Hoffman's support was much like Darcy Burner's -- internet based and NOT local.
Posted by AD at November 4, 2009 12:34 PMBut whether Hoffman ran or not, a liberal democrat was going to win the election.
That's what you're not getting.
If the Republicans had picked Hoffman up front, he would have won.
It's like when Olympia Snow votes with Democrats, and then they claim "bipartisan support" for a bill. Completely bogus.
Posted by Palouse at November 4, 2009 01:28 PMWithout a doubt, the NY Republican leadership should not have selected Scozzafava. New York Republicans should have demanded a primary method.... long ago.
But as they have not and did not and made a less than optimal choice of Scozzafava, it is silly to see what happened in NY 23 as anything but a stunning loss for Republicans.
In a state where 26 of 29 Congressional seats were held by Democrats, cutting off your nose to spite your face ain't such a smart approach. Add to that that this seat had been a Republican safe seat for 150 years, and it is all the more silly.
North of the Pennsylvania border, there 51 Congressional Districts representing 34 million people. Republicans now have a whopping two seats.
Posted by MikeBoyScout at November 4, 2009 01:37 PM-
Really? Source please?
Que??????
How do you figure? Oh, I get it everyone who isn't a conservative is a liberal democrat (e.g., the moderate Rep who dropped out). I see how it goes.
Exactly what position of hers is Republican?
I do not use the term "RINO" often. I reject it when it is used of McCain or Graham or ... almost any Republican. But when virutally all of your positions are those of the Democratic Party, that differentiate the Democratic Party from the Republican Party, you are a liberal democrat, not a moderate republican.
MikeBS: it is silly to see what happened in NY 23 as anything but a stunning loss for Republicans.
For the New York Republican Party establishment, yes. A big loss. For Republican voters? It's a huge win over what would have happened had they not run a third-party candidate. They basically just made a major step forward for taking back their party.
It's silly to see that as anything but a great victory for the Republican voters.
In a state where 26 of 29 Congressional seats were held by Democrats, cutting off your nose to spite your face ain't such a smart approach.
Um. I already addressed this. If they didn't run a third party candidate, the Republican VOTERS would not have won anything. Having someone with an R next to their name is meaningless to most people.
SHE WAS NOT A REPUBLICAN. She would not have voted Republican, she would not have backed the interests of Republican voters, she would not have been a gain for Republicans in anything but name. This doesn't "spite" anything except the establishment ... and spiting them is a good thing!
2009 - 1857 = 152
Source please? I would like to look at the list.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/11/04/media-meme-ny-23-dead-wrong-ny-times-can-prove-it
Typical leftard approach, make shi' up and hope no one notices, and with the current drop of presstitutes that's not surprising.
Posted by Tim at November 4, 2009 02:15 PM-
People living there have not had congressional representation since 1857?
Scandal.
"Having someone with an R next to their name is meaningless to most people."
This is true as far as it goes, but that is not how elections are won and lost, and that is not how the House of Representatives is run.
In a year there will be an election in NY-23 for the same seat. Instead of a Republican incumbent, there shall be a Democrat.
PREDICTION: Owens re-elected in 2010.
"she would not have been a gain for Republicans in anything but name" WRONG. Her Republican vote would have been one more vote for a Republican Speaker; one more vote towards reclaiming the majority.
Pudge, find me a single example of either a Republican or Democrat (even in name only) who voted against their caucus for Speaker of the House. good luck with that!!
cripes!
Posted by MikeBoyScout at November 4, 2009 02:19 PMThis is the point. This matters more than the rest, because Republican voters stopped caring more about being in the majority, than following certain principles, several years ago. And if that means losing a seat ... it simply doesn't matter, because a liberal Republican is actually worse than a liberal Democrat (let alone moderate) Democrat.
PREDICTION: Owens re-elected in 2010.
There's no way you or I could make a reasonable prediction about a district we don't know, but the only certain thing here is that Republican voters would rather have Owens re-elected in 2010 than have Scozzafava re-elected in 2010. Not that she would be re-elected, since she would never be re-nominated, almost surely, and even if she was, the Republicans would have revolted from her in 2010 if not in 2009.
WRONG.
Not at all.
Her Republican vote would have been one more vote for a Republican Speaker
The Republicans are not close to a majority. And again, she would not have been re-elected in 2010.
And frankly, if the GOP can't get a majority because of that one vote, then that's fine by me, and, I suspect, most Republican voters. We are done electing liberals. I am not talking about moderates here. As has been noted: she was even more liberal than the Owens.
I wouldn't even call Snowe a RINO, as many do. One of the only elected Republicans in DC that I've called a RINO in recent years is Lincoln Chaffee, and Scozzafava is even to his left. The other was Arlen Specter (who is firmly moderate, not liberal; but I called him a RINO because he was only a Republican to get elected, as he later proved).
The Republican Party does not have to be about ideological purity, and I break with my friends who believe it should be. You cannot have a majority party that way. But the name DOES have to stand for SOMETHING. A Republican at least must believe in individual liberty, in property rights, in low taxes and low government interference.
The way forward for the Republican Party, if it is to survive, must include rejecting those who would represent us, but who reject almost all the views that differentiate us. That only makes sense.
Couldn't agree more. And that's the reason Sheriff Dave won't be getting my vote again. The Cap and Tax bill he voted for doesn't meet any of those requirements.
Posted by Palouse at November 4, 2009 02:48 PMObama goes on multiple trips to VA and NJ to campaign for the liberal gov. candidates there and suddenly we're supposed to believe that he's actually completely uninterested in the results of his efforts? This Whitehouse thinks americans are stupid. That's the only thing you can conclude.
Posted by Michele at November 4, 2009 03:15 PMReichert voted for the bill because he wanted a seat at the table. He is a big supporter of nuclear power, which is the only way we will become energy independent.
But if you want to continue on with your temper tantrum, by all means stay home and cry.
Posted by janet s at November 4, 2009 03:15 PMWhile I can understand what you're saying, the fact is that this bill was going to kill our economy.
It's not about a mandating "one true answer," it's about rejecting a terrible, awful, answer.
That said, it could be that Reichert new the bill wasn't going to pass the Senate. But he voted for it regardless.
1. We cleaned the red's clocks in virginia (especially) and in New Jersey. President Teleprompter was supposedly too busy watching a documentary on his fav subjet (his divine self) on HBO to care.
2. Conservatives mustered their strength and forced a fake replublican to withdraw from the NY-23 election. The damage was already done by the fake republican in that she was on the ballot and 6,000 people voted for her (I suspect most before she dropped out and endorsed the red). Had the fake republican NOT been on the ballot in the first place, I suspect Hoffman would have had a decent shot at winning.
I think the lesson to be learned is to go with conservatives offering a contrast to the reds. By this time next year there will be 10 or 11 (or more) people unemployed. The reds will continue to push punitive taxation and massive social spending because - well, thats the only thing they know how to do. A conservative who takes off the kid gloves and goes for barry's record of failure and commie associations will do better than someone who dances around hoping the media will eventually wake up.
Again, .....never ever take advice on who you nominate for office from your political enemies.
Posted by Attila at November 4, 2009 03:43 PMKirk also voted for cap-and-trade. Now he says he wouldn't do it if he was in the Senate. Uh...okay
Democrats, please understand, we *hate* cap-and-trade.
Again - Dede Scozzafava is a scurrilous Progressive who has totally ruined her future political career!!
Posted by Tim (The Other) at November 4, 2009 04:38 PM-
Hi. Can I see the source for this fact please?
I-1033 lost as money issues often do: the left spreads lies about it at the last minute. Typical.
I hear there's some races in King County, but, eh. Thankfully, I don't live there. King County is primarily to blame for most of this state's woes: our massive state deficit, our high taxes, our poor business climate ... King County gives us leftist leaders and we all pay the price.
Says the flack from group that ran Lieberman out of the Democratic Party? Riiiiiiight. Let's put it this way: Lieberman was FAR more a Democrat than this woman was a Republican.
Again, it's not about "purity." It's about having SOME PRINCIPLES in common with the party you represent.
Eventually the republicans will dwindle away to almost nothing in congress.
This ignores the fact that the data shows that the Republicans very likely would have won if they had nominated Hoffman in the first place.
You need to allow people of different views to run in areas where people may be more liberal.
First, as has been pointed out, this district is not liberal. The only reason the Dem won is because he was to the RIGHT of the Republican candidate.
Second, if you have to be as liberal as she is to win, then we might as well not win. That's fine by me.
Thats how the dems retook congress many of the new members are very conservative antiabortion pro gun etc
Except those people are still mostly in line with the Democratic Party: they are statists who believe in all manner of welfare and massive government control and so on, who vote for insane bills like the cap and trade and insurance reform packages. And those who don't won't last. The Democratic Party is already turning against the few "Blue Dogs" who got them there, but won't tow the line.
You're not fooling anyone.
The main reason the Dems won this seat is because the Republicans nominated a liberal. You have it backward.
A world where I can do math is "funny" to you? Odd. R-71 is winning by 37,866 votes, 51.65% to 48.35%. There's an estimated 394,482 votes to be counted. That means, if the number of ballots remaining is accurate -- here we go, hope I don't lose you -- that the late ballots need to break about 54.8% against R-71 to defeat R-71. That is well within the realm of possibility.
If you want the formula, it's ((NUM_REMAINING / 2) + (CURRENT_DIFFERENCE / 2)) / NUM_REMAINING.
Hope that helps!
Scozzafava has been an elected NY Republican Assembly person since 1998. She may be too liberal, but she has been a Republican leader for a long time. Without a conservative 3rd party challenge, NY-23 would have remained a Republican seat in House.
@20 pudge on November 4, 2009 02:32 PM,
"if Hoffman had been the GOP candidate, he would have won."
Hoffman was on the ballot, and lost.
"There's no way you or I could make a reasonable prediction about a district we don't know,"
Yet, you just did make a prediction. :-D
While I don't know how you made your prediction, my prediction of Owen's re-election is based upon the 90%+ historical rate of Congressional incumbents winning.
"The way forward for the Republican Party, if it is to survive, must include rejecting those who would represent us, but who reject almost all the views that differentiate us. That only makes sense."
Ahhh, the addition through subtraction theory so loved by the Club For Growth.
Maybe you could provide us a list of all the RINOs we need to purge for growth???
So was Lincoln Chafee. And he too was more Democrat than Republican.
Without a conservative 3rd party challenge, NY-23 would have remained a Republican seat in House.
It would have become a reliable vote for the Democrats in almost everything, either way ... unless they had nominated a conservative in the first place. What part of "Republican voters don't think a liberal Republican is better than a liberal Democrat" do you not understand?
Hoffman was on the ballot, and lost.
This does not in any way respond to my claim: "if Hoffman had been the GOP candidate, he would have won."
Yet, you just did make a prediction. :-D
No, in fact, I didn't. One does not "predict" past events. I said what WOULD HAVE happened in the past, not what WILL happen in the future.
Ahhh, the addition through subtraction theory so loved by the Club For Growth.
Again: the Democrats kicked Lieberman out of their party, and he was far more Democrat than this woman is a Republican.
I defy you to present any evidence that he is about to be indicted.
"the Democrats kicked Lieberman out of their party, and he was far more Democrat than this woman is a Republican."
You're grasping for straws.
If a Republican elected official spoke at the the Democratic national convention endorsing the Democrat for president there's no way you'd be posting here that person was more Republican than Democrat.
And you miss the point of your Lieberman analogy.
As I originally commented, the issue for New York Republicans was and is the fact that they don't hold a primary for a special election.
Lieberman lost a primary.
In NY-23 conservative Republicans had a circular firing squad killing off each other.
Notice how neither you, nor Brooks nor Will talk about ensuring Republican voters decide who their candidate should have been in NY-23.
"One does not "predict" past events. I said what WOULD HAVE happened in the past, not what WILL happen in the future."
I know what you said. I read what you wrote.
Either you simply don't understand English grammar well enough to understand you are predicting a hypothetical situation which occurs in the past, or you are engaging in semantic BS. Either way, Hoffman was on the ballot and lost.
Translation: "oops, you got me there."
If a Republican elected official spoke at the the Democratic national convention endorsing the Democrat for president there's no way you'd be posting here that person was more Republican than Democrat.
Except you're being dishonest, because Lieberman only endorsed McCain after the Democrats ran him out of the party.
And endorsements are irrelevant to my point, which is about positions on the issues. Lieberman is a very typical Blue Dog Democrat in his views. Scozzafava is LEFT OF LIEBERMAN on almost everything. Again: Scozzafava is MORE LEFT THAN OWENS.
And you miss the point of your Lieberman analogy.
That's literally impossible. It is my analogy; I define the point of it.
As I originally commented, the issue for New York Republicans was and is the fact that they don't hold a primary for a special election.
Right, this is why I said up front it was the fault of the Republicans. They chose her by fiat, and their own voters rejected her.
Notice how neither you, nor Brooks nor Will talk about ensuring Republican voters decide who their candidate should have been in NY-23.
Yes, I did, in several comments here and elsewhere. And Will didn't on This Week (where I got the quote), but he didn't need to, because Ed Gillespie did, saying that the fact that there was no primary, "disenfranchised" Republican primary voters. If it helps, Will was probably nodding when Gillespie said it.
I know what you said. I read what you wrote.
I believe you. However, therefore, you don't know what "predict" means ...
Either you simply don't understand English grammar well enough to understand you are predicting a hypothetical situation which occurs in the past ...
... as you just proved. Thanks!
... or you are engaging in semantic BS
Um. I said I can't make a prediction. You said I did make one. I pointed out the undeniable fact that I didn't. This is not complicated: predictions are about the future -- despite your false claim to the contrary -- and I was talking about the past. If you don't want to make a big deal out of it, fine, but you're the one who accused me of doing something I didn't do. Feel free to cut your losses and drop it.
Either way, Hoffman was on the ballot and lost.
"If Hoffman had been the GOP candidate, he would have won."
""If Hoffman had been the GOP candidate, he would have won.""
You have no way of knowing that, and it is an irrelevant point.
Tell us pudge, in your infinite wisdom, will Hoffman win the NY-23 Congressional seat in 2010?
Or maybe you'd just like to predict more hypothetical non-occurring events in the past? :-D
For certain, no, there is no way to know for certain. But it's far more likely than not.
and it is an irrelevant point.
Um, no, in fact, it is entirely relevant to my point, which is that the Republicans lost because they nominated the wrong candidate.
Tell us pudge, in your infinite wisdom, will Hoffman win the NY-23 Congressional seat in 2010?
I already answered this.
Or maybe you'd just like to predict more hypothetical non-occurring events in the past?
Maybe you'd like to pick up a dictionary so you can realize that this is question makes no sense, since it is not possible to predict past events.
Seriously, you're just making yourself look even stupider than you usually do.
"Maybe you'd like to pick up a dictionary so you can realize that this is question makes no sense, since it is not possible to predict past events."
|-o
How about you pick up a dictionary and look up the word dictionary?
And when you are done figuring that out, crack a grammar book and look up perfect conditional and what it means.
If you manage to get through all that, explain to us all why you chose to use a perfect conditional construction when talking about NY-23.
I think you are the only person in the world who continues to view that race as too close to call. Sooooooo impressed on the math, though.
Posted by AD at November 5, 2009 12:28 PMI think you are the only person in the world who continues to view that race as too close to call. Sooooooo impressed on the math, though.
Posted by AD at November 5, 2009 12:30 PM"Look, I'm not going to stand at the door with a little checklist and say, well, you can be a Republican and you can't. I welcome everyone to this party. ....
As Ronald Reagan said very clearly, if you're with me 80 percent of the time, you know, I think we don't have to focus on the 20 percent. I'm not going to beat you up over that because then
that's not helping us build the party or create greater opportunities across the country." - RNC Chairman, Michael Steele 4/29/09
look up perfect conditional
Yes, that is what I used. And it is NOT A PREDICTION, because it happened IN THE PAST.
You really are dense.
Yes, I am not aware of that, once again, because I can do math. It's actually about a third (129,000 into 393,968 is 33 percent).
And it is in some ways less important where the voters are, than the types of voters who vote late. And we just don't know, because it changes a lot in recent years: last year we saw significant trending toward Republicans in later voting (esp. in legislature races), though in the previous year, it was the opposite.
I am not saying R-71 will fail, I am saying there's too many outstanding votes, and we don't know what the trends will be in the late voting, so we cannot reasonably make a call. Of course, since R-71 is winning now, it is most likely going to pass, and that a third of the outstanding ballots are in King County carries some what. But there's no way to reasonably call it yet. If the numbers hold today, then probably, it can be called, depending on whether they announce new outstanding ballots. Basically, if no-on-R-71 has to win much more than the current needed -- say, over 60% of outstanding ballots -- then it is extremely unlikely it will win, and that's what will happen if the current numbers hold (or increase for R-71). But the current 54.8% is doable.
I think you are the only person in the world who continues to view that race as too close to call.
Shrug. Lots of people don't know basic math. I've not seen a news org that has called it for R-71, because they usually do employ, or consult with, people who know basic math.
MikeBS: "Candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you're crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we'll come after you"
Good.
As Ronald Reagan said very clearly, if you're with me 80 percent of the time, you know, I think we don't have to focus on the 20 percent.
And if you aren't following conservative fiscal principles, you're not with us 80 percent of the time. And Scozzafava was not with us probably even half the time.
No, it's not.
But the current 54.8% is doable.
No, it's not, because King County is going 67% for it and the remaining counties with large totals (Snohomish and Piece) are either going for or against it with soft numbers. You would need a dramatic shift in numbers and you're not going to see that.
This isn't early in the counting, there is a 60,000 vote margin. We can very reasonably make a call.
Posted by the esteemed vote counter at November 5, 2009 04:34 PMFunny thing is -- contrary to the claims by the left here -- the gap on R-71 closed, despite a disproportionately high number of King County ballots being counted. Which means that King County's percentage for R-71 most likely dropped as time went on. Which is what I said could happen.
Ahem.
There will be another election in 2010 for this position and it may be a rematch between Owens and Hoffman.
Posted by KDS at November 5, 2009 09:00 PMI know you lost most of the races. I'm not mocking you for that. I criticize you for being wrong, not for losing.
So where's the analysis? So far the only comments are Tim Eyman -- excuse me, !!!!!TIM EYMAN!!!!! -- thanking Michael Dunmire for paying him and his paid supporters to get another turkey initiative on the ballot, and pudge proclaiming faith in a miraculous shift in last-minute voter sentiment on R71 of a magnitude for which there is neither cause nor evidence nor precedent.
I know it's hard not having Dean Logan to kick around anymore, but surely you have something to say?
Posted by Bruce at November 6, 2009 08:47 AMNo, in fact, I didn't.
pudge proclaiming faith in a miraculous shift in last-minute voter sentiment on R71
You're a liar, Bruce. I did no such thing. In fact, I "proclaimed" the opposite.
False. On the contrary, you completely misrepresented it.
But you did say it we could "not reasonably make a call" that R-71 would lose [sic]
Yes, because the math didn't back up such a call.
that going from 48% yes in the first batch to 55% in the remainder was "doable"
Of course it is. We've seen it before: late ballots breaking the opposite way for a particular candidate or issue.
"doable" implies a much higher probability than the data suggest
Absolutely false.
In fact, when Republicans talk, act, and govern conservatively, they win elections. The Republicans, for ten years, have not been very conservative. That's precisely the problem.
Posted by pudge at November 8, 2009 02:30 PMIt looks like when Ron Hebron cut off comments above, he cut off the comments for the entire site postings thereafter, was that intentional?
Posted by Smokie at November 9, 2009 06:45 AM