-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/election_night_post-mortem_victories_in_jersey_and_virginia_gingrich_wasnt_/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
It was seriously impressive to see the entire Republican machine and fox news backing 3 candidates. I would say Obama's influence was more than matched. Huckabie doing robo calls. Unlimited access on fox, Rush ...Impressive work.
Did Fox ever mention that Doug Hoffman doesn't even live in New York 23? Do you think they would have mentioned it if Owens didn't live there? Hmmm
You can say what you want, but use the same name.
And by the way, Hoffman was on the ballot legally. And he lives closer to the people he was running to represent than any of North Dakota's delegation.
There are a couple good lessons from NY 23. The Republican's need to nominate good candidates or the conservatives might not follow. Also conservatives should have noticed that dissension doesn't help the cause.
was to the left.
Given the Republican endorsement and money that Dede got I think Hoffman
wins.
On the other hand maybe it's good that the 3rd party didn't triumph. In the
case of a less than ideal candidate we can't have conservatives fracturing.
Well, 1993, but you got the right millennium. By the way the Republican
party was formed in 1854.
You beat me to it, Toot.
Mike? The Democrat who is substantially more conservative than the Republican who dropped out won, even with Scozzofazza being on the ballot twice. Hoffman garned a large part of the vote in less than 30 days. With an actual primary next year the NY Republican backroomers won't be able to thwart the will of their Party members. Look to the mass of lost Democrat seats throughout the country at the state, county and municipal level. That is the indicator to watch. That vernier is rarely off.
Maybe you can take a hint from the fact that the so-called Republican threw her support to the Dem candidate, instead of uniting behind the conservative. Another hint might be the overwhelming propaganda from the leftie MSM falsely characterizing someone who represents American values as "far right wing" and "hardcore right"; both of which are completely wrong.
Maybe, since you use the crude sexual term "teabaggers" for real Americans supporting the Constitution and founding principles, you have fallen victim to that same propaganda blitz.
The correct term is "Tea Partiers", like the Boston Tea Party, which ignited the American Revolution, and has nothing to do with any crude sexual practices.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are merely ignorant of that smear tactic, instead of a willing participant in it.
It's what the polls reported, a$$hole.
You're pulling sh*t out of your a$$ as usual, and combing it with personal attacks as you always do.
It's why bothering with you is a waste of time.
Tell me Carrick, how often does an incumbant get the backing of the party, and how often do national figures come in to support a candidate? The answer to both questions is, a lot. Right, wrong, or indifferent, incumbants get a lot of money and support from both the national party and out of state sources. This is an advantage that helps more than 90% of incumbants retain their seats.
Quite simply, the national parties back a lot of candidates, and, in no shortage of instances, the sitting President helps campaign for candidates of his choice. Unless the President is unpopular, no one blames them for any candidates of theirs who lose.
Sorry boss, this idea that any outside support hurts a candidate is total nonsense. Look at the candidates that Bush supported in 2002 and 2004 and let me know how many of them won. Here, I'll give you the answer. It's most of them. Well beyond supramajority. If it hurt to have outside influence, no one would ever ask outside politicians to campaign for them. Yet most incumbants do. (Again, unless the national figures are unpopular, such as Bush in 2008).
I'm not attacking you as a person, Carrick, so it's not ad hominim. But the idea that outsiders kill candidacies is a ridiculous argument contradicted by the facts on the ground. If you don't like that I look at reality, and call your argument stupid, tough. But you're the one making ad hominim here and refusing to debate facts. It's what you do when someone calls BS on one of your arguments.
Back to the topic. Fox would have covered Owens like stink on something that stinks if he didn't live there. I'm not claiming that Hoffman was illegal, just that Fox ain't news. Don't bother bringing up msnbc opinion shows, you're better than that.
But you're not. "Give and take" means just that. You get the consequences of what you say, no matter how hard you try to wiggle out of it.
Let's not forget the possibility of ACORN rigging in this election, either.
NJ is a joke. It's expected that those folks would be fed up with the outrageous budgets. Maybe now they will be able to buy BB guns without routing a chit to the town sheriff.
Pluralism is dead within the Republican party.
It is official now that there is a litmus test that all candidates nationally must now meet.
It's called the Rush/Beck test.
And Rob is wrong, and Newt is right on this. Sarah Palin was part of the reason for the local backlash against external pressure. Hoffman lost because you guys bungled this badly, and no other reason.
Before Scozzafava was forced from the race by external pressure, Hoffman had a 15-point lead. It swung 20-points in less than a week.
That's on you guys heads, regardless of all of the excuse making you want to make.
Let the excuses begin. You'll never get an inch out of these folks because they place to much value in saving face in one-off internet threads. I think the pluralist angle should be the only angle. It's the only possible thing you guys COULD HAVE had left to hold dem feet into the fire. GOP will never convert another independent or moderate who believes GOP to be as intolerant as GOP actually is.
Moreover, everyone is starting to realize that all of these social and economic situations are much more complex and nuanced than the three-word memes that Palin and the shock-jocks use can convey. Gingrich was right. He's got better vision on this than the others. I chalk that up to being a smarter guy. Just because you know how to get a rise out of people... push a button... move a crowd... doesn't mean you can spit limited government justifications for national litmus tests for regional candidates! It's asinine. Your party has been captured by pirates. Get it back. Let the smart guys talk for christ's sake.
Hoffman lost because he wasn't conservative enough.
;)
Hoffman wanted to CUT HIS OWN MOM for chrissakes.
This loss was more about overreaching than it was about fundamental philosophical movements of our day.
Seems like Obama has a bit to worry about in that regard, because he more than anybody on the planet, is all about get in everybody else's business.
Governors can't be as ideological as congressmen. They have states to run.
The two gop gov's won without Palin and if I got it right, they rejected Palin's support.
Talk about your upheavals.
Will the gop be forever cleaved or with this stunning defeat, will they rummage around the basement for some other winning unity strategery?
BUT THE NY-23 THING IS HUUUUUGGGGEEEE! A real SLAP in the face to the teabaggers and nutjob cons!
I LOVE IT!
You must have been looking at a picture on your screen that popped up when you wrote that lol. Seriously that could be a computer virus, get it checked out.
It's a nothing because we know that a local reaction to external interference played a role in Hoffman's defeat.
If anything it should be worrisome to Obama, because the signal here is stay the f**k out of my business, and like I said earlier, if there is a man all about getting in other people's business it's that hack Obama.
Spin it, dry it, rinse, repeat. Won't change the truth.
1. People don't vote for third party candidates. There are some exceptions of course, but they are EXTREMELY rare. There's only one I can think of in Congress right now, and that's Bernie Sanders.
2. Johnny Come Latelys usually don't do very well. This is kinda a subset of 1, but it's still true. People who jump into races long after they're going tend to get slaughtered.
That's really it. Had Hoffman run as a Republican, he'd have won. Since he didn't, the other major party took the victory. Seems too simple, but that's really how it goes.
Obama is president of these united states and head of the democratic party, and if I got it right, they rejected Obama's support.
That looks like the bigger story to me. CNN appears to agree.
90% of the time the candidate with the bigger outside backing wins. This is why, unless there's a purge or a scandal, incumbants always win. They ALWAYS have more backing. In this case, right wrong or indifferent, the Democrat had the bigger backing. Hoffman may've gotten a few names behind him, but it wasn't enough to overcome the odds against him, which were substantial.
This idea that outside support hurts a candidate is the stupidest thing I have EVER heard.
This was a very strong repudiation of the right wing/teabaggers.
The truth of third parties is one that strategists across the spectrum acknowledge. Perot cost Bush the election in 1992, and Nader may well have cost Gore in 2000. Ask any third party candidate in your district how hard it is to get attention. It has been the frustration of endless socialist candidates that they can't get any attention in the 3rd Missouri district despite taking very similar or even more leftist positions than Russ Carnahan. Etc.
It's not spin. 3rd party candidates fair poorly in this country. Look up Teddy Roosevelt, a popular President who tried to rerun as a third party guy. Ended QUITE poorly.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/10/24/obama-steps-...
When a politician does ads for another they are backing them.
"Vote for this person" is always a sign of support.
This loss was more about overreaching than it was about fundamental philosophical movements of our day.
Seems like Obama has a bit to worry about in that regard, Because he more than anybody on the planet, is all about get in everybody else's business.
So we have, on this page, three choices. We will expound them as they are endorced, with the logic one must accept for each.
1. The people of New York rejected the message of conservatives and voted in a liberal. They disliked Palin/ Thompson/ etc, and voted the alternative.
This is plausible as a conservative was rejected and a liberal voted in.
2. The people voted in the longest running big candidate with the most backing, because that's what voters everywhere do.
This also has the beauty behind it of fitting the facts. Third party candidates don't win on the national stage except during instances of full moons coinciding with nuclear strikes (rarely for those who refuse to see embelishments). There is only one exception in Congress at the moment (out of 435 people). Even on a state level, they barely win.
3. All of the New York voters loved Hoffman and were going to vote him in in a landslide, but all of a sudden likeminded national figures backed him, and massively conservative voters decided to vote for a liberal candidate because the guy they super super SUPER loved got voted by other people they also love. They got mad because a candidate they refused to support wasn't supported by people that they liked and so got mad and voted for someone who held polar opposites to every position they held dear just to spite national figures they didn't know.
In short, 1 and 2 are likely, and may even both be true. 3 is ridiculous, and when spelled out, as I just did, sounds more ridiculous than the Cubs winning the superbowl, despite being a baseball team. Yet, milquetoast Republicans want us to believe that, despite 1 and 2 both being plausible and likely, than his impossible scenerio happened.
Sorry, but pass.
It is official now that there is a litmus test that all candidates nationally must now meet
Blog advertising network
It is official now that there is a litmus test that all candidates nationally must now meet
Pot, met kettle.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs...
<blockquote>MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute "to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform."
It seems we aren't the only party "purging" the "moderates", we're just the one that everyone writes about. Why is that?
So, spin&twirl and lie. Its all you have.
None of the choices you made have anything to do with what I was saying as usual. If you start by constructing false arguments, of course it's easy to tear them down.
Let's look at the facts from a slightly different angle. Hoffman was leading before Scozzafava was forced out. In fact Hoffman was way ahead on the last pulls before the election (which unfortunately likely didn't cover Monday or Tuesday).
Scozzafava withdrew and put her support to the Democratic opponent.
You don't think there's any bad blood stirred up over all of that?
Politics is always about emotions, especially in the short term.
What I'm suggesting is Hoffman had the momentum in the week going up to Scozzafava's withdrawal. People like Palin supporting him probably was responsible for that, because before he got national attention.
I'm not sure what it was that made Scozzafava actually withdrawal, but the perception and probably the reality is this was due to interference from outside. Since politics is all about perceptions, except maybe in Kenny's universe, it was this perception of undue interference that peaked with the withdrawal and turning of Scozzafava that spelled the doom for Hoffman.
Only in your fantasy world, Kenny, would people not be bothered by people outside of their area trying to set who they are allowed to choose and elect for their own districts. Bottom line.
As you opine, if politics in the short run(a week at most) is all about emotions, the ability of the Left Wing Noise Machine dominates the major media. It takes time to dismantle all the falsehoods they generated, and there simply wasn't time to fight them all before the election.
They were successful in characterizing Hoffman as an "extremist" for embracing fundamental American values.
We are all the poorer for the success of that tactic. Americans lost that election.
Off by a decade. And the district was redrawn in 2000.
The actual statement is "some parts of the district have not been represented by a Democrat since 1851".
Moveon.org isn't the Democratic party, and it is a fact that many Democratic candidates have won on the basis of running a more conservative platform than their more liberal Republican opponents.
That's because MoveOn.org doesn't represent the electorate. The Dems have to run left to get MoveOn support, but have to pretend to be conservative to get voter support, which they usually do right before the election, after collecting money from groups like MoveOn by being left in the year before the election. That's what Obama did in the last election.
That's part of that unintended consequences thing, like the Rebel who fights against the Union not because he's in favor of Succession, but because the Union army is on his property.
Big-name endorsements from around the country are typical in contentious races like this one. That many if the big-name conservatives decided to eschew a liberal Republican candidate who was a poor choice is a positive thing, I think, even if Hoffman lost.
Sure, this seat might have gone Dem and that sucks, but do you think the GOP is going to try and ram through a liberal candidate like Scozzafava again now that they've learned its a non-starter with the base?
Double standard? How about Obama campaigning(camping?) for Corzine in NJ? Isn't that another example of "outside forces"?
Incorrect! The outside forces for her to stab Hoffman in the back came from the White House, among others. I posted an article on Rahm Emanuel's involvement in the Reader Blogs recently. Check it out.
Sarah Palin was campaigning(camping?) for Hoffman, not against Scozzafava.
If you say so.
Rob, I fear that Hoffman losing will cause those in the GOP to believe that they were right in the first place. I keep reading that its conservatives to blame for the state of the party. I read that in a lot of places.
Someone please tell me if Gibbs is related to our local village idiot Berlin Wall Boy, because the last time a dem held NY 23 was Michael R. McNulty 1989-93. Two other dems held the office before him. Stupidity, they are doing it right...
Cf