NY-09, Special Election Thread

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Did none of you read that article that Lunar posted that described how poorly Democrats did among Jews in Brooklyn in 2010? This kind of a shift was bound to happen here at some point, the national climate and a lackluster campaign just brought it to the forefront quicker.

Keep in my mind that I've been arguing on DKE that the defeats in NV-2 and NY-9 are largely due to Obama's unpopularity and the poor economy with attention being deflected away from entitlements.

[Sbane]

Oh, come on. This is horrible news for the Dems. Deal with it.

That is your opinion. I just don't think you should take a special election for a House seat and turn it into a narrative about the Presidential election, it doesn't work when either side does it. You can't expect everyone to subscribe to the same opinion.

Have you been following the Nevada election? I wonder how the Dems will do in Solano County next year. If Garamendi runs in that seat, which also contains Yuba and Sutter Counties, he could be in trouble.

[Wonkish1]

Get your sh*t straight. You could make an argument for that in Brooklyn, you absolutely cannot write off the piss poor performance in Queens on the Israel issue. That is Obama through and through right there.

You can leave the cursing out if you are posting to me, thank you very much. There are lots of conservative, religious Democrats all over the district, they are the ones who showed up. The district trended Republican last time around and it's not exactly a bellwether for anything. I don't think you should use it to predict presidential results.

Hey this is right here is what separates you from other folks on this thread. Of course we would all like to be good team players and spin things our losses in the most positive light, but some of us actually have allegiance to calling these things based on how they actually are even when they lose. Apparently you don't.

I don't how you try to spin this thing. Between the polls with Obama's approval ratings in this district and the horrid performance in Queens you can't possibly spin your way out of the fact that Obama played a pretty big roll in this loss. Clearly he isn't particularly liked right now there. That doesn't mean he wont be liked in the future, that doesn't mean he wasn't liked in the past. But today he just cost you a congressional seat...Deal with it!

[cinyc]

Is it just me or are the ones that want sh^t crazy posts all over this thread all Dems. There may be only like 4 of them, but they are all Dems.

I appreciate the other 90% of D's and I's on here that do write sane posts.

Hopefully that wasn't directed at me. Just go take a look at the map of NV-2 in Clark County. It doesn't come close to the urban core of Las Vegas, or the Democratic stronghold of North Las Vegas. I stand by my statement, Politico doesn't know what it's talking about.

I never mapped NV, so I for one can't opine on this. But it would seem that the Dem CD in Vegas would have sucked up most of the most Dem precincts, and then we have a second CD which sucked up the marginal ones, which leaves  ... ?

Just look here. The district contains rural areas, Nellis AFB, and some rich looking suburbia to the south of town.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd

Including a very small sliver of the city of North Las Vegas (basically, the triangle bounded by NV 610, NV 573 and I-15.  Much of the rest near Nellis is probably unincorporated Clark County with a Las Vegas zip code.

[Wonkish1]

A scandal can make a previously safe seat in play. Who knew?

Never fails, does it?  Gore, Corwin, Weprin: all lost their bids after sex scandals.  I guess voting on the issues just isn't important, anymore.

That isn't a particularly logical conclusion to draw from that tiny bit of anecdotal evidence.

Well, I'm not saying it's only because of scandal.  Still, it inevitably costs at least some votes for the party of the scandal.  If Clinton didn't have the scandal, Gore would've won.  If Lee and Weiner were forced to resign for things unrelated to sex (I don't know... say they get diagnosed for terminal cancer, or something), their parties probably would have retained the seats.  I know I sound superficial here, but that's just my opinion on it.

Historically replacement candidates for scandal ridden politicians have performed quite well in historically safe seats so I am left scratching my head at that one.

And don't forget that Welprin's approval rating was much, much higher than Obama's in the district. So if Welprin's approval was taken down by the scandal of his predecessor, does that mean that Obama is lower than a sh*t stain on a mattress?

D+5 isn't particularly safe especially given this district's obvious trends.

I would agree with that, but I would also like to hear other folks thoughts about what is going on with a PVI of only D+5 when there is a 3 to 1 registration advantage between Dems and GOP.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A scandal can make a previously safe seat in play. Who knew?

Never fails, does it?  Gore, Corwin, Weprin: all lost their bids after sex scandals.  I guess voting on the issues just isn't important, anymore.

That isn't a particularly logical conclusion to draw from that tiny bit of anecdotal evidence.

Well, I'm not saying it's only because of scandal.  Still, it inevitably costs at least some votes for the party of the scandal.  If Clinton didn't have the scandal, Gore would've won.  If Lee and Weiner were forced to resign for things unrelated to sex (I don't know... say they get diagnosed for terminal cancer, or something), their parties probably would have retained the seats.  I know I sound superficial here, but that's just my opinion on it.

Historically replacement candidates for scandal ridden politicians have performed quite well in historically safe seats so I am left scratching my head at that one.

And don't forget that Welprin's approval rating was much, much higher than Obama's in the district. So if Welprin's approval was taken down by the scandal of his predecessor, does that mean that Obama is lower than a sh*t stain on a mattress?

D+5 isn't particularly safe especially given this district's obvious trends.

I would agree with that, but I would also like to hear other folks thoughts about what is going on with a PVI of only D+5 when there is a 3 to 1 registration advantage between Dems and GOP.

Bad turnout, conservative Democrats, and Israel lovers.

[NY Jew]

Yes, Turner has won. Queens has only about 25 precincts that McCain carried, and the Brooklyn portion is very Pubbie. It's totally over. And Turner will end up with a much more GOP district next time, because thanks to the VRA, most of it will be in Brooklyn. Yes Brooklyn. Trust me. . Weiner really F the Dems doing what he did at redistricting time. It should be at least a 10% margin, maybe more. It's a blowout. I wonder what repercussions it will have?






It depends on how well Turner does in Queens.  You can say Brooklyn was do to the Orthodox angry on same sex marriage and support for Israel (for some).  Queens in another story.

large Orthodox Population in Kew Garden Hills, Hilcreast, parts of Forrest hills and Kew Gardens.

great night at the victory center (just for the record there didn't seem to be any Wasps there.)

[J. J.]

That is your opinion. I just don't think you should take a special election for a House seat and turn it into a narrative about the Presidential election, it doesn't work when either side does it. You can't expect everyone to subscribe to the same opinion.

A fire bell in the night.  I wonder if they'll hear it at the White House?

[DrScholl]

That is your opinion. I just don't think you should take a special election for a House seat and turn it into a narrative about the Presidential election, it doesn't work when either side does it. You can't expect everyone to subscribe to the same opinion.

Have you been following the Nevada election? I wonder how the Dems will do in Solano County next year. If Garamendi runs in that seat, which also contains Yuba and Sutter Counties, he could be in trouble.
[/quote]

The Nevada seat was a Republican seat, it went Republican, the result was not a surprise to me.

Republicans didn't gain anything in California in 2010, one of their best years, that doesn't say much for the future. Garamendi has represented Republican areas in the past, he'll be fine there, D+3 is close to safe for California Dems.

[Wonkish1]

A scandal can make a previously safe seat in play. Who knew?

Never fails, does it?  Gore, Corwin, Weprin: all lost their bids after sex scandals.  I guess voting on the issues just isn't important, anymore.

That isn't a particularly logical conclusion to draw from that tiny bit of anecdotal evidence.

Well, I'm not saying it's only because of scandal.  Still, it inevitably costs at least some votes for the party of the scandal.  If Clinton didn't have the scandal, Gore would've won.  If Lee and Weiner were forced to resign for things unrelated to sex (I don't know... say they get diagnosed for terminal cancer, or something), their parties probably would have retained the seats.  I know I sound superficial here, but that's just my opinion on it.

Historically replacement candidates for scandal ridden politicians have performed quite well in historically safe seats so I am left scratching my head at that one.

And don't forget that Welprin's approval rating was much, much higher than Obama's in the district. So if Welprin's approval was taken down by the scandal of his predecessor, does that mean that Obama is lower than a sh*t stain on a mattress?

D+5 isn't particularly safe especially given this district's obvious trends.

I would agree with that, but I would also like to hear other folks thoughts about what is going on with a PVI of only D+5 when there is a 3 to 1 registration advantage between Dems and GOP.

Bad turnout, conservative Democrats, and Israel lovers.

Again that can explain Brooklyn, but it can't explain Queens. Also my question wasn't about this race but why going into this race a district with a 3 to 1 registration advantage for Dems is only D+5. Anybody want to shed some light on that?

[NY Jew]

If Weprin loses, it's looking like a Massachusetts repeat: another Democrat who assumes it's just "in the bag" because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, and just sleeps around in his campaign office all day expecting a good race.  It's also no help that the voters didn't get to vote in primaries for this one.

fool it was the fact that Weprin lost many of his otherwise bases votes over marriage.

[Napoleon]

The Democratic machine holds the power...it is an identity for many Jewish people. Look at Ed Koch endorsing GWB, national issues and local machine politics can make registration an illusion, particularly among non-WASPs.

[Meeker]

If Weprin loses, it's looking like a Massachusetts repeat: another Democrat who assumes it's just "in the bag" because there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, and just sleeps around in his campaign office all day expecting a good race.  It's also no help that the voters didn't get to vote in primaries for this one.

fool it was the fact that Weprin lost many of his otherwise bases votes over marriage.

Did you just call another poster "fool"? Really?

[DrScholl]

Hey this is right here is what separates you from other folks on this thread. Of course we would all like to be good team players and spin things our losses in the most positive light, but some of us actually have allegiance to calling these things based on how they actually are even when they lose. Apparently you don't.

I don't how you try to spin this thing. Between the polls with Obama's approval ratings in this district and the horrid performance in Queens you can't possibly spin your way out of the fact that Obama played a pretty big roll in this loss. Clearly he isn't particularly liked right now there. That doesn't mean he wont be liked in the future, that doesn't mean he wasn't liked in the past. But today he just cost you a congressional seat...Deal with it!

My point is, it's not a bellwether. Yes, Obama's approval was a factor, but Israel was also one, as was the candidate. By placing it squarely on Obama, you concede it wasn't based on the Republican candidate's merits. Thanks for making a valid point.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A scandal can make a previously safe seat in play. Who knew?

Never fails, does it?  Gore, Corwin, Weprin: all lost their bids after sex scandals.  I guess voting on the issues just isn't important, anymore.

That isn't a particularly logical conclusion to draw from that tiny bit of anecdotal evidence.

Well, I'm not saying it's only because of scandal.  Still, it inevitably costs at least some votes for the party of the scandal.  If Clinton didn't have the scandal, Gore would've won.  If Lee and Weiner were forced to resign for things unrelated to sex (I don't know... say they get diagnosed for terminal cancer, or something), their parties probably would have retained the seats.  I know I sound superficial here, but that's just my opinion on it.

Historically replacement candidates for scandal ridden politicians have performed quite well in historically safe seats so I am left scratching my head at that one.

And don't forget that Welprin's approval rating was much, much higher than Obama's in the district. So if Welprin's approval was taken down by the scandal of his predecessor, does that mean that Obama is lower than a sh*t stain on a mattress?

D+5 isn't particularly safe especially given this district's obvious trends.

I would agree with that, but I would also like to hear other folks thoughts about what is going on with a PVI of only D+5 when there is a 3 to 1 registration advantage between Dems and GOP.

Bad turnout, conservative Democrats, and Israel lovers.

Again that can explain Brooklyn, but it can't explain Queens. Also my question wasn't about this race but why going into this race a district with a 3 to 1 registration advantage for Dems is only D+5. Anybody want to shed some light on that?

I think PVI takes more than just voter registration into account, if that's what you're asking about.  It includes trends and how well candidates perform usually, too.

[DrScholl]

PVI is only a measurement of the Presidential numbers over two elections.

[Wonkish1]

By the way looking at the Nevada map, CD 2 definitely does include a decent portion of North Las Vegas and its pretty safe to say that most of the 6,000 votes came from part of Clark county since the southern part is very rural. I mean there is like one road throughout that part and a couple very tiny towns.

That was North Las Vegas they just got creamed in.

[J. J.]

Turner now at 54 and Weprin 46.

Turner 54%
Weprin 45%

[Reaganfan]

I'm sitting here at 1am just outta work with some Taco Bell®  and am very pleased to see America continue a slow but sure push in a conservative direction.

I look forward to crying faces in Grant Park next fall, only this time, during a concession speech.

[Wonkish1]

PVI is only a measurement of the Presidential numbers over two elections.

I'm aware of this. One decent answer was given above, but I'll rephrase the question. Why do you think that such a strong Democrat district would be voting as close to the middle as it is in the last few elections?

What is happening on the ground?

Is everybody in agreement that its an identity thing. Its expected to be a registered Dem in that area, but only after that you vote what makes sense to you? Leading to the large disparity?

[Sam Spade]

I'm sitting here at 1am just outta work with some Taco Bell®  and am very pleased to see America continue a slow but sure push in a conservative direction.

I look forward to crying faces in Grant Park next fall, only this time, during a concession speech.

Thanks for the daily update, Naso!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

pleased to see America continue a slow but sure push in a conservative direction.

Can we stop with this "America is moving in X direction" crap, please?  The pendulum didn't swing the Democrats' way this time over Israel, and because we had an uncharismatic candidate.  One race does not set what's going to happen for the entire country.

[DrScholl]

PVI is only a measurement of the Presidential numbers over two elections.

I'm aware of this. One decent answer was given above, but I'll rephrase the question. Why do you think that such a strong Democrat district would be voting as close to the middle as it is in the last few elections?

What is happening on the ground?

Is everybody in agreement that its an identity thing. Its expected to be a registered Dem in that area, but only after that you vote what makes sense to you? Leading to the large disparity?

Look at the trend lines, the district got less Democratic, from D+14 to just D+5. It's always had more conservative Democrats on average, but a shift has occurred, much like many districts in the South have had.

[NY Jew]

marriage wins this election

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/09/david_weprin_loses.php

[Napoleon]

pleased to see America continue a slow but sure push in a conservative direction.

Can we stop with this "America is moving in X direction" crap, please?  The pendulum didn't swing the Democrats' way this time over Israel, and because we had an uncharismatic candidate.  One race does not set what's going to happen for the entire country.

Well, maybe. But these elections obviously foreshadow things. Take Scott Brown, for example.