Or not.
All the political spinmeisters are out this morning telling us what a handful of totally random elections mean for the entire country, Barack Obama and — inexplicably — the future of the public option. Yes, apparently some fat guy defeating a strikingly-unpopular bald man in New Jersey means that everyone is tired of Barack Obama. Meanwhile, a Republican win in Virginia — a state that had experienced literally eight whole years of Democratic domination — seems to mean the tide is turned, we all regret our 2008 vote, and that Barack Obama should just pack his bags right now and go back to Kenya.
Check out Fox News’ coverage, if you don’t believe us. This is from the main election article on their website today:
Republican gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia mark a troubling turn for President Obama, whose personal efforts couldn’t stop the fall of Democrats facing a voter backlash over the economy and a notable uptick in the government’s would-be role in people’s lives.
Again, is it troubling for Obama? Maybe. Should he be concerned? Yeah, a bit. But really? Is what happens in NY-23, New Jersey and Virginia really representative of the country as a whole? Of course not. In fact, don’t take our word for it; check out what Fox News had to say about off-year elections back in 2001 (when a Republican was in office, and Democrats won governors races in New Jersey and Virginia).
On November 5, 2001, Mort Kondracke commented: “I don’t know what effect this will have on the 2002 election. And the 2002 election is — could be decided on the basis of terrorism, and the fact that law enforcement — the Republicans have an advantage in defense and law enforcement. And the Democrats, if it’s a lousy economy, that may be the big issue. We have no way of knowing.”
On November 7, 2001, Mara Liasson said: “A handful of off-year elections can’t be used to predict what may happen next year when all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate is up for election.
On November 6, 2001, Dick Morris said: “If you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they’re going to vote Republicans. That’s why the Republicans got 37 governorships while Clinton was president. [N]ow the Democrats are picking them all off because Bush is president. People want divided government, and that’s what you’re seeing, and that’s what you will see in ’02, a Democratic trend, not because they don’t like Bush”
We could go on, but we won’t because what the hell? What’s even the point? A fat guy’s gonna be governor of New Jersey, an effite liberal billionaire will stay in charge in New York, and a guy who thinks women should stay in the goddamn kitchen is set to take over Virginia. In other words, what the hell even changed?
[...] 3, 2009 by Josh We’ve written a lot about Fox News and their extremely questionable news judgment, but a story from the most recent news cycle makes us want to jump back into the fray. [...]
[...] 5, 2010 by Josh As if we needed any more evidence that FOX News lacks a basic understanding of American government and history (and math), we have some more wood to throw on the fire. We’ll spare you a trip [...]