Republicans lose in NY 23rd District

[kallsop]

I think the meaning of this moment is very clear: Do not try to stop regional differences in party social values.

The original R candidate was further to the left than the D candidate and supported by the Kos-ovites - what's up with that? Then the R candidate drops out and supports the D candidate. Hmmmm.

An unknown third party C candidate goes from single digits to almost 50% in a couple of weeks. Maybe the C candidate will run on the D ticket next time. As you say, regional differences are to be embraced, yes?

 

[Dr Adequate]

In all you have Hoffman spending $235k and Owens spending $375k. So 1.6 times as much spending PLUS the big-Party advantage and still he only gets 49/45%. That's a lousy result.

Yes, I'm sure that Democrats are hiding their heads in shame for having so narrowly won a seat that Republicans have held for the past hundred years.

The Rep party acted like a clown-car full of bozos, but that's par for the course.

No it isn't. This is why you should be worried.

If the Republicans can't be the "big tent" for the sort of people whom I think are shamefully and ludicrously wrong, then the Republicans are now officially screwed.

 

[Beerina]

The original R candidate was further to the left than the D candidate and supported by the Kos-ovites - what's up with that? Then the R candidate drops out and supports the D candidate. Hmmmm.

An unknown third party C candidate goes from single digits to almost 50% in a couple of weeks. Maybe the C candidate will run on the D ticket next time. As you say, regional differences are to be embraced, yes?

As George Will pointed out, the R candidate believed in higher taxes, abortion, etc. etc. etc. "There's already a political party for people who think like that. It's called the 'Democrats' . "

So the election is about in-fighting and, more accurately perhaps, reclaiming the party from infiltrators, and about upheaval among the Republicans.

But it is not about the Republicans "failing" vs. Democrats. If this were a science experiment, you all would throw it out the window as indicative of anything, because it was completely contaminated as a test of Republican vs. Democrat.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Newt Gingrich (that damn flaming liberal! ) is weighing in again on the implications of the GOP eating its own with the whackadoodle Tea Party nuts pushing to purge the party of moderates...

Newt Gingrich warns of 'destructive' GOP primaries

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted disaster for his party if the conservative wing of the GOP continues to field independent candidates to the right of the party’s nominee.

“If we get into a cycle where there are tea parties and there are conservative third-party candidates, we will make [Nancy] Pelosi speaker for life,” Gingrich told POLITICO in an interview Thursday, calling the practice “totally destructive.” ...

... Gingrich recounted that he became speaker after the 1994 GOP sweep, thanks to a bloc of support from a moderate wing of the party that is now nearly extinct.

But do you think the TPers are going to listen to reason? Nope. They've got God on their side and in their minds they can do no wrong. Just look at all the amazing rationalizations by the TPers on this thread regarding the embarrassing loss in NY23 - it shows they've learned nothing.

These days, it seems the GOP is its own worst enemy. These TP nuts have decided they're either going to run the party or run it into the ground.

 

[stevea]

Yes, I'm sure that Democrats are hiding their heads in shame for having so narrowly won a seat that Republicans have held for the past hundred years.

That oft' quoted "fact" is hogwash. This region has been redistricted repeatedly. Some parts have been Democratic. A Dem was elected in the Madison area in 1978 for example. Hyperbole for the weak minded.

It appears that the Dem win is much closer than 49/45%, less than 48/46 if we
trust the most recent recounts. Yes that is shameful performance if they can't get 50% of the vote against a 3rd party. Sort of a joke really. Similarly it's a joke that the Reps had to outspend the Dems in this district by ~6:1 for the past decade. It means the Reps were very vulnerable there. The story-line that this has in the recent past been a Rep stronghold is simple erroneous meant to feed that self-congratulatory egotism of the winner.

No it isn't. This is why you should be worried.

If the Republicans can't be the "big tent" for the sort of people whom I think are shamefully and ludicrously wrong, then the Republicans are now officially screwed.

Why would I worry abt the Republican party's failure ? You have some highly confused notion of my interests. Yes the Reps are screwed - so why do you think should I care ? IMO the best possible outcome would be the creation of a viable 3rd party and that won't happen without some serious birthing pains.

I like Newt when he is pointing to clear problems and suggesting realistic solutions. He can be a clear creative thinker in the D.P.Moynihan sense. OTOH if he wants to endorsing lousy candidates based on party affiliation rather than ideology, then he's just creating more dissension with the Reps ... which matches my interests quite nicely.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Someone seems to be taking a trip down DeNile

 

[Dr Adequate]

That oft' quoted "fact" is hogwash. This region has been redistricted repeatedly. Some parts have been Democratic. A Dem was elected in the Madison area in 1978 for example. Hyperbole for the weak minded.

So ... the Republicans have in fact held NY-23 for the last hundred years?

It appears that the Dem win is much closer than 49/45%, less than 48/46 if we
trust the most recent recounts. Yes that is shameful performance if they can't get 50% of the vote against a 3rd party. Sort of a joke really.

Don't you find dat de crocodiles bite?

Similarly it's a joke that the Reps had to outspend the Dems in this district by ~6:1 for the past decade. It means the Reps were very vulnerable there.

Or that they could raise a lot more money.

The story-line that this has in the recent past been a Rep stronghold is simple erroneous meant to feed that self-congratulatory egotism of the winner.

What is more intriguing to me is the "self-congratulatory egotism" of the losers.

Why would I worry abt the Republican party's failure ? You have some highly confused notion of my interests. Yes the Reps are screwed - so why do you think should I care ?

I had some sort of notion that you were on the right. Now since both parties of the right were beaten by the Democrats, one might have expected a little pique.

IMO the best possible outcome would be the creation of a viable 3rd party ...

Ooh! Me too!

I like Newt when he is pointing to clear problems and suggesting realistic solutions. He can be a clear creative thinker in the D.P.Moynihan sense. OTOH if he wants to endorsing lousy candidates based on party affiliation rather than ideology, then he's just creating more dissension with the Reps ...

And when you can create dissension by urging party unity ...

Oh, this is going to be fun. Go teabaggers, go!

 

[MattusMaximus]

Interesting new development:

Hoffman alleges vote fraud in NY 23

Even as he faces near-impossible odds of pulling ahead in the count, Doug Hoffman announced Wednesday night that he is officially revoking his concession from Election Night, and is accusing labor unions and ACORN of stealing the election for Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.).

Hoffman posted a message on his campaign site Wednesday alleging dirty tricks by Democrats, and is asking for additional campaign contributions to fund a legal challenge to the election results.

“As evidence surfaces, we find out that reported results from election night were far from accurate. ACORN and the unions did their best to try and sway the results to Obamacare supporter Bill Owens," Hoffman wrote on his campaign site. "Rest assured, they will not succeed, and I am therefore revoking my statement of concession.”

Despite his unfailing optimism, Hoffman currently faces next-to-no chance of pulling ahead, with nearly half of the absentee ballots counted. The Watertown Daily Times reports that Hoffman currently trails Owens by 2,832 votes, with 4,262 absentee ballots left to be counted, with him only picking up a net of 344 votes in the process.

Hoffman would need to win nearly 80 percent of the outstanding absentee ballots to win. St. Lawrence, Oswego, Jefferson, Clinton, Essex and Franklin counties still have to finish their absentee count – with much of the remaining votes coming from Democratic strongholds that Owens carried on Election Night.

And Hoffman's claims are being undermined by his own staff and Republican election workers in the district. His campaign adviser, Rob Ryan, told the Syracuse Post-Standard that the campaign "knows chances for a victory grow more remote with each passing day."

The Jefferson County Republican elections commissioner told the Watertown Daily Times that Hoffman's allegations were “absolutely false.” ...

Go TPers, go!!! This in-fighting between the TPers and GOP establishment will only get more interesting, in my view. I can't wait to see how this all shakes out next spring, when the TP-nutters start going after more moderate GOP candidates in the primaries. And it will further be interesting to see how many TPers who lose those primaries "pull a Hoffman" and run as independents.

My prediction: Hoffman will become the next darling of the Tea Party movement, and we'll be seeing him on the campaign trail next year for nutbag candidates in both primary & general elections. Sort of like a male version of Palin *shudder*

 

[Cynic]

Irrationality seems to be the price of admission in the Conservative party.

 

[GreyICE]

Really? ACORN?

Here's NY's 23rd district

Here's the list of ACORN offices.

http://acorn.org/?14541

The closest one is in BLOODY SCHENECTADY. That's an hour south.

Sanity is just a passing gnat to that poor man.

 

[leftysergeant]

That oft' quoted "fact" is hogwash. This region has been redistricted repeatedly. Some parts have been Democratic. A Dem was elected in the Madison area in 1978 for example. Hyperbole for the weak minded.

The district has existed as is for 9 years. Please let us know, when you have found it, how many Democrats were elected to anything in the area during that period.

 

[stevea]

The district has existed as is for 9 years. Please let us know, when you have found it, how many Democrats were elected to anything in the area during that period.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

About 62% of the CURRENT 23rd population live in a geographic area that has been Republican since ~1890. The other 38% live in areas that have been democratic more recently, often much more recently.

As you said the district has only existed for a short time in it's current geographic form, so OBVIOUSLY you can't possibly say "this district has voted ... " and 100 years in the same sentence and have it mean anything reasonable.

 

[stevea]

So ... the Republicans have in fact held NY-23 for the last hundred years?

That's the fairly tale they tell the fools to make them smile.

Or that they could raise a lot more money.

Right and that's the interesting part. How much of that money was from the district and how much was from the national parties or directed there through the various party support groups. The Reps in previous years of the past decade brought in a lot of outside money. This time the Reps funding was more limited by far (still ~$1mill), and the Dems brought in outside cash in far larger amounts than previous. So my interpretation is that the local constituent funding only played a modest role in campaign funding differentials. You can find the specific numbers on opensecrets.org

What is more intriguing to me is the "self-congratulatory egotism" of the losers

Do you know of any loser congratulating themselves here ? Maybe you'd better go back and re-read my comments.

I had some sort of notion that you were on the right. Now since both parties of the right were beaten by the Democrats, one might have expected a little pique.

Your notions are self-delusion. I'm as far from the "Right' as progressives are, but in quite a different direction. The only sense in which I prefer "conservative" politicians is that it's often better to preserve the status quo (conserve) rather than do something really stupid, which is exactly what the 'Left' has been proposing for a couple decades.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Hoffman, the independent was more of a typical Republican, Scozzafava(sp?) the Rep was a Dem-lite. Owens *seems* to be a middle-of-road Dem. I can't advocate any of them. My least-worst choice would be Hoffman i think.

The bits I like are that the Reps got a bloody nose for acting stupidly, and 3rd parties of all stripes have a lever of they can use. I didn't realize till now, but Scozafava dropped out but still pulled ~5% of votes, also the early voters (some still uncounted) wouldn't have known Scozza' had dropped out. Clearly if the right-ish votes weren't split they would have won. I prefer the current outcome to a Rep-Hoffman win.

Owens will be running for this seat again in 2010 and I suspect the Republicans will back Hoffman next time. If it's a 2-way that outcome would probably be far more telling about parties than the current race.

 

[GanipGnop]

Going Full Retard

McCain lost the Presidential race. I guess this was a huge victory for conservatives as well.


[/INDENT]

Falin Palin being the "Rogue" she is screwed up by quitting the Governorship after she was elected instead of quitting during the election. I think she blames it on her handlers.