Will 2010 Be Another 1994 for the Republican Party?
Tags: 2010 Campaign, Massachusetts, New York.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Believe it or not, there is some significant potential for Republican victories in the liberal northeastern states of New York and Massachusetts.
Polls show that Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick is in serious trouble, and one Democrat has already changed his registration to ‘unenrolled’ to secure a spot on the general election ballot, bypassing a primary. There will, however be a Republican primary.
Next there is New York, with another unpopular governor and dysfuctional Democrat-controlled state government. Right now, polls show Rudy GIuliani either defeating Governor Paterson, or gaining ground with Paterson’s potential primary challenger, Andrew Cuomo.
Recent Marist Polls show that Rudy Giuliani would crush Paterson in a general election match-up, while Republican Rick Lazio is in a dead heat with the governor. Cuomo polls significantly better against both in general election match-ups, beating both Giuliani and Lazio… Though the numbers show Cuomo’s support against Giuliani is slipping.
I am honesty very excited about the Republican Party’s chances in these bluest of blue states. And, if Republicans can be contenders there, then I see potential for Republicans to do better in 2010 than they did in 1994… if they craft the right message and recruit good candidates. Of course, with the way Obama is screwing up the country, the best spokesman for electing Republicans may be Obama himself.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
17 Responses to “Will 2010 Be Another 1994 for the Republican Party?”
Caucus of Corruption
Matt: I am honesty very excited about the Republican Party’s chances in these bluest of blue states.
It wouldn’t be the first time, lol!
Having said that, the New England/New York area is, IMO, too blue. It’s frankly ridiculous. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the GOP were to make some inroads there. But the question remains… is it the kind of inroads you really want? In other words, are you actually campaigning for moderate Republicans? And if so, why?
I do so look forward to your answer, and in the more detail the better. It could be immensely illuminating.
Oopsie, I screwed up the html tags. My bad.
wait, u mean elect alotta newbies that get caught up in sex scandles?
No ohio, it means electing people who actually pay their taxes. You do have a memory of a donkey ohio, what about all scandals of the Dems? Oh that’s right we look the other way when it’s a Democrat so they don’t exist.
“No ohio, it means electing people who actually pay their taxes.”
Nice comeback. Let’s just hope that it isn’t a repeat of the 1934 election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1934
casper, a 1934 repeat is not likely, I don’t know the math behind probability but without knowing the odds of a repeat I’d still say the odds are against it.
hummm, what is it now (?)…16 or 17 scandals of sinful sex fm the class of 94…and counting…
ohio, I am not anal like you are so I am not counting the scandals of any sort since 94 or any year for that matter. But according to an author, of which I wish I could name the book and his name, the numbers of scandals that the Republicans are involved in verses the Democrats, the Democrat scandals out number the Republicans at a ratio of 3:1. So I would not be so cocky about scandals on the Republican side.
Great excerpt from the NY Post:
It’s worth recalling that when the Founding Fathers led the American colonists in revolt against British oppression, they weren’t rebelling against torture on the rack or being chained in galleys or having to let aristocrats deflower their daughters. They were rebelling against taxes. To them, having to pay duties they hadn’t voted for themselves was a tyrannical taking of property–theft–and, in true Lockean fashion, they concluded that since government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, a regime that does the opposite renders itself illegitimate. What would they make, then, of today’s New York City, where 1.2 percent of the taxpayers–40,000 households–pay 50 percent of the income taxes, and half the households pay no income tax at all? If the tax code ensures that those who pay the bulk of the taxes are always a minority of those who vote for the legislature that imposes the taxes, isn’t that taxation without representation? Isn’t it also the tyranny of the majority that the Founders tried to prevent?
As usual, our liberals mistook an election win for a mandate. And the biggest mistale of all was letting nancy Pelosi write the stimulus bill. Fatal flaw.
mistook an election win for a mandate.
It was a bigger win than what you called a mandate in 2004.
Also, that was a decidedly pathetic attempt to claim that today’s tax code is in any way, shape, or form “taxation without representation” or “the tyranny of the majority.” Again, you really, really need to learn the difference between “tyranny” and “losing.” But I don’t have high hopes that you will.
No.
orlando & lead,
um……I didn’t write that article, just FYI. What is it you always chide others for? Reading comprehension? You may want to take your own advice.
But excellent job addressing the substance of the article, not. No comments re: the FACTS!
I didn’t write that article, just FYI. What is it you always chide others for? Reading comprehension? You may want to take your own advice.
And a careful read of my comment will indicate that at no point did I claim that you did write that article. You just approvingly quoted it, but either way, it’s a pathetic argument that because your guy didn’t win, you are being taxed without representation. No, you have representation. It’s just not the one you wanted. Suck it up and deal.
And you, cluster, still need to learn the difference between “tyranny” and “losing” to save yourself future embarrassment.
Again, you really, really need to learn the difference between “tyranny” and “losing.” – orlando
No, not at all orlando. You know little o, the shit you spew flies in other arena and probablly amongst your sycophantic friends, but here, you embarrass yourself daily.
It is also blantantly obvious that you have no clue as to the real arguments from conservatives (not at all surprising), and can only lean on the “losing” screed.
I still want to hear you say three times: democrats care about me and darn it, people like me.
And they do care about you little o, someone is going to take care of you son, ok?
the real arguments from conservatives
Well, the “real arguments from conservatives” that you are forwarding in this thread cannot differentiate between “tyranny” and “losing” and thinks that when their guy loses, it amounts to “taxation without representation.” If those are what you consider “real arguments,” then you’re in worse trouble than I thought.
And you still need to step up your reading comprehension.
little o, sweetie,
Can you slowly read the excerpt below, and comment as to how you deem this not to be punitive. Then, if it doesn’t require too much of your gray matter, explain why you support high wage earners to pay nearly 60% of their income in taxes, to support people like……….well quite possibly you. Is it that you’re too lazy to make it yourself or too stupid?
Now take your time, but if it’s too difficult, I understand.
…today’s New York City, where 1.2 percent of the taxpayers–40,000 households–pay 50 percent of the income taxes, and half the households pay no income tax at all?
So now we’re talking “punitive.” Then the question becomes: Have you backed down from the utterly absurd “this is taxation without representation!” argument (which would be a step in the right direction), or does this mean you can’t tell the difference between what you perceive as “punitive” and “taxation without representation” the same way you can’t tell the difference between “tyranny” and “losing”?
Well? Which is it?