The Morning After Election Day
Posted by Michelle Moquin on November 6th, 2013
Good morning!
Well, it went from many to now none. :) That is just how it is around here in Blogsville.
So…did you get out and vote yesterday? It seems New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie (R) is in for another round. That isn’t good since his gubernatorial (For some I call it a “Goobernatorial” :) position is a powerful one when it comes to elections and whose in control: Meaning the office of the state governor controls the election Machines/booths/times etc. This will be very important when we vote for midterm elections next year.
And it seems that Christie is preparing himself to run for President in 2016. Yeah good luck with that one. If he’s anything like Perry or Romney, they’ll have to try and steal the election. And you know they will. Besides, Christie can’t debate worth anything so I HOPE he is the runner. I can’t believe I am even talking about a presidential election that isn’t going to happen for a few years. Oh well…what can I say?
I’ll tell you what I can say. Back to the present – The Dems won Virginia, and it looks like it is going to be a clean sweep. Here’s the write from The Maddow Blog:
Far-right suffers another setback in Virginia
On paper, Republicans were poised to have a very good year in Virginia’s off-year elections. For over a generation, whichever party controls the White House invariably loses in the commonwealth, in Virginia this year, Democrats nominated a gubernatorial candidate who’d never held elected office, didn’t have deep political roots in the state, and wasn’t especially well liked by voters.
It looked like a recipe for GOP success. It wasn’t. As the dust settles on Election Day, Terry McAuliffe (D) has narrowly won Virginia’s gubernatorial race, Ralph Northam (D) was easily elected Virginia’s next lieutenant governor, and Mark Herring (D) very narrowly leads the still-uncalled race for state attorney general.
The Tea Party wing of Virginia’s Republican Party got the extremist candidates they wanted, and it looks like they lost in a clean sweep.
There’s no shortage of relevant angles to the Virginia elections, but there are two of particular interest. The first relates to the Affordable Care Act.
For Republican Ken Cuccinelli, who knew he was losing, condemnations of “Obamacare” became the driving message of his entire campaign in the race’s closing weeks. The GOP gubernatorial hopeful said, over and over again, that the gubernatorial race would be “a referendum on Obamacare.” As recently as Monday – the day before the election – Cuccinellisaid, “Tomorrow in Virginia is a referendum on Obamacare. Let’s send a message and say ‘no’ tomorrow to Obamacare.”
At the same event, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told Virginians, “This is the first election in America since the full impact of Obamacare has been felt. This is the first chance that people in America have to speak clearly at the ballot box about the impact this law is having on their lives and our economy.”
And then Cuccinelli lost, at which point the right said that the race was close because Virginians don’t like the Affordable Care Act.
Maybe it’s worth pausing to remind Republicans what the word referendum means: “an event in which the people of a county, state, etc., vote for or against a law that deals with a specific issue.” I don’t mean to sound picky, but folks shouldn’t call a race a referendum, lose, and then say the referendum proves how right they were – at least if they want to be taken seriously.
Second, it’s important to realize just how significant women’s health was in this race, which McAuliffe won thanks to a sizable gender gap. Dahlia Lithwick explained overnight, “An official who consistently used his elected office to promote policies that shamed, marginalized, and patronized women and other minorities was met with a ‘no.’ This wasn’t just about money, or the shutdown, or Star Scientific, or Terry McAuliffe’s fancy Clinton-era friends. It was about voters and what they know to be true.”
Irin Carmon added some important context:
Democrats already generally enjoy an advantage with female and non-white voters, and particularly with voters who fall in both of those categories. But the 2009 race in Virginia was dominated by concerns about the economy and anger at Obama, which in the tradition of Virginia off-year elections, wound up being predictive of the 2010 midterms.
In 2012, the focus on a broad range of women’s issues, including an unapologetic position in favor of abortion rights, helped Barack Obama. The gift to the McAuliffe campaign was that the McDonnell administration, with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli as a faithful warrior, went on to put restricting reproductive rights front and center on the legislative agenda.
If recent history is any guide, the right will come up with a variety of creative excuses for failure, explaining why their defeats were really victories if you close one eye and tilt your head just so. But reality is stubborn – Republicans in a competitive, “purple,” battleground state nominated right-wing candidates, alienated the voting mainstream, and lost races they probably should have won.
If the GOP’s lesson from these results is that the party needs to be even more conservative, we will see identical results in Virginia and elsewhere in the near future.
Hey Rubio: It looks like Americans spoke clearly at the ballot box.
Readers: What are the results in your state? Blog me.
Alycedale: Sorry sister; it has been awhile. Just checking in. How are you? I HOPE you’re still here reading?
peace & love…
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
November 6th, 2013 at 11:53 am
I am saddened and depressed that AGAIN our society can’t pass any GMO labeling laws. WTF people? Can Americans get any dumber??! I’m embarrassed to be American. It’s time to emigrate.
/SB
November 6th, 2013 at 4:13 pm
I’m with you social butterfly, in fact, I am making a plan.
Groceries are at top dollar and we don’t even get to know (or care?!) that they’re GMO?
Yep, wtf, is right? Too dumb fr words.
Still trying to decide where to explore outside the US but I’m not staying here too much longer, that’s all ill say.
Luv, Zen Lill
November 8th, 2013 at 6:16 am
As long as the politicians can be bought by GMO folks we don’t have a chance. This country will poison itself and the world for profit.
November 8th, 2013 at 6:20 am
The reason Christie did so well is because the white males abandoned his female democratic opponent. The love affair the MSM media has with Christie is due to the “great male white hope” syndrome.
This one is in politics. They are always looking for that white man who rises up and dominates every other race and sex. So even the Chris Matthews laud the supposedly outstanding qualities of this newly anointed “great white hope.”
November 8th, 2013 at 6:38 am
Some of us Virginians know when we we are being screwed by the republican party and refuse to continue to just vote anti Obama.
November 8th, 2013 at 6:42 am
People, do not buy into the scare tactics of people like Social Butterfly. Please understand the difference between pesticides (chemicals that kill insects) and herbicides (chemicals that kill weeds) and use those terms properly.
Crops do not become resistant to pesticides, bugs do that. I do not buy into the hype that GMO foods are poison to us and should not be consumed ~ research has shown the nutrition to be the same.
I do, however, think we need to address the chemicals used in agriculture. The fact that a crop is modified to be resistant to Roundup herbicide is not the problem, it’s the herbicide usage and it’s affects on the people and land that is our real problem.
Same with pesticide chemicals ~ Insects ruin crops, chemicals kill the bugs, chemical residue is bad for people :o(
What to do? Invent safer weed killers? Use criminal chain gangs to go out and hand pull them? That would be great!
November 8th, 2013 at 6:46 am
The following in no way diminishes my admiration for the whole foods movement, my support of organic gardening and living in a manner that evidences wise stewardship of this beautiful earth.
The furor over GMO foods is an utter fraud and does not stand the test of basic biochemical principles or even logical analysis. Modification of a plant at the germline level involves engineering the DNA of the species in question to promote the selective expression of particular gene(s) which code(s) for a desirable phenotype (for example, cloning of the beta-carotene gene into rice to counter Vitamin A deficiency in certain areas of the Orient).
When GMO foods are consumed they are digested into their constituent amino acids, sugars and lipids just as any other food. It is impossible for these elemental digestion products to affect the germline genome in the consuming organism because they are identical in structure and biological activity to those of non-GMO foods.
In proteins, the peptide bond which links amino acids together to create proteins is indistinguishable in GMO vs Conventional foods. The same is true for the chemical bonds which link simple sugars to make starches and dextrans as well as the chemical bond which links fatty acids to glycerol to make triglycerides.
There is no scientific or logical basis to the fear of GMO foods. If the constituent components of proteins, carbohydrates and lipids from digestion of GMO foods were truly different from those of non-engineered foods, it would be impossible to form proteins with the requisite three-dimensional structure required to have that molecule possess the biological activity it was made for.
Likewise with carbohydrates and dietary lipids. the very fact that these elements are digested, assimilated and used in both catabolic and anabolic reactions in the body is testament to the assertion that digestion products of GMO foods are the same as those for non-GMO foods for the simple reason that the enzymes in our body are exquisitly substrate-specific and are not able to act upon reactants whose native configuration cannot complement the active site of the enzyme designated to act upon it. For example, for the digestive protease called trypsin acts only on the peptide bond between lysine and arginine amino acid residues.
This enzyme is specific for this substrate. If there were something “different” in the amino acids coming from GMO foods, this bond could not be broken by the enzyme and assimilation would be hampered if not attenuated which, sooner or later, would show up as a deficiency disorder.
But this has never been demonstrated. The “problem” that GMO foods present is all smoke and mirrors. Whoever makes a claim that GMO foods are in any way detrimental to the consuming organism needs to do some basic coursework in biochemistry and genetics. What’s the problem here? Has the Emperor got no clothes?
November 8th, 2013 at 6:48 am
Social Butterfly, because I’m so naive, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the biochemical mechanism by which GMO confers its ill effects on our health?..Or, you could go to a professional med site like Medscape.com and search “GMO food & health effects.”
You’ll find a plethora of research papers gleaned from the world-wide med literature confirming that there are no ill effects to be found. Wikipedia summarzes this nicely. .. Even the TreeHuggers at the WHO say they’re safe….
And I suppose you’re familiar with the recently published meta-analysis of the extant literature showing no health benefits from organic food….Homesteaders & hobbyists should grow organically because it’s cheaper and they don’t need extra yield to increase profit margins like the pros do….
That’s why we need the industrial ag methods: to feed those unfortunate city dwellers who can’t grow thier own. How will they feed themselves when the chaos breaks out?
November 8th, 2013 at 6:52 am
Thank you Social Butterfly for your bring to the public the danger the GMO corporations are exposing the world to. We need to get back to organic farming by supporting those farmers with our dollars. We need to find a way to show the public who they are so they can make a choice.
The truth of the matter is that the older a truly organic farm is the better it is – the less fertilier and the fewer natural pests there are. Trying to boil this issue down to $$ only is exactly the reasoning that Monsanto and the other GMO corporate creators use.
Social you are correct to tell us to Wise up! This food is DEADLY – there is more than enough info out there – starting with really reading Robin Mather’s excellent article.
After that view “Genetic Roulette” by Jeffrey Smith -on line and you’ll be convinced! These crops do NOT produce as “advertised” grow weaker and need more herbicides and pesticides every year…..they are a deadly corporate money making scheme to control the world’s food supply and individual health and animal health be damned!
November 8th, 2013 at 6:54 am
Social Butterfly, I agree with you. I’d be happy if companies that didn’t use GMO products could actually put that on their labels. They want to, so let them!
November 8th, 2013 at 6:56 am
We are doomed! The quest for profit and power has led us into blindly accepting deception and dishonesty in those things that should require the most honesty and concern.
Unfortunately, most of the population has become lazy and indifferent to those things that most likely will damage or destroy us in the name of profit. Genetic modification has given us tasteless products with lowered nutrition and possible harmful ingredients solely in the name of making more money, no matter what Monsanto and others of their ilk might say.
November 8th, 2013 at 6:57 am
The input costs of producing an acre of corn is ~$700– about $5 of that is the cost of herbicide which increases yield 15-20%. That means the farmer will sell an acre of corn for ~$900 usig herbicide vs ~ $720 per acre without.
Why should he take the risks and hard work of farming for a lousy $20 per acre profit? If he decides not to farm, then most of us would starve….One should really do the arithmetic first before forming an opinion.
November 8th, 2013 at 7:00 am
GMO’s result in superweeds in short order and the need for ever higher concentrations or more virulent pesticides to be used. It concentrates food ownership in the hands of giant, sole-less conglomerates.
The loss of genetic diversity through the loss of locally adapted varieties is asking for future problems. It cheapens crappy food resulting in an epidemic of obesity straining health resources. Pesticides are poisons that have proven effect on many people, especially the most vulnerable the old and the young and not at extreme concentrations either but from chronic long term low dose exposure.
Bio-concentration in mothers milk is proven. The human effect pales in comparison to the environmental damage of decreasing soil fertility by killing off 60-90% of the normal soil biota. As for labeling costs,BAH, ridiculous! Packaging already has a lot of info printed on it and that printing changes regularly for no better reason than marketing.
Adding something like “GMO corn fructose fortified” won’t cost a bloody red cent more. And why should it be labelled? To inform the consumer. The same way that food content labeling, place and date of manufacture labeling etc is required.
Zen Lill is right. We have a right to know, NOT GUESS OR ASS-UME what is there!
The only people that don’t want this transparency in labeling are those with something to hide or that fear it’s effect on their bottom line. GMO’s should be simply banned unless the companies involved will underwrite 100% of all costs, predicted or unforseen, both short and long term, health, environmental and economic! They want the profits but everybody else gets to pay for the costs.
November 8th, 2013 at 7:01 am
Im worried about the GMO crops getting loose in the environment and contaminating non GMO crops. I’ve read about companies, like Monsanto, suing farmers for the crops that were contaminated by Monsanto’s GMO crops growing their fields.
I don’t see how labeling produce as GMO would increase the price by an appreciable amount and would allow me, as a consumer to make a better decision of what i purchase. It’s also known fact that the use of pesticides have produced plants that are highly resistant to pesticide that compete with desirable plants.
This sets up a condition that increases the cost to the farmer and consumer because they must use much higher doses of pesticides. The producers suffers as does the consumer, the pesticide manufacture is the only one to benefit thru siphoning money out of my pocket, thru taxes and direct cost increase, used to subsidize a farming practice that needs to be modified. This is common sense, it’s not that hard to put together.
November 8th, 2013 at 7:03 am
Ted, You are completely wrong misinformed and naive – I suggest you take your own advice and do research other than studies put out by Monsanto, Dow or Bayer. Or perhaps you work for Monsanto?