Predictions

Monday, November 2, AD 2009

fishing for votes

For political junkies like me, tomorrow begins the political season for 2010 with gubernatorial elections in Virginia, New Jersey and the special congressional election in New York 23.    There is also a special congressional election in California 10, but that is in the San Francisco metro area and everyone, except for the Republican running, David Harmer,  believes that is going to be won by the Democrat, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, and I join in that consensus, although I suspect it might be surprisingly close.

In regard to the three competitive races, here are my predictions:

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Predictions

  • I think McDonnell will certainly win in VA, and I’ll bet Hoffman does too, but NJ I am not so sure about. They sure seem to love incompetent state government there. I wouldn’t be shocked if Corzine manages to win by a hair. But even that would be good news for conservatives. NJ is a deep blue state. The very fact that Corzine had to struggle and The One had to go there and campaign for him is a bad omen for the Dems.

  • I’m with Donna V., but probably more confident that Christie will pull it off. Our Dear Leader may have overstated his (manufactured) gravitas and used up whatever charismatic potion he had for a Corzine push.

    As Mister Rogers would say…

    It’s a wonderful in the neighborhood, it’s…

  • I live in New York, work in New Jersey and I sure hope you are on the money.

  • For what it’s worth, Intrade gives Hoffman about a 65% chance of winning, and McDonnell a 98% chance. New Jersey is split roughly 50/50, but with a slight edge to Corzine.

  • McDonnell is a lock, and that 57-43 split sounds about right. I think Hoffman also pulls it out, probably in a bit of a squeaker. I am not sure about NJ, but I have a sinking feeling Corzine pulls it out.

  • Ditto Paul Zummo’s prediction…

  • I’ll join the chorus, pretty solid except for NJ, that one is too close to call as far as I can tell.

  • Concur with the consensus. McDonnell will win easily. Hoffman will win fairly easily. Christie will win on election day, but it will be close enough that the Dem’s will Franken the results. To Franken the results means to keep counting (magically finding Dem votes) until you get the results you want.

  • To Franken the results means to keep counting (magically finding Dem votes) until you get the results you want.

    How does Franken (v.) differ from Gore (v.)?

  • Edward G. Robinson explains Democrat recount strategy!

  • Rich:

    When you Franken the vote, you win. When you Gore the vote, you lose and then spend the rest of your life saying “I wuz robbed!”

  • McDonnell 55%, Deeds 43%

    Corzine 43%, Christie 42%, Daggett 11% (won’t be decided until at least sometime Wednesday)

    Owens 48%, Hoffman 46%, Scozzafava 4% (NY-23 isn’t THAT conservative and I would think voters there would realize that)

    These off-year elections are very tough to predict because turnout is usually low. It’s often less about how well you win over the independents and undecideds than how good a job you do of making sure your base gets to the polls. McDonnell will win VA in a landslide, but the other two are tossups.

  • Owens 48%, Hoffman 46%, Scozzafava 4% (NY-23 isn’t THAT conservative and I would think voters there would realize that)

    ??? I think the voters there know how conservative they are or are not. They haven’t elected a democrat since 1870, it seems the latest poll indicates they aren’t starting this year either.

  • Republicans will win. Not much will change.

  • Apparently they are not that conservative and they have elected a Democrat.

  • Two out of three, not bad Donald =)

Fake Republican Endorses Real Democrat

Sunday, November 1, AD 2009

Scozzafava and Owens

In an unsurprising move, Dede Scozzafava, who dropped out of the race Saturday, endorsed Democrat Bill Owens in the New York 23rd Congressional District special election against pro-life conservative Douglas Hoffman.  This should be a major embarrassment to the National Republican National Committee which poured down a rathole almost a million dollars in Republican donations in supporting a liberal Democrat, Scozzafava, in Republican clothes.  I doubt if the endorsement will do much more than drive up Hoffman’s victory margin by a few points as enraged conservatives and Republicans flock to the polls on Tuesday.  No one likes being played for a sucker, and that is what Scozzafava was attempting to do to every Republican in the congressional district.

Update:  Scozzafava’s campaign manager endorses Hoffman.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to Fake Republican Endorses Real Democrat

  • Boy, other than everyone, who could have seen this coming? Oh yeah, Newt.

  • This is a body blow for Gingrich Paul. He is yesterday’s news as far as Republicans are concerned.

  • Donald,

    I hope that’s true.

    Outside of his conversion, this is the only depressing point, him picking a RINO.

    But he did help take back congress back in ’94.

    His rep is shot.

  • Ouch!

    Some of those comments are visceral!

  • So Scozzafava, in effect, just proved her critics were right.

    As for Newt, I remember his work in 1994 (even if Newt has himself forgotten the principles behind the Contract with America). I also remember him standing up for Palin at the ’08 GOP convention.

    The man has done very good work in the past. But he made a serious error in judgement this time, and his reputation has taken a severe hit.

  • Newty lost me a while ago when he appeared in a commercial with Al Sharpton.

  • Daledog,

    You serious?

    If he did appear with that racist and bigot then count me out as one of Newt’s fans.

    That’s unconscionable!

  • hello ,This is a body blow for Gingrich Paul. He is yesterday’s news as far as Republicans are concerned.

  • Gingrich is done. Whatever presidential aspirations he might have held were already on shaky ground and completely crumbled yesterday when Scozzafava endorsed the Dem.

    So, he’s getting a well-deserved shellacking over at his site. Unfortunately, some of his detractors aren’t above engaging in a little Know-Nothingism along the way:

    By Anonymous @ Monday, November 02, 2009 1:36 AM
    Just in case anyone is really interested this all really got in high gear with newt after he got chummy with the pope.

  • A war on Newt I am seeing is silly. He did what he had to do. Again there is a dangerous precedent hoping not being set

    As to her. What do peopl expect Mnay GOP folks and conservatives made her look like polticial bacteria. Her name was used to pump who knows how much money in mailing list companies and special groups ( most of which I predict did not get to Hoffmann) as these things usually work.

    She has been told she is person non gratia. I was in her shoes I would be tempted to do the the same thing

  • JH, Republicans were told by Newt to support a liberal Democrat in Republican clothing out of party loyalty. The liberal Democrat in Republican clothing he was supporting then proves what she thinks of party loyalty by endorsing the Democrat. (Actually it may mean that she prizes party loyalty, just not to the party which nominated her, supplied her with volunteers, and blew close to a million bucks supporting her.) I’d say that tells us all we need to know about Newt’s lack of judgment in this case.

  • No, in endorsing the Dem, she proved exactly why she’s persona non grata. She doesn’t hold the same principles as those for whose vote she’s asking. But it’s not about her. It’s about the party and the folks who put their credibility on the line only to see her prove all of her critics correct. The credibility of Newt and the NRCC are shot now that their girl did what liberals do … endorse other liberals.

    I think most of us don’t give a rat’s behind about the GOP. We care about the principles (whether they be social conservatism, economic/fiscal conservatism, etc.). Scozzafava was a loser on all counts when it came to conservative principles. When the GOP ceases stand for those principles, they sure as hell better not assume they’ll be getting my support.

    I compromised my principles in voting for McCain last year. Granted, voting for a political candidate always involves SOME compromise of principles. But I assure you that I will never compromise them to that extent ever again.

  • Jay,

    I’m with you.

    I will not do that again with McCain.

    I’ll vote third party for sure, if neither of the major parties provides a solid candidate that represents my Catholic values.

  • Tito,

    If I had known the race wasn’t even going to be close (I thought there was a chance it would come down to a 1-2% margin here in Ohio), I would never have voted for McCain in the first place.

    I assure you it’ll never happen again.

    (Note to GOP: nominate Mitt Romney at your own risk; I will not vote for that phony flip-flopper under ANY set of circumstances.)

  • Finally, some free time to post. I agree Newt was rightly excoriated for endorsing the RINO, and I think it was a betrayal that should bring serious doubts to any future run for president. However, he has now done the right thing, so I think the attacks should cease. Given that he had little choice but to do the right thing, and he waited until the last possible moment to do so, I don’t think he deserves any kudos either. Just turn off the burner, we can always crank it up later when/if it’s called for.

  • Doanld

    LEt me be clear I was not a supporter ofher and If I was voting in that race I would have voted for Hoffamn

    What I have become concerned about and I think this is why Newt did what he did was the long term consequences of this. There might be a conservative vicotry here but I really wonder if this battle might mean the conservatives lose the war. This triablism and war in the GOP everyone wants it seems is counter productive. It reminds me of the Louisiana GOP that for deacades engaged in this and because of that among mnay other things we nearly had David Duke elected Governor and Mary Landrieu got elected to a second term

    Further the fact that this is now being used by many to sort of attack the Natioanl GOP is tiresome. THe National GOP does not need to be doing this in local races. It was my viewpoint that GOP elected officals Nationwide should have done one of two things. Support the nominee or like in 99 percent of the case not get involved. What I am worrying about here is turning the concept of a local party molding the national party on its head.

  • What I have become concerned about and I think this is why Newt did what he did was the long term consequences of this. There might be a conservative vicotry here but I really wonder if this battle might mean the conservatives lose the war.

    Here’s the thing. NY-23 is a solidly Republican district. Hoffman will probably win this thing, and he certainly would have won had he been the GOP nominee from the outset. This is not a situation where a more moderate candidate was needed because it was a swing district. There was no point in nominating such a squishy candidate to begin with.

    Also, the circumstances surrounding the nomination were also problematic. You had a trifling few party bosses essentially trying to get a liberal Republican through over the wishes of most of the constituency.

    Newt might have had a decent general point about purity tests; however, in this specific case it was really a poor argument.

  • I suspect that the evangelical dominance in the Republican Party will result in the party being relegated to a third party. I wonder if we may see a shift from the two parties we have known? I have posted on this at http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/the-republican-party-writing-itself-into-a-corner/

    You might be interested in this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33583328/ns/politics-more_politics/

  • From euandus’ blog:

    “… the basis of the party is not abortion or marriage, but, rather, limited government and individual liberty …”

    The founding principles of the Republican Party were every bit as morality-based as the argument against abortion. In fact, the principles are one and the same.

  • Harry Truman said “If a man will not keep his word to his wife, to whom will he keep it?”

  • “The founding principles of the Republican Party were every bit as morality-based as the argument against abortion. In fact, the principles are one and the same.”

    “What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think slavery wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party — where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Free States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!”

    Abraham Lincoln

  • Newt Gingrich is hurt most by the Conservative backlash in the Republican Party. Newt gave up a million dollar book deal and put his party ahead of his personal gain. As speaker he was headed for historical greatness. He cut spending, voted on all promise made in the Contract For America. He was bombarded by well over 1 hundred phony etics charges. He was deserted by the liberal Republicans who wanted to out spend the Democrats. His career was ruined. He was completely cleared of all charges but it took 5 years and by then it was too late. I can’t blame him for trying to go along to get along; he had been there before. He was deserted by the liberals and now Conservatives are puting him down for backing the chalk dog in the NY race. His voice should be heeded. There are a hell of a lot more Conservative Republican Commitees across the US than Liberal.

Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll

Tuesday, October 27, AD 2009

Take this with more than a grain of salt, since the Club for Growth supports him, but in the latest poll by the Club for Growth Doug Hoffman, the pro-life Conservative Party candidate  in the special election in the New York 23rd Congressional District endorsed by Sarah Palin and other Republican Party luminaries, leads with 31.3% of the vote to 27% for Bill Owens the Democrat and 19.7% for the pro-abort leftist Republican Dede Scozzafava., with 22% undivided.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll

  • If anything Mr. Hoffman’s support has gone up. The question is, is it enough to lead the polls?

    I’ll believe it when I see a more credible poll. Though a 5% margin of error isn’t bad for the Conservative Party candidate.

  • “Maddeningly the Republican National Committee is pumping money into Scozzafava’s campaign and running adds against Hoffman. This is an excellent way to alienate the conservative base of the party. Idiocy, sheer idiocy.”

    THE GOP is doing what it is suppose too. At least some of them. The GOP is a party that has “moderates” too and we shall see what can of worms have been opened up by this.

    The problem is in New York and people would be much better off changing the leadership there in the party. THE prob;lem is not the National GOP.

    I hope I don’t wake up and see Republicans for Free Choice and the Olympia Snowes of the world campaigning for conservative yet pro choice “independents” against GOP pro-lifers we picked in our primary. If they do then a lot of people will not have a moral arguement against it

    I think in the long run this will backfire but again the GOP has no choice here. Unless we are taking a stand that local control of the party should be micromanaged from Washington?

  • My Lord! No other phrase captures what I am thinking other than “Idiocy!” How could the republicans be stupid? This is a telling display of how the republicans are losing voters. Pro life is 98% of the reason I vote at all yet alone republican. I wish they would get that through their heads…

  • It sounds a lot like the kind of craziness the GOP pulled on Congressman Paul in the 14th District of Texas. In ’96 they recruited the DEMOCRAT to switch parties and run as the G.O.P. -backed candidate. Paul was able to survive into the run-off , and then won by simply reminding everyone how liberal his ‘establishment’ opponent really was.

    If the Republicans insist on choosing ‘winners’ over their principles, I hope more and more people defect. They have not learned their lessons after 2006 and 2008.

  • Robert I agree with you in the need to keep the GOP as Pro-life as possible. But the problem here is not the National GOP but the New York GOP. Again do we really want the National GOP to decide what races it will fund and not fund. The local party in New York needs to change

  • jh is right. The national GOP cannot be expected to overrule the state GOP; that is just not realistic. NY conservatives cannot bolt from the GOP in favor of the NY Conservative Party and then feel entitled to get angry when the National GOP supports the GOP candidate over their own party candidate.

  • I’m nervous about the 23% that are undecided. Expect more of Scozzafava’s numbers to migrate to Hoffman and then hold your breath for the next 7-8 days!

  • The Republicans are showing their true colors – this is another momment of decision. Will the Republican party hold to authentic conservative and traditional values or will they be run by liberal, establishment Democrat-lite insiders?

    This is not a political question – it is a question of culture. Are conservatives and traditionalists strong and principled enough to rout the liars or will we be left with the choice of speedy progressives and not-so-fast progressives again?

    Goldwater, Reagan, Paul and Hoffman (and Palin) are examples of the people choosing principles over political-pragmatism. You can either change the Republican party or migrate to another. Perhaps the Conservative Party will grow and the Republican party die, or publically merge with the Democrats, rather than keep up the farce that they are two different parties. In fact, the Republicans and the Democrats are just slightly different factions of the same oligarchy.

  • NY conservatives cannot bolt from the GOP in favor of the NY Conservative Party and then feel entitled to get angry when the National GOP supports the GOP candidate over their own party candidate.

    Once more with feeling. Mr. Hoffmann is an enrolled Republican. Ten county chairmen in the North Country selected Mrs. Scozzafava as a candidate by a weighted vote among themselves per the Election Law of New York. There was no petition process or primary. The North Country is not the east side of Manhattan or Westchester. Common-and-garden Republicans can and do poll well there. The county chairmen have been playing an obscure insider game and expected (as New York pols do) that the electorate would suck it up (as that electorate generally does if you do not poison the water table or forthrightly and transparently raise their property taxes). These ten individuals cannot legitimately complain if their own committeemen flip them the bird, much less if everyone else does.

  • Art, I agree, and admit that you have a far better grasp of the facts than me. My only remaining point would be that it is difficult to expect the national GOP to ignore or overrule the decisions of the local GOP, regardless the mechanisms or machinations behind those local decisions. It would be different if the national GOP were complicit in such insider games, but no one has suggested that, but instead some seem to want to count deference to local decisions as complicity. That just strikes me as unfair and unrealistic.