Weiner's Seat Goes Red

[Brainster]

The seat formerly held by Representative Andrew Weiner flipped over to the Republican column in a special election held today:

Republicans have scored an upset victory in a House race that became a referendum on President Barack Obama's economic policies.

The last time the GOP held that seat? Never:

The heavily Democratic district, which spans parts of Queens and Brooklyn, had never sent a Republican to the House. But frustration with the continued weak national economy gave Republicans the edge.

The Democrat also reportedly took it on the chin for supporting same-sex marriage and the Ground Zero Mosque as an assemblyman:

Orthodox Jews, who tend to be conservative on social issues, expressed anger over Weprin's vote in the Assembly to legalize gay marriage. In July, New York became one of six states to recognize same-sex nuptials.

Former Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner in July as a way to "send a message" to Obama on his policies toward Israel. And Weprin was challenged on his support of a proposed Islamic center and mosque near the World Trade Center site, in lower Manhattan.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Can I nominate a thread title for pith?

 

[Unabogie]

Ed Koch isn't really a Democrat. He's like Zell Miller without the drawl. Just saying.

 

[theprestige]

Ed Koch isn't really a Democrat. He's like Zell Miller without the drawl. Just saying.

Just disavowing, you mean. Like your faction is some kind of Impossible Mission Force, on a covert operation to stick it to those Other Guys. If anything goes wrong, your operatives will be disavowed. Am I right?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Democrats don't tolerate minor deviations from established orthodoxy.

 

[DavidJames]

This is a great example of two things.

1. The people will blame the guy at the top when they aren't happy.
2. The Republican leadership is achieving their primary objective of making Obama a one term president.

It's a shame the Republicans primary objective wasn't helping the country improve. I know Republican sympathizers will object to that but as reality as shown, they don't like anything Obama has done or suggests, even if what he suggests was originally a Republican idea. <SNIP>.

But at least they are succeeding in their political objectives. God Bless Them, one and all.

Edited by Locknar: 

<SNIP>ed, breach of rule 9.

 

[JudeBrando]

Just disavowing, you mean. Like your faction is some kind of Impossible Mission Force, on a covert operation to stick it to those Other Guys. If anything goes wrong, your operatives will be disavowed. Am I right?

lol, well-said

 

[BenBurch]

Democrats don't tolerate minor deviations from established orthodoxy.

LOL! If that were true we would win every election.

 

[Puppycow]

The seat's going to disappear due to redistricting in a year anyway.

 

[BenBurch]

The seat's going to disappear due to redistricting in a year anyway.

That is true of several districts here held by Reds.

 

[eeyore1954]

This is a great example of two things.

1. The people will blame the guy at the top when they aren't happy.
2. The Republican leadership is achieving their primary objective of making Obama a one term president.

It's a shame the Republicans primary objective wasn't helping the country improve. I know Republican sympathizers will object to that but as reality as shown, they don't like anything Obama has done or suggests, even if what he suggests was originally a Republican idea. <SNIP>.

But at least they are succeeding in their political objectives. God Bless Them, one and all.

Edited by Locknar: 

<SNIP>ed, breach of rule 9.

Most republicans believe the best way to help the country is by taking the senate and the presidency back and then putting different policies in place.

I do agree there are some republicans who would vote against President Obama even if he did exactly what they wanted.

 

[Drysdale]

This is a great example of two things.

1. The people will blame the guy at the top when they aren't happy.
2. The Republican leadership is achieving their primary objective of making Obama a one term president.

It's a shame the Republicans primary objective wasn't helping the country improve. I know Republican sympathizers will object to that but as reality as shown, they don't like anything Obama has done or suggests, even if what he suggests was originally a Republican idea. <SNIP>.

But at least they are succeeding in their political objectives. God Bless Them, one and all.

Edited by Locknar: 

<SNIP>ed, breach of rule 9.

Maybe many are against him because he has a lot of bad ideas.
Ever consider that?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Maybe many are against him because he has a lot of bad ideas.
Ever consider that?

Nope.

Especially when he proposes basically the same ideas as Republicans have proposed in the past, or ideas that they claim to espouse, and then suddenly those are bad ideas ?

It's politics. It's OK to admit it, and to call out whichever side does crap like that.

 

[mhaze]

That is true of several districts here held by Reds.

Interesting point.

What's happening though, is that red states are gaining districts, and blue states are losing them. Since electoral votes for a state are "winner takes all" except, if I recall correctly, Maine and Nebraska, the net effect is more red districts and more red states.

Good explanation here.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/01/blue-states-see-red-over-redis

With all other factors remaining the same, if the 2008 presidential election were held under the projected reapportionment, Barack Obama would win 356 instead of 365 electoral votes and John McCain would win 182 instead of 173 electoral votes. One way of looking at this is that, although not a single ballot has been cast for 2012, Republicans are already up eighteen electoral votes from where they were in the last presidential election. And this is to say nothing of the conservative resurgence, liberal disappointment, and disaffection of independents that puts the president in a more precarious spot for 2012 than he was in 2008.​

Were it to be a close race, this would matter a lot. Given the current situation I'm not sure anything would help the Democrats unless somehow they can just buy the POTUS 2nd term.

 

[mhaze]

Most republicans believe the best way to help the country is by taking the senate and the presidency back and then putting different policies in place.

I do agree there are some republicans who would vote against President Obama even if he did exactly what they wanted.

Probably a better question is "when do most independents believe...."

since they will decide the 2012 election. Well or so I thought, but with NY-09....

 

[Skepticemea]

Can you nominate a thread title?

Edit: Howie got there first.

 

[angrysoba]

Former Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner in July as a way to "send a message" to Obama on his policies toward Israel.

So the Republicans have grabbed the Senator's seat because the Democrats' Weiner is out. I can't believe the smugness of the former mayor until I saw that Koch tease Obama?

 

[eeyore1954]

But what do people think this means. If I recall correctly there was a thread here about how important the New York's 26th congressional district election was when the republican lost.

This is a district where Weiner took 66,68,65,71,100,93 and 60 percent in his elections.
There has been a democrat elected there since 1923 and registration is heavily democrat. NPR said 3 to 1 in registrations.
And bearing these previous facts in mind what about Debbie Wasserman Schultz's statement " It's a very difficult district for Democrats".
The only thing difficult about it is that I think some other districts there are even more lopsided.

 

[mhaze]

But what do people think this means. If I recall correctly there was a thread here about how important the New York's 26th congressional district election was when the republican lost.

This is a district where Weiner took 66,68,65,71,100,93 and 60 percent in his elections.
There has been a democrat elected there since 1923 and registration is heavily democrat. NPR said 3 to 1 in registrations.
And bearing these previous facts in mind what about Debbie Wasserman Schultz's statement " It's a very difficult district for Democrats".
The only thing difficult about it is that I think some other districts there are even more lopsided.

I read it as a guy that bows to Arab kings, meddles in Libya without a clear purpose, is rude and non supportive to Israel, and sends the bust of Winston Churchill back to England is losing the Jewish vote as a result.

 

[Brainster]

But what do people think this means. If I recall correctly there was a thread here about how important the New York's 26th congressional district election was when the republican lost.

Nate Silver's analysis:

In other words, the four special elections, taken as a whole, suggest that Democrats may still be locked in a 2010-type political environment. Democrats might not lose many more seats in the House if that were the case, since most of their vulnerable targets have already been picked off, but it would limit their potential for any gains. And it could produce dire results for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate, where they have twice as many seats up for re-election.