I've heard that Owens was more conservative than Scuzzy despite being a Democrat. The message in NY-23 is that Republicans cannot hope to win if they alienate their base. If they put up candidates that are liberal, we won't vote for them anymore and they might even get a strong challenge from someone completely outside the party structure. If you're a leader at the party level, the message should be that you better return to your principles. Hopefully, they get that before they muck up 2010, and hopefully, they continue to think that they can win with "moderates" alone … Scuzzy the "moderate" was anything but.

What happened in NY 23 is why I want Sarah Palin to run for President. It will be a surefire win for Obama.

What happened in NY 23 is why I want Sarah Palin to run for President. It will be a surefire win for Obama.

Posted by Tom_pinko_Delay 2009-11-04 09:56:57

What happened in NY 23 is exactly why we want Sarah Palin to stay active in the Conservative and possible move into a run for a major office. She showed what a complete loser and thief Scozzafava is and the sheer idiocy of the national GOP leadership.

And your fear of the words of a private citizen is noted, Tom_pinko_Delay.

Scuzzy wasn't a loser or a thief either. She just shouldn't be a Republican.

Scuzzy wasn't a loser or a thief either. She just shouldn't be a Republican.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-04 10:05:29

She's a loser for sure, with the votes she got. But most importantly a their, for taking money from the National Republicans and then endorsing her Democrat opponent. She should have dropped out and kept her mouth shut, but she had to look like a fool.

One BIG item I think that has been overlooked in NY 23 is the fact that the D canidate was a retired Air Force officer. The largest employer up there is FT Drum (not just uniformed military but civil employees ie think SEIU) and there are lots of retired military in the area.

To be sure, Owens used his military background to huge advantage. A big big plus in this district!

You keep missing the point — both of them, in fact. Point one: Scozzy was even more Liberal than the Democrat in the race.

I didn't miss that at all. I actually said that yesterday.

A "win" for the Republican party would still have been a solid vote for the Democrats every time.

Not if the nat'l GOP would have nominated somone like John McHugh, which I also pointed out yesterday.

Point two: when Scozzy pulled out, she endorsed the Democrat, proving that the Republicans and Democrats are really just labels these politicians wear, like team names. They're on the same side, working against us.

I wouldn't go that far. Why should she endorse Hoffman after the way she was attacked by outsiders?

She was a poor choice to begin with, but that's not her fault.

She's a loser for sure, with the votes she got.

She is actually a winner, as she had the last laugh. By waiting until four days before the election, she could drop out but still stay on the ballot. Her votes cost the conservative the election.

She should have dropped out and kept her mouth shut,

Translation: Dissent will not be tolerated!

She was a poor choice to begin with, but that's not her fault.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-04 10:29:37

Not her fault that she is a loser, a thief, and a gutless coward? Further proof that you will excuse any behaviour by a Liberal.

Hoffman came within 3 percentage points of winning after a 30-day campaign. That says a lot.

Off-year elections have – as David Gergen puts it – "limited predictive value." Clearly, local issues had a lot to do with the results in Virginia and New Jersey, and in the larger cities with mayoral and city council races. The NY-23 result … was an anomaly – an election in which a locally-known Democrat beat a "carpet bagger" Conservative, maybe because the Republican Party allowed its candidate to be slaughtered on a sacrifical alter of ideology, and in revenge she endorsed the Democrat (who will probably hold the seat for no more than one year).

The other reason the results have litte predictive value is that some core parts of the Obama / Democrat voting base do not turn out in off year elections. Turn out among Blacks and voters under 30 was very low. When those voters come back for the mid-term elections and in 2012, it will not be for Republicans or conservatives of any kind. This election showed that the Republican Party base – largely white, middle-class and older – still has some horsepower, bit its a shrinking group.

So … a little ( but not a lot) disappointing for Democrats. Some ( but not a lot) of good news for the Republican Party. And for Conservatives ……. a major set-back. That is NOT because of NY-23. The bad news for Conservatives is that both McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey ran as moderate Republicans – both explicitly disavowed conservative causes, issues and backing. Both are what you would call RINOs and people with more brains call moderate Republican. In the fight for control of the Republican Party, conservatives just took a beating.

If and when the Republican Party comes back, it will be with candidates like McDonnell and Christie and NOT Palin. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin are not the prophets leading you to the Promised Land. You will be better off following David Brooks, Kathleen Parker and George Will.

You can smear her all you want….

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 10:42:01

Oh, he will. It's a fairly textbook reaction from a person who can see the writing on the wall: His time in the sun is OV-AH.

To be fair, those who ran to the left got a gutt-check too. Especially when it comes to property taxes.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 10:37:04

That is true Vega, without the middle you are going to be hard pressed to win an election. Far left liberals and far right conservatives should remember that. McDonnell and Christie both turned down Palin for help, that seems to have been a good decision on their part.

Do you like your crow well or medium?

Posted by TheBaud

2009-11-04 10:55:11

Medium rare. But I don't think it will be making it to my plate in 2012. Fred Thompson is real winner, too.

that Sarah Palin is a losing candidate

Posted by TheBaud

2009-11-04 10:55:11

How did those candidates do that she endorsed? Those that ran to the middle won, smart move by McDonnell and Christie.

Baud really thinks its the liberals eating crow today. Wow.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 11:02:39

You are right. Liberals won out. They won. We conservatives should all kill ourselves in shame. Also, yesterday ehre I learned Ronald Reagan was really a liberal. Thus explaining the Democratic Party is the real Party of Reagan.

Thanks Vega for keeping us gounded. Without your leadership here, we conservatives would all die from shame.

Also, yesterday ehre I learned Ronald Reagan was really a liberal. Thus explaining the Democratic Party is the real Party of Reagan.

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-11-04 11:08:47

I dont know that I would call Reagan a liberal, but he certainly wasnt the conservative that you all wish he was, but that tends to happen over time.

Advice from a liberal. Thanks for playing. Maybe we should nominate John McCain to be POTUS. He'd win for sure. Oh wait…..

Posted by Dick_Nixon 2009-11-04 11:05:14

It still amazes me that the Radical Left in this country still trys to tell the Right what they need to do to win elections. And they expect to be taken seriously?

As Ann Coulter said in one of her columns, she remembered when the Left was sooooo afraid that the Right would run Christie Tood Whitman for national office. And another time when they fervently hoped we would run the 'sure loser', Ronald Reagan!

but that tends to happen over time.

Posted by whats_up

2009-11-04 11:10:51

Sort of like your lie that David Duke voted for Bush in 2004 as exposed by D-Vega and your usage of a new user name other than crthns, which you posted under here before.

Damn, but the Libs are awfully desperate to spin the crushing losses they suffered yesterday. If only we could attach fan blades to them we'd have real energy independence!

If you're a Democrat in a competitive district or state, these results send you a message: it's going to be much tougher for you at election time in 2010 than it was in 2008.

I think Hawkins is right on this point about Democrats in competitive districts. But I also think Hawkins is downplaying the other message that NY 23 sends to base conservatives in terms of their approach to competitive districts. And that message is that red meat conservative populism that makes no room for moderate Republicans will also have a much tougher time in the 2010 elections.

Let's not forget that NY 23 was never before a "competitive" district, having been dominated by the GOP since the 1800s. It seems to me that the kind of conservative push undergirding Hoffman's campaign (and let's also be clear that this push was massive and its national reach unprecedented for an off-year special election) didn't play well enough to win in a reliably red district and actually made a race that shouldn't have been competitive to begin with a Democratic pick-up.

NY-23 was the Democrat's to lose – they had all the money, all the endorsement, all of the national party, running against a boring no-name from a 3rd party that's never won ANYTHING. Had Hoffman won, this would have been a crushing, fatal blow for Obama/Reid/Pelosi and the extremist liberal movement they are pushing. Thus, it was a missed opportunity for the conservative movement, but the Dems had everything to PROTECT, and virtually nothing to gain.

VA – just the opposite – it was the Republican's to lose. They didn't, in fact it was much worse for the Dems than expected.

PA – not even I expected it. This is a crushing defeat for Obama. Remember, Obama threw VA under the bus because he didn't "embrace Obama" enough. Corzine threw his lot full in with Obama, doing everything short of giving Obama a hummer on stage. With the PA results, NY-23 is the only thing that stood between absolute complete death for the liberal movement last night.

A very good night (not perfect) but VERY GOOD night for the cause of good and right in America.

You taking over Stanley's job as sherrif of RWN, how's he doing by the way…

Posted by whats_up

2009-11-04 11:22:36

Ah, Stanley – where is he now?

It all makes it appear that perhaps the electors of the US of A are not the sheep they are so often described to be.

RWNReader2 – NY-23 may have been a plurality, but the Democrats haven't won this district by any margin, much less a plurality, since the 1800s. Don't you think that's noteworthy? And parsing NY-23's outcome with reference to the "liberal" state of New York as some kind of positive thing for conservatives would be like me spinning Cao's squeaker success in LA-02 against a horrible, corrupt, and criminal Democratic candidate as a "poor" showing for conservatives and a positive thing for liberals simply because Louisiana is one of the most conservative states in the nation. It's the district that matters, not the state as a whole. And for Cao to win LA-02 was quite significant in the message it sent to Democrats about its choice of candidate in Jefferson. Needless to say, I think the Democratic hopefuls for LA-02 are going to have to come across as squeaky clean to hope to win the primary nomination. I think that the Owens win in NY-23 is also quite significant in the message it sent to conservatives about its choice of candidate in Hoffman. Ignore that message at your peril.

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-11-04 11:26:09

Ah, everyones favorite white supremacist nazi lover is here. Still salute that picture of Hitler every morning?

I think that the Owens win in NY-23 is also quite significant in the message it sent to conservatives about its choice of candidate in Hoffman. Ignore that message at your peril.

Your sophmoric, simplistic interpretation is that conservatives should learn that mainstream conservatism can't win. Thanks sparky! We'll handle it from here!

"Let’s start with the special election in New York. Many of us hoped that Douglas Hoffman could pull off a remarkable outsider bid yesterday to beat Bill Owens, and he came within a couple of points of making it. That puts a Democrat in the seat for the first time since 1993 (not 117 years as has been previously reported). It’s never a best-case for the GOP when a Democrat wins, but by keeping Dede Scozzafava out of the seat, the GOP has the chance to win this seat back in a year with a better candidate — perhaps Hoffman, perhaps another Republican who shares core principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism. Dislodging an incumbent Republican would have been considerably more difficult, and a unified GOP should win this district — especially given the signals sent everywhere else to Democrats."

Ripped off from Conservatives4Palin, as written by Ed Morrisey at Hotair.Com.

More spinng in here then a "Rumpelstiltskin: The Movie" audition.

Yes, you remain – to the amusement of us all.

Posted by Realpolitik

2009-11-04 12:13:04

You admitted a love and admiration of Adolf Hitler, not Nixon. Are you at the truck stop or internet cafe today?

You admitted a love and admiration of Adolf Hitler, not Nixon. Are you at the truck stop or internet cafe today?

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-11-04 12:18:23

Ya know, dixon – repeating this lie will never make it true.

Ah, those truck stops. Real America, dont'cha know?

If you're looking for the simplistic interpretation of NY-23, here it is: Had the Republican party picked a conservative instead of a liberal, they would have held onto the seat.

Posted by RWNReader2

2009-11-04 12:18:30

Except a conservative ran and lost.

NY-23 may have been a plurality, but the Democrats haven't won this district by any margin, much less a plurality, since the 1800s.

You, like Vega, are desperately trying to pretend that there was a difference between the Liberal Republican and the Democrat running in NY-23. Whichever one won would have been a reliable Leftist vote. The fact that a no-name from nowhere was able to jump in at the last minute on a third-party ticket and almost take that seat away from the combined mass of the Republicrat party is stunning in its implications for next year's elections.

he lost a seat that Republicans have held for over 100 years

Why do you keep saying that? Hoffman was not running on the Republican ticket. The Republicans and Democrats combined against him, and he still almost pulled it out. We all know how that scares the living crap out of you Leftists, and we know you keep refusing to face up to it. But you will, next year.

The bottom line I see from NY-23 is that Republicans can't win without conservatives and conservatives can't win without Republicans. To that extent, it's a wash.

turn Palin, Pawlenty and Thompson loose, please alienate all those independents.

Posted by whats_up

2009-11-04 12:48:10

The same ones that put McCain in the White House? Those independents?

The same ones that put McCain in the White House? Those independents?

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-11-04 12:55:09

The ones that ran away from Palin, yep those are the ones that you need.

And there have been Democrats who have represented this area in the past few decades. Redistricting and such has moved the districts around, but, from looking at history, several Democrats have held the area as. Peyser, Stratton, McNulty, Gilbert, Buckley , and Bingham are all id'd as Democrats.

The ones that ran away from Palin, yep those are the ones that you need.

Posted by whats_up

2009-11-04 12:58:06

This is a lie btw. Palin got McCain more votes than he would have received with another more liberal running mate.

Why do you lie so much? BTW, don't let that Maine vote discourage you. Maybe one day you and the ol' partner can get married.

One other tibit of info is that NY-23 will be redistricted next year with the 2010 census, cutting up the conservative portions into the liberal portions. No Republican or conservative may ever win the district again.

This is a lie btw. Palin got McCain more votes than he would have received with another more liberal running mate.

Posted by Dick_Nixon

2009-11-04 13:03:39

Really a lie huh, prove it. Oh thats right you cant. Tell you what, please, please, please demand that Palin run in 2012 and we will see what happens, please run her, for the good of the country.

Oops – made a mistake. Whats up with that? I should have known dixon could say nothing sensible.

The biggest loser last night was Barack Obama. In effect, the country just played him a fine rendition of BB King's "The Thrill is Gone". Pres. Obama personally barnstormed both Virginia and New Jersey, only to see his candidates go down in flames. At this point Blue Dogs and DLCers have to realize that crossing Pres. Obama carries less of a threat to it than crossing their constituencies. Despite all the rhetoric about being a sign of Republican disarray, this election is more likely to sow the seeds of Democratic infighting.

I would be more concerned with the seeds of Republican infighting. The Dems are in great shape. They actually picked up another congressional seat yesterday.

As for the governors, they are both moderate, or liberal, Republicans that have to govern from the center regardless.

Obama didn't lose yesterday. It was a mixed bag. The entity in the worst shape after this is the national Republican party.

Posted by whats_up

2009-11-04 13:35:23

Yes, I said that it's the Democrat's to lose, and a victory would be a big opportunity for the cause of conservatism that would have been crushing to the cause of liberalism given the odds and improbability of it all given the situation. And the liberal line from yesterday was that I was wrong on both counts, because it didn't matter. Now you acknowledge that it was a lie, and I was right on both.

You are double special super moron.

Cav, you see that in the liberal world, running a mainstream conservative campaign is fringe.

No, what makes a "mainstream conservative campaign" as you define it "fringe" is that it's not a mainstream American campaign. Otherwise, mainstream conservative campaigns like Hoffman's would easily win a conservative district like NY-23. The fact is that if "mainstream conservatives" – which presumably means the Beck/Palin/Limbaugh conservatives – cannot win NY-23, I think its safe to say that they don't command the allegiance of a majority of the overall American electorate, which is much less conservative than even NY-23.

I know you liberals get a woody just thinking about Obama, but what's an "election erection"?

Vega,

The problem is that a party on out of power can infight. It's the competition of ideas and programs that allows it to renew itself. The party in charge, on the other hand, has responsibility for governing. And that gets much harder when you can't enforce party discipline. And we've now established that a "religious nutter" and a "fatso who throws his weight around" are preferrable to the Democratic alternative, even with divine intervention by The One.

Yes, Cav. He did as well as McCain did…

Touched a nerve there, didn't I? Seems as though "the One" couldn't get a Democrat to win in either of two Democrat states, even when backing the incumbent, despite his numerous times campaigning in person. Oh, that's not good. That doesn't bode well for him at all.

I know you liberals get a woody just thinking about Obama, but what's an "election erection"?

Examples:

The PA results prove that with George Bush out of the picture, Obama's popularity is completely non-transferable if you're running in a State/District that even came CLOSE to voting for McCain in '08. That's over 100 Dems in the House, and 20 in the Senate. Goodbye filibuster proof majority.

Today is the beginning of the end for your ideology vega, deal with it.

If an Obama Democrat, endorsed by an Obama Republican, flush with Obama money, assisted BY OBAMA, loses to a no-name avowed conservative who's public persona is that he's "boring and doesn't have much personality." this is an EPIC FAIL for liberalism and Obama!!!!

Today is the day Obamacare dies in upstate New York! Can I get a HELLLL YEAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And today, the blue dogs are going to shit their pants watching NY-23!!!!!!

Here's one for you liberals to ponder. If next year Hoffman wins the Republican nomination, gets the backing of the party and beats Owens, won't that prove you (Huck, Vega, dumbass) wrong in your interpretation?

Not at all. The point is that Hoffman, as the conservative candidate, should have won this district. In fact, he was favored to win this election. Even Hawkins notes as much. What is instructive is that he didn't. What is even more instructive is that he didn't win this conservative district even with the massive amount of attention and funding pumped into his campaign by conservatives from all across the country, even with the loud and unabashed Beck/Limbaugh/Palin endorsement of his candidacy. Going back to my LA-02 example, if a well-regarded "mainstream liberal" Democratic candidate fails to defeat Cao in this heavily liberal Democratic district, that would be a serious wake-up call to the Democrats. Likewise, the fact that Hoffman lost this time around doesn't bode well for "mainstream conservatives" next time around. And if Hoffman gets the GOP nomination for 2010 and still doesn't win NY-23 decisively by the margins his Republican predecessors won, that would still seem to indicate that your brand of conservatism just doesn't play that well beyond a certain minority percentage of the overall American electorate.

I think its safe to say that they don't command the allegiance of a majority of the overall American electorate, which is much less conservative than even NY-23.

Posted by huckupchuck1

2009-11-04 13:45:16

Keep on thinking. You are right, nothing happened last night good for the right. Nothing at all.

Thanks again for keeping us grounded. It was such a good night for Obamateur. He can pass healthcare with that super majority in the House and Senate, doesn't need one Republican vote.

When are they voting again for that thing? 2010? Must not be too important to the One.

If you don't think last night scared the BeJesus out of sane Democrats… you are truly the King of De Nile.

Why would any sane Democrat be scared by fact that a Republican won the NJ and VA governorships. Speaking only for myself, that's not all that surprising. NJ is, after all, the state that has produced Christie Todd Whitman. New Jersey is not a state where GOP victories at the level of governor are unthinkable or terrifying. And I've always considered VA to be primarily a GOP leaning state. Heck, even its Democratic Governors over recent history have leaned more conservative. The fact that a Republican won the VA governorship is something I would expect, not something that would scare me.

Keep on thinking. You are right, nothing happened last night good for the right. Nothing at all.

Where did I say that? Right, I didn't say that. In fact, if you look at my first posting on this thread, you'll note that I agreed with Hawkins that this election night overall was a wake-up call to Democrats in competitive districts that it won't be easy to win. But I also said that I think the mixed message to conservatives represented by the Hoffman defeat in NY-23 is being ignored or disingenuously spun as something positive for conservatives. Last night wasn't a good night for Democrats. It wasn't a good night for Obama. But it also wasn't an unmitigated endorsement of what RWNReader2 likes to call "mainstream conservatism." If a "mainstream conservative" like Hoffman can't beat a moderate Democrat in a realiably conservative Republican district, that says something about the viability of "mainstream conservatism."

To all the liberal idiots that cannot figure out NY-23. Hoffman was as charasmatic as a 2×4, he was unknown 30-days ago, did not live in the district, was up against BOTH politcal parties and lost by 3%. If any ONE of the above condidtions was changed (say he lived in the district) he would have won plain and simple. Your constant shallow analysis of political events makes you look like morons. If you think those same circumstances will be repeated with 2010 candidates than you truly are stupid.

Why didn't the mainstream Republican win the district?

Because she dropped out.

The irony is amazing.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 14:34:20

Irony? What irony?

Irony? What irony?

Posted by Living_Right_in_CA

Well, I see the irony in two ways. First, if he did live in the district he would likely have been more like Scozzafava. Second, the whole strategy of conservatives is to recreate the Hoffman scenario all across the country and NOT leave it up to local party officials.

Posted by huckupchuck1

2009-11-04 14:42:25

Then your understanding of the "strategy of conservatives" s worse than we thought.

Oh yes people are products of where they live. "First, if he did live in the district he would likely have been more like Scozzafava"

LMAO about the dumbest thing I read on this whole thread

The point is that Hoffman, as the conservative candidate, should have won this district.

No, there's no way he should have gotten more than 10% of the vote. He was an unknown nobody diligently working at his day job just a few weeks ago, and he was able to force the hand-picked Republican to withdraw and then almost beat both of them working together against him. You can lie to yourself all you want, but you can't wish away the facts.

Why are you Lefties even spending so much time posting about some obscure congressional district race you told us for weeks "doesn't matter?"

I'll tell you why:

You had your fat ugly asses WHIPPED Big Time in two HUGELY IMPORTANT STATES. That's why.

And you're now desperately hoping you can cover that salient fact up with this nonsensical obsession over someplace called NY23. Not a bad gambit, I guess… hell, I'd probably try the same thing if I was in your pathetic shoes.

But face facts: your precious Soviet Healthcare Dreams… are DEAD. Cap & Trade… DEAD. I know how much you were looking forward to American kids going hungry at night to pay for your carbon credits, and I realize you were getting a bit less flacid ererctions than you usually do over the idea of 60 people crowded into an overworked doctor's waiting room and all. But that's no reason to evade the reality staring your crypto-Commie, UnAmerican, Statist, Totalitarian-leaning Power Mad Party in the face.

"…it's far more instructive that Corzine didn't win re-election in the deep blue state of NJ even with the massive amount of attention and funding pumped into his campaign by Liberals from all across the country, even with the loud and unabashed Obama endorsement of his candidacy."

Posted by CavalierX

2009-11-04 14:50:38

But… but… but…

Nancy Pelosi said they WON!

BWAHAHAHAHAHaHaHahahahaha!!!!!

Liberals still control… the SCOTUS, and the majority of State legislatures.

There goes that overreach again D-Vega.

BTW when are you all Controlling Liberals going to pass Healthcare? Cap and Trade?

Heh, heh…

. Liberals still control the majority of governors, the House, the Senate, the POTUS, the SCOTUS,

Can you link the election results for the Supreme Court going liberal?

She was pushed out by the fringes of her party

Pushed? She jumped. She knew she couldn't win the Conservative vote when a real Conservative was running. As for that "fringe" of which you speak, I remind you that 40% of the country now considers itself Conservative, as opposed to only 20% who identify with you panty-waist appeasing Big Government anti-freedom Liberals.

Last year the Republicans held the White House. Bush lost the middle over the Iraq war, and since conservative ideology was tied in with the Iraq war, it was perceived as divisive. This permitted a radical leftist to position himself as a non-divisive, even though he was an extreemist, without ever divorcing himself from his radicalism (thought he was forced to throw a couple of compatriots under the bus).

ALL OF THAT IS GONE.

Now that America sees Obama's radical leftist agenda, it is YOU who is being perceived as divisive. Yet you koolaid moonbats continue to believe that WE are the source of divisiveness. Newsflash: YOU own all four branches of government. In another year, your messiah will have this country so fractured that hard-core conservatives will be perceived as positively benign. MORE conservatism will we become in, not less.

whats_up: do you honestly think that making comments based on an outcome consistent with all predictive polling data constitutes a "prediction?" Or something one should be embarassed by? Or do you just like to consistently remind us how much of a moron you are?

Reader, its Jersey. I don't think Pennsylvanians would appreciate that.

Only two polls after Scuzzy dropped out. Both had Hoffman outside the margin of error. Exit poll performed during the day yesterday had the same. You are the ass.

Only two polls after Scuzzy dropped out. Both had Hoffman outside the margin of error. Exit poll performed during the day yesterday had the same. You are the ass.

Posted by RWNReader2

2009-11-04 15:56:54

Score: RWNReader2 467,889 whats_up(his ass) 0

Sorry, it was THREE polls with sampling data from the weekend. I guess I was ignoring the one that had Hoffman at +17%. Other two had him at +5%.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/ny/09-ny-23-ge.php

Only two polls after Scuzzy dropped out. Both had Hoffman outside the margin of error. Exit poll performed during the day yesterday had the same. You are the ass.

Posted by RWNReader2

2009-11-04 15:56:54

Actually only one of them did, one polls margin of error was 4 points the other 5, a statistical dead heat, again do your homework.

do you just like to consistently remind us how much of a moron you are?

thanks for answering this one.

Sure Vega. Rush needs more listeners to be a success.

He needs to be seen as the driving force in conservative politics, yes. He flopped on this one. So did Beck, Thompson and Palin. The Four Horsemen.

That 20 million or so just doesn't pay his bills.

He needs those 20 million to keep listening like it will make a difference.

Palin is furthering her career, shame she isn't running for POTUS.

Surrrrrre, she ain't.

She removed Scuzzy with one Facebook posting, imagine what good she could do with a bigger podium.

Yeah, she could put a lot more seats into Democrat hands. I hope she keeps it up, you betcha.

Probably wouldn't run up a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit in 6 months Nixon bets.

Let's see her actually win something that matters first.

I love it when liberals demonstrate that their ignorance extends beyond political history and into other subjects, like for example, math…

Posted by RWNReader2

2009-11-04 16:35:43

467,890 to 0 !!!

This supports my earlier assertion that liberals only look at the surface of things. They do not ask questions to try to determine "impacts", "consequences", or "patterns". They just assume the same set of factors will repeat and people will act/react the exact same way. This IMHO contributes to the lack of liberals in the military, they do not analyze and then adapt a new strategy.

Another example? Sure look at D-Vega's last rebuttal post to Nixon. Are they any facts? Nope? Any analysis? Nope. Just a fool's opinion..

I responded TO opinion WITH opinion, Living.

All I have seen on this thread is spin and disjuncted predictions and what ifs.

The only facts are –

both Rep governors ran as "moderates", something that is supposed to be a pariah to you true blue conservatives.

AND, the only true conservative in the race yesterday lost.

AND all the campaigning done on behalf of Hoffman by Fox News and the Four Horsemen amounted to chickensquat.

She sure popped that RINO with one Facebook posting though.

You sure seem to be giving her a lot of credit for failure. But I guess that's the pattern.

And I said an election that MATTERED. She had a governorship and quit. She lost a national election and she has yet to deliver for conservatives in any way.

But please, proceed…

But please, proceed…

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 16:54:15

Are you taking Straw Man classes from whats_up?

AND all the campaigning done on behalf of Hoffman by Fox News and the Four Horsemen amounted to chickensquat.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 16:51:39

Yep from single digit in the polls <30 days ago to within 3pts of beating BOTH the Dems and Reps. Complete failure. You are such a shallow ass…

Yep from single digit in the polls <30 days ago to within 3pts of beating BOTH the Dems and Reps. Complete failure. You are such a shallow ass… </blockquote>

Its called losing.

Might as well been 10 pts.

The only facts are –

So it's not factual to point out that Hoffman was running as a third party candidate? It's not factual to point out that the Republican endorsed the Democrat? It's not factual to point out that Hoffman was a political newbie with little time to campaign? It's not factual to point out that the election results were a plurality? It's not factual to point out that NY-23 is more liberal than most Republican districts, yet a conservative nearly won it?

Yet your supposed list of three "facts" includes two statements that are nothing but conjecture on your part. The hypocricy of liberalism knows no bounds. Shove your blatant spin up your ass.

MY GOODNESS!! it is breathtaking to sit here and watch liberal after liberal have the gall to come here and try to assert that last night's results were somehow an indication that the country is clamoring for more liberalism and less conservatism.

By all means libs, continue drinking the koolaid!

So it's not factual to point out that Hoffman was running as a third party candidate? It's not factual to point out that the Republican endorsed the Democrat? It's not factual to point out that Hoffman was a political newbie with little time to campaign? It's not factual to point out that the election results were a plurality? It's not factual to point out that NY-23 is more liberal than most Republican districts, yet a conservative nearly won it?

That was all pointed out yesterday and before. The only thing that is factual today is that the conservative lost.

My 11 year old son has better analytical skills than you.

He must be a pretty sharp kid. I'm sure he understands that a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

We're only 9 months in, and a bland conservative running from a third party with 30-days notice almost won in the bluest of blue states!

Once again, RWNReader2, your argument here is completely bunk. This "bland" conservative ran on "mainstream conservative" values. (I guess "blandness" is one of these values?) He ran as a third party candidate, but had the explicit endorsement of the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh conservative wing of the GOP. And he lost in a district any conservative — no matter how "bland" — should have won by very comfortable margins. The fact that he "almost won" in the "bluest of blue states" is meaningless because NY-23 has always been an island of red in a blue state (much like LA-02 is an island of blue in a red state). If even bland conservatives can't hold on to what should be a safe seat, that's not saying much about the appeal of the brand of conservatism being represented. Again, I'll draw from a reference that you, even in the throes of your delusional myopia, should be able to relate to: saying Hoffman "almost won" NY-23 is like claiming that a bona-fide liberal in LA-02, which any liberal Democrat should win, who actually loses (or "almost wins," if you prefer), is somehow a remarkable ringing endorsement of the strength of the liberal movement is patently absurd. A bona-fide liberal Democrat espousing strong liberal values and positions who would actually lose (or "almost win") LA-02 to a moderate Republican is NOT something liberals would be happy about. And it doesn't matter at all that Louisiana is one of the reddest of red states because LA-02 is an island of blue in this red state. In fact, such an outcome would be alarming to liberal Democrats. And I'll tell you this, if Cao defeats such a liberal Democrat in the 2010 election, I'll be truly stunned. And I say this as someone who likes Cao and crossed party lines to vote for him in the last election. Likewise, Hoffman's loss in a district he should have won, and in which Republicans have predominated in recent years, should be equally alarming to conservative Republicans. You can make the absurd claim that Hoffman's loss (or his "almost win") is somehow really a victory for "mainstream conservatism" in the "bluest of blue states," but I think you're simply deluding yourself.

I didn't say anything about "THE" reason. I said there is no proof of Palin being a benefit, since her campaign FAILED.

Multiple variables in the future are meaningless as you don't know what the circumstances will be.

Likewise, Hoffman's loss in a district he should have won, and in which Republicans have predominated in recent years, should be equally alarming to conservative Republicans.

Hoffman was not running as a Republican. The Republican candidate lost, pulling 6% of the vote.

Multiple variables in the future are meaningless as you don't know what the circumstances will be.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 17:23:59

To you because you only know two things, who won and who lost. Clap clap clap….

To you because you only know two things, who won and who lost. Clap clap clap….

Yup. Because that's why we have elections. To put everything passed the bullshit.

The political mood of the country is becoming MORE conservative, not LESS so!

Again, a misleading and false claim. The political mood of this country is tilting the middle more towards the right. Yes, I will grant that. But the rightward shift of the middle does not mean that more people are embracing the Palin/Beck/Limbaugh/Hoffman expression of conservatism. It just means that more moderates who are leaning rightward are preferring more moderate Republican/Independent candidates – -precisely the kind of candidates that you would want to excise from the conservative movement (and which actually happened in NY-23), but they don't want the kind of conservative candidates like Hoffman, whose loss in NY-23 I think is a reflection of that.

Posted by RWNReader2
2009-11-04 13:25:17

I was just commenting on your glorious prediction skills, perhaps you should rethink just how much you know about national politics, doesnt look like you are well educated on that subject, here’s a hint, Turn.off.the.radio.

In that case, it's far more instructive that Corzine didn't win re-election in the deep blue state of NJ even with the massive amount of attention and funding pumped into his campaign by Liberals from all across the country, even with the loud and unabashed Obama endorsement of his candidacy.

Posted by CavalierX

2009-11-04 14:50:38

I agree, CavalierX. I've never said otherwise. While I certainly don't think it's all that unprecedented for a Republican to win the New Jersey governorship, especially one running as more of a moderate Republican, the fact that voters didn't seem to buy Corzine's game, nor Obama's endorsement of and campaigning for Corzine (and the same for VA), does spell trouble for the Democrats. Yes, it is most definitely far more instructive for Democrats. And I hope the Democrats are paying attention and not trying to pretend that there's something remarkably positive in these losses like some conservatives are trying to say about NY-23.

Yup. Because that's why we have elections. To put everything passed the bullshit.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 17:28:46

Yep and you only can think of 2009, I can already apply lessons learned for a better approach in 2010. But if I just went by your "surface" assessment I would look for liberal rep candidates, which is the wrong conclusion to end up with. I would continue to support conservative candidates, but earlier in the process, I would avoid pushing too hard in special elections, I would ensure the candidate was from and lived in the district. Supporting a liberal Republican gets me a lib-moderate Democrat, that is not what I want to support. NY-23 proves that with better timing and planning conservative candidates can and will win.

Sorry for dupes, wife was "txt'ng me…

“Obama didn’t lose yesterday.”

- D-Vega

Of COURSE not, D-Vega.

Why… Pelosi is actually proclaiming the Demcorats WON.

Which no doubt explains why Reid has decided to postpone the embarrasment that is a vote on Obamacare until next year or next decade or (may as well be) next century. Because you guys WON.

Do me a favor, guys, and please “win” some MORE?

and btw Huck, since you've brought it up twice, our district isn't really an appropriate example to begin with – ours is about race and little else. If Cao could become black and run against a white liberal, he'd win in a landslide, and you know it.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-11-04 13:55:36

Leave it to a pansy liberal to confuse robust enthusiasm with homoerotic sexual arousal. ;)

If conservatives actually want, you know, to govern, it would be helpful to get elected

And if we took your advise (for what type of candidate we elect), we'd NEVER govern, becuase we'd be voting for liberal republicans.

NY-23 proves that with better timing and planning conservative candidates can and will win.

Newflash: I told you yesterday that it was yours to lose, since it was a conservative district. And you lost it.

you keep saying the same thing over and over and over again: conservatism can't win, so try being a democrat lite. thanks genius. you add nothing to the discussion.

Of course you're happy having a coalition of democrats. that's all the democratic party is: a morally vacuous confederation of special interests. We actually believe in, and stand for something. I'll take my principled beliefs over your whore party any day.

Newflash: I told you yesterday that it was yours to lose, since it was a conservative district. And you lost it.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 21:01:38

You mean a republican district.

since it was a conservative district. And you lost it.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-11-04 21:01:38

Ya'll said it was a Republican district, even though a few years back Democrats were elected from it. Which is it, a long term Republican district or a long term Conservative District? You seemed puzzled by the difference.

Huck: I know you really really want to believe that but Hoffman came from no where as a third party candidate and nearly won it. With a little training and a better campaign he'd have easily won, I believe.

Actually his resources were very limited because neither the Republican nor the Democratic party funded him. They funded his opponents. He ran a really lackluster campaign with little charisma, and wasn't very rural seeming in a rural district. With a better campaign and handlers… he wins. I realize you really don't want that to be true, but that doesn't make it so.

The Yankees win!

2009-11-05 00:07:33

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, D-Vega: it conjured up images of Hitler surrendering to MacArthur onboard the Arizona…

Scuzzy wasn't a loser or a thief either. She just shouldn't be a Republican.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-11-04 10:05:29

I think that was EXACTLY the point Sarah Palin and the conservative Republican base was making, D-Vega.

So ditching her had very little to do with "rightwingnut extremism," right? Because it has EVERYTHING to do with making sure "being a Republican" actually means something, right?