NY-11 Special Election Thread

[smoltchanov]

I'm completely fine with losing this special if it means getting Malliotakis in there in 2016.

May i ask - why are you rooting for her? She seems to be a very conservative (at least - by NY standards) legislator, while you (looking at your Political Matrix scores) are not especially conservative.

[smoltchanov]

I'm completely fine with losing this special if it means getting Malliotakis in there in 2016.

May i ask - why are you rooting for her? She seems to be a very conservative (at least - by NY standards) legislator, while you (looking at your Political Matrix scores) are not especially conservative.

Because Donovan seems terrible and I'm supportive of increasing the diversity of the party - it would be great to have two young Republicans representing New York in Congress. Hopefully we will also start seeing an increase in ideological diversity too.

Absolutely for that (in BOTH parties). But she will not bring ideological diversity...

[smoltchanov]

Staten Island Democrats continue to have their heads up their asses, refuse to take advantage of an issue that causes turnout to rise.

Jesus Christ, these people are incompetent.

No they're not. 

You and Libertas seem to think that only minority turnout will rise if Donovan's alleged mishandling of the Garner case is made the main issue in the NY-11 campaign, as if minorities live in a parallel universe where only they get to see the Democrats' attacks.  You seem to forget that every time Al Sharpton or Bill de Blasio or one of their surrogates shows up on TV demonizing Donovan, more of the cops and their families who live on Staten Island want to go out to vote for Donovan, too.  And there are more whites in NY-11 than minorities, so the math simply doesn't work.  According to Qunnipiac, only 41% of Staten Islanders thought charges should have been brought against the Garner cop in the first place.  It is a losing issue for Democrats to bring up.

+1. Ultraliberals amaze me as much as tea-partiers. More and more i come to conclusion that they are, essentially, the same. Just as electron and positron are. The only difference is a "sign", but "absolute value" is the same.... Almost zero....

[smoltchanov]

Yeah, people who think running on Garner is a good idea forget how vile and awful the average Staten Islander is.

May be (i am not an expert on this issue). But it's them who will vote and choose and that matters most of all. Words of George Wallace from his last gubernatorial campaign (1982, if not mistaken) come to mind: when asked how he can now seek (and receive!) black vote after racist past he answered something along the lines: "i always was what most of Alabamians were: when they were racists - i was too. Now Alabama has changed and so did George Wallace"....

[smoltchanov]

Congrats, Congressman Donovan. Why did I ever doubt myself - of course they'd elect a complete scumbag with no regard for human life.

Not all districts use your criteria of what is a "good congressman"..... Get accustomed to it...

[smoltchanov]

Congrats, Congressman Donovan. Why did I ever doubt myself - of course they'd elect a complete scumbag with no regard for human life.

Not all districts use your criteria of what is a "good congressman"..... Get accustomed to it...

Dan Donovan let a cold-blooded murderer walk free for his own political gain. He was a scumbag of a DA who twisted the law to make himself look good, and will be a scumbag of a Congressman.

Again - it's YOUR vision of situation. A lot of people (especially - on Staten Island) think differently. I beg to differ too. We shall see how Donovan is viewed in the district he runs. And, frankly, that's much more important for him then the opinion of someone from New Hampshire..

[smoltchanov]

Congrats, Congressman Donovan. Why did I ever doubt myself - of course they'd elect a complete scumbag with no regard for human life.

Not all districts use your criteria of what is a "good congressman"..... Get accustomed to it...

Dan Donovan let a cold-blooded murderer walk free for his own political gain. He was a scumbag of a DA who twisted the law to make himself look good, and will be a scumbag of a Congressman.

Again - it's YOUR vision of situation. A lot of people (especially - on Staten Island) think differently. I beg to differ too. We shall see how Donovan is viewed in the district he runs. And, frankly, that's much more important for him then the opinion of someone from New Hampshire..

Nobody's denying he represents the people of Staten Island well. In fact, it's ridiculous to say he doesn't represent their will. However, considering he knowingly and willfully refused to prosecute a clear-cut manslaughter case to prepare to be Michael Grimm's successor, that's being an objectively bad DA.

Is he a good politician? Yes. Is he a bad DA? Yes, objectively so. Do I think he will be a bad Congressman? Absof***inglutely. Dan Donovan doesn't care about the law or the people of Staten Island. Dan Donovan cares about Dan Donovan.

We will see really soon whether it's so. Because he is almost guaranteed to be congressman now. We will see - which one.

[smoltchanov]

Congrats, Congressman Donovan. Why did I ever doubt myself - of course they'd elect a complete scumbag with no regard for human life.

Not all districts use your criteria of what is a "good congressman"..... Get accustomed to it...

Dan Donovan let a cold-blooded murderer walk free for his own political gain. He was a scumbag of a DA who twisted the law to make himself look good, and will be a scumbag of a Congressman.

Again - it's YOUR vision of situation. A lot of people (especially - on Staten Island) think differently. I beg to differ too. We shall see how Donovan is viewed in the district he runs. And, frankly, that's much more important for him then the opinion of someone from New Hampshire..

How about the direct words of my cousin, who's a Republican from Staten Island?

"He's a clown and a half but better than the other guy."

Good words! And the most important part - "better then the other guy". Electoraly that's all that matters.

[smoltchanov]

Does anyone expect Gentile to get within 15 points? within 10?

15 - may be, but not especially likely. 10 - no.

[smoltchanov]

Congrats, Congressman-elect Dan Donovan. How long do you see him in Congress?

As long as he wants to be. His handling of the Eric Garner case won't help him in a statewide run (and it'd take a perfect storm to give him even a chance at the state's AG again), but he's admittedly a good fit for Staten Island. Bar any corruption scandals (besides letting a murderer walk free for political gain), he'll be fine.

+1

[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..

[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

[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)))

[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...

[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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

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.
[/quote]

Mostly because right now it's difficult to me to imagine so good Republican candidate, that he will be able to break "Democratic firewall" and win presidency. It seems to me that if parties (and their candidates) remain as they are now that Democrats will almost always win Presidency and almost always lose Congress (or, at least, House). And midterms will almost always be Republican as a result...

P.S. Of course everything is my personal IMHO...