NY-11 Special Election Thread

[CountryClassSF]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

[IceSpear]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know, but what good would it do to handle vacancies in the House the same way as the Senate? People should study what Minnesota does for GOTV - they seem to always have some of the higher turnouts, not sure about specials there.

[smoltchanov]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

Yeah, but they still can do it better then Democrats. I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials. And without Obama motivating minority vote in 2016 - not sure that Democratic base (which is the same minorities now, with white voters more and more deserting party) will bother to turn out next year..

[IceSpear]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

Yeah, but they still can do it better then Democrats. I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials. And without Obama motivating minority vote in 2016 - not sure that Democratic base (which is the same minorities now, with white voters more and more deserting party) will bother to turn out next year..

Minorities heavily turned out for bores like Gore and Kerry, so they definitely will for Hillary.

[smoltchanov]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

Yeah, but they still can do it better then Democrats. I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials. And without Obama motivating minority vote in 2016 - not sure that Democratic base (which is the same minorities now, with white voters more and more deserting party) will bother to turn out next year..

Minorities heavily turned out for bores like Gore and Kerry, so they definitely will for Hillary.

We will see. The last time i saw good Democratic turnout was exactly 2012. After that - it was abysmal. What happens in 2016 - will see relatively soon

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

Yeah, but they still can do it better then Democrats. I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials. And without Obama motivating minority vote in 2016 - not sure that Democratic base (which is the same minorities now, with white voters more and more deserting party) will bother to turn out next year..

Minorities heavily turned out for bores like Gore and Kerry, so they definitely will for Hillary.

The Turnout that Obama got isn't even comparable to what Gore/Kerry got.

Hillary may be able to match the Hispanic turnout, but I don't think she can hold the republican nominee to 27% of the hispanic vote like Obama did, because I think the republicans are smart enough to not talk about self deportation again. The republican nominee almost certainly will get 30%, maybe 35%, perhaps even 40% of the hispanic vote.

Black Turnout isn't going to match 2012 in 2016. Not Happening. Also, black support, without a black on the ticket, should go back to 89-91% as opposed to the 93% that Obama got, barring a terrible republican nominee.

[Maxwell]

I actually thought Gentile performed not that bad. Not good enough to merti nominating him again. But he did not completely stink.

[smoltchanov]

I actually thought Gentile performed not that bad. Not good enough to merti nominating him again. But he did not completely stink.

I expected Donovan winning with 15-20% margin. This time i was completely correct)))

[Lief 🗽]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Just let the party pick someone to fill the seat until the next general election. It would save everyone time and energy and it would only be slightly less democratically illegitimate.

[IceSpear]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

Yeah, but they still can do it better then Democrats. I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials. And without Obama motivating minority vote in 2016 - not sure that Democratic base (which is the same minorities now, with white voters more and more deserting party) will bother to turn out next year..

Minorities heavily turned out for bores like Gore and Kerry, so they definitely will for Hillary.

The Turnout that Obama got isn't even comparable to what Gore/Kerry got.

Hillary may be able to match the Hispanic turnout, but I don't think she can hold the republican nominee to 27% of the hispanic vote like Obama did, because I think the republicans are smart enough to not talk about self deportation again. The republican nominee almost certainly will get 30%, maybe 35%, perhaps even 40% of the hispanic vote.

Black Turnout isn't going to match 2012 in 2016. Not Happening. Also, black support, without a black on the ticket, should go back to 89-91% as opposed to the 93% that Obama got, barring a terrible republican nominee.

I didn't say she'd equal Obama. But this idea that minority turnout/support is just going to completely collapse without Obama is ridiculous when you look at the last PRESIDENTIAL elections without Obama on the ballot.

[smoltchanov]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

Yeah, but they still can do it better then Democrats. I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials. And without Obama motivating minority vote in 2016 - not sure that Democratic base (which is the same minorities now, with white voters more and more deserting party) will bother to turn out next year..

Minorities heavily turned out for bores like Gore and Kerry, so they definitely will for Hillary.

The Turnout that Obama got isn't even comparable to what Gore/Kerry got.

Hillary may be able to match the Hispanic turnout, but I don't think she can hold the republican nominee to 27% of the hispanic vote like Obama did, because I think the republicans are smart enough to not talk about self deportation again. The republican nominee almost certainly will get 30%, maybe 35%, perhaps even 40% of the hispanic vote.

Black Turnout isn't going to match 2012 in 2016. Not Happening. Also, black support, without a black on the ticket, should go back to 89-91% as opposed to the 93% that Obama got, barring a terrible republican nominee.

I didn't say she'd equal Obama. But this idea that minority turnout/support is just going to completely collapse without Obama is ridiculous when you look at the last PRESIDENTIAL elections without Obama on the ballot.

No one is talking about total collapse. But decline may be substantial. On the other hand - Hillary may win somewhat bigger white vote, but - how much bigger? Obama (IMHO) is an extremely polarizing figure, in a sense that a lot of white votes (of course - especially in the South) are, probably, lost for ANY Democratic candidate for ANY office after his presidency. He whipped up support for Democratic candidates among minorities (and especially - for himself) to barely sustainable (if at all) levels, but paid a price. Before 2008 level of white support at most levels for Democratic candidates was substantially higher. It generally held in 2008 itself (may be - because Obama's candidacy was something absolutely new, and thus - interesting), but after that - very substantial decline began.. As if all those Southern Democrats, that barely held on because of Clinton and Gore (and even, to lesser extent - in 2004 with Kerry), decided "enough!" after 2008 in first months of Obama's presidency...

[Torie]

Quite a discrepancy in the vote between the two boroughs. I wonder how much of it is due to where the candidates are from, and how much of it is due to underlying partisan differences. Is the Brooklyn part of NY-11 really that Democratic?

[Maxwell]

The fact that the North Shore only had 9,000 people vote is a sign Democrats utterly failed.

[Oak Hills]

So is that turnout about 10%?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So is that turnout about 10%?

let's see here...

New York State Population is ~19,750,000, and there are 29 congressional districts. Districts are supposed to be equal population, so one congressional district should be about 1/29 of the state population, which is ~681,035 people. 39,746 votes were cast last night (23,409 for Donovan, 15,808 for Gentile, and 527 for lane per http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2015/by_state/NY_Page_0505.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS .)

per http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult-populations?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/2/34/false/36,868,867,133,38/39,40,41/416,417, kids make up about 22% of new york's population. 531,207 is 78% of 681,035 Take 39,746/531,207, and we get 7.48% Turnout. Pathetic.

[Panda Express]

So is that turnout about 10%?

let's see here...

New York State Population is ~19,750,000, and there are 29 congressional districts. Districts are supposed to be equal population, so one congressional district should be about 1/29 of the state population, which is ~681,035 people. 39,746 votes were cast last night (23,409 for Donovan, 15,808 for Gentile, and 527 for lane per http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2015/by_state/NY_Page_0505.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS .)

So, take 39,746/681,035, and we get 5.84% Turnout. Utterly Pathetic.

WTF? That's not how you calculate turnout. You do realize babies aren't allowed to vote, right?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

So is that turnout about 10%?

let's see here...

New York State Population is ~19,750,000, and there are 29 congressional districts. Districts are supposed to be equal population, so one congressional district should be about 1/29 of the state population, which is ~681,035 people. 39,746 votes were cast last night (23,409 for Donovan, 15,808 for Gentile, and 527 for lane per http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2015/by_state/NY_Page_0505.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS .)

So, take 39,746/681,035, and we get 5.84% Turnout. Utterly Pathetic.

WTF? That's not how you calculate turnout. You do realize babies aren't allowed to vote, right? Stop making dumb posts you moderate bigot.

post edited, but quit following me around.

[cinyc]

So is that turnout about 10%?

let's see here...

New York State Population is ~19,750,000, and there are 29 congressional districts. Districts are supposed to be equal population, so one congressional district should be about 1/29 of the state population, which is ~681,035 people. 39,746 votes were cast last night (23,409 for Donovan, 15,808 for Gentile, and 527 for lane per http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2015/by_state/NY_Page_0505.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS .)

So, take 39,746/681,035, and we get 5.84% Turnout. Utterly Pathetic.

WTF? That's not how you calculate turnout. You do realize babies aren't allowed to vote, right? Stop making dumb posts you moderate bigot.

post edited, but quit following me around.

1) New York has 27 Congressional Districts, not 29.
2) That's not how you calculate turnout.  The number of votes cast divided by the number of registered voters is more relevant.  NY-11 had 375,256 active and 406,480 total registered voters as of 4/1/15.  39,875 votes were cast so far, including write-ins, invalid and blank votes.  That puts turnout at 10.7% of active and 9.8% of total registered voters, before absentee votes are counted.  The active voter number is probably more relevant.

[YaBoyNY]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

Yeah, but they still can do it better then Democrats. I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials. And without Obama motivating minority vote in 2016 - not sure that Democratic base (which is the same minorities now, with white voters more and more deserting party) will bother to turn out next year..

So if we're allowed to say minorities aren't going to go to the ballot just because Obama isn't on the ticket, can we say that the 2016 Democratic nominee will do better than Obama with whites?

[Maxwell]

To demostrate how low the turnout was

- In New York in 1828, when

- Only people over 21 could vote, eliminating 50% of the population (yes, the population pyramid was bottom heavy, since people had many kids).

- Only men could vote, knocking out another half.

19 percent of the total population voted, when only 25% could vote, a turnout rate of 80%

Today, 6 percent of the population voted, when 78% could vote, a turnout rate of 7.6%

Just weird.

It's not apples to apples, but yes that is quite a drop.

[freepcrusher]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
 I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials.
[/quote]

Smolty is one of my favorite posters but he's wrong on this count. Don't forget that dems won MS-1, LA-6 and IL-14 in 07-08 off year.

[smoltchanov]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials.
[/quote]

Smolty is one of my favorite posters but he's wrong on this count. Don't forget that dems won MS-1, LA-6 and IL-14 in 07-08 off year.
[/quote]


No, i haven't forgot that. But it was in a perfect wave environment. Never to be repeated again.

[Mister Mets]

That turnout is pathetic. Special elections really need to be banned.

All because Democrats can't figure out how to get their voters to fill out an oval on a piece of paper? Just suspend democracy for 2 years for congressional vacancies or allow a bureaucrat to appoint? Not likely.

Apparently Republicans can't either, considering Donovan got ~30,000 less votes than Grimm, in an election that was already extremely low turnout to begin with.

Yeah, but they still can do it better then Democrats. I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials. And without Obama motivating minority vote in 2016 - not sure that Democratic base (which is the same minorities now, with white voters more and more deserting party) will bother to turn out next year..

So if we're allowed to say minorities aren't going to go to the ballot just because Obama isn't on the ticket, can we say that the 2016 Democratic nominee will do better than Obama with whites?

We're allowed to say whatever we believe. There are multiple possibilities.

Some will think that minority turnout will be just as high without Obama, and that white turnout will be higher.

[Nichlemn]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can only laugh at Democratic voter's complete impotence in specials.

Smolty is one of my favorite posters but he's wrong on this count. Don't forget that dems won MS-1, LA-6 and IL-14 in 07-08 off year.
[/quote]


No, i haven't forgot that. But it was in a perfect wave environment. Never to be repeated again.
[/quote]

Why not? I do wonder if all this "Democrats are bad at non-Presidential elections" concern is really just the out-party-does-well-effect continuing as it always has. In the next Republican administration we'll probably find that Democrats are suddenly good at off-year elections again.