NY26 just went to the Dems

[birdog1960]

Good grief this place is filled with idiots.

 

It's a message, mandate, referendum when BOTH sides are fighting to ACCOMPLISH something, and the public comes out and elects an official to specifically push the result 1 way or another. Kind of like Scott Brown, and even on a lesser note, the judge in WI.

 

If the "Ryan Plan" was really up for election like the idiots here believe, you would actually have a large turnout on both sides. But the damn thing has already passed the House where this person was elected.

 

Since this election was meaningless in terms of the bill passing or not, this vote was in no way a message, mandate, or referendum. It's barely even a memo, validation, or poll.

bull ...this election is more meaningful than the bill ever was. that wasn't a serious piece of legislation. everyone knew it couldn't make it through the senate. it was posturing without consequence (except the negative repug political consequence seen yesterday). this election has consequences and may be foreshadowing much bigger change.

Edited May 25, 2011 by birdog1960

[Joe Miner]

bull ...this election is more meaningful than the bill ever was. that wasn't a serious piece of legislation. everyone knew it couldn't make it through the senate. it was posturing without consequence (except the negative repug political consequence seen yesterday). this election has consequences and may be foreshadowing much bigger change.

 

No you idiot. That's exactly why it wasn't important.

 

No one really believed this Bill was going to be a law exactly as it was written.

 

So you had one side that was up in arms against it.

 

And another side that didn't care that much because there wasn't that much to care about.

 

That makes it unimportant.

[Adam]

Crybaby! Face it, you lost in one of your safest districts. Sit in your own sh..it and spin all you want, but your party still lost

You haven't won anything. When said politician's term is over and is up for re-election, we will see what has been won and lost. It is about what gets done, not worthless political rhetoric

Edited May 25, 2011 by Adam

[Nanker]

What a tremendous victory for the status quo of overspending. Splendid.

[Adam]

What a tremendous victory for the status quo of overspending. Splendid.

Both democrats and republicans will have to accept cuts to their "neccesities" of choice. Both spend out of control and someone needs to draw a line.

[Rob's House]

Crybaby! Face it, you lost in one of your safest districts. Sit in your own sh..it and spin all you want, but your party still lost

I didn't realize Tom was on the ballot.

[Doc]

What a tremendous victory for the status quo of overspending. Splendid.

Yep.

[birdog1960]

What a tremendous victory for the status quo of overspending. Splendid.

not so much a victory for the status quo as a defeat for the bad guys. this doesn't change the math, just takes privatization of medicare off the table.

Edited May 26, 2011 by birdog1960

[GG]

not so much a victory for the status quo as a defeat for the bad guys. this doesn't change the math, just takes privatization of medicare off the table.

 

Oooh, the bogeyman private industry!! It will ruin this country, I tell you. We should really strive to be Greece. Or is it California?

[Chilly]

I like all of the political analysis going on about this with absolutely no exit poll data or even data on the makeup of the constituency.

[pBills]

I like all of the political analysis going on about this with absolutely no exit poll data or even data on the makeup of the constituency.

 

 

From Slate:

 

Hochul was beating Corwin with independents, and pulling 12 percent of Republicans as Corwin pulled 8 percent of Democrats. But to keep things simple, let's assume that all the Democrats and Republicans who voted third party would have otherwise voted third party, and assume the independents split 50-50. If that happened, Corwin would have added 5,579 votes to her column. Hochul would have added 4,888 votes. Hochul would still have won the election.

 

 

I do love how Republicans are saying that this election didn't mean anything, that democrats were using scare tactics, etc., etc., etc. Just sour grapes.

[Gary M]

From Slate:

 

Hochul was beating Corwin with independents, and pulling 12 percent of Republicans as Corwin pulled 8 percent of Democrats. But to keep things simple, let's assume that all the Democrats and Republicans who voted third party would have otherwise voted third party, and assume the independents split 50-50. If that happened, Corwin would have added 5,579 votes to her column. Hochul would have added 4,888 votes. Hochul would still have won the election.

 

 

I do love how Republicans are saying that this election didn't mean anything, that democrats were using scare tactics, etc., etc., etc. Just sour grapes.

 

 

Here is a local guys take on it.

 

http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings.cfm

[pBills]

Here is a local guys take on it.

 

http://www.boblonsberry.com/writings.cfm

 

 

The guy is right about one thing... the result was based on choices of Republican bosses. That choice is taking on Medicare and turning it into a voucher system. I find it hard to believe the splintered vote excuse that many toss out there too.

 

Also not sure about voter suppression. I haven't heard anything on that.

[Chilly]

From Slate:

 

Hochul was beating Corwin with independents, and pulling 12 percent of Republicans as Corwin pulled 8 percent of Democrats. But to keep things simple, let's assume that all the Democrats and Republicans who voted third party would have otherwise voted third party, and assume the independents split 50-50. If that happened, Corwin would have added 5,579 votes to her column. Hochul would have added 4,888 votes. Hochul would still have won the election.

 

 

I do love how Republicans are saying that this election didn't mean anything, that democrats were using scare tactics, etc., etc., etc. Just sour grapes.

 

That Slate article doesn't tell us much. There's tons of unanswered questions:

 

- What's the Party ID makeup of registered voters in this county on a 7-point scale?

- What's the Party ID makeup of voters in this election?

- What is the normal defect rate in this district?

- What was the driving issue for defectors for each party?

- What was the driving issue for weak partisans and leaners for each party?

- What was the driving or suppressing issue for hardcore partisans for each party?

- What's the historical defection rate for this district?

- What's the historical Party ID turnout for this district?

 

I only found information on the past 9 election cycles for the district (to be fair I only did a quick search), but based off of those last 9, the results are pretty darn close for the Democrats. The mean result for Democratic elections over that time period is 45.3%, and this result was 47%. For Republicans, the mean result is 51.42%, and this election was 43%, so there was some difference there. However, we don't really know what it is. Note that neither of these results were outliers.

 

We can speculate based off of known trends (history shows us that typically mostly hardcore partisans show up to low-turnout special elections, thus meaning it's likely that Corwin didn't drive out her base well enough), but without the additional data, there isn't a good way to know.

 

Without that information, it's all guessing based off of people's preconceived ideas about what was important in this election.

Edited May 26, 2011 by BlueFire

[GG]

That Slate article doesn't tell us much. There's tons of unanswered questions:

 

- What's the Party ID makeup of registered voters in this county on a 7-point scale?

- What's the Party ID makeup of voters in this election?

- What is the normal defect rate in this district?

- What was the driving issue for defectors for each party?

- What was the driving issue for weak partisans and leaners for each party?

- What was the driving or suppressing issue for hardcore partisans for each party?

 

I only found information on the past 9 election cycles for the district (to be fair I only did a quick search), but based off of those last 9, the results are pretty darn close for the Democrats. The mean result for Democratic elections over that time period is 45.3%, and this result was 47%. For Republicans, the mean result is 51.42%, and this election was 43%, so there was some difference there. However, we don't really know what it is. Note that neither of these results were outliers.

 

We can speculate based off of known trends (history shows us that typically mostly hardcore partisans show up to low-turnout special elections, thus meaning it's likely that Corwin didn't drive out her base well enough), but without the additional data, there isn't a good way to know.

 

Without that information, it's all guessing based off of people's preconceived ideas about what was important in this election.

 

Toss in the 8% that voted for Davis, and you have a realistic 1%-2% swing that decided the election. Yup, a total repudiation.

[Nanker]

not so much a victory for the status quo as a defeat for the bad guys. this doesn't change the math, just takes privatization of medicare off the table.

 

Sticking out my tongue and saying AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA like pBullethead.

Don't you have to anesthetize some poor medicaid recipients or something so they won't feel their pain and your government checks keep flowing? Amazing that you spend so much time here pontificating on the evils of private enterprise when there's so much suffering to attend to and government money to collect.

[pBills]

Toss in the 8% that voted for Davis, and you have a realistic 1%-2% swing that decided the election. Yup, a total repudiation.

 

 

All depends. This election was about the issues. If there was no third candidate, is it for certain the votes would have gone to the right?

[3rdnlng]

All depends. This election was about the issues. If there was no third candidate, is it for certain the votes would have gone to the right?

 

Was the senate race in MA about the issues? How about the governorship races in New Jersey and Virginia? What about the judgeship election in Wisconsin? Was the 2010 congressional election about the issues too?

[Chilly]

All depends. This election was about the issues.

 

 

Got proof?

[Adam]

Instead of demonizing each other over issues, they should be working towards a solution and ignoring the wingnute. Ah, America.....land where people are lazy and do the easy thing......