The Latest Dirt From NY-20
Here's a quick roundup of some news from the NY-20 special election:
• As the standard process of proofreading the vote spreadsheets has been conducted, Democrat Scott Murphy's lead over Republican Jim Tedisco has actually shrunk from 65 votes to 25 in the latest AP numbers. These sorts of human errors are commonplace, and are usually very small and break about equally -- but in a race this close, they can be consequential.
• The Washington Post reports that Democrats have privately predicted a Murphy win by 210 votes, when all the absentee ballots are counted. This is based on making projections for the home counties of the absentees, from the percentages for each candidate in the Election Day tally. But here's a counter-example: when some previously-rejected absentee ballots in Minnesota were opened up and counted this past January 3, Al Franken ended up doing far better than geography alone would have predicted. It really does come down to which side had the better absentee ballot operation.
• NRCC spokesman Ken Spain put out this statement in response to the Dem projections -- a further example of how both sides are spinning the 50-50 result as a true victory for themselves: "It appears - by accident - that Democrats are finally admitting that the Republican registration numbers are a misleading indicator of the district's inherent Democratic lean. According to their own 'model' they have either been deliberately offering up false statements claiming that the party registration favors Republicans or these numbers simply aren't based in fact."
• The absentee ballots that came in as of last night -- and there's still time for more to arrive in the mail -- showed a plurality of registered Republicans. Then again, the district itself has a huge advantage in Republican registration, but Democrats have been winning recently because of big margins among independent voters. So we'll see what happens.
• Everyone's favorite RNC chairman, Michael Steele, has a column in the Politico predicting a Tedisco victory -- and declaring this a repudiation of President Obama's big-spending agenda: "Well, the voters have spoken, and while the results are still pending, Republicans are confident that the final vote tallies will show those voters have rejected the president's approach."




















Let's assume Murphy loses. Gillibrand won the district in 2006 because John Sweeney beat up his wife and went partying with some frat kids. (among other things) She won re-election in 2008 by a) playing up her more moderate/conservative positions and b) riding the wave of Dem enthusiasm in the general election. We also must remember that Gillibrand comes from a family with long and deep ties to both the Dem and GOP NY state political machines.
Murphy was virtually unknown just about a month ago. He doesn't have Gillibrand's pedigree. And he's much more progressive - or at least much more open about his progressive views. Tedisco is a well known upstate pol who has been around for years.
GOP registration in the district significantly outnumbers Dem registration.
Obama did win the district last November but only 51-48. Gillibrand did much better, likely because of her family background and more moderate presentation.
So if Murphy ends getting just a fraction less than 50% of the vote - ie, almost as large a percentage as Obama received last Fall - it's a rejection of all Obama stands for.
Say way????
April 1, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
s/b, "Say WHAT???"
April 1, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say he should run again if he does lose, being more well known for him will do wonders to take Tedisco down. Although my fingers are still crossed for a win.
April 1, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find this incredibly frustrating that these elections are so close. Why? Why can't we have some blowouts and avoid this high drama? Most frustrating.
April 1, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
what does anyone expect that clown Steele to say?
the truth is this one election tells nothing about obama and his policy choices.
the outcome is exactly how everyone knew it was going to be..to close to call.
April 1, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the Republican may end up winning in a district that has a 70K + Republican advantage by less than 100 votes and they consider that a repudiation of Obama?
I think that they may barely end up winning in a conservative district would give them pause, but I suppose that is asking too much.
April 1, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they wouldn't really consider that a repudiation of Obama. They just say that because it makes them look better.
All spin, all the time.
The tactic can be difficult for the reality-based community to grasp - and that's part of its power.
We use words to convey information. Words mean things. 'They' use words to confuse and obfuscate. And more than anything, to win.
To them, words have no inherent meaning. A lie is no different than the truth. Actually, when choosing between lie and truth, the one that makes you more powerful and makes your wallet fatter is always the correct option.
April 1, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he loses a clear republican district it's a clear repudiation of Obama?
Nice, I needed a good laugh.
April 1, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter NRCC spokesman Ken Spain: If we lose, it's a lie to say we should have won, even though we ourselves said it would be a cakewalk a few weeks ago.
April 1, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like Tedisco could very well "pull a Franken".
Also known as achieving a legitimate victory by a small margin after carefully error-checking of the votes.
Let's sue the bastard!
April 1, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
....The court case could go on for years...
April 1, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it matter?
This is a Republican district.
April 1, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It matters more to Paterson because of the way he bungled this appointment. He will be responsible for (a) causing the loss of a democratic seat by appointing Gillibrand and (b) appoiting the one Democrat guaranteed to garner a primary challenge.
What a loser that guy is.
April 1, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Patterson was attempting to garner up-state support for his own re-election effort.
Effectivly though he has set up a weak Senate incumbent in what is traditionally to be a tough year for the party in power(2010). At the same time potentially losing a House seat, showing his own weakness, inviting AG Cuomo to challenge him in the primary.
Lets not forget about the little thing about alienating the Kennedy's. Spitzer's got a better chance of being elected Gov. in 2010 than Patterson.
April 1, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Gillibrand is not a weak incumbent. She will win reelection easily and won't even face a primary challenge.
April 1, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think the Gillibrand appointment was a mistake blame Schumer. He wanted her (to balance the ticket with someone from Upstate) and had more juice than Paterson to be able to make the choice.
Don't worry about Gillibrand being primaried--by next year she will have positioned herself to strongly for anyone to challenge her.
April 1, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of people wanted a lot of people but it was ultimately Paterson's decision. If he let Schumer bully him into making a fool of himself, then he's even more pathetic than I thought.
Gillibrand was a good fit for that House seat but she's a lousy fit for the Senate. New York is a liberal state and it shouldn't have a pro-gun blue dog democrat as its senator.
April 1, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of us Dems could really care less about a single seat in the House. It's not as though the seat is needed to tip the party into the Majority. A House Member is 0.23% of the house membership, whereas a Senator Is 1%(over four time the clout, w/ 3 times the term length representing the entire State) A single house seat in this case is not at all like a Senate seat that brings a near super-majority in a senate who's current makeup has at least(the last) three moderate Senators in solidly Blue states.
What We do care about is GOP morale. I prefer it to be "in the Toilet" along w/ their policies. However, if a GOP win is what it takes to save Michael Steele's Job, then I might be Actually FOR Tedisco. Michael Steele is an all-around Joke and a gift that keeps on giving to the Dems. Imagine Steele at the Helm of the GOP come 2010? Aside from Rush this guy is the only "Leader" the GOOPers have and niether is very popular w/ independents.
April 1, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tedisco win? No way Baby!
April 1, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no external reality for Republicans so, as long as they proclaim this a glorious victory, they reenforce this delusional perspective to the independents. Good for us!
April 1, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Tedisco squeaks through, just another insignificant "no" vote in the House. For two years.
April 1, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or one year.
April 1, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Steele: "Well, the voters have spoken, and while the results are still pending, Republicans are confident that the final vote tallies will show those voters have rejected the president's approach."
I had no idea my neighbor was such a buffoon!
April 1, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink