Hoffman primed for dominant victory

[saveliberty]

I thought I read that it's been a Republican-held seat for close to a century?

For the Dems, this is a wash - it was a "safe" GOP seat before, which is one reason Obama picked the previous occupant for an appointed post, since he assumed it wouldn't change hands.

And so it hasn't - and the Democrats have better than a 60% majority in the house, enough to pretty much ignore most of what the Republicans think or say, which suits me fine for now. I hope the win by Hoffman (assuming he does win - polls are going to be iffy with all the variables in this thing) encourages other parts of the GOP to self-immolate.

Most districts in the country don't have a strong Conservative Party presence, so when they pick far-right social conservatives in their primaries (encouraged by this race), they'll lose more than they would have otherwise.

If the Democrats can keep their losses to less than 25 seats in the House, and 5 seats in the Senate, I'll be content. They (Dems) will still have solid majorities in both houses, a majority of state Governorships, and the Presidency, through 2012 at least.

Time enough to undo some of the incredible damage done by Bush & Cheney to the country.

...

They tapped the previous Congressman to leave the seat open for a Dem who would sweep into the position based on President Obama's presumed popularity. Should Owens lose, it would appear another misjudgement by the manchild administration.

Sure - because that makes sense in a district that's been solidly Republican for about a century.

It appears you see no reason to apply a logic-filter to your idle speculation. Back when McHugh was appointed Secretary of the Army, there was absolutely no anticipation by Democrats that this was a likely "pick-up" for them - I'll assume you know how to use Google News in order to check that for yourself.

"Time enough to undo some of the incredible damage done by Bush & Cheney to the country."
I must have missed them.
Would you be good enough to list a bunch of 'em?

If you're insufficiently intelligent and observant to know of, or uderstand the damage done, I doubt providing a list here would do anything more than encourage you to indulge yourself in more attempts to reframe the discussion.

Obviously, more than half of voters last year decided that the Republican party had done enough damage to warrant entrusting the government to the hands of the opposition, despite Obama's lack of experience - either that, or maybe McCain just wasn't "conservative enough", lol

"...Democrats have better than a 60% majority in the house, enough to pretty much ignore most of what the Republicans think or say, which suits me fine..."
Since this is the case, why do you suppose that the Democrats keep whining that they want Republican support?
Why the rhetoric that the Republicans are the party of 'no,' standing in the way of 'reform'?
I thought they had enough votes in Congress to pass anything.

Looks like you're battin' .1000.

Well, if by your score I'm batting .1000 and by my score you're batting a flat zero, then I suppose I'll take that as a win ;-)

Again - it seems interesting, at least, that you're unable to answer your own questions, when the answers are pretty obvious. I'll help you out this once, though, since I'm feeling generous.

The Democrats, as a party, are more tolerant of diverse political views than the Republicans (currently) are. Hence, Lincoln Chaffee and Chuck Hagel being turfed out of their seats, and the exodus of the alleged "RINOs" from the party. Being the bigger tent means that their chances of winning a majority - in this case, very large majorities - is better than the chances of a smaller, narrower party winning control.

The downside, of course, is that Democrats are forced to engage in constant battles just to keep their own members in line - there are "blue dog" democrats, anti-abortion democrats, far-left liberal democrats, and formerly Republican Democrats, like Arlan Specter and Jim Webb. It's tough for them to get a consensus from their own party, and especially tough when some newly elected members are from districts that are nominally "conservative" - and those members want to have a few Republican votes on issues to cover their own asses in the mid-terms.

Plus, historically, large changes to the government (like the health-care reform bill now being pushed through) have lasted longer and done better when they passed with bipartisan support, even if it was only token. So, I think President Obama is hoping that a few Republican votes will both (a) ensure that the legislation isn't simply repealed when the Republicans eventually sort out their party, and win back control of congress in 2014 or 2016, and (b) having a few GOP votes gives him and "blue dog" Democrats some political cover in next year's mid-terms, and in the 2012 election.

It will be harder for Republicans to attack the President in 2012 on heath-care, if he can point to a couple of Republicans who also voted to support it.

Surely you aren't oblivious to all the political machinations at work in what our elected officials are doing? Although I think you clearly give President Obama waaaay too much credit for prescience - he could never have foreseen that the New York district's GOP party bosses would pick a "moderate" Republican, opening the way for a Conservative Party candidate, unless he truly is "the one", lol. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to see you.

I think Dems are going to get their asses handed to them from today forward to 2012. It certainly is as likely an outcome as your log list of "ifs" and glossing over reality. It appears conservatives are showing a resurgence. You are still thinking Dem and Rep. Awake up, there are more conservatives than Republicans and almost as many as there are Democrats. The more Congress doesn't listen, the more people will look for a new answer.

 

[bodecea]

From what I can see, with the single exception of her stand on gun laws, Scozzafava is firmly in the moderate to liberal category. She is pro choice, pro gay marriage, with strong ratings from organized labor, 70% to 100% over the last ten years - her husband works for organized labor and has strong relationships with New York Dems - and some "progressive" groups. Is there anything besides her stand on gun laws that leads you to the conclusion she is "more conservative than the average Republican"?

She's a rank-and-file Republican on economic and foreign policy. Outside of gay marriage and abortion, she's a cookie-cutter conservative.

Yet firmly rejected by conservatives. So your theory is flawed. Agreeing with the stimulus package was an economic policy and not "cookie-cutter" conservative. I was unaware the NY assembly spent time on foreign policy issues. They vote on troop levels there often?

Over Abortion and Gay Marriage...two issues that the majority of Americans really don't lose any sleep over.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[The idea that Scozzafava is a liberal is something the right-wing blogosphere has drummed up, but it's totally disconnected from reality. During her time in the state legislature, she had one of the most conservative voting records in the chamber and her voting record was more conservative than the average Republican in the body.

Well, let's remember that that crowd of conservatives never considered George Pataki rightwing nutty enough for them...

 

[NYcarbineer]

She's a rank-and-file Republican on economic and foreign policy. Outside of gay marriage and abortion, she's a cookie-cutter conservative.

Yet firmly rejected by conservatives. So your theory is flawed. Agreeing with the stimulus package was an economic policy and not "cookie-cutter" conservative. I was unaware the NY assembly spent time on foreign policy issues. They vote on troop levels there often?

That she's rejected by the right doesn't change the facts of her positions. She didn't support the stimulus package. That is more blogosphere crap with no basis in reality.

You still can't underestimate the power of the conservative abortion litmus test. Although they may not trumpet it as much as in the past, that issue remains quietly near the top of this crowd of conservatives' priority list. Pro-choice, you flunk the test, period.

 

[saveliberty]

She's a rank-and-file Republican on economic and foreign policy. Outside of gay marriage and abortion, she's a cookie-cutter conservative.

Yet firmly rejected by conservatives. So your theory is flawed. Agreeing with the stimulus package was an economic policy and not "cookie-cutter" conservative. I was unaware the NY assembly spent time on foreign policy issues. They vote on troop levels there often?

Over Abortion and Gay Marriage...two issues that the majority of Americans really don't lose any sleep over.

In the voting booth today, for district 23, it will be a contributing factor. It already has with the "moderate Republican" losing before election day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
They tapped the previous Congressman to leave the seat open for a Dem who would sweep into the position based on President Obama's presumed popularity. Should Owens lose, it would appear another misjudgement by the manchild administration.

This was a grand scheme? And the Democrat they 'picked' to 'sweep' in wasn't even a Democrat until recently...and has no political background...

...quite a scheme...

 

[saveliberty]

[
They tapped the previous Congressman to leave the seat open for a Dem who would sweep into the position based on President Obama's presumed popularity. Should Owens lose, it would appear another misjudgement by the manchild administration.

This was a grand scheme? And the Democrat they 'picked' to 'sweep' in wasn't even a Democrat until recently...and has no political background...

...quite a scheme...

Obama Taps Republican Lawmaker John McHugh to Be Army Secretary - washingtonpost.com

"But Republicans may encounter difficulty in holding the seat in a special election. Obama carried the 23rd District 52 percent to 47 percent over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008."

Obama Helps Upstate Dem In NY House Race - wcbstv.com

"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says Obama's support of Bill Owens is the first fundraiser the president will headline for a non-incumbent House candidate.
"

 

[Polk]

[The idea that Scozzafava is a liberal is something the right-wing blogosphere has drummed up, but it's totally disconnected from reality. During her time in the state legislature, she had one of the most conservative voting records in the chamber and her voting record was more conservative than the average Republican in the body.

Well, let's remember that that crowd of conservatives never considered George Pataki rightwing nutty enough for them...

Of course, because movement conservatism, as a domain of hyper-religious zealots, takes on many features of a religion.

 

[Polk]

Yet firmly rejected by conservatives. So your theory is flawed. Agreeing with the stimulus package was an economic policy and not "cookie-cutter" conservative. I was unaware the NY assembly spent time on foreign policy issues. They vote on troop levels there often?

That she's rejected by the right doesn't change the facts of her positions. She didn't support the stimulus package. That is more blogosphere crap with no basis in reality.

You still can't underestimate the power of the conservative abortion litmus test. Although they may not trumpet it as much as in the past, that issue remains quietly near the top of this crowd of conservatives' priority list. Pro-choice, you flunk the test, period.

If they don't start realizing the the entire country isn't Texas and Alaska, they're going to spend a long time in the minority.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This would be great if it does happen. The rapidly increasing support for Hoffman really is an awesome example of American political grassroots. It really is America at its best. The party sent down the order to support Scozzafava and the people simply said NO. This is exactly what America is all about. Go get em Mr. Hoffman!

 

[Xenophon]

Very unusual election.

The always useless GoP did as expected and put someone up they 'thought could win' instead of someone close to to their supposed political agenda.

For the first time in years this was roundly rejected by people, and the GoP candidate left the race, a race she had no chance ever of winning, and proving she was indeed everything thatw as said of her, she promptly endorsed the Democrat for the election.


We will see if the voters support a turn away from the Obamatron free wheel spending or not.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I'm actually optimistic about the Republican Party for the first time in many years. Saying NO to the Party Leadership really is a big step towards rebuilding the party. The old school party hacks like Newt Gingrich are now finished. Their old "Any Republican is better than the Democrat" theory just isn't working anymore with a more sophisticated electorate. Was this woman really any different or better than the Democrat? I just didn't see that myself. Lets hope the Republican Party leadership get this message. No more frauds like Specter,Lindsey Graham,McCain,Bush,and Scozzafava.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought I read that it's been a Republican-held seat for close to a century?

For the Dems, this is a wash - it was a "safe" GOP seat before, which is one reason Obama picked the previous occupant for an appointed post, since he assumed it wouldn't change hands.

And so it hasn't - and the Democrats have better than a 60% majority in the house, enough to pretty much ignore most of what the Republicans think or say, which suits me fine for now. I hope the win by Hoffman (assuming he does win - polls are going to be iffy with all the variables in this thing) encourages other parts of the GOP to self-immolate.

Most districts in the country don't have a strong Conservative Party presence, so when they pick far-right social conservatives in their primaries (encouraged by this race), they'll lose more than they would have otherwise.

If the Democrats can keep their losses to less than 25 seats in the House, and 5 seats in the Senate, I'll be content. They (Dems) will still have solid majorities in both houses, a majority of state Governorships, and the Presidency, through 2012 at least.

Time enough to undo some of the incredible damage done by Bush & Cheney to the country.

...

They tapped the previous Congressman to leave the seat open for a Dem who would sweep into the position based on President Obama's presumed popularity. Should Owens lose, it would appear another misjudgement by the manchild administration.

Sure - because that makes sense in a district that's been solidly Republican for about a century.

It appears you see no reason to apply a logic-filter to your idle speculation. Back when McHugh was appointed Secretary of the Army, there was absolutely no anticipation by Democrats that this was a likely "pick-up" for them - I'll assume you know how to use Google News in order to check that for yourself.

"Time enough to undo some of the incredible damage done by Bush & Cheney to the country."
I must have missed them.
Would you be good enough to list a bunch of 'em?

If you're insufficiently intelligent and observant to know of, or uderstand the damage done, I doubt providing a list here would do anything more than encourage you to indulge yourself in more attempts to reframe the discussion.

Obviously, more than half of voters last year decided that the Republican party had done enough damage to warrant entrusting the government to the hands of the opposition, despite Obama's lack of experience - either that, or maybe McCain just wasn't "conservative enough", lol

"...Democrats have better than a 60% majority in the house, enough to pretty much ignore most of what the Republicans think or say, which suits me fine..."
Since this is the case, why do you suppose that the Democrats keep whining that they want Republican support?
Why the rhetoric that the Republicans are the party of 'no,' standing in the way of 'reform'?
I thought they had enough votes in Congress to pass anything.

Looks like you're battin' .1000.

Well, if by your score I'm batting .1000 and by my score you're batting a flat zero, then I suppose I'll take that as a win ;-)

Again - it seems interesting, at least, that you're unable to answer your own questions, when the answers are pretty obvious. I'll help you out this once, though, since I'm feeling generous.

The Democrats, as a party, are more tolerant of diverse political views than the Republicans (currently) are. Hence, Lincoln Chaffee and Chuck Hagel being turfed out of their seats, and the exodus of the alleged "RINOs" from the party. Being the bigger tent means that their chances of winning a majority - in this case, very large majorities - is better than the chances of a smaller, narrower party winning control.

The downside, of course, is that Democrats are forced to engage in constant battles just to keep their own members in line - there are "blue dog" democrats, anti-abortion democrats, far-left liberal democrats, and formerly Republican Democrats, like Arlan Specter and Jim Webb. It's tough for them to get a consensus from their own party, and especially tough when some newly elected members are from districts that are nominally "conservative" - and those members want to have a few Republican votes on issues to cover their own asses in the mid-terms.

Plus, historically, large changes to the government (like the health-care reform bill now being pushed through) have lasted longer and done better when they passed with bipartisan support, even if it was only token. So, I think President Obama is hoping that a few Republican votes will both (a) ensure that the legislation isn't simply repealed when the Republicans eventually sort out their party, and win back control of congress in 2014 or 2016, and (b) having a few GOP votes gives him and "blue dog" Democrats some political cover in next year's mid-terms, and in the 2012 election.

It will be harder for Republicans to attack the President in 2012 on heath-care, if he can point to a couple of Republicans who also voted to support it.

Surely you aren't oblivious to all the political machinations at work in what our elected officials are doing? Although I think you clearly give President Obama waaaay too much credit for prescience - he could never have foreseen that the New York district's GOP party bosses would pick a "moderate" Republican, opening the way for a Conservative Party candidate, unless he truly is "the one", lol. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to see you.

So, by "If you're insufficiently intelligent and observant to know of, or uderstand the damage done, I doubt providing a list here would do anything more than encourage you to indulge yourself in more attempts to reframe the discussion." I take it that you are unable to substantiate any damage.

But, you can try again.


Are those crickets that I hear?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
They tapped the previous Congressman to leave the seat open for a Dem who would sweep into the position based on President Obama's presumed popularity. Should Owens lose, it would appear another misjudgement by the manchild administration.

This was a grand scheme? And the Democrat they 'picked' to 'sweep' in wasn't even a Democrat until recently...and has no political background...

...quite a scheme...

Therefore you probably can name say, six or seven, long-time Democrats, sufficiently wealthy, and willing to throw their hats in, and known in the 23rd Congressional District who the administration could have tapped. And they would be?

And if you cannot find said alternatives, and that Owens was the only choice in the district who meetss the criteria, then my thesis is just as possible as any other.

Nicht wahr?

And your selection of this item from my previous post must mean that you find the other two unassailable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That she's rejected by the right doesn't change the facts of her positions. She didn't support the stimulus package. That is more blogosphere crap with no basis in reality.

You still can't underestimate the power of the conservative abortion litmus test. Although they may not trumpet it as much as in the past, that issue remains quietly near the top of this crowd of conservatives' priority list. Pro-choice, you flunk the test, period.

If they don't start realizing the the entire country isn't Texas and Alaska, they're going to spend a long time in the minority.

I just love it when the other side starts to wring their hands in concern over the future of the Republicans.

Actually, it usually means that you guys see the handwriting on the wall, and are scared.

Here, let me help you:
Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin

 

[VaYank5150]

You still can't underestimate the power of the conservative abortion litmus test. Although they may not trumpet it as much as in the past, that issue remains quietly near the top of this crowd of conservatives' priority list. Pro-choice, you flunk the test, period.

If they don't start realizing the the entire country isn't Texas and Alaska, they're going to spend a long time in the minority.

I just love it when the other side starts to wring their hands in concern over the future of the Republicans.

Actually, it usually means that you guys see the handwriting on the wall, and are scared.

Here, let me help you:
Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin

Is this similar to the whole, "You pick on Sarah Palin's idicocy because you are scared of her" defense?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea i just wouldn't put too much stock in or give too much credibility to what Hopey Changey Leftist sheeple think about the Republicans and their future. Way too much biased wishful thinking going on with them to actually be taken seriously. They've been screeching about the Republican Party being "Dead" for many many years. This really isn't anything new and original for them. Oh well,i guess only time will tell in the end.

 

[Polk]

You still can't underestimate the power of the conservative abortion litmus test. Although they may not trumpet it as much as in the past, that issue remains quietly near the top of this crowd of conservatives' priority list. Pro-choice, you flunk the test, period.

If they don't start realizing the the entire country isn't Texas and Alaska, they're going to spend a long time in the minority.

I just love it when the other side starts to wring their hands in concern over the future of the Republicans.

Actually, it usually means that you guys see the handwriting on the wall, and are scared.

Here, let me help you:
Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin

Actually, it's because I think society is better off when there are two functioning parties offering ideas and keeping each other in check.

 

[bodecea]

Yea i just wouldn't put too much stock in or give too much credibility to what Hopey Changey Leftist sheeple think about the Republicans and their future. Way too much biased wishful thinking going on with them to actually be taken seriously. They've been screeching about the Republican Party being "Dead" for many many years. This really isn't anything new and original for them. Oh well,i guess only time will tell in the end.

Oh that's right. We're afraid of you. I forgot.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Never said anyone was afraid. I said that a Hopey Changey Leftist sheep's opinion on the future of the Republican Party cannot be taken seriously. There just isn't any credibility in their "opinions" regarding that issue. They really have been screeching about the Republican Party being "Dead" for many many years. It's just biased wishful thinking in the end. It's hardly worth wasting any time paying attention to what a Hopey Changey sheep thinks about that issue. Hey that's just how i see it anyway.