Apparently well liked? Did you see the polls? She was in the single digits by the end; that’s why she dropped out.

In a plurality election, the poll numbers (and the election results themselves) don’t accurately reflect the underlying voter preferences because of strategic voting.

People ditched her because she wasn’t going to win, and that mean that the no good extremists (Democrat/Conservative) might win. In a 3-way race, the center candidate is at a huge disadvantage because most people will have a strong preference for one extremists over another.

TTC: While only looking at the NY 23 maps, McNulty (D) covered NY 23 during years of overlap.

McNulty represented NY-23 when the district was located in the Albany area. The people of the area currently covered by the district never had a chance to vote for him.

ChrisTS: Who are these people who fly by and scold Orin for purportedly espousing one or another of the FOUR satirical options he presented? Does anybody read anymore?

According to the [Count] Chocula of the Club for Growth, everything is good for the GOP. Losing NY-23 is good because DS endorsed the D. No comment re CA10. Did any R win an open congressional seat?

I agree about people a) demonstrating a lack of reading ability; and b) not recognizing satire.

Everyone will spin yesterday’s election however they want to spin it. Ed Morrissey on Hot Air notes that Rahm Emmanuel (as was his job then and his job now) gave completely different spins in 2005 and 2009.

The most interesting take on the election I saw was made by Michael Barone. Barone noted that not only did Corzine and Deeds do much worse than President Obama in their respective states, but that McDonnell and Christie also ran better than President Bush did in their states in 2004.

Abortion is an example of another social conservative issue where “time is on our side” has proved to be wishful thinking on the part of liberals. Opposition to the consequences Roe v. Wade has remained pretty constant for a long time.

Time is on the side of those who oppose criminalization of every abortion (or whatever some choose to call an abortion, such as the effect of morning-after pills); over time, their position prevailed, and losing that ground seems unlikely at any foreseeable point.

Time similarly is on the side of those who oppose criminalization of homosexual conduct or figurative shackling of homosexuals. Bigots have, over time, lost the power to arrest or incarcerate people for being gay. As the young and elderly move toward their next categories, bigots seem almost certain to lose their ability to deny homosexuals the opportunity to benefit from the interpersonal arrangements currently available to heterosexuals (including infertile heterosexuals).

Among the beautiful things about America is its long-term trend away from racism, bigotry, superstition, inherited opportunity, dogma, mistreatment of minorities, abuse of power and many other wrongs.

FWIW, Republicans in Virginia don’t like primaries; they typically select their candidates through caucus.

Does anybody read anymore?

I commented on the breathless and uncritical statements of what passes for “news” reporting in the U.S. — reporting uncritically a DNC press release that the NY-23d district has been represented by a Republican for over 100 years (and, in some “news” reports, since prior to the Civil War). This “fact,” as reported as “news” as an unqualified assertion, is simply untrue.

Actually, the statements you and JK have made appear much more accurate than those of persons who call themselves “journalists”. True, based on the district maps over time, I disagree with your conclusion that Owens election is the first time that the area now covered by NY-23 has ever been represented by a Democrat in the US House, your assertion is not obviously wrong on its face (nor, is it breathlessly made). If overlay maps of the area now within NY-23 over time, showing the party affiliation of U.S. Representatives over time were available, it would be possible to determine if your reading of the available maps is correct or not. However, that is the sort of work one would expect of an investigative journalist, who has the time to investigate facts, and resources of a large news corporation to aid in that investigation — not what one would expect of someone who comments to a blog.

So, while my review of the available maps leads me to disagree with your conclusion, I don’t think that your conclusion is based on parroting a DNC talking point.

IF there is a change in the willingness of the majority of upstate NY voters to support a Democrat (vs. viewing the dustup between the Conservative and Republican Party campaigns as resembling a circular firing squad which Owens was smart enough to duck), that would have a number of interesting implications — especially for the NY Governor’s race. However, as our “news” organizations report talking points instead of facts or analyzing facts, it is not now possible to reach any conclusions on the meaning of the NY-23 election. Accordingly, I’m not willing to agree or disagree with Prof. Kerr’s assertion, because I do not believe that enough facts have been reported to support an analysis that is not largely speculation based on assumptions.

Oren: This is why you don’t have people out of the district nominating and evaluating candidates. She is apparently well-liked in her district and has an actual command on local issues. Ideology isn’t everything.

Apparently well liked? Did you see the polls? She was in the single digits by the end; that’s why she dropped out.

1. For Conservative Republicans: The America people reject Barack Obama and obviously want true conservative leadership. The Governorships of two states have switched to the “R” category, showing a grassroots conservative movement that is alive and well.

To claim the entire population of America has rejected Barack Obama is an absurd statement to make. I would suggest that you either modify it or remove it.

Randy: “Can you really not distinguish between these two situations? Perhaps you might take a moment to re-read the First Amendment.”Certainly. The church has a right to associate with those who agree itself. So does the licensing organization of school counselors. If you disagree, please explain why one deserves 1st amendment protection and the other does not.

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the licensing organization is a governmental organization. If I am incorrect, then I would tend to agree with you. If I am correct, I hope that you would agree with me.

The real question is, who thought it was a good idea to run Scozzofava, and why?

This is why you don’t have people out of the district nominating and evaluating candidates. She is apparently well-liked in her district and has an actual command on local issues.

Ideology isn’t everything.

DangerMouse: pot,Fundamental Rights ARE decided on by a majority.In case you’re inaware, the Bill of Rights had to be voted on by Congress and the States.Same with all amendments to the constitution that protect fundamental rights.All submitted to the voters, etc.Honestly.It’s as if people think that courts just write the frigging constitution as they go...

Amending the “frigging” Constitution requires super-majorities. It’s as if you think it’s just another law.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jswalden: http://bit.ly/UL1UQ The four obvious lessons of today’s elections, along with which observers will be quickest to recognize them as such...

I’m with you 100%. I especially love the comments that assume that one (or more) of the four entirely contradictory “spins” Orin listed reflected Orin’s actual thoughts.

Orin, you refer to Palin as a “right wing extremist”. Exactly which of her stated positions do you regard as extreme right wing? Looks pretty much like a Reagan conservative from what I can tell?

Ummmm ... how do I tell you this....
FWIW, Sean insHannity also regales himself as a dyed-in-the-wool “Reagan conservative”. What result?

Cheers,

wfjag: Sorry, JK, but I never made that argument. That, after gerrymandering, there is an upstate NY county (Clinton) that has never been represented by a Dem in the US House isn’t the same assertion as that NY-23 has not elected a Dem in over 100 years.

Alright, pick any other county in NY-23. Has any of them been represented by a Democrat in the House of Representatives in the past 100 years?

Prof. Kerr’s statement was: “But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years.” I’d say the most natural reading of that statement is that the voters in the region currently constituting NY-23 elected a Democratic Representative for the first time in one hundred years. Saying it refers to the voters of whatever combination of regions may have had that numeric designation at various times in the past is a much more strained interpretation, in my opinion, because there’s no rational connection between those groups of voters in completely different places except the numeric designation.

I’ll read this into the NY-23 election results: any reputation that Mr. Newt had as one with his finger on the pulse of political trends (e.g. discerning what candidates fit their districts) has met the fate of an anonymous security officer in a Star Trek landing party. He’s politically dead, Jim.

Ummmmm ... Armey, Palin, Hannity, and Limbaugh didn’t do any better. Can we hope for the best here? ;-)

Cheers,

...right-wing extremists like Palin and Beck...

It is one thing to have personal views, and quite another to actively seek to impose such views on others using the force of law. I am unaware of either Palin or Beck (or Limbaugh for that matter) proposing and lobbying for “social” legislation to impose their personal views on others.

The above is merely a general observation. I am sure it can be parsed by those inclined to do so, but this would miss my basic point. A pejorative label has no educational value, and for an educator to assign such a label in my view does nothing to promote intellectually honest and thoughtful debate.

Reagan was a left-wing radical: he raised taxes, ran large deficits, and negotiated with terrorists.

JK says:
wfjag,
So at what point in time was Plattsburgh represented by a Democrat in the last 100 years before Owens?

Sorry, JK, but I never made that argument. That, after gerrymandering, there is an upstate NY county (Clinton) that has never been represented by a Dem in the US House isn’t the same assertion as that NY-23 has not elected a Dem in over 100 years.

Still, Dems are elected to the Clinton County (NY) government — or else, county legislators Harry McManus, Sara E. Rowden and Dr. John W. Gallagher would likely be surprised that their party affiliation has been changed from “(D)” to “(R)”. Granted, the Dems are in the minority, as they are only 3 or 10. Still, I did say that upstate NY was “predominately” Republican, not exclusively.

However, discussion of things “Plattsburgh, NY,” hardly seems worth the effort. It is, after all, best known as the site where Peter Frampton made the live recording of the song Do You Feel Like We Do for his album Frampton Comes Alive, and so indirectly inspired the name of the album. That seems to be a sufficient curse for any one town.

When concocting those political potions, leave out the aye of Newt.

Cornellian: I think these elections show the folly of reading too much into a handful of off-year elections. Or maybe they show that columnists and pundits will seize any opportunity to meet their words/minutes quotas.

Wins thread.

You might recall that in the first year of the GWB administration (2001) the Democrats took both NJ and Virginia governorships. This didn’t presage the 2002 election season as unusually favorable to Democrats. Neither should yesterday’s result presage a GOP resurgence.

Corzine was a scandal plagued incumbent in a down economy. Deeds was just a lackluster candidate. Both Christie and McDonnell ran as centrists and downplayed the ‘social conservative’ card. I don’t think there’s a lot of trend in these results.

“The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.”

I don’t see how this is unclear. Furthermore, the opponents of 71 never made the argument that the ballot is ‘unclear’. What you are objecting to is lumping two categories together. The majority of Washingtonians disagree that it is unfair to lump the two together, as they could have just voted it down, right? Apparently, a majority agree that gays and seniors should have everything but marriage rights.

Even if its true that some people are for these rights for seniors but not for gays, they could have voted it down. And in fact, many people voted against the referendum, so you may be correct. But enough people said that they had no problem with granting these rights to both seniors and gays. The ballot is quite clear about that, so I really don’t think there was any confusion on the issue.

You said that these are special rights. In a way, they are — carving out a section of rights that some won’t have. But these group of rights is no more than what anyone else has. In fact, they are still less than marriage, as they don’t carry any rights or benefits at the federal level, nor any constitutional rights.

If you really think that gays are getting a better deal out of this, then please inform me what specific rights they have that you (or someone else) as a married person doesn’t have.

Certainly. The church has a right to associate with those who agree itself. So does the licensing organization of school counselors. If you disagree, please explain why one deserves 1st amendment protection and the other does not.

Randy: Dangermouse: I would suggest — just a suggestion — that you get your facts correct. The school guidance counselor wasn’t punished by ‘homosexual activists’, but rather a complaint was filed against the counselor by a person with the licensing authority for counselors in the state. And only a complaint was filed, no action has been taken. Furthermore, the real homosexual activists, the spokesman for No on 1, said it has no connection with his organization, and that he condemns such actions. I agree with this. Now that we agree on this matter, I suppose you will also agree with me that when the homophobic activists punish someone for speaking their mind, you will also condemn it. For instance, a woman in Maine who served as a lay minister with the Catholic Church was removed from her position when the church found out that she supported No on 1. Equally abhorrant, wouldn’t you agree?

Can you really not distinguish between these two situations? Perhaps you might take a moment to re-read the First Amendment.

Prop 71 gave domestic partnerships between homosexuals and between the elderly all the rights associated with marriage. In other words it distinguished two classes — homosexuals and the elderly — for special treatment by the state. It would have been more just to write the proposition so it gave all domestic partnerships equal rights, e.g., so it gave two heterosexual males who decided to partner all the rights of a married couple. But this would probably have been voted down.

Alternatively, if two classes were being sincerely distinguished for special treatment then, absent a good and explicated reason for combining these classes into one, it would have been better to have had a separate proposition for each. In this case, I suspect that the one for the elderly would have passed and the one for homosexuals not. I believe that the proposition, as written, was a clever political ploy.

I guess that’s why they call it the Empire State...

Hoffman didn’t have time to mount a decent campaign, but he’s got plenty of time for next year’s race. He should hold town hall meetings — especially in districts that didn’t vote for him. As any Republican should, should seek to identify issues where those voters differ from Bill Owens, especially those that hit people’s pocketbooks.

In the meantime, the NY-23 grassroots should organize a campaign for new state GOP leadership. Do political parties have recall elections?

It’s quite funny that bitter libs think that using slurs to describe grassroots activists is going to work.

What slurs? You mean like “fudge packer”? Or did you mean “teabagger”? I didn’t come up with the term; that’s what they called themselves (or at least some did). And how is that a slur?

Cheers,

JK: wfjag,So at what point in time was Plattsburgh represented by a Democrat in the last 100 years before Owens?

It would definitely have to be before 1913. At various times before 2003, Clinton County (where Plattsburgh is located) was part of the 33rd, 31st, 30th, 26th, or 24th district. Each of which only elected Republicans while Clinton County was in it.