NY-09, Special Election Thread

[Wonkish1]

I don't buy that Turner will get a more a GOP friendly district.

I bet the GOP in the senate will trade him for Hochul. The guys 70 years old. But he will still run again when his district gets carved into its neighbors.

[Wonkish1]

Forest Hills is the most populated piece of Queens in the district right?

I mean Welprin wasn't seriously hoping that Kew Gardens and Fresh Meadows to carry him was he??

Do those two areas even add up to the population of Forest Hills?

[Wonkish1]

I know those areas are more liberal, but they certainly aren't very big.

[Wonkish1]

Forest Hills is the most populated piece of Queens in the district right?

I mean Welprin wasn't seriously hoping that Kew Gardens and Fresh Meadows to carry him was he??

Do those two areas even add up to the population of Forest Hills?

Forest Hills is maybe about 15% of the district in Queens - at most. So that means it may be about 10% of the total CD. Again there are much more Dem parts of Queens in the CD than Forest Hills - much more.

I get it but Fresh Meadows is like what? 4% of Queens? and Kew Gardens is about the same?? Its not like you can count on those tiny places to carry you, can you?

[Wonkish1]

I think if Weprin can win the remainder of Queens by 60-40, he can pull out a squeaker of a win.

I think he would actually need slightly more, wouldn't he?

[Wonkish1]

Alright its over!!!

The last tick is all I needed to see.

I would expect some outlets to start calling it soon.

[Wonkish1]

This thing is going to be absolutely brutal.

3 pts is an unfortunate upset. 6 pts is a clear defeat. 9 pts is a crushing message and when this ends at slightly more than 10 pts it will be an absolute crushing defeat with a national signal you can't spin your way out of.

[Wonkish1]

Definitely over.  Turner wins as there are nearly as many Brooklyn precincts out as there are in Queens.  And Queens is basically 50-50.  Turner should have a victory margin of ~6000 votes.

Try 8000

[Wonkish1]

Were the red avatars banned tonight? I haven't seen many of them around these parts.

No, just demoralized for the night.

You guys have had some really rough few months. Time for a beer??

[Wonkish1]

Definitely over.  Turner wins as there are nearly as many Brooklyn precincts out as there are in Queens.  And Queens is basically 50-50.  Turner should have a victory margin of ~6000 votes.

Try 8000

Yup.  Weprin is still on pace to take a 55-44 drubbing, losing by about 7,500 votes out of 68,500.  Reason: Brooklyn's results are lagging Queens' and Weprin is doing slightly better than breakeven in Queens.

That's my math as well.

[Wonkish1]

Yeah, Turner's won this. By a margin bigger than I expected, too (For what it is worth, I was predicting a 50-49 win for the GOP).

Were the red avatars banned tonight? I haven't seen many of them around these parts.

No, just demoralized for the night.

When are you guys not demoralized?

LLLOOOLLL

[Wonkish1]

Were the red avatars banned tonight? I haven't seen many of them around these parts.

No, just demoralized for the night.

You guys have had some really rough few months. Time for a beer??

I don't really care about NY-09; it was NV-02 that really has me disappointed.

Thanks, but I don't drink! lol

Yeah losing Washoe doesn't feel good either, I'm sure.

[Wonkish1]

Clark County: 58% to 39% OHHHHHHH!

You know I was totally not planning on saying any cliche statements on the nation here, but WOW! How can you not with numbers like that. I think its safe to say that all of the campaign committees and 501(c)4s are debating writing off Nevada this year. Those kind of numbers beg the question...are we just going to throw money down the toilet in a state like that?

Lets just call a spade and a spade here, if the economy doesn't turn around talk of size able Dem gains in the house is bat sh*t crazy talk and talk of Obama having any advantage going into 2012 will get you kicked to the kiddy table.

[Wonkish1]

Clark County: 58% to 39% OHHHHHHH!

You know I was totally not planning on saying any cliche statements on the nation here, but WOW! How can you not with numbers like that. I think its safe to say that all of the campaign committees and 501(c)4s are debating writing off Nevada this year. Those kind of numbers beg the question...are we just going to throw money down the toilet in a state like that?

Lets just call a spade and a spade here, if the economy doesn't turn around talk of size able Dem gains in the house is bat sh*t crazy talk and talk of Obama having any advantage going into 2012 will get you kicked to the kiddy table.

Keep in mind that piece of Clark in NV-02 is heavily Republican rural and exurban voters.

According to news reports I read before the race started they said the exact opposite.

[Wonkish1]

Courtesy of the Politico

"While the 2nd District is largely rural, it includes a sliver of blue Clark County that makes up about 7 percent of the district, including parts of Henderson and North Las Vegas. Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 5 points in this part of the district, an area where Democrats need high turnout from their base to prevail in next year’s presidential race, Senate race and a competitive Las Vegas-area House race.

If Marshall loses — or even underperforms — in Clark County, it could be a bad omen for Democrats like Obama, Senate candidate Shelley Berkley and numerous hopefuls eyeing runs in Las Vegas-area seats.

It could prove especially troubling because neither campaign has advertised in the more expensive Las Vegas media market that covers Clark County, so an Amodei win there either means that Republicans are disproportionately motivated to turn out or that Democrats are crossing party lines to vote for him — either is bad news for Democrats."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63288_Page2.html#ixzz1XtfqUTwC

[Wonkish1]

I really think some in this thread at two steps away from declaring that Perry will win the state of New York by double digits. And the sad thing is, they'll actually fully believe that just based off of one House race in a very unique district with heavy religious factors.

Neither of these special election results say a thing about next year, not one single thing.

No, only someone dropping crazy statements on here for a while would accuse folks of thinking that way on here.

But I will say that a race like this does mean that the Philly suburbs are likely in play this year and that the Dems can't blindly count on Pennsylvania this year.

[Wonkish1]

Is it just me or are the ones that want sh^t crazy posts all over this thread all Dems. There may be only like 4 of them, but they are all Dems.

I appreciate the other 90% of D's and I's on here that do write sane posts.

[Wonkish1]

No, only someone dropping crazy statements on here for a while would accuse folks of thinking that way on here.

But I will say that a race like this does mean that the Philly suburbs are likely in play this year and that the Dems can't blindly count on Pennsylvania this year.

I've seen some pretty out there predictions from Republicans here before, I'll just leave at that.

There is a difference difference between a House races and Presidential races. NY-9 was decided on Israel, probably almost totally.

Get your sh*t straight. You could make an argument for that in Brooklyn, you absolutely cannot write off the piss poor performance in Queens on the Israel issue. That is Obama through and through right there.

[Wonkish1]

A scandal can make a previously safe seat in play. Who knew?

Never fails, does it?  Gore, Corwin, Weprin: all lost their bids after sex scandals.  I guess voting on the issues just isn't important, anymore.

That isn't a particularly logical conclusion to draw from that tiny bit of anecdotal evidence.

Well, I'm not saying it's only because of scandal.  Still, it inevitably costs at least some votes for the party of the scandal.  If Clinton didn't have the scandal, Gore would've won.  If Lee and Weiner were forced to resign for things unrelated to sex (I don't know... say they get diagnosed for terminal cancer, or something), their parties probably would have retained the seats.  I know I sound superficial here, but that's just my opinion on it.

Historically replacement candidates for scandal ridden politicians have performed quite well in historically safe seats so I am left scratching my head at that one.

And don't forget that Welprin's approval rating was much, much higher than Obama's in the district. So if Welprin's approval was taken down by the scandal of his predecessor, does that mean that Obama is lower than a sh*t stain on a mattress?

[Wonkish1]

Is it just me or are the ones that want sh^t crazy posts all over this thread all Dems. There may be only like 4 of them, but they are all Dems.

I appreciate the other 90% of D's and I's on here that do write sane posts.

Hopefully that wasn't directed at me. Just go take a look at the map of NV-2 in Clark County. It doesn't come close to the urban core of Las Vegas, or the Democratic stronghold of North Las Vegas. I stand by my statement, Politico doesn't know what it's talking about. Also look at the result out of Carson City. That's where you should be looking, where the people in the district actually live.

No it wasn't.

[Wonkish1]

Get your sh*t straight. You could make an argument for that in Brooklyn, you absolutely cannot write off the piss poor performance in Queens on the Israel issue. That is Obama through and through right there.

You can leave the cursing out if you are posting to me, thank you very much. There are lots of conservative, religious Democrats all over the district, they are the ones who showed up. The district trended Republican last time around and it's not exactly a bellwether for anything. I don't think you should use it to predict presidential results.

Hey this is right here is what separates you from other folks on this thread. Of course we would all like to be good team players and spin things our losses in the most positive light, but some of us actually have allegiance to calling these things based on how they actually are even when they lose. Apparently you don't.

I don't how you try to spin this thing. Between the polls with Obama's approval ratings in this district and the horrid performance in Queens you can't possibly spin your way out of the fact that Obama played a pretty big roll in this loss. Clearly he isn't particularly liked right now there. That doesn't mean he wont be liked in the future, that doesn't mean he wasn't liked in the past. But today he just cost you a congressional seat...Deal with it!

[Wonkish1]

A scandal can make a previously safe seat in play. Who knew?

Never fails, does it?  Gore, Corwin, Weprin: all lost their bids after sex scandals.  I guess voting on the issues just isn't important, anymore.

That isn't a particularly logical conclusion to draw from that tiny bit of anecdotal evidence.

Well, I'm not saying it's only because of scandal.  Still, it inevitably costs at least some votes for the party of the scandal.  If Clinton didn't have the scandal, Gore would've won.  If Lee and Weiner were forced to resign for things unrelated to sex (I don't know... say they get diagnosed for terminal cancer, or something), their parties probably would have retained the seats.  I know I sound superficial here, but that's just my opinion on it.

Historically replacement candidates for scandal ridden politicians have performed quite well in historically safe seats so I am left scratching my head at that one.

And don't forget that Welprin's approval rating was much, much higher than Obama's in the district. So if Welprin's approval was taken down by the scandal of his predecessor, does that mean that Obama is lower than a sh*t stain on a mattress?

D+5 isn't particularly safe especially given this district's obvious trends.

I would agree with that, but I would also like to hear other folks thoughts about what is going on with a PVI of only D+5 when there is a 3 to 1 registration advantage between Dems and GOP.

[Wonkish1]

A scandal can make a previously safe seat in play. Who knew?

Never fails, does it?  Gore, Corwin, Weprin: all lost their bids after sex scandals.  I guess voting on the issues just isn't important, anymore.

That isn't a particularly logical conclusion to draw from that tiny bit of anecdotal evidence.

Well, I'm not saying it's only because of scandal.  Still, it inevitably costs at least some votes for the party of the scandal.  If Clinton didn't have the scandal, Gore would've won.  If Lee and Weiner were forced to resign for things unrelated to sex (I don't know... say they get diagnosed for terminal cancer, or something), their parties probably would have retained the seats.  I know I sound superficial here, but that's just my opinion on it.

Historically replacement candidates for scandal ridden politicians have performed quite well in historically safe seats so I am left scratching my head at that one.

And don't forget that Welprin's approval rating was much, much higher than Obama's in the district. So if Welprin's approval was taken down by the scandal of his predecessor, does that mean that Obama is lower than a sh*t stain on a mattress?

D+5 isn't particularly safe especially given this district's obvious trends.

I would agree with that, but I would also like to hear other folks thoughts about what is going on with a PVI of only D+5 when there is a 3 to 1 registration advantage between Dems and GOP.

Bad turnout, conservative Democrats, and Israel lovers.

Again that can explain Brooklyn, but it can't explain Queens. Also my question wasn't about this race but why going into this race a district with a 3 to 1 registration advantage for Dems is only D+5. Anybody want to shed some light on that?

[Wonkish1]

By the way looking at the Nevada map, CD 2 definitely does include a decent portion of North Las Vegas and its pretty safe to say that most of the 6,000 votes came from part of Clark county since the southern part is very rural. I mean there is like one road throughout that part and a couple very tiny towns.

That was North Las Vegas they just got creamed in.

[Wonkish1]

PVI is only a measurement of the Presidential numbers over two elections.

I'm aware of this. One decent answer was given above, but I'll rephrase the question. Why do you think that such a strong Democrat district would be voting as close to the middle as it is in the last few elections?

What is happening on the ground?

Is everybody in agreement that its an identity thing. Its expected to be a registered Dem in that area, but only after that you vote what makes sense to you? Leading to the large disparity?