Exit polls say Obama not a factor in Virginia, New Jersey elections
November 3rd, 2009 at 08:14pm Pat Cunningham
According to exit polls in today’s elections in Virginia and New Jersey, the vast majority of voters were not registering sentiments about President Obama.
And those voters who did cite the president as a factor were fairly evenly divided between those who support him and those who don’t.
As CBS REPORTED:
Those who said Mr. Obama was a factor in New Jersey divided as to whether their vote was a vote for the president (19 percent) or against him (20 percent). In Virginia, slightly fewer voters said their vote was for Mr. Obama (18 percent) than against him (24 percent).
Entry Filed under: Barack Obama
36 Comments Add your own
1. Juice | November 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Just got back from Klan rally…you are correct, Pat. Election tonight has nothing to do specifically with Obama because he has nothing to do with the what Congress is going to pass. But he will sign any bill anyway. Who is drivng the ship into the iceberg? More correctly the vote is a referendum against pelosi and reid. Lots of voters see Obama as being weak to let Congress have their way though. Playing too much golf maybe and not paying attention.
2. Craig Knauss | November 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
The referendum on Pelosi and Reid will be done by the voters in California and Nevada, not New Jersey and Virginia. Maybe Obama should spend all his time in Crawford, TX, since that seems to be acceptable to the rightwing.
3. FrankyG | November 3rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
LMAO … the RINO REAGAN Republicans are CRUSHING the LIBTARDS COMMIES in Tuesdays Elections! AWESOME….
Come ON 2010!!
4. snuss | November 3rd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Craig, as usual, is completely wrong. Pelosi and Reid are the heads of the House and Senate, and as such, control the actions in each. So, whatever the House and Senate do, or fail to do, THEY are the ones responsible.
5. FrankyG | November 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Democrats too far left and Getting all wee-wee’d up!
6. Pat Cunningham | November 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Don’t wet your pants just yet, Franky. It looks like the wingnut candidate in NY-23, the guy who was backed by Palin and Limbaugh, is going to lose to the Democrat. Ha, ha!
7. denny johnson | November 4th, 2009 at 1:10 am
the President went to bed early, no opportunity to call anyone who he supported to say “congratulations”. Pelosi had very few to call either. Hannity, Limbaugh, Newt and others had a bunch of phone calls to make and high fives to give. Might have kept them up all night.
8. Chuck Sweeny | November 4th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Newt’s candidate in NY 23, Dede Scozzafava, quit.
9. Stephanie | November 4th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Let\’s see how the White House spins the NJ win. I don\’t care how many times BO came to our state (NJ) he doesn\’t pay my taxes!!!! Pack your bags Corzine Drumthwacket is changin the locks.
10. realfoxnewsj | November 4th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Pat your great channel msnbc for the last few weeks was saying that the Governor will pull this out. That was in New Jersey . Hey what happen big boy?
11. dave | November 4th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Pretty sad Pat when your only win is in the 23rd. Obamas luster and star power has worn off and people realise he is just another Chicago thug.
I sense change in the wind and it’s not o’s type of change.
Even Bloomberg who runs as a rep but is dem almost lost it, Corzine lost it. Proves a couple things money and o can’t save ya.
12. Neftali | November 4th, 2009 at 8:01 am
dave - Not true. The Democrats also won in California Congressional District 10. So while the Republicans won new two big Governor races, they actually LOST a seat in the house. So its not the sweep the press is making it out to be.
That NY 23 is a huge loss. It proves that Republicans CAN NOT win without the moderate vote. I hope this country takes notice and the far right begins to shut the Hell up, though I doubt it will happen.
13. joe | November 4th, 2009 at 8:33 am
neftali, i don’t see the far right letting up anytime soon. If anything they will only kick it up another notch.
14. Pat Cunningham | November 4th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Neftali: Your grasp of the situation is spot-on.
15. Mike Carroll | November 4th, 2009 at 9:32 am
I somewhat agree with the analysis by Neftali. The right should not read too much into these results but the left is in danger of reading too little into the elections. Neither side can win without the moderate/independent vote and there seems to be little question that independents went for the Republican candidates in Virginia (sweep of the top three state offices) and New Jersey. I suspect the loss in NY 23 can be tied to the disarray of the Republican party in that area. I believe the Democrat won with less than 50% of the vote so hardly a ringing endorsement.
The candidate for Governor in Virginia was destined to win given his outstanding undergraduate eduction.
16. Mike Carroll | November 4th, 2009 at 9:37 am
which doesn’t include using spellcheck. Education.
17. Pat Cunningham | November 4th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Mike Carroll: Your mention of Bob McDonnell’s “outstanding undergraduate education” is a reference, of course, to your own alma mater, Notre Dame. But don’t forget that he got his law degree from Pat Robertson’s Clown College, where he wrote a thesis in which he said working women and feminists are “detrimental” to the family and criticized a 1965 Supreme Court decision that legalized the use of contraceptives by married couples.
18. Mike Carroll | November 4th, 2009 at 10:11 am
25 plus years ago. You might want to consult his successful daughters and his wife about where he stands today concerning women but, of course, that would not fit the talking points would it.
19. mike | November 4th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Pat writes:
But don’t forget that he got his law degree from Pat Robertson’s Clown College, where he wrote a thesis in which he said working women and feminists are “detrimental” to the family and criticized a 1965 Supreme Court decision that legalized the use of contraceptives by married couples.
McDonnell was right on both counts. God created man to provide for his family and women to raise children. Most women did not work until WW2. They didn’t have to! Liberals were not stealing the publics money through taxation back then. Now women are FORCED to work for people to survive.
What did contraception lead to? Abortion, Adultery and Divorce.
It amuses me to no end that you fancy yourself as so intelligent Pat and you can’t understand that all you champion has brought this country, and for that matter the world to it’s knees.
20. Pat Cunningham | November 4th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Mike Carroll: So you’re just one of those “intrinsically evil” contraceptionists after all. And you probably approve of the apostasy that has overtaken Notre Dame (Obama, “Vagina Monologues,” gay rights, etc.). Where’s the Inquisition when we really need it?
21. mike | November 4th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Quit picking on Mike Carroll you blind OLD MAN!. He didn’t write it, I did.
Expected a retort like that from you because you are blind to as how Satan works, and as long as you are blind it’s hopeless for you.
22. Pat Cunningham | November 4th, 2009 at 10:56 am
mike (not Mike Carroll): You’ve become a self-parody — a silly, sexist self-parody. You’re immune from mockery, because it only reinforces your self-righteousness. You’re a living, breathing cross between Archie Bunker and Dana Carvey’s Church Lady. You think that women should be put in their place and that everyone who disagrees with you is a Satanist. (Indeed, I’ve lost count of your references to Satan in your comments here.)
You’re a survivor of sorts, mike, a real throwback to an earlier juncture in the evolutionary cycle. But, then, you probably don’t believe in evolution. That would be Satanic.
23. Pat Cunningham | November 4th, 2009 at 10:59 am
By the way, mike, you’re comment No. 22 is nonsense. I was replying to Mike Carroll’s comment No. 18, not to you.
24. Mike Carroll | November 4th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Pat-as I have said for years about Notre Dame-Conservatives think it is too Liberal and Liberals think its too Conservative and that means they are getting it about right.
25. mike | November 4th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I said nothing about women being put in their place blind old man. I said what God had created for the natural order. You and your ilk have upset that natural order. I never said anyone who disagrees with me is a Satanist. I said the Democrats ARE the party of Satan. Big difference. You can’t seem to rationalize that……..so in reality you aint de ole intellect ya think ya are Streicher.
Countless time you have bragged that you are some sort of biblical scholar. LOL By your posts, there is nothing farther from the truth.
Evolution isn’t Satanic Streicher, we do not know how God actually created the world. I thought a biblical scholar such as yourself would have known that…….guess not huh?
26. DingDong | November 4th, 2009 at 11:31 am
What you all are missing is the fact that an Independent, carpetbagging candidate came very close, not a Republican. Most independents do not get that close.
27. mike | November 4th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Great point DingDong
28. expdoc | November 4th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Ding Dong is right. That NY race is an anomaly and as I posted on a different thread, a left of center politician was going to D.C. if either the R or D candidate won. The conservative candidate was a late entry and not the most dynamic guy, yet almost won.
As has been noted before, this is a majority conservative country and because the hope and change of the liberals has been unmasked the all important independent voter is tacking back to the right.
Fiscal conservatives will rule the 2010 election cycle whether R or D or I is behind their names. The booming membership in Americans for Prosperity is evidence of this very trend. I think the trend will be for voters to support candidates rather than the RNC or DNC in the future.
29. mike | November 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
An even better addition Doc.
30. roger | November 4th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Pat thanks for the advise please delete my past email address as this is being resolved.
Sorry if I sounded crazed but under the current situation I was.
Thank you
31. Pat Cunningham | November 4th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
roger: Glad to hear it. I’ll delete all your posts regarding this matter (including responses from other readers). And if you’ll acknowledge reading this, I’ll delete these last few as well.
32. shawnnews | November 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Being against contraception is stupid if you’re pro-life. Contaception prevents unwanted pregnancies in the first place. There’s no abortion since there’s no conception — the sperm doesn’t fertilize the egg. It shows that taking a personal religious creed and making it the law of the land is stupid, naive and dangerous.
33. expdoc | November 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Actually Shawn, to be technically correct many contraceptive methods do “kill” a fertilized egg. The pill and the IUD both can act to cause a fertilized egg to be unsuccesful in implantation. Barrier methods and the rhythm method prevent actual fertilization of the egg.
34. roger | November 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Pat yes thank you and this problem has been solved again thank you.
35. mike | November 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Uhhh, Shawn your supposed to be married to have children. Somehow that was thrown out tthe window with the introduction of the pill. That’s not a “personal” creed, that’s from God. Hence you prove the point that your theory is what was stupid and dangerous and look what it caused.
36. shawnnews | November 5th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Uhh, mike– no one has to live by a religion in this country or follow a creed if they don’t want to. People have been having sex outside of marriage since the beginning of time.
I would personally like it if people got married first and then had children. But I live in reality — not every person acts this way, or will or ever has in the history of civilization.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed