Posted on 11/04/2009 7:38:00 AM PST by doug from upland
NOTE: HERE IS THE NEWS YOU'VE BEEN HEARING REGARDING THE 23RD DISTRICT IN NEW YORK -----
Democrats win New York congressional race, but conservatives claim victory too Posted: November 4th, 2009 02:06 AM ET
From CNN Political Producer Rebecca Sinderbrand
(CNN) – The three-way race in New York's 23rd congressional district ended Tuesday night with a surprise Democratic win - the first for the party in the reliably-Republican district since the 19th century.
Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman to claim victory in a race where an internal GOP fight drew national attention - and forced the party's candidate, Dede Scozzafava, out of the campaign.
National Democrats, smarting over gubernatorial losses in New Jersey and Virginia, seized on the win, with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine dubbing it "perhaps the most consequential race of the night."
"This race turned out to be the worst of all possible worlds for Republicans as not only did the Democrat, Bill Owens, win a seat that Democrats have not held in more than 100 years, but what occurred in New York has exposed a war within the Republican Party that will not soon end," said Kaine.
============================================
NOTE: HERE IS AN ARTICLE TELLING A DIFFERENT STORY. THE DEMS HELD THE SEAT IN 1993.
NEWS & COMMENTARY section What does an election in New York have to do with Beaufort County? Could be a barometer of shifting political sands October 25, 2009 In case you've missed it, there is an interesting race going on in up-state New York. In Congressional District 23, in what is euphemistically called "The North Country," they are holding a special election November 3 to fill a vacant seat that became vacant when Rep. John M. McHugh resigned to become Secretary of the Army.
McHugh is a Republican. The district has been predominately Republican in recent years. In fact, 1993 was the last time a Democrat was elected, but the district has been changing since then. The best a Democrat has done in recent years was in 2006 when Robert Johnson ran second to McHugh with 37% of the vote.
The anwer is easy. Conservatives have shown that their strength is superior to RINOs. The GOP would have won the seat, had they chosen a Conservative at the beginning instead of helping the mole Scozzafava spoil it in favor of the Democrats.
The point is that the RATS are playing up that they won a seat held by the GOP for over 100 years. That appears to not be true.
Yes, and people in northern NY state look to government as much as possible just like their compatriots in NYC.
Democrats LIE....what’s new?
Trying to minimize the loss are they?
If I had to make my living spinning the truth into such fantastical shapes every day, I’d retch every time I saw my reflection.
(OTOH, maybe the media vampires don’t have reflections?)
*sigh* ...get the most out of the win...
Their only win of the day.
Dayton and Toledo turned out their rat mayors.
No, the GOP still won, in a twisted way. It seems they'd rather have a Democrat in office than a Conservative. The Dem is the "political enemy", so their cushy jobs as chairmen are safe. If a Conservative wins, those jobs might disappear if the "rabble" get smart and throw out the Country Club set.
Who was the last Democrat to hold the seat?
facts are handy things.
What kind of post is this? Where is the information?
to add more complexity to the question, Congressional districts move. Every ten years seats are re-apportioned, so it is possible that today’s NY23 does not overlap the NY23 of 60 years ago.
Parts of the 23rd haven't been represented by a Dim since the 1890's .. Michael McNulty (After redistricting Dim - 21st) was elected by other parts in 1993.
Linky Thing 1: Click Here
Linky Thing 2: Click Here
There ya go ..
and in 1 year this seat is up for a new election. Is Virginia or New Jersey?
Too bad that scozzie didn’t drop out earlier so that the absentee ballots could have reflected votes for Hoffman.
That’s my analysis.
THANKS!
They will be only the temporary occupants of that didtrict office for one (1) year. In 2010, the Republicans will unite behind one candidate through the primary process and that candidate will defeat the Democrat. Look at the simple math; Rep. Votes + Conservative Votes exceed Dem. votes.
No accident, that was.
Absentee ballots are vulnerable to this kind of shenanigans.
There was another race in New York yesterday that isn't getting attention. For Mayor of New York City. It was Bloomberg and his Billions vs 'somebody'.Bloomberg and his Billions won. But NOT BY MUCH. That 'somebody' almost pulled the rug from under that little tyrant's feet. Bloomie won solely due to the voters in Staten Island (per FoxNews). He did not win his fellow rich Jewish voters in Manhattan and Queens.
Now if the liberal Bloomberg can barely win in the bluest of blue NYC, the liberals (democrats) have a problem and its 'HUGH" and 'SERIES'.
Hoffman was a weak candidate; non-telegenic who didnt know the local issues. He would have won easily otherwise, IMO. He couldnt even get the local paper’s endorsement, which usually goes to Republicans
No, they’re talking about the congressional district which was last held by a Democrats in 1993
Its been reported that Owens did not get 50% of the vote but 49, with Doug Hoffman getting 45% and Scuzzy getting 6%. It reminded me of something I should post in my page http://www.theusmat.com/home.htm
on conservatives running for office
Now in some states a candidate must get 50%+ 1 plurality. Otherwise there is a runoff between the two top vote getters. Anytime that happens a candidate (even if this doesn’t apply) in that challangeing position should not cede until the final count has been posted. Not before. Whoever advised Mr. Hoffman to cede at this point was wrong, because;
1st, it would have emphasized the conservative influence over this election.
2nd It would have set Hoffman up for a second run next year.
What kind of post is this? Answer: an informative one
Where is the information? Answer: I gave the link to the Beaufort newspaper - http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-c-2009-10-24-239476.112112_What_does_an_election_in_New_York_have_to_do_with_Beaufort_County.html
From the article: “The district has been predominately Republican in recent years. In fact, 1993 was the last time a Democrat was elected, but the district has been changing since then”
The defeat of Doug Hoffman clearly illustrates the difficulty of third party candidates here in the US. Now I was a supporter of Hoffman from beginning to end. I view Dede in much the same way I view other Republicans of her ilk such as Jim Jeffords, Lowell Weicker, and Lincoln Chafee...that is like a pile of hemerroids.
That all said, third parties in this country are NEVER going to go very far. Ever since our country practiced partisan politics we have always been basically a two party system. Here’s why: Unlike much of Europe, Canada, Israel, and many other parliamentry democracies, we were set up to be a LIMITED GOVERNMENT REPUBLIC with a BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE and an INDEPENDENT EXECUTIVE. Our elections are set up to be WINNER TAKE ALL. That is, if you win an election in a legislative district by just one vote, you win.
In the parliamentary democracies it’s different. If a party makes a respectable showing, regardless of whether or not it won any legislative districts, they are often rewarded with seats in the parliament. Say in Germany, for example, the Green Party wins 15% of the vote, the leading left wing party, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) wins 40% of the vote, they could put together a winning coalition and form a left wing government.
This could never happen in the US the way we are currently set up with our winner take all elections. Say a viable Conservative Party was set up in all 50 states. Say in they won a respectable percentage of the vote—20 or 30% in the next midterm elections in 2010. That would certainly be an impressive showing on the first go around. But all of their votes would come at the expense of the Republican Party. The Democrats—even with a lackluster showing of say 40% of the vote would make enormous gains in the Congress and the various statehouses and governor’s races because the newly created Conservative Party would have sliced off such a huge percentage of the GOP vote. Doesn’t matter that that the combined GOP and Conservative vote was 60% and the Democrats only won 40%—the Democrats would still make huge gains because thery were united and we were divided and we have a WINNER TAKE ALL political system. To change our current system you would have to completely change over to a parliamentry system and thus radically change our current Constitution.
This is precisely why talk of forming a third party is completely ridiculous and totally foolhardy. Now look at Florida where you have the moderate Crist versus the conservative Rubio running for senate in the GOP primary. Suppose they ran in separate parties. The Democrat candidate in FL would be guaranteed victory and could win even with 36% of the vote.
I know there will always be people who identify more strongly with the Conservative Movement than they do with the Republican Party. And then there are some who more strongly identify with the GOP as an institution than they do with the Conservative Movement as an institution. But the truth is we all need to work together to win elections and talk of forming a third party is sheer folly and counterproductive given the current structure of our political system. The art of successful politics is the art of successful coalition building.
Yes, absentee ballots can be problematical. Things can change at the very end of a campaign, such as discovering that the Democrat has committed multiple felonies for which he/she had yet to be charged. Such evidence is, of course, only anecdotal, but keep in mind that the Democratic Party is a criminal enterprise.
But where is the proof that the 23rd had a democrat congressman in 1993?
There has been much redistricting over the years.
tx_eggman gave this link above - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2378248/posts?page=75#75
I analyzed the history of the district. It has been GOP since the 19th century.
No, the chart isn’t really helpful at all, as it only shows the individuals that occupied the 23rd-numbered district over the years. As I wrote in my analysis, the 23rd was within New York City several decades ago, so people can claim, “But this was Democrat recently !” Yes, the 23rd was Democrat recently, but NOT the area the 23rd district is now. You’d do better doing an analysis/chart of a line of succession by a given county or geographical area, the latter for which I did. That’s how I was able to determine that the effective entirety of the district that falls within the current 23rd’s boundaries hasn’t been Democrat held (when it occupied roughly 3 districts then) since the early 1850s.
Thanks for the clarification.
Sure thing. I have to admit to owning a copy of the massive coffee-table book, Prof. Kenneth Martis’s The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989. A remarkable and comprehensive book with maps and other facts and figures. Without that book, it would be difficult to trace the history of the individual districts, and I utilized it to trace the history of the current 23rd. For those interested in this subject, getting your hands on a copy is a must (but it ain’t cheap).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.