According to The Hill newspaper:
Democrats and Republicans will do their best to spin a win by venture capitalist Scott Murphy (D) or Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R) as having broad national meanings. But political observers and analysts have largely drawn the conclusion that such a razor-thin election can only be seen as a draw.To this I have one thing to say.
Bullshit.
Just a little less than 5 months previous to the special election, a Democrat won NY-20 by more than 70,000 votes.
Now we can agree that a draw in this circumstance means, plainly speaking, nothing changed.
Well, can someone let me know when 70,000 came to equal 25?
The fact is, results drastically changed since the last election in the district. But one thing didn't change -- the electorate.
Many want to prop up the difference between the number of registered Republicans and Democrats in the District -- but that difference was there on Nov4 when the Democrat Congresswoman won by 70,000 votes and Barack Obama won by almost 10,000 votes.
And that margin is now statistically down to zero.
A draw? I don't think so.
A message has been sent. Many just don't want to hear it.
This makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteYou do not compare two different elections with two completely different sets of candidates.
You know as well as anyone that special elections are just that, special. Both sides try to spin them in any which way possible, but the reality is that they are infrequently predictors of larger trends.
I would say a draw is when two candidates run, the votes are tallied and they basically have the same vote total.
I am certain that you are not suggesting that any Republican who one their last election (by say 70,000 votes) has to win the next election by more than 70,000 votes the next time around to declare victory?
I would assume you would consider a 50,000 vote margin or even a 20,000 vote margin a decisive victory. Not a loss, draw or message that had been sent.
After all it was President Bush who declared a broad mandate after eeking out victory in 2004...
You miss the point. The question pundits were asking regarding this special election was this:
ReplyDeleteHow are Americans reacting to Obama's performance so far?
To look at that, you have to look at the previous election in that district. Obama won the district by 10k. Gillibrand won it by 70k.
While I do agree there are a number of smaller variables that effect special elections, like turnout, that doesn't change the main point. I'll surrender the 70k number and say the Dem should have won by the same percentage Gillibrand won by in order to say things are a draw, politically speaking(not electorally).
Clearly, Murphy didn't win by that margin. In fact, things became much closer than they were just a few short months ago before Obama took office.
Therefore, Tedisco performed much better than expected, and in turn we can deduce that the question has been answered....
Tedisco performed much better than expected?
ReplyDeleteThan how do you explain his collapse from this poll to election day?
February 06, 2009
Poll Finds Tedisco Leading NY-20 Race
In New York's open 20th Congressional District, Republican special election candidate Jim Tedisco holds a wide lead over Democratic candidate Scott Murphy, according to a poll conducted for Tedisco's campaign.
The Public Opinion Strategies poll, which surveyed 400 likely voters from Feb. 3-4 with a 4.9% margin of error, finds Tedisco leading 50%-29% against Murphy in a special election matchup.
I think we can all agree that February is closer to March than November.
Using your logic, Tedisco should be ashamed of himself for ever allowing the race to be close in the first place.
What really happened here is that the RNC and the NRCC came in, ran a terrible campaign, drove up Tedisco's negatives and are now engaged in what you all do best -- trying to disenfranchise voters (do you really think Senator Gillenbrand should have her ballot challenged?).
Don't go moving the goalposts.
ReplyDelete"better than expected" in this sense means better than the last result for that seat. In other words, better than losing by 70k(or the percentage equivalent).
I won't move the goalpost, when you stop comparing apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteThe previous election was a very popular incumbent versus a little liked republican challenger in a presidential election year.
This is a special election and you know as well as anyone, that open seats in swing districts (the seat was held by a Republican as recently as 2006) are always very competitive.
The only reason the republicans on the national level were touting this election so much is that they thought they had a near certain victory with their well known and well financed candidate (minority leader of the State Assembly) polling 30% points ahead of a first time candidate.
Truth is that the national republican committees came in, ran the same campaign that has lost them 50 house seats in the last two cycles and predicibly came up short yet again.
The campaign was so bad Tedisco had to distance himself from it.
I think the real message out of this race is that the republcan game plan is out dated and out of touch with what the American people want.
I quite honestly don't know when that message will be finally heard.