NY-09, Special Election Thread

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

"Weprin gets on stage, says he's not conceding, rushes off without taking qs and gets off into car that sped off #ny9"

What the hell?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

I know that, but it's like people who said Obama's victory pushed us in a left direction, as if that would be a permanent trend for the country.  Both sides eventually find themselves very disappointed after saying things like that.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

I know that, but it's like people who said Obama's victory pushed us in a left direction, as if that would be a permanent trend for the country.  Both sides eventually find themselves very disappointed after saying things like that.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you were probably one of those people that said that or at least believed it for a while.

No, actually.  I thought the Democrats were in a pretty good position for a few years, but they would lose at least a couple elections in the future.  It can't be that good for one party forever.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I actually think Turner might this one.

If he does it will be because Weprin's position in favor of marriage redefinition.

I give you credit, sir. You called it a long time ago.

Don't feed the trolls.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Woah, we're still talking about this?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Woah, this is still relevant?