In a huge development in the NY-23 special election, Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has announced that she is suspending her campaign, citing an inability to win in light of recent polls and a lack of money -- leaving this race as a vote between Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, and a strong message that the Republican Party can no longer nominate moderate candidates, or else face a right-wing revolt.
Scozzafava told the Watertown Daily Times that the new Siena poll, which said she was in third place, meant that she would be unable to catch up with Owens and Hoffman.
Interestingly, Scozzafava did not expressly endorse Hoffman in her statement, but simply released her supporters to "transfer their support as they see fit to do so," and hoped for a stronger Republican Party:
It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.
The big question now, then, is how Scozzafava's voters will break down between Owens and Hoffman, and how many might still pick her as a protest vote (she will still be on the ballot). Her platform was socially liberal and economically conservative, and there was a lot of bad blood between the local GOP and Conservative campaigns. So let's see what happens next.
Scozzafava's full statement is available after the jump.
Dear Friends and Supporters:
Throughout the course of my campaign for Congress, I have made the people of the 23rd District and the issues that affect them the focal point of my campaign. As a life long resident of this District, I care deeply and passionately about its people and our way of life. Whether as a candidate for Congress, a State Assemblywoman or a small town Mayor, I have always sought to act with the best interest of our District and its residents in mind --and today I again seek to act for the good of our community.
The opportunity to run as the Republican and Independence Party candidate to represent the 23rd District has been and remains one of the greatest honors of my life. During the past several months, as I've traveled the district, meeting and talking with voters about the issues that matter most to them, I've been overwhelmed by the amount of support I've received as I sought to serve as their voice in Washington. However, as Winston Churchill once said, Democracy can be a fickle employer, and the road to public office is not always a smooth one.
In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I've come to accept is that in today's political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money -- and as I've been outspent on both sides, I've been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record. But as I've said from the start of this campaign, this election is not about me, it's about the people of this District. And, as always, today I will do what I believe serves their interests best.
It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.
On Election Day my name will appear on the ballot, but victory is unlikely. To those who support me -- and to those who choose not to -- I offer my sincerest thanks.
Dede

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

CN
October 31, 2009 11:23 AM
Looks like she's bitter about all the support for Hoffman and is trying to keep him from winning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LonewackoDotCom3
October 31, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to CN
If anyone wants to help that along, go to one of Hoffman's appearances and press him on these points on video for Youtube. If you can't do that but instead agree with him on that issue, then congratulate him for having such a Dem-friendly, "liberal" stance on that issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
October 31, 2009 2:29 PM in reply to CN
Can you blame her? Wasn't she the chosen candidate of the Republican party in NY? Then, conservatives unhappy with her undertake a palace coup abetted by national conservative figures to overthrow the choice of the local party. I'd be bitter, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rootman
October 31, 2009 11:29 AM
Palin will be ridiculing her as a quitter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
October 31, 2009 7:40 PM in reply to Rootman
I thought the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
East Coast Aussie
October 31, 2009 7:54 PM in reply to Rootman
Without campaign aides Palin wouldn't have any idea this happened. She doesn't read newspapers Charlieee.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loria
October 31, 2009 10:11 PM in reply to East Coast Aussie
Yes she does. She reads all of them and every magazine too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
October 31, 2009 11:31 AM
If there is such bitterness between the two campaigns, I doubt these supporters will rush to vote for the Conservative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lcdrrek
October 31, 2009 11:31 AM
From Malkin:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
October 31, 2009 11:46 AM in reply to lcdrrek
it's sad that i have to ask, but... is that for real?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
October 31, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to lcdrrek
"Radical leftist GOP candidate", now there's a phrase I never thought I'd see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 31, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to cwnidog
If he were alive today, that would be Barry Goldwater.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
semiotix
October 31, 2009 2:51 PM in reply to TheRealFish
Hell, Nixon would be the chair of the Liberal Republican Caucus today, and Hoover would probably get a Club for Growth challenger if he ran for Congress in 2010. (Towards the end of his term he flirted with the idea of getting off his ass and doing something about the Depression. That makes him a radical socialist!) Reagan would be in Susan Collins territory... regarded as suspiciously squishy, but too popular to attack outright.
And what they'd say about Eisenhower would make what they say about Obama look downright civil. My God, they'd want him impeached, court-martialed, and shot all on the same day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 31, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to lcdrrek
Uh huh. And, of course.
There was a pretty interesting conversation between Larry O'Donnell and Chris Kofinis last night (Larry O substituting for Keith), and I think they might be on to something.
Their mutually agreed position is that this type of result is actually very, very good, and bodes well for future 2010 contests — for the Dems. Why?
The rabid Neos are running around tossing the last remnants of moderation out of the Rethuglican party. Succeeding in this NY-23 situation is something they will likely take as some kind of mandate to keep on doing the same, everywhere else.
And, naturally, that means they will finally achieve one thing they really, really, really want (but one that could be a veritable political suicide pact for them): They will become "pure" — purified of all taint of moderation.
Of course that also means the atmosphere in their party will become so rarified that it may become virtually impossible for them to attact any swing voters, ever again.
As I (and they) said, that would be hugely good.
Still, if there are enough Indies and Dems sufficiently disappointed in Dem leadership that they fail to get out to the polls or seek retribution by witholding campaign funds and time, combined with the Neos being fully revved-up, active and out for blood... ?
Very much as it stands with (bare minimum) leadership in congress, it is up to the masses to choose whether to hand the 2010 elections over to the newly purified skinhea...er... Republican party on a silver platter or ensure that they never take control, ever again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
October 31, 2009 1:46 PM in reply to TheRealFish
I don't think all this kind of thing is good for the Dems. The end is a situation like Hawaii, which is only moderately liberal but has virtually the entire political spectrum concentrated in the Democratic Party. So all important votes on candidates are really in primaries, where few people vote or pay attention to campaigns. Possibly that may result in more progressives being elected since it tends to be party activists who participate in primaries, but not necessarily.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthspeaker
October 31, 2009 3:04 PM in reply to TheRealFish
Nothing less is at stake than the survival of the United States of America. Crazy, you say?. I started thinking about this when the neocons was able to convince Congress that it was o.k. to wage preemtive war with Iraq, I would regret to see this happen, even though I am not a resident of your country. For the world has benefitted from the greatness that was America, but this hate I see in your politics eats from within, and I know about the bad old days when opponents were ridiculed as communists. I see religious radicals taking over your government little by little, and your constitution has now been held up for ridicule, not by those who are recent immigrants, but by those who claim to want 'their' country back. I always felt that PO represented the way forward to the past, but with so many illiterates having a prominent place in one of your political parties, with so many willing to lie for political gain, I see little chance of America ever being a dominant force for good again. I am not naive. I know about the dirty secrets in Latin America and around the world, yet I can argue that America has inspired the world especially after colonization failed through your inventions and commerce etc.. However with these leaders you have today, I dare say the future looks very bleak. I wish you luck America, you surely need it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 31, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to truthspeaker
Our future is bleak right now but there is hope IMO and that is because of our President. I think we are for the most part on the right course but there is way too much hate on the radical right to blur it all. I hope we can continue to elect a democratic President because if the thugs get back in office in 2016 we are definitely in for trouble. We just have to keep working hard and take back our country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
October 31, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to lcdrrek
you know the lunatics are taking over when a moderate GOP candidate is dubbed a radical leftist.
The democrats must be fapping to this article right now
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Prefabfan
October 31, 2009 11:32 AM
This is great news; For Norm Coleman!!! Had to get that out of the way. This is great news, for B. Owens, now the moderates will move to him; this almost guarantees an Owen win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rootman
October 31, 2009 12:02 PM in reply to Prefabfan
No, this helps Hoffman, who probably would have won anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
October 31, 2009 11:37 AM
Cool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
radudeATL
October 31, 2009 11:37 AM
Aww. I liked her name.
Dierdre Scozzafava.
;-)
Otherwise, it's interesting to see the party in such disarray. The word "moderate" is just not in their vocabulary!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 31, 2009 1:28 PM in reply to radudeATL
As opposed to disarray, I believe what we are seeing here is the furiously bubbling pot of distillation: They are boiling away all their "impurities" of moderation, and coalescing their moonshine of rabid uber-Right-wing ideology.
With all luck (and barring indies and Dems not taking this seriously in 2010), they may just make themselves unelectable in moderate contests.
BUT, preventing this witch's brew toxin from trickling back into the plumbing that controls congress in 2010 is more important than any time before. If we think the current Party of No folks in there right now are bad, imagine how bad it will be if we allow them and even more rabid neos to win back seats in 2010, and maybe even win back control of one house or the other... .
I'm just saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 31, 2009 11:41 AM
They're going to get crazier and crazier
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
October 31, 2009 11:48 AM
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Republican Dierdre Scozzafava (sko-zuh-FAH'-vuh) has suspended her campaign for the New York House and is encouraging supporters to embrace Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.
Nothing more. No quote. Nothing
Love the AP
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kinkistyle
October 31, 2009 11:53 AM
So what, third-party candidates drop out of races all the time...
...wait a minute, did you say the Republican candidate??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
October 31, 2009 11:59 AM
I saw a "Democratic strategist" on the teevee (this was before Dede dropped out), who was working from a position that Hoffman would indeed win; he was gloating that the Republican Party was "purifying" its right-wing creds, to the point where their party as a whole was marginalizing itself right out of electability.
My first impression was that this Democratic flak was making lemonade out of what he saw as an impending defeat.
But upon reflection, he's right. At this point, I just can't see America as a whole rallying to support an unabashedly extremist right-wing party. Even if the other party disappoints, yet again, and the R's 30-second TV spots, yet again, paint the candidates as swarthy America-hating traitors and Muslim Homosexual Godless Rapist Negroes or something.
It's gotten harder and harder to hide the R's level of christianist crazy. I don't want to believe the American people would again be willing to do another Cheney/Bush on itself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
100x
October 31, 2009 12:00 PM
Looks like TPM and a number of other liberal sites missed the Late Late Night ACLU Document Dump.
It was huge and a lot of it was not blacked out.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/41374prs20091030.html
ACLU Obtains More Documents Related to Bush Administration Torture Program (10/30/2009)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK - The government today handed over to the American Civil Liberties Union numerous documents in response to two ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits for information related to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody overseas. Thousands of pages of documents detailing the interrogation of prisoners by the FBI, Department of Defense (DOD) and CIA have previously been made public as a result of the lawsuits.
“The documents released today add to our knowledge about the origins, scope and consequences of the Bush administration’s torture program,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The documents are also a reminder, however, of gross human rights abuses that have yet to be investigated seriously by Congress or the Justice Department (DOJ). The last administration's decision to endorse torture undermined the United States' moral authority and compromised its security, but the failure of the country's current leadership to fully confront the abuses of the last administration is only compounding these harms.”
Among the documents released today are a report from the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General relating to the involvement of FBI agents in the interrogations in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq; documents gathered by the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General in preparing its report and CIA documents relating to interrogations at black sites overseas.
Here are the docs.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/41372res20091030.html
Released Government Documents Responsive to 2004 Torture FOIA (10/30/2009)
Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Letters and Memos to CIA Regarding Detention and Interrogation Policies:
* 11/3/2003 Letter to Senator Leahy from FBI Director Mueller confirming that the CIA is bound by the Constitution
* 10/18/2004 CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) Guidelines on medical and psychological support to detainee rendition, interrogation and detention
* CIA Office of Inspector General report excerpts
* Interrogation Legal Authorities
* Description of stress positions and facial slap
* Interrogation of Detainees
* Guidelines for Memo on Interrogation
* 12/12/2002 Department of State fax coversheet
* 2/7/2002 White House memo regarding Geneva Conventions and humane treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees
* 5/11/2004 Assistant Attorney General Goldsmith memo regarding advice to DOD on interrogations
* Applicability of Geneva Conventions III (POWs) and IV (civilians) in Iraq after June 30, 2004 and effect on U.S. powers and duties regarding detentions
* 1/27/2004 Saddam Hussein Interrogation document
* 1/27/2004 Memo regarding legal issues surrounding interview/interrogation of Saddam Hussein
* 5/19/2004 Memo regarding treatment of prisoners and detainees
* 10/4/2001 Department of State fax to White House National Security Counsel regarding Geneva Conventions and POWs
* 10/11/2001 Department of State fax to White House National Security Counsel regarding
* 10/12/2001 Department of State fax to White House National Security Counsel regarding POWs
Department of Defense Documents Regarding Detention and Interrogation Policies
Department of Justice Criminal Division Documents
FBI Documents Regarding Detention and Interrogation Policies
Reprocessed FBI Office of Inspector General Report:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 31, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to 100x
Yup. Caught this in a couple of places this morning (including two separate articles here @ TPM still on the front page...), plus it was chatted about at-length on last evening's Maddow show.
So, this relates to Scozzafava and the NY-23 how, exactly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HGM MA
October 31, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to 100x
Nice hi-jack!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 31, 2009 12:00 PM
All pro-choice Republicans should take a good look at the size of the tent they are being offered!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
October 31, 2009 12:13 PM
It's bad news for the country when a moderate candidate has no home in one of the nations two major political parties. The GOP has hit a new low.
The elevation of these types of frauds, zealots and intellectually vapid self-promoters to such a position of power does not bode well for any country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 31, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to tommyo
Why? That's silly. Those who are "moderate" but not Democrats need to form their own party. God knows they've got the money to do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
October 31, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to oleeb
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if in the next few years there was a split into the Progressive, Center, and Conservative Parties. Because let's face it, if there's to be real competition of ideas, in the Northeast and West it's between progressives and moderates, and in the South and Midwest it's between moderates and conservatives. Right now there's this false dichotomy, but it would make a lot more sense if we just acknowledged it. The problem is that it would require implementing run-off elections (I don't get howour current system every got implemented in the first place; whatever happened to "majority rules"?).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
October 31, 2009 9:33 PM in reply to midnight rambler
The minority figured out it could get catered to if it screamed loudly enough.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all, just that it can be twisted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
October 31, 2009 12:22 PM
The total wingnuts will find great solace in this move. They will now be even more aggressive in attempting to intimidate anyone claiming to be a Republican that isn't completely crazy. All to the good I say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goethean
October 31, 2009 1:13 PM
This is actually pretty bad for the US. Although it might lengthen the period of Dem supremacy, what happens when that period inevitably ends? I don't the NRA ad the Club for Growth running the world's only superpower.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
diachronic
October 31, 2009 5:06 PM in reply to goethean
The NRA endorsed the Republican candidate.
Prepare for crazier than the NRA. Much, much crazier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
heir ball
October 31, 2009 1:25 PM
I think this could be a Schiavo moment for Republicans. Lots of attention on the least desirable wingnut faction of the party. I heard Kudlow on the radio saying what a great moment it was for conservatism. Maybe, but it could be a real problem for party Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
October 31, 2009 1:29 PM
This is the best thing that could happen to the Dem and Rep parties. Let the games begin!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
October 31, 2009 1:35 PM
Somehow I doubt the broader media community will see the Republican party as moving further to the right. They've always been willing to be credulous to their right wing. You actually have to reach Palin levels of genuinely self-evident bull before people make up their own minds while the media passively reports it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
salame
October 31, 2009 1:38 PM
The wingers - to a white man - are high fiving and patting themselves
on the back for what they see as a trifecta win.
From Nov.3 on it will all be about a referendum on the prez, big
government, runaway spending, socialist agenda, progressives, Nancy
Pelosi, etc.
And I guarantee you the msm will pick up the meme and debate it with
the most solemn breathlessness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
October 31, 2009 1:46 PM
This is very interesting. I would love to see some progressive party candidates challenge some democrats. Maybe we can break the corporate two-party stranglehold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 31, 2009 3:23 PM in reply to Winston Smith
I agree in principle. However, I would rather see more Conservative Party candidates throwing in and splitting the Republican vote, than Progressives jacking up conserva dems.
And based on what just happened, we'll probably see more of that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calgarr
October 31, 2009 3:27 PM in reply to Winston Smith
Yes! I think that is the best possible outcome here. More choice = more freedom.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 31, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to calgarr
Yeah. And with every national Republican now backing Hoffman, it kind of makes you wonder (along with everyone else). Does being "Republican" even mean anything anymore???
Aren't "Republicans" becoming the "Conservative Party"???
I think they are. I mean, we'll see. But, there may come a day soon, when there IS no "Republican" Party anymore. Can you say, Whigs?
Democrat, Conservative, as National Parties. Republican Party slowing circling the drain.
Too soon to really tell. But, LOVE IT!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
unpoetaloco
October 31, 2009 2:59 PM
Apparently Sarah Palin has started a new trend among Republicans: just give up. Is there really any reason to vote for a Republican again if you have no guarantee s/he will finish the job?
What does Scozzafava think she's accomplishing? Certainly not endearing herself to Party leaders by stepping aside. What does she have to lose, except her self-respect by giving up and giving in to the Neanderthals of her Party? She would have earned much more respect -- street cred -- if she had hung in and crossed the finish line. Does she really think she has a career in politics after this? As it stands, all she's done is prove that she's not ready for the big leagues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sharonsj
October 31, 2009 3:33 PM
Until there is an election and we see who wins, we won't know just how (1) enlightened or (2) stupid the voters are. If the nutcase Republican wins, get ready for an eventual violent confrontation between those who have an I.Q. and those who don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
October 31, 2009 10:29 PM in reply to sharonsj
More that I.Q. - I suggest - is fear. Republicans live in total fear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
October 31, 2009 4:06 PM
The Repubs know were they're future lies. The Democrats are going to have to come 'round and come to terms with those who believe all incumbents (Dems and Repubs) shafted them on the financial bailout. Just as the Repubs have bowed to the 'tea baggers' for votes, the Democrats must acknowledge their need to respond to and accommodate those to whom Grayson and the like appeal; those are the folks who'll walk the neighborhoods for them and get out the vote; the independents and middlers wont. The Dems are banking on the independents and middlers and they cant win them in sufficient numbers, because they've shafted been shafted by the Dem's financial bailout and the Dems have not shown the independents and the progressives any thing in the way of help during this depression. Pandering to the financial industry continues; job loses continue; bankruptcies continue to rise; house prices decline, but lending (remember the financial industry we bailed out) continues to be difficult if not impossible; credit card rates and 'fees' sky rocket (remember the financial industry we bailed out); health care remains in limbo; ...... do the Dems not get it at all?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 31, 2009 4:12 PM in reply to bill
Surely you jest????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
November 1, 2009 1:21 AM in reply to bill
Even if you put the economic downturn aside, I think we're seeing that the Median Voter Theorem (each side is guaranteed roughly 40% of the vote and the election is decided by the middle 20%) doesn't apply the way it used to. Because of TV's tendency to play up outrageous soundbytes to get ratings and the need to do so much fundraising to win a state or federal election nowadays, elections are going to be decided by who turns out their base the best, not by who best wins over the moderates, independents and undecideds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 31, 2009 4:11 PM
I wonder what the NRA thinks of all this. They were solidly behind her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericami
October 31, 2009 8:53 PM
I'm guessing this now makes her the Republican frontrunner for president in '12? I mean, she quit before the vote was even taken for elective office. Take THAT, Palin!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
October 31, 2009 11:53 PM
Wish I had a bad word to say about the Repubs and some sort of hurrah!" for the Dems, but I dont see the NY situation that way.
And here's why: the economy following the bailout. The dialog goes like this:
Q: How did these banks get 'too big to fail' A: Taxpayers bailed them out; otherwise, they'd be 'failed banks'.
Q: Who 'bailed them out' in the first place? A: Republicans, then Democrats.
Q: Why did it keep happening? A: Obama kept the same big bankers who got us into the mess and who 'advised' the Republicans.
Q: Why is the Obama administration intent upon legitimizing 'failed banks', creating their 'too big too fail' status and then protecting them in the future. A: The Obama administration is either (a) in the pocket of the financial industry, (b) thinks it will not matter to voters, or (c) believes in magic.
Q: Do you think it really does matter to voters? A: Yes. Voters are the same people who've lost their homes, seen their mortgages increase and property values decline, pay higher credit card rates and fees, file for bankruptcy in increasing numbers, and own the largest federal deficit in history - all due in large part to the Republican initiated and Democratically accelerated bailout of the financial industry- yes, voters notice and voters care.
Q: Do you think the Obama administration believes in magic? A: Apparently.
The way I read the NY situation is this: By opting for the what's his name, the Repubs are attracting (i.e. welcoming) the 'independents', 'moderates' and 'middle Americans', who dont care if the candidate is Repub, Dem or Independent or what not, as long as the candidate will stop screwing them. And, the Dems are losing 'independents', 'moderates' and 'middle Amera' by continuing to water down an already anemic health care bill, stall on financial reform, threaten to expand useless wars, and refuse to enact real relief for taxpayers in some meaningful ways - e.g. immediate health coverage, control of financial institution's lending practices and fee structures, mortgage assistance, etc. The way I read it, the Repubs have said, 'The Dems are getting the blame for this mess, because they continue to throw stuff in the face of middle Americans, this fellow's acting like a champion of middle America (at least, middle America thinks so; they'll vote for him, so let's make him ours.' That may mean the Repubs are evil doers , but to me it means they understand better than the Dems, that it matters to people, they're fed up and, if the Dems cant seem to act in the interests of middle America, they're going to be booted out. The NY situation is just the first play of the game.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
November 1, 2009 12:27 AM
Considerations for what this development might means for Tuesday's election outcome:
1-Most absentee ballots have already been returned. I would posit there are many Scozzafava votes in them. Hoffman's rise in the polls is very recent. Absentee voters generally tend towards one of the two major party candidates. This is likely to be a net negative for Hoffman.
2-Scozzafava's female supporters are critical... the nature of the 23rd would suggest many of these voters will either still vote for Scozzafava (she remains on the ballot) or move to Owens. It is unlikely many would move to Hoffman. This is probably such a net negative for Hoffman that it will deny him victory.
3-Scozzafava's male supporters may well mirror her female supporters. At best, it is a wash for Hoffman. However, I suspect is will be a small net negative for Hoffman.
4-Turn out may be expected to increase as a result of Scozzafava's suspension. I would expect that increase to be a net positive for Hoffman.
5-Undecideds, according to polls, are spit between Scozzafava and Owens. Hoffman voters are very decided. Hence, I would expect the undecideds to move towards Owens. A net negative for Hoffman here.
6-Many life-long Republican voters in the 23rd are moderates in the mold of Scozzafava. I suspect they are not comfortable with the radical right politics of Hoffman. Hence, I expect them to vote for either Scozzafava (remember, she's still on the ballot) or Owens. A net negative for Hoffman here.
7-The differences between Scozzafava (a moderate) and Owens (a moderate) are not great. It is Hoffman who is off the reservation for the 23rd. A net negative for HOffman here.
8-Hoffman's status as a carpet-bagger is a net negative for him.
9-Polls suggest with Scozzafave in the campaign that Hoffman could win with a very small plurality. I suspect Scozzafava would prefer that not to happen. Her refusal to throw her support to Hoffman by name says a lot. Perhaps, Scozzafava desires to see the radical right defeated as the only way to save the GOP.
Anyway, such are my thoughts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
November 1, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to merlot
As to #9: Today's endorsement of Owens by Scozzafava confirms, at least, she does not see a radical right victory as a good thing for the 23rd, the country, and/or the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
November 1, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to merlot
And as to #2: Scozzafava's endorsement today of Owens means the vast majority of her female supporters will probably move to Owens. This is a huge net negative for Hoffman. If the polling is correct, Hoffman probably cannot win on Tuesday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ralembik
November 1, 2009 7:53 AM
GOP circular firing squad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
November 1, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to ralembik
Well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?