Liberals Win Big in New York, Elsewhere

Toogood Reports ^ | 14 November 2002 | Nicholas Stix

[Saundra Duffy]

HELP! California has been taken over by liberals. Forty of our 58 counties voted for GOP Bill Simon for governor but counties such as Los Angeles & San Francisco voted for "Gay" Davis, the governor from hell! We're drowning in liberalism.

[StopDemocratsDotCom]

it's NEW YORK!, for heaven's sake. Who do you want the Republican nominee for governor to be? Jesse Helms?, He will lose by 80 points.

[Clemenza]

Pataki is the spiritual godchid of Nelson Rockefeller. NY Pubbies will always be more liberal than the Republican mainstream. Sickening, isn't it?

[Common Tator]

We're drowning in liberalism.

California is about 40 percent Democratic and 33 percent Republican. L.A. is about 50 percent Democrat and 25 percent Republican. That is the way it is.

Both sides decided to drive the turn out down to just he Democrat and Republican bases. Davis spent millions telling the center not to vote for Simon. And Simon spent millions telling the center not to vote for DAvis. The center listened to both of them and took their combined advice.

The center did not vote. In the 2000 Election over 10 million Californians voted. This year just over 6 million voted. Four million people who voted in 2000 did not vote in 2002. That is what dual negative campaigns always do.

When both sides go negative... the vote goes down to the bases. There are more people in the Democratic base than Repubican base.

If you are surprised that more people didn't vote for either candidate than voted for the winner, then you are indeed lacking in common sense. There is a ton of evidence to show what would happen on election day. And it happened just like all the evidence said it would.

Davis knew going in to this race that the center was lost for him. He could not get it. What he tried to do was keep Simon from getting it and he accomplished it. Simon did nothing to try to get the independent voters, so he didn't. All Simon did was drive a few Democrats away from Davis. Simon supporters are shocked that Yellow Dog democrats will vote for a Yellow Dog. They should not be.

As I posted just after the primary, the only way for Simon to win was to ignore Davis and campaign on how Simon would fix the state's problems if elected.

I works like this. A candidate for reelection is a falure. He can't promise success, becuase he has a record of failure. All he can do is claim the other candidate is a failure too. That was the Davis position. If the opposition candidate only talks about how he will fix things the voters are faced with the following. They know one candidate has failed. He says his opponent will fail too. The opponent however claims that if they elect him, he will succeed. Which will independent voters go with? Enough independent voters always go with the candidate that is NOT THROWING MUDD and is PROPOSING FIXES to elect him.

Had Simon done that, he would have gotten at least a million of those independents who did not voter. That would have made the election 3.9 milion Simon 3.6 million Davis.

Davis spent the entire election telling independent voters not to vote for Simon. They did not. Simon spent the entire campaign telling independent voters not to vote for Davis. They did not. They were both very effective, Four million independents took their adivce didn't vote for either candidate.

Tons of Simon suporters on FR did all they could to further the Davis strategy. That was, see to it independents did not have a reason to vote FOR anyone. They were happy trashing Davis. But that will not win an election.

This election proved that there was nothing to be gained by trashing Davis. Davis was already trashed more than any poor Republican could trash him. All it would have taken is for the Republicans to give reasons for independents to vote for the Republicans. They never did it.

Nationaly the Democrats never gave anyone a reason to vote for them. A lot of people didn't. Bush gave people reasons to vote Republican. Lots of them did.

Simon gave people lots of reasons NOT to vote for Davis.. Four million of them didn't vote for Davis. Only Three point three million did. Simon never got around to asking people to vote for him. They didn't.

[mrustow]

it's NEW YORK!, for heaven's sake. Who do you want the Republican nominee for governor to be? Jesse Helms?, He will lose by 80 points.

So, what you;re saying is, in New York, you can choose between leftwing (out-of-the-closet) socialism and "rightwing" (closet) socialism.

[afuturegovernor]

You can vote anyway you darn well please, that doesn't mean you cannot state the reality of New York politics.

[ExpandNATO]

If it stayed confined to New York State, a Pataki would not be a problem. The problem is if it wants more ala Christine Whitman and pulls the rest of the Republican party left.

[88keys]

"What did they win?"

Not McCall, Cuomo, or Clinton?! or Sharpton, or whoever...

What would your preferred alternative have been, realistically speaking?!

(you have my sympathy, but one must be pragmatic, and I'll always take the "lesser of two evils, with continued attempts at education" scenario over the "crash and burn, and hope true conservatives rise from the ashes" one...the second scenario is not only overly subjective, but also potentially dangerous in assuming a decent Phoenix could rise...)

[Bicentennial_Man]

Every county north of Rockland and Westchester should hold a referendum and form a new state. No more Pataki, no more Schumer, no more Rodham-Clinton. Lower NY would keep 12,000,000 of New York's 19,000,000 residents and a bulk of its tax base while Upper NY would keep the current infrastructure already in place up there(capital etc. in Albany, SUNY branches). It would be the best of both worlds. Lower NY would keep its money and Upper NY could finally have the right people in power to make the necessary changes to turn around its economy.

[Bogolyubski]

Think of New York politics as being sort of like Henry Ford's color sense: You can vote any way you wish as long as it's socialist. What difference does it make whether the statist agenda is advanced by a politician wearing a label of "Republican" or "Democrat"? The bottom line remains the same: Liberty is trampled underfoot, property is confiscated.

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[spartan68]

MAINE, THE WORLDS LARGEST RAT-FEST

[ZULU]

New York, New Jersey, Taxachusetts, Kalifornia, Vermont, Maryland = lost territory. These states are longer philosophically part of the U.S.

The best we can do is set up a sanitary corridor around them, screen all refugees to make sure they think like Americans, and keep the rest penned in until they collapse of their own social and economic defects.

Maybe Senior Vicente Fox can be prevalied upon to re-accept Kalifonia from Hollyweird southwards as long as he guarenteed Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, etc. are forced to stay in Mexico.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Landru]

"So, what you;re saying is, in New York, you can choose between leftwing (out-of-the-closet) socialism and 'rightwing' (closet) socialism."

Yes, precisely.
I believe that'd be an accurate statement.

...& it pains me say that, too.

[BushRep]

Oh, Senator Plunkitt still lives.

Separate the city from the upstate.

New York isn't that bad.

The problem with New Jersey and California is that the state parties stink. Those two states, with high incomes, and sizable Hispanic populations, should be OURS!