Replies

One big difference between our upset this time around and their upset in May was the Dems only won by plurality. As I pointed out earlier on this thread at the time, a clear majority of NY-26 voters cast their ballots for a conservative candidate and didn't drink the RATs "Save medicare" kool-aid. They tried to claim the election results were a slap at John Boenher, even though only 44% of the voters supported the RAT candidate.

This time around, we won a clear majority -- 54% of NY-9 voters supported a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage conservative Catholic Republican for Chuckie Schumer's old seat. That's actually much better than I expected, if you asked me to predict a scenario where Turner wins a couple days ago, I would have predicted 48.5%-Turner, 47.5%-Weprin, 4%-Hoeppel. It's not spin to point out that a far stronger message than the 44% who voted Dem in a slight GOP district. It's safe to assume that nearly all the people who vote for the "tea party" candidate wanted a conservative. Without the fake tea party candidate, the Republican would have won handily in NY-26, with only 1% less than incumbent Chris Lee got in 2010.

Of course, Republicans would be relying on pure spin if they claimed Congressman Weiner's weiner played no part in a GOP upset in NY-9. But by the same token, Congressman Lee's lecherious behavior was certainly a favor in the RATs winning NY-26. I think the sudden exit of Lee and the fake "tea partier" conning 9% of voters played a much bigger factor than "medicare, medicare, medicare". NY-9 has tons of seniors too. What happened to the "medicare" advantage the RATs had in NY 4 monthes ago?