  
pollcode.com free polls

36 comments:

Alex Ignatiev said...

Wrote myself in for chancery judge and voted Libertarian for my congressman. It's a beautiful day in America.

Scott M said...

I usually vote Libertarian in the local races, but I can't bring myself to do so this time around. Something's got to be done and voting solidarity against the Democrats is the way to go.

As far as the poll question, unlike Scott Brown's surprise victory and the Administration's spin about referendums, I don't see how this mid-term can be seen as anything other than a massive voted on, if not the President's individually, certainly the progressive agenda as a whole of which he supposedly is the alpha male.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't see how this mid-term can be seen as anything other than a massive voted on, if not the President's individually, certainly the progressive agenda as a whole of which he supposedly is the alpha male.

I agree, what else can it be?

ricpic said...

LET FREEDOM RING!

Calypso Facto said...

Yes, it's a big referendum, but on gov't spending and intrusiveness. Stop. Spending. My. Money. (supplemented by Chinese money in large doses)

Did you see Doyle locking Wisconsin into the train commitment on the eve of election? Must believe Walker's going to win...

Shanna said...

I usually vote Libertarian in the local races, but I can't bring myself to do so this time around.

Wish that were an option. Half the time the options are Democrat and Green Party. Yippee! (although we actually might be kicking out a couple dem's today so that should be fun. By Blanche!) I'll probably vote for our (dem) governor since I don't think he's done anything objectionable.

Ric Locke said...

Actually, I already voted last Friday.

Place was packed. Red State, carmine precinct, at least one Republican in every race (unusual; this is Texas, lots of leftover Democrats).

The election worker said they had more voters than at the same stage of the 2008 Presidential election. Toss out all the "low turnout" models.

Turing word: "inguv". Indeed.

Lincolntf said...

I voted for Republicans in the applicable races, and then took a few fliers in the "non-partisan" School Board and Judge races. This year, with all the new faces and everyone trying to court the Tea Party vote, it was really tough to nail people down. Hopefully I made the right calls, time will tell.

Lincolntf said...

"Did you see Doyle locking Wisconsin into the train commitment on the eve of election? Must believe Walker's going to win..."


More evidence of Dems Governing against the people who elect them.

Mark said...

I expect Republicans to at least meet expectations in terms of gains.

I read Nate Silver's 5 Reasons Democrats Could Beat the Polls and Hold the House (via Insta, who adds a more-plausible sixth reason) but I'm not buying it.

I think this election has to be looked at as a referendum on Obama's first two years, and I believe there will turn out to be a "reverse David Duke effect." A lot of people who voted for Obama primarily because they wanted to see an African-American President aren't going to say they're now pissed off and, yes, scared of where that African-American is leading us. Best-case scenario for the Democrats is that these voters stay home. Even in that case, their responses to polls will inflate projections for Democrats.

I don't know of any polls that directly address this hypothetical demographic. But if the size of it is non-zero (and I have to think it's actually substantial) the Democrats are in worse shape than they think.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Yes, This is a referendum against Obama personally and against the Democrats socialistic policies.

It is not a referendum FOR the Republicans and they'd better absorb that thought before they try to go on as politics as usual.

Normally I would vote for the local races based on individuals although I generally go Republican.


However, this year, I plan to vote for the Democrat candidate for House of Reps. Our long term Repub candidate just oozes such a sense of entitlement. He refused to debate or meet with the Dem challenger (whom I know personally as a moderate and even slightly conservative Democrat). Not only is this unfair to the voters, it is just wrong to hide and count the game done just because you are one party or the other. WE, the voters, deserve to see and hear from our candidates....All of them.

So. I'm voting Democrat for the first time in years in the national race. I figure that my incumbent doesn't deserve my vote and that in this tidal wave of House seats turning Republican, it won't hurt to have our District turn for a few years.

campy said...

I just returned from the polls. Just as I did two years ago, I ignored all the races and only voted for the two tax-cutting ballot initiatives. I'm sure even that was a waste of time. (I live in Massachusetts.)

paul a'barge said...

*LANDSLIDE!!!!*

By the way .... GO GIANTS!!!

HDHouse said...

I think this poll gives a very real picture of ann's readership.

David Smith said...

This is certainly a referendum on the Democrat agenda and Obama's performance.

That said, my vote will not give the Republicans a mandate to continue to be Republicans.

Barry couldn't deliver on Hope and Change, but I'm not in favor of despair and the same old sh*t, either.

Chase said...

I think this poll gives a very real picture of ann's readership.

Isn't that always true of any poll on a blog?

Fen said...

Libtard: I think this poll gives a very real picture of ann's readership.

Yes, apparently there is a market for conservatives to have good-faith discusssions with honest liberals.

You're the outlier here, but not for the reason you think.

chuck b. said...

It's a referendum, but mid-terms always are. I'm not feeling the alleged momentousness of this particular election at all (probably because I live in San Francisco--haha).

I think all anyone can say for sure is the economy is as bad as it has been in a long, long time and people are voting out incumbents in the majority party.

If the coming "crimson tide" is something more than that, and Americans really want to change Washington, we'll have to see it in the elections in 2012 and 2014 to say so with more certainty. Otherwise, I am skeptical.

I picked candidates all over the place on my ballot and mostly followed the Republican line on the propositions, with the exception of marijuana which I voted to legalize.

GIANTS!!!

edutcher said...

In NE OH, the Demos are run by the unions (Cleveland is the poorest big city in the country, do the math). So, anybody in favor free markets votes otherwise.

As far as a referendum, it's fascinating to contemplate the idea that, if the entire Senate were up for election, the Republican/Tea Party would have a shot at a Dingy Harry-style super majority.

HDHouse said...

I think this poll gives a very real picture of ann's readership.

Right, Rasmussen will be copying her model for '12.

Esteev said...

Yes, it's a big referendum, but on gov't spending and intrusiveness.

Wars cost $$$. And what intrusiveness do you mean? The Patriot Act? Or a democratically-elected president?

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Esteev said...

Aw, Sixty Grit, that's the level of discourse I expected here at the Wine House.

Meanwhile, I agree with you on the closing of Gitmo, ending the wars, and being post racial, being a problem.

But, the deficit spending should not be a problem unless you hate jobs for American workers.

Scott M said...

Deficit spending isn't a problem as long as your growth is bigger. We are currently not saddled with that particular luxury. You really want to defend deficit spending while the Fed is considering (or already decided) on a second round of QE that directly threatens the dollar? Aside from that, deficit spending is sometimes necessary, yes. At the levels we've seen? Not so much.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Esteev said...

Scott M, I couldn't agree more. But, we should be cutting spending were it is needed most: Military Spending.

Scott M said...

Ah. You just couldn't resist, could you? Sure. I'd reduce the military budget if it included a package that ran a fine-toothed comb through the entire federal budget and got rid a great we shouldn't be paying for. The days of absolutism are over.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HDHouse said...

Sixty Grit said...
"Spend more on defense. Without that we won't have a country."


melt down your head and we would have bullets for a lifetime.

thank God that you represent the views of beings from another planet.

Esteev said...

With people with Sixty Grit around, I may go by stock in Depends.

all the artsy fartsy commie crap

Commies? Really? You do know that Red Dawn isn't a documentary, right?

Diamondhead said...

"thank God that you represent the views of beings from another planet."

Headline: Martians turn out, defeat Harry Reid.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

I voted Republican because I want to send a message to the national Democratic party. And in some races I voted Libertarian because I want to send a message to the national (and state) Republican party. In one race the Democrat was running unopposed, so I wrote in Sarah Palin. Damn if I am voting for any Democrat for anything in this election.

ken in sc said...

I did not vote for all Republicans. There were two races in which there was a Libertarian and Constitutional party candidate running.

Calypso Facto said...

Esteev said: Wars cost $$$. And what intrusiveness do you mean? The Patriot Act? Or a democratically-elected president?

Cut defense spending? I'm all for it. At the end of the Cold War, I felt so strongly about it I resigned my commission. But as Scott said, partial reductions for Defense should be matched by across the board cuts in Commerce, Education, Transportation, Agriculture, Energy, and Education, just starters. The stimulus bill spending alone cost more than 8 years of Iraq War.

And intrusiveness: Yes , the Patriot Act. Yes, the bloated Census. Yes, 40% of American households receiving direct Federal payments. Yes, especially, government allocated health care.

The President? I really hoped he would live up to his promises of being different. But instead of fresh approaches we got rubber-stamped Congressional excess. He took the worst parts of the Bush administration playbook and doubled down on them.

jim said...

Ironic that most see the election as a referendum on Obama, who isn't on the ballot. That POV is a guaranteed recipe for more resentment & frustration when he is still in power the next day. It also happens to be very useful to an opposition that needs to exploit high unemployment & tightening credit for votes.

What this (& every) election really is, is a choice between different agendas.

Worth noting that the party that stands to gain from this one has made political hay over concern for the deficit it created, yet is adamant about defending huge tax-cuts for an elite who already literally have more money than they know what to do with.

The epic transfer of wealth from the poor & middle-class to the rich since 1980 has made the US economy torpid: the top 5% now prefer to make money with money, not with labor - & nobody else has any spare change with which to stimulate growth.

"Spend more on defense. Without that we won't have a country."

Which is the more dire threat to your sovereignty: Canada or Mexico?

What you get for your money isn't "defense" - it's hundreds of offshore bases, most of which are strategically useless, & titanic weapons-systems that smell a lot more like pork than cold steel.

The pie is not infinite. You are already seeing American municipalities tearing up paved roads & turning off streetlights. Keep spending more on weapons & soon you won't have a country worth the name.

Calypso Facto said...

Nice try, Jim, but as I pointed out above, one spending bill, "the Stimulus", outspent 8 years of Iraq War. But at least that stimulus spending went for the infrastructure you're concerned with, right? Nope. Of monies spent so far, 43% went to tax benefits, 30% to entitlement bailouts, and only 27% to the amorphous "Contracts, Grants, and Loans" from which infrastructure improvements are made. So not only is your zero-sum competition of defense vs. infrastructure a logical fallacy, but even when Congress says it's passing a bill for shovel-ready infrastructure projects, that's not where the money gets spent.

And, again, I'm IN FAVOR of reducing defense spending. I just don't see defense as the boogie man for a much bigger Federal spending addiction.