NY 9th district
Poll
 | 10 votes (58.82%) | ||
| | 7 votes (41.17%) |
17 members have voted
September 14th, 2011 at 9:09:45 PM
permalink
The special election was held to replace Representative Weiner who as we all know resigned his congressional seat.
Despite Democrats holding the seat since 1923, a GOP candidate won the election.
This district voted
55% for Obama, 44% for McCain
56% for Kerry, 44% for GW Bush
67% for Gore, 30% for GW Bush
Now, very often people vote for one party for their district, and another for president. A surprisingly large number of districts are mixed in this manner.
Does it say something about Obama's opportunities or is it just an election that give the press something to discuss?
There is some indication that President Obama may go down in history as having the largest number of voters who like him personally, but still voted against him,
September 14th, 2011 at 9:19:15 PM
permalink
I voted "footnote," as I don't think it will matter in 14 months. But it is hard to take it to mean anything other than, unless Obama turns things around, he and his party are serious trouble - not just facing big losses (which a party can survive), but serious, as in, in the absence of a change of direction and marginalization of the radical and labor elements, it could become extinct or suffer a split.
When Sen. Schumer, who once held NY-09, says that the district is one of the more conservative districts in an effort to explain away the loss, you just have to wonder how far left of center is still called "conservative" by those on the extreme.
It's possible that these constituents were just reacting to Weiner's weirdness, like the electoral reaction to Watergate in 1976. But I kind of don't think so.
If Obama has to fight to keep NY, then it's church already. If Ds lose seats in the House and Senate that are as "left" as NY-09, then we could be looking at Constitution-amending Republican majorities in both houses.
(NV-02 was also won by a Republican, but that was vacated by the guy who, I think, got appointed to the senate.)
There's still time for Obama and the Republican candidate has yet to be chosen, but he seems to just not have learned Clinton's lesson and is doubling down over and over and over.
When Sen. Schumer, who once held NY-09, says that the district is one of the more conservative districts in an effort to explain away the loss, you just have to wonder how far left of center is still called "conservative" by those on the extreme.
It's possible that these constituents were just reacting to Weiner's weirdness, like the electoral reaction to Watergate in 1976. But I kind of don't think so.
If Obama has to fight to keep NY, then it's church already. If Ds lose seats in the House and Senate that are as "left" as NY-09, then we could be looking at Constitution-amending Republican majorities in both houses.
(NV-02 was also won by a Republican, but that was vacated by the guy who, I think, got appointed to the senate.)
There's still time for Obama and the Republican candidate has yet to be chosen, but he seems to just not have learned Clinton's lesson and is doubling down over and over and over.
September 14th, 2011 at 9:20:43 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinDoes it say something about Obama's opportunities or is it just an election that give the press something to discuss?
The people who do this for a living agree
that all off year elections are a referendum
on who's in office. Maybe nobody will tell
Obama, he's clueless on everything else, he
might as well be clueless on this.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 14th, 2011 at 10:27:14 PM
permalink
How is this for a gimmick?
The inspiration for this gambit comes from the very first woman to serve in the Senate after suffrage was extended to women. On October 3, 1922 who was 87 years was appointed Senator for a single day, thus becoming the first woman to have an office. It also comes from a great political thriller, The Contender (2000).
President Obama runs for re-election in 2012 with Hillary Clinton as his Vice Presidential candidate. As part of his campaign promise, he says that he will resign the presidency on October 20, 2016. In this manner, Hillary Clinton will be able to run in the 2016 election as a sitting president. In any case we will have our first female president for at least 3 months.
While Republicans widely decry this campaign as a gimmick to cover up the problems of the Obama presidency, the public is fascinated with the idea of breaking another barrier for the presidency. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Hillary Clinton making Obama her VP for those few months, but I suspect that the former president will go on an extended vacation.
BTW, Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to the House where she promptly broke out from the pack by being to sole congressperson to vote against participation in WWI. She was not immediate re-elected after her single term. But 22 years later she was re-elected and was the sole congressperson to vote against WWII. She was not re-elected after her second time that she served a single term.
The inspiration for this gambit comes from the very first woman to serve in the Senate after suffrage was extended to women. On October 3, 1922 who was 87 years was appointed Senator for a single day, thus becoming the first woman to have an office. It also comes from a great political thriller, The Contender (2000).
President Obama runs for re-election in 2012 with Hillary Clinton as his Vice Presidential candidate. As part of his campaign promise, he says that he will resign the presidency on October 20, 2016. In this manner, Hillary Clinton will be able to run in the 2016 election as a sitting president. In any case we will have our first female president for at least 3 months.
While Republicans widely decry this campaign as a gimmick to cover up the problems of the Obama presidency, the public is fascinated with the idea of breaking another barrier for the presidency. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Hillary Clinton making Obama her VP for those few months, but I suspect that the former president will go on an extended vacation.
BTW, Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to the House where she promptly broke out from the pack by being to sole congressperson to vote against participation in WWI. She was not immediate re-elected after her single term. But 22 years later she was re-elected and was the sole congressperson to vote against WWII. She was not re-elected after her second time that she served a single term.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:30:14 AM
permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI voted "footnote," as I don't think it will matter in 14 months. But it is hard to take it to mean anything other than, unless Obama turns things around, he and his party are serious trouble - not just facing big losses (which a party can survive), but serious, as in, in the absence of a change of direction and marginalization of the radical and labor elements, it could become extinct or suffer a split.
Combine NY-09 with NV-02 and that could well be more than a footnote.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:05:17 AM
permalink
Obama is done as President. The best that the country can hope for is that the Republicans nominate Rick Perry because he'll be funny like George W. Bush but without all the Bush smarts. At least with a Republican in the White House, deficits won't matter anymore.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
September 15th, 2011 at 6:46:09 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinHow is this for a gimmick?
Gimmicky.
Quote:President Obama runs for re-election in 2012 with Hillary Clinton as his Vice Presidential candidate. As part of his campaign promise, he says that he will resign the presidency on October 20, 2016. In this manner, Hillary Clinton will be able to run in the 2016 election as a sitting president. In any case we will have our first female president for at least 3 months.
There are two reasons this would never happen. In the second palce, I don't hink Hillary will want to play VP to anyone. But in the first palce, why should Obama want to seriously worry about an assasination?
But it is a good gimmick. I give it a 9.1 on the Gimmick Scale.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 15th, 2011 at 6:51:22 AM
permalink
Quote: SanchoPanzaCombine NY-09 with NV-02 and that could well be more than a footnote.
I thought NV-02 was heavily Republican. Isn't that the district that's basically all of NV except for Clark County?
September 15th, 2011 at 7:39:48 AM
permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI thought NV-02 was heavily Republican. Isn't that the district that's basically all of NV except for Clark County?
Yes, but it includes the urban areas of Reno/Sparks and part of Clark County. They voted for McCain, but only by a fraction of a percent. It is much less of an indicator of a partisan shift than New York 9th.
It is actually the Nevada 3rd district which is heavily Republican. Now with a fourth district added they must redistrict the state. But all of the population outside of Clark County is still less than one congressional district.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:58:38 AM
permalink
Quote: Nareed
There are two reasons this would never happen. In the second palce, I don't hink Hillary will want to play VP to anyone. But in the first palce, why should Obama want to seriously worry about an assasination?
But it is a good gimmick. I give it a 9.1 on the Gimmick Scale.
Hillary might not want to be VP, but I think she would like the idea of becoming the President right before the election. The first female president of the USA would be something that her ego could stand. Even a lame duck president has a lot of power, and it's a good place to be running for her own term.
September 15th, 2011 at 10:39:38 AM
permalink
Obama's losing the Jewish vote, that's for sure. From an electoral stanpoint this matters in PA and FL and perhaps NJ. I never really understood why Jews voted D in the first place.
September 15th, 2011 at 11:59:37 AM
permalink
Quote: 7outlineawayObama's losing the Jewish vote, that's for sure. From an electoral stanpoint this matters in PA and FL and perhaps NJ. I never really understood why Jews voted D in the first place.
I think it will make a difference in NJ, and possibly Maryland, and Nevada. But even more than the percentage of votes is the money involved. Sheldon Adelson for example is very against the two state solution in Palestine. If he starts throwing his money around against Obama, that could make a big difference.
There is also a Fundamental Christian contingent in this country that gets very upset when you start talking "two state" solution, and "return to the indefensible 1967 boundaries".
Jewish percentage
8.40% New York (solid Democrat)
5.51% New Jersey
5.09% District of Columbia (solid Democrat)
4.30% Massachusetts (solid Democrat)
4.20% Maryland
3.67% Florida
3.31% California (solid Democrat)
3.19% Connecticut (solid Democrat)
2.88% Nevada
2.29% Pennsylvania
2.18% Illinois (solid Democrat)
1.79% Arizona
1.74% Rhode Island
1.69% Colorado
1.60% Delaware
1.40% Georgia
1.29% Virginia
1.26% Ohio
1.02% Missouri
0.46% Rest of USA
September 15th, 2011 at 12:12:09 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinHillary might not want to be VP, but I think she would like the idea of becoming the President right before the election. The first female president of the USA would be something that her ego could stand. Even a lame duck president has a lot of power, and it's a good place to be running for her own term.
It would suit her character better, and would have a higher chance of success, if she would resign right now and announce, a week or two hence, she'll challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination.
She can draw upon her husband's successful time in office. She can say the economy was great then and America was at peace (WTC1, Khobar Towers, the embassies in Africa and the ship in the Gulf nothwithstanding). Hillary can even contrast her Hilalrycare favorably against Obamacare, if only because her plan was soundly defeated at the time. She still can advocate for government takeover of healthcare while vowing to repeal Obamacare; Democrats ought to love the doublethink involved, too.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 15th, 2011 at 1:00:50 PM
permalink
Is it correct that in the next redistricting, the 9th district will disappear ??
September 15th, 2011 at 2:52:46 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinHillary might not want to be VP, .
Have you seen Hillary lately? She looks like
somebodies fat, doughy faced grandma in
a pastel pantsuit. And she's only going to
get worse. Its no wonder Bill never wants
to see her. The least she could have done,
if she knew she was going to be in public
life, was to make some attempt to take care
of her appearance. Does she eat pizza and
donuts every day?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 15th, 2011 at 3:08:04 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffIs it correct that in the next redistricting, the 9th district will disappear ??
I haven't hear how they are going to do it. They have to remove one district from #15-#29 , and one district from #1 to #14.
The districts #1 (west Long Island) and #8 (east Brooklyn) will probably change the least as their population growth was high enough that they almost have the target population already.
I imagine #9 would be the easiest to remove since it is bordered by 5 other districts who would gobble it up to make up the difference. The same way with #24 since it is also bounded by 6 other districts.
28 : -105,869
27 : -88,436
11 : -85,299
15 : -77,834
3 : -72,199
6 : -65,943
14 : -65,026
24 : -60,485
9 : -57,401
4 : -54,300
29 : -53,980
23 : -53,462
7 : -50,075
25 : -48,838
5 : -47,577
12 : -45,349
26 : -42,903
18 : -42,882
10 : -39,986
17 : -39,149
21 : -38,514
22 : -38,410
2 : -37,814
20 : -34,509
13 : -31,182
16 : -23,888
19 : -17,748
1 : -12,148
8 : -4,195
In Pennsylvania the 12 congressional district (Jack Murtha's) was one of the most gerrymandered in the country. After 2000 the Republicans tried to pack as many Democrats into the 12th district on the assumption that Jack Murtha would never lose an election as long as he lived (he had won 15 straight elections to that point, most by landslides). They moved most of fellow Democrat Frank Mascara district into Murtha's causing the two Democrates to run against each other in primaries.
Well Jack Murtha won 4 more elections, but he died 9 months before the 2010 midterm election, and the region turned more conservative, but that Republicans ended up losing not only the 12th, but the adjacent 4th district. It's important to remember that gerrymandering sometimes turns against the people who make the boundaries.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:55:21 PM
permalink
I voted "bad news for Obama" but not in that it is some kind of barometer on him, not as direct as the media is making it anyways. The bad news is in the hidden story.
In the 2010 midterms the "hidden story" was in all the state (and local to a lesser extent) elections the dems lost. PMSNBC-type outlets said "so what, Obama will veto whatever the House and Tea-Party put out there even if it passes the Senate." What they missed was so much happens at state level. The reigning in of the unions in WI and other places is just one thing. It is still adding up and will be 20 years or more before we realize the results. The "bench" of the Democrat Party was wiped out as well, making them weaker in coming federal elections.
Lets assume NV is near meaningless, a safe GOP seat. NY, OTOH, should have been a totally safe Democrat seat. The loss in this kind of election shows a lack of a "ground game." Harry Reid won based on his last-minute ability to get his supporters to the polls, he was behind until the end. In this NY election, there should have been a bunch of unions and other Democrat Party supporters getting people to the polls. They either didn't or couldn't.
Secondly, this shows a total deflation of enthusiasm for Democrats and Obama. A 3% or so "flip" would have meant a POTUS McCain. Obama had people fired up, while the GOP was out of energy from a final 3 years of a Bush administration that never defended itself from any attack. It is not hard to believe energy alone was most of that 3%. Blacks alone were probably 1% of the 3%.
The Democrat Party seems to have a better ground-get-people-to-the-polls-game than the GOP but they also seem to need it more. Democrats seem more willing to stay home than the GOP.
In the 2010 midterms the "hidden story" was in all the state (and local to a lesser extent) elections the dems lost. PMSNBC-type outlets said "so what, Obama will veto whatever the House and Tea-Party put out there even if it passes the Senate." What they missed was so much happens at state level. The reigning in of the unions in WI and other places is just one thing. It is still adding up and will be 20 years or more before we realize the results. The "bench" of the Democrat Party was wiped out as well, making them weaker in coming federal elections.
Lets assume NV is near meaningless, a safe GOP seat. NY, OTOH, should have been a totally safe Democrat seat. The loss in this kind of election shows a lack of a "ground game." Harry Reid won based on his last-minute ability to get his supporters to the polls, he was behind until the end. In this NY election, there should have been a bunch of unions and other Democrat Party supporters getting people to the polls. They either didn't or couldn't.
Secondly, this shows a total deflation of enthusiasm for Democrats and Obama. A 3% or so "flip" would have meant a POTUS McCain. Obama had people fired up, while the GOP was out of energy from a final 3 years of a Bush administration that never defended itself from any attack. It is not hard to believe energy alone was most of that 3%. Blacks alone were probably 1% of the 3%.
The Democrat Party seems to have a better ground-get-people-to-the-polls-game than the GOP but they also seem to need it more. Democrats seem more willing to stay home than the GOP.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 15th, 2011 at 4:02:15 PM
permalink
The economy is bad news for Obama. Although it's sad that a Republican is likely going to benefit from essentially the same conditions as a Republican president left us with. Unless things are even worse than I think they are, Jimmy Carter could get credit in the next four years for improvement in the economy if he was reelected.
Despite all the bitching and complaining about him, I don't think Obama's poll numbers have been hurt enough on any other issue that would have affected a reelection bid.
Despite all the bitching and complaining about him, I don't think Obama's poll numbers have been hurt enough on any other issue that would have affected a reelection bid.
Sanitized for Your Protection
September 15th, 2011 at 4:09:41 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineAlthough it's sad that a Republican is likely going to benefit from essentially the same conditions as a Republican president left us with.
The economy is supposed to improve, not stay in a bad state. Unemployment is 4% or more higher than when Bush left. Deficits are 150% higher. Obama has responded by suing companies that are creating jobs. What is sad is how many people like him for reading a teleprompter. He has not imporved anything and actually made most things worst. This happens when you get elected with no experience or qualifications.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 15th, 2011 at 4:21:13 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineUnless things are even worse than I think they are, Jimmy Carter could get credit in the next four years for improvement in the economy if he was reelected.
Carter would be a Republican nowadays, or at the very least to the right of Obama. He deregulated several industries, was against nationalizing healthcare, and was arguably further to the right on policy towards the Middle East.
I'm beginnng to think the best-case scenario is that Obama wins, but R's keep the House and win the Senate (highly likely, even though no one is talking about it) and Obamacare is declared unconstitutional. The US is generally the most prosperous when government is divided -- Reagan never had the House, and Clinton didn't have Congress from 1995-2000. Gridlock is a GOOD thing. Major legislation gets passed only if a significant faction of the minority party (and thus, the American people) goes along.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:26:47 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineThe economy is bad news for Obama. Despite all the bitching and complaining about him, I don't think Obama's poll numbers have been hurt enough on any other issue that would have affected a reelection bid.
I am actually very fond of Obama. However, the term "any other issue" is a little misleading. There basically is one big issue, and a lot of incidental issues.
The last Budget that President Bush signed predicted a deficit of -$274 billion for the fiscal years 2009 - 2012 . The last budget that President Obama signed predicted a deficit of -$5,453 billion for the same four fiscal year 2009-2012. That's a multiplier of 20 .
I think that says a lot more about the complete unreliability of budget predictions, but in any event only the hardcore faithful will still be blaming GW Bush for all of our fiscal problems in 2012. President Obama has been president for 2 years, 8 months.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:42:47 PM
permalink
Couple of odds and ends...
-The statement about Obama's "personal popularity" and "job performance" is outdated. Newer polls have the numbers beginning to sync up, as they almost always do after some time in office.
-NV-3 isn't the super Republican seat. Over the last decade, NV-1 was Dem, NV-2 was GOP, and NV-3 was swing. in NV-3, Republican John Porter lost it to Democrat Dina Titus, who in turn lost it to Republican Joe Heck. The 2nd has never elected a Democrat, so it is the more Republican seat. NV-4 will be born in the coming months shifting much of the calculus.
-NY-9 can't EASILY be absorbed into the surrounding districts because of some VRA issues with Majority Minority seats. It all depends what Speaker Silver (D), Majority Leader Skelos (R), and Governor Cuomo (D) want to do. Literally. Those three men are almost certainly going to make the map. But the irony is with NY losing two districts, the conventional wisdom early this year was the Republicans would lose an upstate seat, and the Dems would lose a NYC seat. Turner's win coupled with Democrat Rep. Kathy Hochul's win in the special to replace Rep. Chris Lee means that it could be a DEMOCRAT upstate seat and a REPUBLICAN NYC seat that get axed. Lee and Weiner, the NY Congressmen that effectively Russian Rouletted their seats out of existence....
-The statement about Obama's "personal popularity" and "job performance" is outdated. Newer polls have the numbers beginning to sync up, as they almost always do after some time in office.
-NV-3 isn't the super Republican seat. Over the last decade, NV-1 was Dem, NV-2 was GOP, and NV-3 was swing. in NV-3, Republican John Porter lost it to Democrat Dina Titus, who in turn lost it to Republican Joe Heck. The 2nd has never elected a Democrat, so it is the more Republican seat. NV-4 will be born in the coming months shifting much of the calculus.
-NY-9 can't EASILY be absorbed into the surrounding districts because of some VRA issues with Majority Minority seats. It all depends what Speaker Silver (D), Majority Leader Skelos (R), and Governor Cuomo (D) want to do. Literally. Those three men are almost certainly going to make the map. But the irony is with NY losing two districts, the conventional wisdom early this year was the Republicans would lose an upstate seat, and the Dems would lose a NYC seat. Turner's win coupled with Democrat Rep. Kathy Hochul's win in the special to replace Rep. Chris Lee means that it could be a DEMOCRAT upstate seat and a REPUBLICAN NYC seat that get axed. Lee and Weiner, the NY Congressmen that effectively Russian Rouletted their seats out of existence....
September 15th, 2011 at 4:52:58 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanHarry Reid won based on his last-minute ability to get his supporters to the polls, he was behind until the end.
Reid has said his internal polling never agreed with the external polls. Maybe he says that every time and its just hype. Although he wasn't acting like someone working from behind either as he wasn't running around trying to call Angle out in the last few weeks like they do with real front runners.
Sanitized for Your Protection
September 15th, 2011 at 4:55:39 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineReid has said his internal polling never agreed with the external polls. Maybe he says that every time and its just hype. Although he wasn't acting like someone working from behind either as he wasn't running around trying to call Angle out in the last few weeks like they do with real front runners.
I agree. Angle may have gotten close at one point in the race (within a point or so), but, as a Republican, I had little faith in her ability to win, even in 2010. I made some decent change on intrade when Reid was around 30% re-elect. John Ralston had internals that never had Reid closer than up 3. And these weren't the typical "leaked" internals that are only put out to make a candidate look better. Reid was more than happy for all the public polls to say he was going to lose.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:01:19 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinJewish percentage
8.40% New York (solid Democrat)
5.51% New Jersey
5.09% District of Columbia (solid Democrat)
4.30% Massachusetts (solid Democrat)
4.20% Maryland
3.67% Florida
3.31% California (solid Democrat)
3.19% Connecticut (solid Democrat)
2.88% Nevada
2.29% Pennsylvania
2.18% Illinois (solid Democrat)
If that's percentage of populations, a far more interesting number would be the percentage of actual voters.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:37:27 PM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinI am actually very fond of Obama. H
I have to admit, Obama is more entertaining
than Bush. Obama is always out there, stepping
in one form of dog crap or another, whereas we
rarely saw Bush. Obama gives speeches every
other week, Bush stayed in the WH. Now we've
got the green jobs fiasco and that was Obama's
big jobs project. Once they start investigating
where all the money went, and we see Obama's
little sphincter pucker up even more than it is
already, the real fun entertainment will begin.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 15th, 2011 at 6:54:48 PM
permalink
Quote: AZDuffmanLibs are confused that conservatives knowing and feeling the economy will keep getting bad is wanting it to get bad. We see what Obama is doing and know it won't work yet they get upset when it doesn't..
Do you remember when the market was going down in the early '00s and Dick Gephardt and high level Dem operatives were going around saying things like "We need to pump up these Wall Street Scandals until the election!" and "Every 100 points down is another seat we pick up in the House!"
Look, I'm old enough to remember the Economy coming back strong in late 1992 BEFORE Bush1 was booted for the economy. I sincerely hope the economy starts turning around AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. But I also hope that the President pays for his poor policies that have continued the economic stagnation longer than GHWBush ever did (and lost for).
September 15th, 2011 at 8:14:12 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineYou didn't prove I have a sinister motive, sorry. Proving motive is pretty hard actually, you either need a lawyer and trial, or at least an explicit statement of my "sinister motive" which I didn't give you.
And if I did, quote it.
I'm not convicting you. I'm accusing you. And here's why ...
Quote: rxwineThe economy is bad news for Obama. Although it's sad that a Republican is likely going to benefit from essentially the same conditions as a Republican president left us with. Unless things are even worse than I think they are, Jimmy Carter could get credit in the next four years for improvement in the economy if he was reelected.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccer* that he actually believes that ANYONE benefits from a bad economy
* that, in stating that Republicans can "benefit" from a bad economy, that he sees things primarily from a political opportunist perspective, and thereby puts politics above the good of the nation
Pretty effing damning. I'm sure you'll try to weasel out of saying it by saying you were saying something other than what you were saying, but you said it, so there it is.
You would probably serve yourself better if you just own up and try to do better going forward. But my guess is, you won't do that. Instead, you'll double-down in Obama-esque fashion and, in the process, only make yourself look as stupid. But that's just a guess. What you decide to do is your call.
EDIT: Oh, and just to nail down that benefit is exactly what you meant, here's another little gem from this same thread ...
Quote: rxwineI'm curious , if Bush was still President for the last two years, would we reelect him (were he able to run). Would he have made a difference. Would the Rebublicans benefit in elections?
My point is, sane, normal, rational people don't make this calculation. Sinister people do.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:14:38 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineWhy anyone would read your words to figure out what I'm saying is its own mystery.
Again, an intentional introduction of confusion. FWIW, I think that intentionally introducing confusion is also sinister.
I doubt anyone needs me to interpret what you're saying. Your words speak for themselves and don't really require interpretation.
But I'm not interpreting them. Taking you at your word, I'm calling you out for being sinister, which you are again being in trying to introduce confusion.
I've already tried to give you your out by just saying you should own up and try to do better going forward, but it appears that that's not something you're capable of. Nothing would make me happier than to see you exhibit maturity and sanity in this.
I can't make you do anything, though. You choose your own path: classiness and maturity, or sinister-ness and obfuscation. Nobody needs me to interpret anything; your decision will manifest itself.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:25:07 PM
permalink
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI've already tried to give you your out by just saying you should own up and try to do better going forward, but it appears that that's not something you're capable of.
Maybe you can learn from your mistake then, if that's what you think.
Quote:Nothing would make me happier than to see you exhibit maturity and sanity in this.
Thanks for the laugh. Who's the one who chose to pontificate on my post? I didn't even have to answer your post in the first place, and I certainly didn't agree to some rules of engagement. So, declare whatever you want in your own mind.
Sanitized for Your Protection
September 15th, 2011 at 10:46:02 PM
permalink
New York State has had to give up more congressional districts than any state in the Union (18 in the last 70 years). They must give up 2 more by the next election.
The favored candidates were the 9th, held by the Democrat John Weiner who disgraced himself, and the 25th in upstate New York, held by a freshman Republican for only the last 36 weeks.
But this Republican win in the 9th means that the Republicans won't want to give up two of their seats. Republicans now hold three seats in the greater New York Area (13th in Staten Island, The 9th in Brooklyn and Queens, and 3rd in eastern Nassau County)
It is technically possible to take away two districts in the New York region, but then nearly every single district will have to be extensively redrawn to try and keep the populations equal. It would require much less alteration of the districts if one is removed from upstate New York, and another from Long Island. Most of the population loss is in upstate New York.
NOTE: This map does not reflect the GOP win in the 9th district
The favored candidates were the 9th, held by the Democrat John Weiner who disgraced himself, and the 25th in upstate New York, held by a freshman Republican for only the last 36 weeks.
But this Republican win in the 9th means that the Republicans won't want to give up two of their seats. Republicans now hold three seats in the greater New York Area (13th in Staten Island, The 9th in Brooklyn and Queens, and 3rd in eastern Nassau County)
It is technically possible to take away two districts in the New York region, but then nearly every single district will have to be extensively redrawn to try and keep the populations equal. It would require much less alteration of the districts if one is removed from upstate New York, and another from Long Island. Most of the population loss is in upstate New York.
NOTE: This map does not reflect the GOP win in the 9th district
September 16th, 2011 at 6:46:59 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwineMaybe you can learn from your mistake then, if that's what you think.
Maybe. Now I know that it's a mistake to give you the benefit of the doubt, and maybe I should just start at assuming the worst.
Quote: rxwineThanks for the laugh. Who's the one who chose to pontificate on my post? I didn't even have to answer your post in the first place, and I certainly didn't agree to some rules of engagement. So, declare whatever you want in your own mind.
I chose your post because it stood out as something insanely weird and revealing. I would choose similar posts if they were similarly illustrative. It is perfectly sane and appropriate to identify and expose thinking like that, which is harmful to everyone. The more times it's identified, the easier it becomes to recognize it - and subsequently disregard it and no longer vote for the political animals that espouse it.
September 16th, 2011 at 10:17:32 AM
permalink
Maybe to be fair the parties in New York should do a sex scandal trade-off to decide which two congressional districts should be terminated.
The Republican Chris Lee representing NY 26th district was soliciting trans-sexuals on Craig's list. His resignation caused the seat to be filled by a Democrat.
The Democrat Anthony Weiner representing NY 9th district was sending photos of his part on Twitter. His resignation caused the seat to be filled by a Republican.
I would say that these two districts would make good choices to for elimination by next election. Kind of a sleaze balance.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:00:07 AM
permalink
September 16th, 2011 at 12:32:35 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerObama is done as President. The best that the country can hope for is that the Republicans nominate Rick Perry
I think that if Perry gets nominated, Obama gets re-elected, because there are enough moderate Republicans out there who would rather vote for a non-Pelosi-level Democrat than anybody that smacks of Tea Party.
IMO, Romney has a decent chance, but he has to get the nomination first.
September 16th, 2011 at 3:13:28 PM
permalink
Is all that's left of the GOP is RINO and tea partiers now? There used to be a middle ground. Or I thought there was.
Sanitized for Your Protection
September 16th, 2011 at 3:17:05 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineIs all that's left of the GOP is RINO and tea partiers now? There used to be a middle ground. Or I thought there was.
The Tea Party is the middle ground, if you believe in Constitutionalism that is.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
September 16th, 2011 at 3:22:50 PM
permalink
Wait till the Solyndra scandel gets revved up. This reminds
me of Monicagate in that the press poohpooed it and ignored
it until it became a monster. If this was Bush, it would be on
NBC Nightly News as the first story every night. Because its
Obama, they ignore it.
me of Monicagate in that the press poohpooed it and ignored
it until it became a monster. If this was Bush, it would be on
NBC Nightly News as the first story every night. Because its
Obama, they ignore it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
