Election Fallout for Education Reform in Colorado & Nationally: Overall Positive

by Eddie | 12:32 pm, November 3, 2010

It’s the day after a late night election. There are some yawns and droopy eyes around here. But I did want to share you with some initial reactions. Let’s start in Colorado.
First, we learned that Republicans won the state house and closed the gap on the Democrats’ state senate majority. Democrats hold on to the [...]

Si se puede indeed

by Rossputin | 12:12 pm, November 3, 2010

Just what does it say about Colorado elections when, as Senator Mark Udall, stood up at noon in Denver today to introduce newly elected (formerly appointed) Senator Michael Bennet, the chant of the crowd behind him was “Si se puede!”?

When our elections are being determined by people who think it appropriate not to speak english at an event surrounding the election of an American to the highest legislative office in the nation, we have a problem.

Blue Blood – partial list of defeated Democrats

by Mr. Bob | 10:59 am, November 3, 2010

**UPDATED A list of House seats switching from 1 party to anotherthis casualty list is as of very early Nov 3, the majority of these were incumbants. There will be additional entries after contested elections are settled;John Adler, D-NJJohn Bocierri, …

Election Results: More Standing Up for “States’ Rights?”

by Rob Natelson | 10:42 am, November 3, 2010

One of the big under-covered stories in this election is the huge shift toward Republicans in state legislatures. The change could portend big changes for national politics, because Republican state lawmakers are more likely to sign onto federalism (“states rights”) initiatives than Democrats are. Even though the U.S. House is now Republican, a [...]

Great Moments In Propaganda

by ToxicHypoxic | 10:36 am, November 3, 2010

Jubilation at the results of last night should, of necessity, be short lived. As much as I revere Brother Limbaugh, we are not “saved” by any means. This is only an opening to an opportunity. If this respite is not … Continue reading →

Dan Maes Wins 10%: No Minor Party Status Problem for Colorado GOP?

by Ben DeGrow | 9:35 am, November 3, 2010

There are still outstanding ballots, and so the final tabulated results are not yet in. But what’s being reported in the unofficial results indicates that Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes has secured more than 10.0% of the vote. Fears based on the latest round of polls that Maes would land in single digits didn’t materialize. [...]

Can’t we all just get along?

by Rossputin | 7:02 am, November 3, 2010

Even before yesterday’s elections, the Dems’ theme is already clear.  Whether it’s Jon Stewart’s “Rally for Sanity” or the liberal talking heads on the Sunday morning talk shows, all the liberal whining is about whether Republicans will be willing to “cooperate”, to “work together to get things done.”

Even Barack Obama has been making noises about how the GOP, with a majority in at least one house of Congress, will have “a responsibility” to govern and to work with him.rasm

This is, of course, after two years of congressional Democrats actually saying out loud – and living up to their words – that they won (in 2008) so they get to write the bills.

This is after Barack Obama saying that a GOP majority should expect “hand to hand combat” with his administration.

This is after two years of Republicans not even being consulted on most aspects of most significant legislation.

This is after using bribes and deceit to pass Obamacare, the only bipartisan aspect of which was opposition to it.

This is after calling the Republicans all sorts of names, in public and in private.

There’s a good, short answer to these Democrats:  Screw you!

One of my most frequent themes is that the charge of hypocrisy does not work against Democrats because they do not campaign on principle.  If you campaign based only on outcome (or on race or just hating the other guy), you never have to be held accountable to living up to a principle.  For conservatives, however, if you run on a platform of “family values” and then are caught dipping the wick in Argentina while your wife remains back in the US, you are – and should be – pilloried as a hypocrite.

BUT, at some point, even the left can be seen as hypocritical by the public, and this could be one of those points.  Because this is about process, not policy or principle.  The hypocrisy of Democrats asking for Republican cooperation after how they’ve behaved since the election of The One is, if not surprising, at least obvious enough to be galling even to independent voters.

Keep in mind that you’re going to have fully 25% of the Republican Party as a freshman class in 2011 after the GOP wins an enormous number of seats tomorrow.  These are people who are not particularly loyal to GOP leadership, to Boehner, Cantor, etc.  They are in large part people of the Tea Party who, when a bad idea comes along, won’t just want to be the “Party of No”, but the “Party of Hell No!”

Incumbent Republicans will have to fear Tea Party-organized primary challenges if they don’t also focus on cutting government spending, taxes, regulation, and overall intrusiveness.  While the left regularly mischaracterizes as the Tea Party as a bunch of far-right radicals who want to ban abortion and close the borders, we know that the movement is, for all practical purposes, only about liberty and opportunity, with a primary focus on out of control government spending – the impact of which is the decimation of both liberty and opportunity.  While there are Tea Party members who are “extreme” on social issues or immigration or some other occasionally in-focus issue, there are plenty of others who hold different or opposite views.  Again, we know this even if the left doesn’t know or doesn’t tell the truth, which is why the Tea Party should remain a real force if it stays focused.  If it stays focused, it can mount primary challenges to RINOs, the liberal Republicans who give the GOP a bad name by acting far too much like Democrats.  And it is only in the ability to beat incumbents that the Tea Party or any other political movement has any power.

As long as politicians fear the Tea Party, and I think they will for at least the next couple of years, the Republican Party will, at long last, care (at least in public) as much about our Founding Principles as they do about appearing to be “getting something done.”  The public does not, contrary to the Dems’ assertions, hate gridlock.  They would have loved more gridlock over the past couple of years to prevent most of Obama’s signature legislation.

Therefore, I think that over the excessively cautious instincts of GOP leadership (and I say this both in the House and with new Republicans in the Senate), the GOP will push to repeal Obamacare.  Of course, they won’t be able to because they won’t have the votes in the Senate nor the votes to override an Obama veto.  But they should keep this their front-and-center issue going all the way through 2012 and keep explaining how the legislation is and will continue to cause the cost of health insurance to skyrocket.

The left will complain about hyperpartisanship, about being shut out, and they’ll complain a lot about the many hearings that GOP gadfly Darrell Issa will call to go after Obama’s horrendous czars and the massive overstep of the administration’s regulatory authority by leftists.  In fact, the opportunity for those hearings is the single biggest reason I want a GOP takeover of the House.

What I am suggesting is that the next two years will be more about  positioning for 2012 than about “getting things done.”  The GOP should be slightly careful not to be purely oppositional, but in general they should remember that blocking Obama and making him and all other Democrats look bad – which is to say look like what they are – is more important than getting along.

Bipartisanship for its own sake is and should be dead.  The new crop of Republicans,  hopefully including Colorado’s own Ken Buck, will, if we’re lucky, stay true to their stated principles and goals and not get the Potomac Fever which destroyed the soul of the Republican Party over most of the past decade.

As Scott Rasmussen noted in a WSJ op-ed on Monday, this election was a vote against Democrats, not a vote for Republicans.  That is not a winning strategy for the GOP in the long term.  More importantly, it is not a winning strategy for the Constitution and our liberty.  Republicans need to give people a reason to vote for them.  The next two years will be just such an opportunity.  I remain slightly optimistic, perhaps in a triumph of hope over experience, that they may do so after so many years of failure. (Interestingly, financial reporter Charlie Gasparino had a WSJ op-ed the same day saying that bankers may vote for Republicans this time…but just barely:  “Wall Street doesn’t so much love the Republican Party as it is hedging its bets on divided government.”  Gasparino’s closing sentence also strikes me as important for the next couple of years: “For all the money that banks are steering to the GOP this midterm election, once tomorrow’s vote is over we can expect them to kiss and make up with the president who’s brought them billions in profits while the rest of the country has continued to struggle.”)

So, can’t we all just get along?  In Congress, for the sake of our children’s futures, we must hope the answer is not just “No”, but “Hell, No!”

And, what must start TODAY is pressure from lovers of liberty on all Republicans to read and remember the words of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution when thinking about every aspect of their jobs.  We must let Republicans, even more than Democrats, know to expect electoral punishment if they forget that the country they are serving is the United States of America, and not Germany or France or Russia or Kenya.  We are not interested in following the failed socialist paths of others; our nation’s role is to abide by its founding principles – including particularly federalism – and to let other countries then follow us when they see that our system works better than theirs.  For two years, we Tea Partiers, 9/12 group members, or just plain ol’ Americans must continually remind members of Congress that they work for us and that if they do not behave with fidelity to American principles, they will be replaced.

Interesting Equations

by Elliot | 6:41 am, November 3, 2010

Dependent on current incomplete results Maes Votes + Tanc Votes < Hickenlooper Votes Maes votes almost exactly = 10% Resulting Observations: 1) Maes DID NOT sink Tanc. 2) Tanc ALMOST sank the Repubs with Minor Party status. Discuss.

Colorado Election Notes

by Ari Armstrong | 1:47 am, November 3, 2010

Here are some trends and lessons from the Colorado elections, based on preliminary results available early Wednesday morning.1. The majority of Colorado’s Congressional delegation is now Republican. Whereas the Democrats previously held five of the sev…

Stephen Bailey Concedes in CD2

by Ari Armstrong | 1:11 am, November 3, 2010

Stephen Bailey conceded victory to his Democratic opponent, incumbent Jared Polis, in Colorado’s Second Congressional District.Check back for a partial transcript.

Late-breaking news coverage of “Know Your Judge” consortium violations of Colorado campaign finance law

by CTBC Director | 7:20 pm, November 2, 2010

Arriving somewhat late to the party, but nonetheless providing decent coverage of the issue, the Denver Post joined in the coverage of the campaign finance complaint against the “Know Your Judge” consortium with an (online-only) article late Tuesday afternoon (”Clear the Bench files campaign finance violation claim“).  Following Monday’s Westword article (”Clear the Bench Colorado’s Matt [...]

2010 Election Liveblogging

by Ben DeGrow | 6:45 pm, November 2, 2010

I am providing Election Night coverage here, including quotes and photos as available. I am working with a collaborative of organizations on this project — including Independence Institute, People’s Press Collective, Complete Colorado, Who Said You Said, Mothers Against Debt and National Review Online. Go here for the relevant details (including links and a live [...]

2d Amend. Results

by David Kopel | 5:55 pm, November 2, 2010

(David Kopel) Senate: +6
House: +15.25
Governors: +2.25
Constitutions: +4
Ill. Sen. Mark Kirk (R, F) wins. Sponsored an “assault weapons” ban in the current Congress. Will be only strongly anti-gun Senator in GOP caucus. At least he’s a staunch critic of United Nations malfeasance.
Right to hunt and fish trailing in Arizona, 56–44. One million votes counted so far.
Ohio Gov. John [...]

An Anticipatory Post (Just in case we "spoil" an election)

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 1:38 pm, November 2, 2010

If, tonight, a Libertarian candidate gets more votes than the margin of difference in a Republican loss, I know what I’ll hear:”YOU COST US THE ELECTION!!!!!”Allow me to reply now, just in case, so I can refer all complaints here:1) Republicans and Dem…

Heartland Institue election prediction contest; winner gets P.J. O’Rourke book!

by Rossputin | 1:06 pm, November 2, 2010

Enter your guesses in the comments section of this blog note:

http://somewhatreasonable.com/2010/11/heartlands-election-night-predictions/

If you need help choosing which casino not to patronize, start with Harrah’s

by Rossputin | 11:04 am, November 2, 2010

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/251906/harrahs-bosses-put-squeeze-employees-vote-pro-reid-effort-elizabeth-crum?

Forget the Election: Tomorrow Brings Big U.S. Supreme Court School Choice Case

by Eddie | 10:09 am, November 2, 2010

Everybody’s got the election on the brain today, but there is something maybe even bigger going on out there that is of concern to us education transformers.
Tomorrow the United States Supreme Court is set to hear the case Garriott v Winn, which will decide the constitutionality of Arizona’s K-12 tuition tax credit program. Apparently, [...]

Make sure you vote NO on retention of Colorado Supreme Court justices

by Rossputin | 8:49 am, November 2, 2010

It’s time for all of us to prove to Matt Arnold and his tremendous “Clear the Bench Colorado” project by voting “NO” on the retention of the three Colorado State Supreme Court justices on today’s ballot.  And tell your friends to do the same!

When you see the names Bender, Martinez, and Rice, vote NO!

Special election evening coverage on Backbone Radio

by Rossputin | 8:02 am, November 2, 2010

UPDATE: Congressman Jared Polis will join the show at 8:33 and Michelle Malkin will be joining the show for a few minutes of analysis and prediction at 9:03 PM

Please join John Andrews and me, Ross Kaminsky, for a special evening of election coverage on Backbone Radio on 710 AM KNUS (Denver/Aurora).  We’ll start at 7 PM and go until at least 10 PM.

We’ll dig deep into election results in Colorado and across the country, bringing you on-the-fly updates and analysis with a distinctly liberty-oriented perspective.

We’ll look at races up and down the Colorado ballot, as well as significant tell-tale races from around the nation which might give early clues to how the overall election results may turn out.

Please join the show by listening to (and calling in to) this week’s Backbone Radio program starting at 7 PM on 710 AM KNUS in Denver.

(Note: This edition of Backbone Radio will not be simulcast on our usual sister-station, 1460 KZNT in Colorado Springs.)

If you’re not in range of the radio waves, you should be able to listen to the show online by clicking HERE.

Again, we hope you’ll actively participate in the conversation by calling the studio at 303 696 1971.

Special election evening coverage on Backbone Radio

by Rossputin | 8:02 am, November 2, 2010

UPDATE: Congressman Jared Polis will join the show at 8:33 and Michelle Malkin will be joining the show for a few minutes of analysis and prediction at 9:03 PM
Please join John Andrews and me, Ross Kaminsky, for a special evening of election coverage o…

Are Republicans gloating too early?

by Rossputin | 7:19 am, November 2, 2010

On Sunday, I received the following interesting comment from a reader.  I didn’t ask if I could use his name, so I will just share it with you without identifying the person:

I think Republicans and Conservatives should have laid low these past few months. I feel they should have kept their expectations to themselves. All this anticipation over Tuesday’s Election could lead to a major disappointment if things don’t go our way. I’m eager to gloat and scream, “YES!!!” if we win back the House and maybe the Senate, but we’ll have egg on our faces if we’ve misjudged the mood of the people. I have no problem with your speculations about outcomes. I just hope we’re all smiling on Tuesday night. I would truly be ecstatic if Tancredo wins.

My response was as follows…I’d be interesting in knowing what readers of these pages thing about this topic because I’m not sure I’m right, not sure the commenter is wrong:

I understand your point of view, and I can’t say you’re definitely incorrect, but I’m inclined to disagree.

Don’t forget that part of winning elections – perhaps the biggest part – is the “ground game”. This means armies of volunteers for phone banks, walking precincts, etc., and even people just telling other people.  For that, you need an excited electoral base, people willing to give their time AND MONEY to candidates. 

Usually the Dems have an edge on this stuff, not because of voter excitement (though they were for Obama), but because of unions.

Therefore, I think the high expectations, especially after two elections where the GOP (deservedly) got smashed, are a net positive for Republicans even considering the possibility of expecting too much or causing some Republican voters not to bother voting if they think it’s already over.  (I think the latter effect is insignificantly small.)

Clearly certain aspects of the GOP establishment agree with you, with parts of the party apparatus talking down expectations, albeit very slightly.

Here’s my take:  I think the GOP will exceed most expectations among “objective” predictors, even though those expectations are high. 

Yes, it’s possible that the GOP will only win 40 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate, but that seems VERY unlikely right now, especially if you look on a race-by-race basis (esp. the Senate, since I don’t know enough about individual House races.)  The one outcome which would really give the Dems something to laugh at is if the GOP didn’t take back a majority in the House.  At this point, a GOP majority is trading 93% on InTrade.com political betting.

FYI, the betting on the Senate is interesting.  As of 11 AM Sunday morning, the betting odds looked like this:
Dems to lose 7 or less is trading about 48%
Dems to lose exactly 8 or exactly 9 is trading about 42%
Dems to lose 8 or more is trading about 53%
Dems to lose 9 or more is trading about 28%
Dems to lose 10 or more is trading about 14%

As I look at the races, I think the Dems are likely to lose a seat to a Republican in:

Arkansas (essentially certain)
Colorado
Illinois
Wisconsin
Nevada
Pennsylvania
North Dakota (essentially certain)
Indiana (essentially certain)

And maybe
Washington
California
West Virginia

Therefore, I think the most likely outcome is the “lose 8 or 9″ bet, but one can see a way for any of the other bets to pay off:
If the “maybe” seats stay in Dem hands and Harry Reid can cheat himself to victory in Nevada, for example, or if Buck loses (CO) or Kirk loses (IL), the Dems could lose 7 or even 6.  But I think this outcome is unlikely.  More likely in my view is that the GOP takes all the races I call “likely” and maybe one or two of the others.

Anyway, to the extent that the mood of the people is misjudged, I think it will be misjudged by underestimating GOP performance in races other than in the US Senate.  The real test will be what happens in state legislatures and governors races and even “smaller” races like Sec. of State, Treasurer, etc.

Pay attention around the country, not just here.  The GOP really screwed up in Colorado this year at the top of the ticket, basically picking two fairly weak candidates (obviously Maes far far far weaker than Buck; Maes should never have been a candidate.)  The governors races across the nation are incredibly important due to redistricting.

Anyway, I thank you for your note. I’m not sure you’re incorrect.  But my gut instinct is that having excited GOP voters is, on balance, a good thing.  I’m willing to take my chances with high expectations if it means having people motivated to donate to candidates, volunteer for candidates, and make sure to cast their votes in favor of pro-liberty candidates.

I, like you, hope Tancredo wins, but I think it’s less than a 50/50 proposition at this point.  (Not by a lot, though, and I sure hope I’m wrong!)

Need to Vote? Find out Who’s Got Tea!

by Lesley Hollywood | 10:47 pm, November 1, 2010

I’m sure everyone is well aware election day is TOMORROW - but don’t forget to not only make your VOTE count, do your duty as a concerned citizen and get your neighbors out to VOTE!  Get your family, your friends, your customers, your boss, the checker at the grocery store, the gentleman pumping gas next to you [...]

“Their Goal is to Demolish Candidates”

by T.L. James | 9:59 pm, November 1, 2010

Our good friend Kelly Maher gets profiled by Gary Tuchman of CNN:

It’s Time

by PerlStalker | 9:15 pm, November 1, 2010

Well, my friends, it has come down to this. Tomorrow is the day we start restoring our liberties. But Election Day is just the start of the process. After the victory parties end and we all sleep off a well earned celebration, it’s back to work. What w…

KHOW’s Craig Silverman votes for Buck and Tancredo

by Rossputin | 8:33 pm, November 1, 2010

In a courageous and interesting move, former Democrat and now unaffiliated radio talk show host Craig Silverman today publicly announced that he’s voting for Republican Ken Buck for Senate and conservative Tom Tancredo for governor.

Silverman’s public explanation of his votes speaks for itself, and you can read it HERE.

As if that weren’t enough, Silverman also endorsed Dr. Mike Fallon in his long-shot bid to unseat liberal Democrat Diana DeGette in Colorado’s 1st Congressional District.  Fallon, who has been a guest on Backbone Radio at least three times, is an interesting guy and a dynamic candidate.  It would be an incredible upset if he won, simply because of the demographics of CD1’s electorate, but Fallon is indeed worthy of every thinking person’s vote.

One quick observation:  It’s hard for me to believe that Craig would have made these choices, or at least made them publicly, if he were still a registered Democrat.  It seems to me, having listened to him on the radio for several years now, that the switch to unaffiliated was intellectually liberating for him.

I’ve often thought about making a choice such as Craig made and have resisted it (and continue to resist it, for now) because I want the ability to vote in a primary and to perhaps influence my local Republican caucus.  (There are so few Republicans where I live that a persuasive person really could impact the result of that caucus…)

In any case, I admire Silverman’s courage in advocating for what he believes to be good government rather than the too-common approach to politics of just cheering for a political party as if it’s your favorite sports team.  As I’ve said frequently lately, if people make voting decisions based on party even when they know their vote is likely to lead to worse government for the city, state, or country, they have their priorities seriously screwed up.  It seems to me that since Silverman’s departure from the Democratic Party, his priorities have been exactly right even if he and I might disagree on certain fundamental issues regarding the appropriate role of government in society.

Perhaps if more Republicans did what Silverman did, at least if that’s what it would take to get them to support pro-liberty candidates instead of just the next old Republican in line for a particular job, that would likewise be beneficial to the nation.

I know some Republicans will call this suggestion heresy, coming from a registered Republican, but those are likely the same people who told me I had to vote for Dan Maes if I ever thought I should have influence within the Colorado GOP.

If voting for Dan Maes is the price of future influence (something I never said I wanted), I’d gladly give up any such influence so I can sleep at night.

Finally, I would note that I share Silverman’s slight fear of Buck and Tancredo.  I’m not a social issues conservative.  I absolutely don’t understand someone who wants a federal ban on abortion with no exceptions, and I don’t actually understand someone who claims to revere the constitution finding some reason to have any federal involvement in the issue.  Furthermore, I don’t like Tancredo’s views on legal immigration.

But at the end of the day, it’s obvious to me – and has been for some time – that these candidates are far and away better for the nation and state than their Democrat opponents who represent more of exactly the same policies and beliefs that have done so much damage to our country in such a short time.

Again, congratulations to Craig Silverman for his bold choices.  I hope that his voice carries enough weight to swing these elections to his favored candidates if the elections are close.

Election Night 2010 Live Webcast – Watch the Election Events Live on PPC

by T.L. James | 8:26 pm, November 1, 2010

On Tuesday evening, November 2, People’s Press Collective, Liberty on the Rocks, Complete Colorado, Independence Institute, Who Said You Said, and Mothers Against Debt will be bringing you live coverage of election night festivities from across Colorado. A joint production with National Review Online’s Battle ’10 blog (featuring our own Michael Sandoval), the webcast will [...]

PPC 2010 Colorado Ballot Initiatives Sample Ballot

by T.L. James | 8:00 pm, November 1, 2010

The PPC editorial board’s voter guide for the 2010 Colorado ballot initiatives.

Colorado Politics: 2010 Colorado Statewide Election Results

by T.L. James | 7:32 pm, November 1, 2010

Here’s a roundup of 2010 election results from across Colorado.

I-70 Mountain Corridor Train A $20 Billion Bad Idea

by Mike Krause | 7:20 pm, November 1, 2010

Over a the Denver Post, traffic operations engineer and Independence Institute research associate John Aldridge examines the proposed plan to build an elevated train along Colorado’s I-70 mountain corridor.
Unsurprisingly, he finds a few flaws in the idea:
First, it’s going to take 20 years or more to implement, and second, it will do nothing [...]

Sarah Palin endorses Tom Tancredo for governor

by Rossputin | 6:01 pm, November 1, 2010

I realize some people might take this as a negative, but at the end of the day, Sarah Palin has been the single most influential person in this election cycle (with the possible exception of Barack Obama who is motivating one of the largest anti-incumbent-party elections in US history.)

Therefore, it’s obviously newsworthy to learn that Sarah Palin is endorsing Tom Tancredo, an endorsement which will be heard in “robocalls” across the state in coming hours.

According to the Tancredo press release, the script of the Palin call is as follows:

 

Hi, this is Governor Sarah Palin. I’m calling to ask that you and your neighbors vote for Tom Tancredo to be the next Governor of Colorado on Tuesday. Tom is the right man for the job and he’ll fight for lower taxes, he’ll stop growing government, and start growing the economy. And we know he’ll continue working to end illegal immigration. Please vote for Tancredo on Tuesday. Thank you.

 

Your guess is as good as mine whether this will have any impact, especially with just hours left.  It would have been much more helpful to Tancredo if Palin had acted a week earlier, but perhaps “better late than never” is extremely appropriate here.

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers