MyDD :: 1871 Baby 1871

1871 Baby 1871

by Charles Lemos, Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:24:34 AM EST

It's over in the NY-23. Conservative Party candidate has conceded the race to Democrat Bill Owens. The district had been held by the GOP since 1871. Ulysses Simpson Grant was President.

Perhaps it was some of that Biden magic or perhaps citizens do realize that the Tea Party/Glen Beck/Sarah Palin set are not quite all there. More at the Watertown Daily Times.

Conservative Doug Hoffman concedes behind by only 4,284 votes. Democrat Bill Owens is leading in the 23rd Congressional District race.

The Plattsburgh attorney has 60,458 votes compared to Conservative Doug Hoffman, a Lake Placid CPA, with 56,174 votes.

Dede Scozzafava, a Republican who dropped out of the race Saturday, has 6,796 votes.

There were more than 10,000 absentee votes sent out before the election and some 5,800 were returned and must be counted. More absentee ballots, if sent before the deadline, could still be received.

Owens now leads in Jefferson, St. Lawrence, Franklin, Clinton and Essex counties.

Hoffman leads in Lewis, Oswego, Oneida, Fulton, Hamilton and Madison counties.

Owens is maintaining a 48 percent to 46 percent lead.

1871, baby, 1871.

Tags: NY-23, Congressman Bill Owens, Doug Hoffman (all tags)

Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (2.00 / 1)

Move over President Obama. Joe Biden is the new rock star of the Democratic Party!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:25:44 AM EST

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (2.00 / 1)

Obama campaigned for Corzine, and Corzine lost!

Joe campaigns for Owens, and Owens wins!

Joe is the rock star!

Or maybe Scozzafava and Hoffman splitting the Republican vote had something to do with it.

by dMarx on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (2.00 / 1)

No I agree. Joe has the ability to connect with rural, blue-collar, older voters. That's why he was choosen, as the perfect foil to Obamas connection withj minority and younger voters.

by vecky on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:22:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (none / 0)

I think that's right.

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:29:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (2.00 / 1)

No way man. This was 100% a referendum on the star power of Joe Biden.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:06:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (2.00 / 1)

Obviously things could have gone better tonight, but this win will help me sleep a little better.

With all the yammering of a Republican trifecta signaling destruction of Democrats / Health Care Reform / Obama, the spin tomorrow will be interesting.

My guess is that suddenly the pundits will not only refuse to acknowledge the significance of a Democratic win here, they will forget that NY-23 exists to begin with.

So once again, we find that evil of the past seeps into the present like salad dressing through cheap wax paper, mixing memory and desire.

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:29:16 AM EST

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (2.00 / 2)

I'd still take marriage equality in Maine over a blue dog Dem in New York.

Want rants? Get 'em here: randomduck.com

by DCFD Rudi on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:29:58 AM EST

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (none / 0)

Especially in a district that is up for grabs in just 12 months.

by dMarx on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:16:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (none / 0)

Let's get our story straight. Has it been since 1871 or 1856? (And when was the Republican Party founded anyway?)

by markjay on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:38:39 AM EST

Re: 1871 Baby 1871 (2.00 / 1)

The district has been in GOP hands since 1871.

The GOP was founded in the 1850s and its first Presidential contest was 1856 with John C. Fremont as the Presidential candidate. But there were multiple parties in the US in the period from 1840 through about 1900 when they began to get absorbed by the two main ones.

In that area (along the Canadian border), the anti-Masonic party and the American (the famous Know-Nothings) has particular strength.

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:47:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

depends on ... (2.00 / 1)

which part of the district:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/5 072/amazing-political-history-of-ny23

by kasiazam on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:51:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: depends on ... (none / 0)

In a couple of those counties the last Democrat to win must have beaten a Whig (or a Free Soiler) rather than a Republican (since the Greedy Old Party was not founded until 1854.) Of course this time the second place finisher wasn't a Republican either. This was an interesting race.

The Democrats won both House seats today; Two cheers for Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-10). Now we have the vacant Lieutenant Governor seat in CA but I'd rather have him as a Representative than as Lt Guv.

by Zack from the SFV on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whig ! (none / 0)

yes, in one of the counties the last non-GOP'er was a Whig ! (read the link I attached) In a few other areas it must have been something else (?) -- early 1850's party -- ??

local news site says "First Democrat since 1852 to represent district"

http://newzjunky.com/

by kasiazam on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:31:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: depends on ... (2.00 / 1)

Um... the Greedy old party wasn't the greedy old party until 1916 or so.

Back in 1856 or so, had I been alive, I'd have been a Republican.

And so would you.

by Khun David on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: depends on ... (none / 0)

Here in CA I would probably have been a Repub until the New Deal. Hiram Johnson was the progressive Republican Governor and later Senator in the first half of the 20th century. Whenever anyone asks if I would ever vote for a Republican I respond only Abe Lincoln or Hiram Johnson.

by Zack from the SFV on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: depends on ... (none / 0)

Ted Roosevelt also.

by Khun David on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Try 1993 (none / 0)

I hate to rain on everybody's parade but NY-23 has been held by a Democrat numerous times since 1871, including most recently 1993. In fact, it was solid Democrat from 1923 until 1973 and again from 1979 until 1993. So I have no idea where this 117 years stuff comes from.

by dMarx on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:57:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Try 1993 (none / 0)

Yes, the district known as "NY-23" has been held by a Democrat in the past, but that's just because the numbers change. It's true that this geographical area hasn't been represented by a Democrat since 1871. As the local paper reported:

For the first time since the mid-19th century, a Democrat will represent Northern New York in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I think they would know!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:43:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Try 1993 (none / 0)

Districts change every ten years but the geographic core of this district has been in the hands of the GOP since 1870s and parts of it going back to the 1850s.

The 1871 date is from the New York Times. I went with that since it is the nation's paper of record.

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Try 1993 (none / 0)

I am just going from Wikipedia and the history of NY-23. What district that Madison, Oneda, Oswego, Lewis, Jefferson, Saint Lawrence, Franklin, Clinton, Essex, Hamilton, and Fulton counties have belong to in the past, I don't know.

by dMarx on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Club for Growth invested $1 million (2.00 / 2)

in Hoffman:

CLUB MONEY DIRECTED TO NY-23

INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC
TV/Radio: $376,822
Mail, Phones, other: $31,940
SUBTOTAL PAC: $408,762

CLUB FOR GROWTH
TV: $184,688
Mail, other: $51,836
SUBTOTAL CLUB: $236,514

PAC and CLUB: $645,276

BUNDLED DONATIONS
FROM CLUB MEMBERS: $376,764 (2,546 donations)

GRAND TOTAL: $1,022,040

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:47:34 AM EST

Re: Club for Growth invested $1 million (2.00 / 2)

J-U-S-T-I-C-E.

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:49:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yes, and (2.00 / 1)

I'm betting that even after this debacle they won't understand the concept of "good fit for the district."

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:13:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, and (none / 0)

Well, it was never about the district. It was about enforcing fiscal conservatism on the party.

The fact that Hoffman lost might actually be a good thing for the Republicans in 2010 as it shows the difficulty with third parties.

Remember Ralph Nader and Floridan in 2000? Know what I'm sayin? Third parties are teh suicide. But the left and right wings often get impatient with the moderates and try it from time to time.

by dMarx on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:21:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, and (2.00 / 1)

Maybe I should put this in a post but I think that the Tea Party conservatives see themselves as the base of the GOP when really they are just a fringe, and a lunatic fringe at that. But what matters in this case is their own perception of the situation. They are, I think, only more embolden to take on the GOP establishment who is frankly spineless and out of ideas anyway. Problem is that Tea Party ideology doesn't sell well. McDonnell in VA kept Palin at bay. He won. Hoffman welcomed all that garbage and lost. NJ is, I think, different. Corzine made a brilliant run but failed to close in the end. The independent vote went Christie's way but I do think that NJ's election was a referendum on Corzine, on property taxes and local issues, not on national ones.

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:28:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, and (none / 0)

The trick for both parties is to consolidate the base without alienating the moderates. This is why the most successful candidates are able to amorphously be all things to all people. A truly skilled politician has the people who voted for him thinking, "he really agrees with me on issue X but he can't do anything about it right now because of the political climate."

by dMarx on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Depends on which parts of the district (2.00 / 4)

A few regions of it have been represented by a WHIG before a Democrat.

John McCain

by MILiberal on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 12:48:43 AM EST

Re: Depends on which parts of the district (2.00 / 1)

Isn't that just amazing?

Follow me on Twitter.

by Charles Lemos on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:21:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Power of Sarah Palin... (2.00 / 1)

...to change 139 years of history like that. You betcha!

2nd Law of Obamadynamics: Financial gain flows with the direction of Obama bashing.

by NoFortunateSon on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Depends on which parts of the district (none / 0)

No, it is not amazing. It is wrong. NY-23 was Democrat from 1979 until 1993.

by dMarx on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 11:58:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Depends on which parts of the district (none / 0)

The district they called "NY-23" prior to 1993 is called NY-21 today. It encompasses Albany and is one of the most Democratic districts in the state outside of NYC. Perhaps you weren't aware that districts get renumbered all the time.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 02:48:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Make no mistake about it tonight (2.00 / 1)

This was a referendum about the teabag wing of the Republican party. They shot their load in NY-23, and the traditional wing of the Republican party said, "hell, no".

Now, the Republican party is going to have to say, "Do we want to banish the bastions of the Republican party, or do we want to embrace them?"

If the answer is the former, then I have no fear from them for at least the next two election cycles.

by Khun David on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:11:29 AM EST

Re: Make no mistake about it tonight (2.00 / 1)

That's why I'm saying the GOP might be better off taking a Hoffman loss than emboldening third parties in 2010.

by dMarx on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 01:24:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please (2.00 / 1)

can we not have "teabag" and "shot their load" in the same sentence. They are currently suffering from electile dysfunction.

I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.

by AZphilosopher on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 04:35:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Um... (none / 0)

but it was two completely different sentences.

by Khun David on Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 06:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.