by Mark Slva
Among the three most closely watched off-season elections - including an open governor's race in Virginia that the Democrats apparently are poised to lose despite the efforts of President Barack Obama there - none is more peculiar than the contest in New York State's remote and farflung 23rd Congressional District.
Some of the Republican Party's biggest names - including Sarah Palin - handed their support to not the moderate, pro-abortion rights Republican in the race, but to a Conservative Party candidate. And, in a district that hasn't elected a Democrat since the Civil War, the Republican candidate today, four days before the election, announced that she is standing down - all but assuring that the Democratic candidate will fail there on Tuesday.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who had stood by the GOP's candidate, along with Newt Gingrich, today called Republican Dede Scozzafava's suspension of her campaign in New York a "selfless act.'' It will, he said, enable voters in the 23rd district to "unite around a candidate who shares Republican principles and will serve the interests of his constituents in Congress by standing in opposition to the liberal policies of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi.'' (saying, essentially, that the GOP's candidate was not that person.)
So the RNC today endorsed the Conservative Party's candidate, Doug Hoffman. "Doug's campaign will receive the financial backing of the RNC, and get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat (Democrat) Bill Owens on Tuesday,'' Steele said in a statement issued by the RNC today.
The stage is set for Tuesday's elections: At least a two-out-of-three defeat for the Democrats on the ballot one year after Obama was elected president.
(Republican N.Y. Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava and Conservative congressional candidate Doug Hoffman debated in Syracuse earlier this year. (Photo above by Heather Ainsworth, / AP)
.
Each of the candidates in the three-way contest in New York was drawing about one third of the support of voters surveyed, so the withdrawal of the Republican should fairly well hand the contest to the conservative - returning the contest, in a district that Republican John McHugh held until Obama named him secretary of the Army, to a clear race beween a hard-line conservative and a Democrat.
While some will attempt to portray the outcome as meaningful in the midterm contests between the parties, it's hard to see how a conservative winning in a district controlled by the Republicans for over a century will say much of anything - except that the GOP's activists who were annoyed by the nomination of a Republican who some viewed as more liberal than the Democrat in the race will be able to say that their party's values were upheld in the district. Democrats, in turn, will argue that the GOP has grown too conservative for the party's moderates -- a case that was helped today -- except that the vast rural region of upstate New York is hardly a bellwether district.)
Much more is likely to be made of the contest in Virginia, where an independent college poll this week found Creigh Deeds, the Democrat, trailing Bob McDonnell, the Republican, by 17 points. This in a state that Obama carried for the Democrats last year, the first for the party in a presidential race since 1965, and a state that had elected two Democrats governor back to back since the 1990s.
The well-organized party is canvassing heavily in Northern Virginia, Obama campaigned personally in a region rich with black voters - Norfolk - raised money for Deeds and appeared in a television commercal for the candidate. Democrats this week also received a personal letter from the president.
"To move this country forward, I need the support and partnership of good governors who are ready to help lay the foundations of change,'' Obama wrote to Democrats in Virginia.
If the polls are any indication, the party is about to lose a piece of that foundation in the Old Dominion.
The third race which has a national audience on Tuesday, in New Jersey, is more difficult to predict. Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine is running a close contest with Republican Chris Christie - a recent New Jersey poll found them virtually tied, while the Rasmussen Report which Republicans love to love has portrayed Christie with a slight edge. A third-party candidate there attracting a fair amount of support - 14 percent for independent Chris Daggett in the Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll -- could have an impact on the outcome.
New York's 23rd may not say that much about the national condition of the parties. But, should the Democrats lose both of the governor's offices under contention on Tuesday, we will be hearing a lot about that from Republicans for months to come.
Comments
If there is any justice, the good people of this district will laugh Hoffman out of town.
And chances are good that Scozzafava is in for some RNC welfare!
Posted by: athena | October 31, 2009 7:06 PM
From what I read of NY-23, the Republican (with the funny name) was WAY liberal. Too funny, really. And it sounded like she got slated by a handful of people. Now, is that what that district is really like? I have no clue. But I can see why the "conservative" candidate was doing so well -- he'd be the person who most closely matches the Republican way of doing business, after all. What an interesting race, though! I read something earlier today that the same poll that caused the GOP'er to quit shows that a lot of her support is going to go to ... the Democrat!
This will be fun to watch.
Posted by: beth | October 31, 2009 7:06 PM
MOST EXCELLENT !!!
Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | October 31, 2009 8:07 PM
Looks like Olympia Snowe will be joining Obama and his all male team for a pick up game after all...
Posted by: Equator- Parral Parked outside/between 4th and 5th St | October 31, 2009 10:34 PM
Another alarming development in the Republican-Libertarian fold. The fanatics have taken over the helm and are now, running roughshod over their herd. They demand lockstep, goose-stepping from the automatons, in their ranks, taking orders from hate-blinded, fear-spewing, opportunistic UnAmericans. Our nation mourns the loss of a once, proud and truly American Party, which has now descended into a gathering of mean-spirited, fear-mongers, dedicated to the chaotic, even if that means scaring everyone, into their line of reacting !! Hold onto your hats, ladies and gentlemen of America, our nation is about to show its very ugly side !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | November 1, 2009 7:09 AM
Thank God this RINO quit the race. The sooner the GOP realizes that Democrat-Lite candidates cannot win elections, the sooner the GOP can rebuild around the core conservative principles: less government, respect for the founding documents, self-reliance, and less taxes.
Purge all the RINOs from the party and let them be Democrats.
Saracudda - King Maker!
Posted by: Chris | November 1, 2009 8:07 AM
It is curious that the Swamp scribe claims this district "hasn't elected a Democrat since the Civil War", when of course the district has only existed with its current boundaries since the last census 9 years ago.
A fact not mentioned: in 2008 Obama carried this district 52-47%, on line with his national average. Which makes this a swing district. Which will make it all the more embarrassing if the Democrat loses here.
Journalists have a lot of facts they can choose from. As can be seen, some journalists choose the facts they think will help their favored party, and choose to ignore other facts that won't.
Posted by: Bruce | November 1, 2009 10:08 AM
Excellent! The conservative/libertarian horror show continues!
Posted by: Ayn Rand was a atheist | November 1, 2009 10:22 AM
It is curious that the Swamp scribe claims this district "hasn't elected a Democrat since the Civil War", when of course the district has only existed with its current boundaries since the last census 9 years ago.
A fact not mentioned: in 2008 Obama carried this district 52-47%, on line with his national average. Which makes this a swing district. Which will make it all the more embarrassing if the Democrat loses here.
Journalists have a lot of facts they can choose from. As can be seen, some journalists choose the facts they think will help their favored party, and choose to ignore other facts that won't.
Posted by: Bruce | November 1, 2009 10:08 AM
No the Swamp has it right almost. It is the area and lets not forget the boundaries will move again after the next census. I see the 3rd as a test. Six months ago the Democrats were thinking they will all of them, now they will be lucky to win half. Nov 2010 can turn into a real fun time.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 1, 2009 2:32 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Ayn Rand was a atheist | November 1, 2009 10:22 AM
.
What have you been smoking? Hoffman styles himself as a 'conservative' rather than a Libertarian because he is a socially conservative Republican who didn't get his party's nomination. Libertarians aren’t social conservatives. In general, you should know (unless you are Don Fitzgerald) that Republicans aren’t Libertarians. Or maybe neither of you watched the Republican Candidates’ debates during the last presidential election - where 90% of the candidates expressed open hostility to Libertarian views on a number of topics. Give yourself an education, at least. We know Don is a lost cause and a Democrat cheerleader.
Posted by: John W. | November 1, 2009 3:41 PM
The sooner the GOP realizes that Democrat-Lite candidates cannot win elections,
Posted by: Chris | November 1, 2009 8:07 AM
I'm sorry, were you sleepinig last November?
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 1, 2009 7:06 PM
It is curious that the Swamp scribe claims this district "hasn't elected a Democrat since the Civil War", when of course the district has only existed with its current boundaries since the last census 9 years ago.
Posted by: Bruce | November 1, 2009 10:08 AM
Yo loser, The District was created March 4, 1823. It's boundries may have changed - as all districts have - the FACT of the matter is Mark is correct in his point. Go watch more of Rush so he can make his 40 million quicker.
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 1, 2009 7:22 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 1, 2009 7:06 PM
.
I’m quite sure you missed Chris’ point, Scot. He wasn’t trying to claim that Democrats won’t vote for Democrats. He was saying that Republican candidates shouldn’t expect the support of grass-roots conservative voters if they are nothing more than RINOs or Democrats-lite.
.
As always, I’m glad I could help (you moron!!!).
.
.
.
Your friend,
John W.
Posted by: John W. | November 1, 2009 8:59 PM
As always, I’m glad I could help (you moron!!!).
Your friend,
John W.
Posted by: John W. | November 1, 2009 8:59 PM
If you really think that only Democrats and Liberals unanamously voted Demcratic last November then it is you who is the MORON!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 2, 2009 8:14 AM
It now looks like the Right can take 3 out 4 of the big races on the 3rd. 2010 is going to be fun.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 2, 2009 10:55 AM
* * * * *
"If you really think that only Democrats and Liberals unanamously (sic) voted Demcratic (sic) last November then it is you who is the MORON!"
.
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 2, 2009 8:14 AM
.
I didn’t say that either, you Moron!
.
I indicated that Chris was trying to make the point that non-conservative Republican candidates shouldn’t expect support from conservative Republican voters. I also stated that Chris wasn’t trying to say that Democrats wouldn’t vote for Democrats. In which case, I wasn’t trying to express any of my own thoughts. I was merely trying to explain why you misunderstood what Chris was saying.
.
Even if I shared Chris’ views - which I may or may not - what I wrote is still very different from saying no non-Democrat would ever vote for a Democrat. By representing MY views that way, you have effectively put words in my mouth that I didn’t utter. Learn to read (and spell), Scot (you moron).
.
PS - Isn’t it nice the way we throw around the word Moron? Pretty soon, it will mean nothing - and that’s what I’m hoping for (you moron).
Posted by: John W. | November 2, 2009 2:45 PM
Hey John W.,
This is what Scot Blakely’s koolaid looks like from here:
#!&@*MORON!!+><?{MORON!%#~THISISHARD&%@<MORON!! x e^Nth million
Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | November 2, 2009 6:40 PM
John W , whatever, you obviously missed my point as well. And sorry I type too fast and dont proof read my posts, Ihave other things to do then drool over my own posts like you do.
Django: Bla blabla Wah Wah, Bla bla, nobody listens to you anyway.
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 2, 2009 8:28 PM
Hey dufus Doug!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/nyregion/02district.html?ref=politics
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | November 2, 2009 9:40 PM
Ihave other things to do then drool over my own posts like you do...
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 2, 2009 8:28 PM
----------------------------------
democrats with "other things to do". That is so hard to imagine. The koolaid stock must be running low.
Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | November 3, 2009 2:39 AM
* * * * *
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | November 2, 2009 8:28 PM
.
Scot,
.
I understood your point all too well. You were pushing last November’s election into Chris’ face as proof that Democrats can win elections and/or that non-Democrats will vote for Democrats.
.
And, again, you were making an argument that had nothing to do with what Christ was trying to say. Chris’ use of the phrase “Democrat-lite candidates” wasn’t a reference to Democrats. It was a reference to Republican candidates who are deemed “liberal” by because they hold too many positions in common with the DNC platform. You should have gathered that from the rest of his post, especially where he referred to the same candidate as a RINO (Republican in Name Only).
.
Thus, the November election results don’t refute what Chris was trying to say. Those results offer no proof that liberal Republicans can win elections today.
Posted by: John W. | November 3, 2009 12:56 PM