Republicans win NY-9

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Filling the void left by Anthony Weiner, Republican Bob Turner has defeated Democrat David Weprin in the special election in New York's 9th Congressional District.

As I write, Turner is up 53-47 with about two-thirds of precincts reporting.

NY-9 is a heavily Democratic district, including parts of both Brooklyn and Queens, and Republicans will no doubt make much of this win.

But it's actually more complicated than that.

NY-9 is a Democratic district but also somewhat socially conservative given the large Catholic and Jewish presence. Yes, Weiner was able to win it fairly easily, and the Democrats should have been able to hold it post-Weiner, but Israel was a key issue during the campaign and Republicans were able to turn even sympathetic Democrats against Weprin by attacking President Obama's Israel policies, generally centrist policies that are not nearly hardline enough for many of Israel's hardcore supporters (like Ed Koch, though Joe Lieberman, a hardcore pro-Israel "Democrat," actually endorsed Weprin), including in this generally Democratic part of the world.

So is that all there was to it? No. Same-sex marriage was also an issue, with socially conservative tendencies in the district boosting Turner.

And while now is hardly a good time for Obama and the Democrats, let's not forget that Republicans actually have worse approval ratings. So while Republicans will no doubt find a great deal of pro-Republican meaning in this result, I'm not so sure it was any sort of referendum with national implications. Certainly not the way the Democratic victory in heavily Republican NY-26 was -- a reminder that Democrats, if they don't back down, can win on fiscal/economic issues by exposing Republicans as anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare extremists.

And let's not forget, too, that this special election wouldn't have happened had Anthony Weiner not been such an irresponsible idiot (or whatever you want to call him). Maybe he had to go, maybe not, but he did what he did and he put himself in a largely indefensible position politically (Republican hypocrisy notwithstanding). And so to a great extent it's his fault that this seat has gone Republican. It should, after all, still be his.

Alas.

Idiot of the Day: Richard Cohen

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Why do I make the mistake of clicking to, and then reading, a Richard Cohen WaPo column? Surely it can do me no good whatsoever.

Have I not learned my lesson? Despite all the evidence that has piled up over the years, do I not realize that there is usually nothing there but a barren wasteland of self-important navel gazing mixed with embarrassingly shallow and utterly ill-formed political observations?

Alas.

But okay. This once. Just this once.

Behold the genius at work:

Barack Obama has lost the Hamptons.

That sentence is a fat target for ridicule, I know, since the Hamptons are often reviled as the playground of the ridiculously rich and the promiscuously silly — hardly the working-class Democratic base. As is usually the case, there's some truth to the stereotype, but enough exceptions to that rule to make the White House pay attention. The Hamptons is where the Democratic energy, money and intellectual firepower of Manhattan goes for R&R. It’s just not another beach.

Over the Labor Day weekend, I went to a number of events in the Hamptons. At all of them, Obama was discussed. At none of them — that's none — was he defended. That was remarkable. After all, sitting around various lunch and dinner tables were mostly Democrats. Not only that, some of them had been vociferous Obama supporters, giving time and money to his election effort. They were all disillusioned.

Boo-hoo. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Yes, Cohen is right -- how could he not be, making such an obvious point? -- that "the Hamptons are not America" and that "some of these people will scurry back to the Democratic fold when they have to choose between Obama and, say, Rick Perry," but, no, the early returns are not in.

Obama hasn't lost the Hamptons. What he's lost, if anything, is the vote of a handful of wealthy, ignorant fools who have far less influence on the general electorate than Cohen suggests.

You may not like Obama, you may be "disillusioned" (which is really just another way of saying "gratuitously self-absorbed"), but if you can't defend him at all for anything he has done (health-care reform? the stimulus? his SCOTUS appointments? the troubling but necessary bailouts of Wall Street and the auto industry?) you're just an ignoramus without any sense of perspective or political understanding or appreciation for reality.

Look, it's a difficult time. And Obama has had an extraordinarily difficult time ever since he took office. Not to excuse everything he has done -- I've been harshly critical at times and remain deeply disappointed with his Republican-friendly centrism and occasional anti-progressivism -- but what else was he to do?

Okay, let's see...

-- He hasn't used the bully pulpit effectively enough, hasn't tried to sway public opinion towards a Democratic agenda that for the most part enjoys broad popular support.

-- He should have pushed for more progressive health-care reform, including a public option -- assuming he actually wanted such progressive reform.

-- He shouldn't have embraced so much of the Bush-Cheney national security state.

-- He should have put an end to the failed Afghan War. And perhaps shouldn't have supported NATO intervention in Libya, though the world is certainly better off with out Qaddafi in power.

-- He should have been more aggressively partisan in response to a Republican Party that is out to destroy him. He should call the GOP out for its extremism and obstructionism.

-- He should have built on his magnificent '08 campaign and been more of a transformational leader -- assuming he isn't just an establishment centrist Democrat. The opportunity was there for meaningful change, change we supposedly could believe in, but such change hasn't come.

Yes, fine. That's a lot.

But for a bunch of rich New Yorkers to abandon him entirely? Seriously, are they that fucked up, are they such Cohen-esque navel gazers, that they've lost even a shred of a clue? Sure, I get that some of them are "disappointed." But in their pitiful self-pitying, which is what so much of this is, they show themselves not to be "politically sophisticated" but, well, quite the opposite. Can they name nothing Obama has done that they like? Do they understand at all how he couldn't just show up in Washington and get his way? It would seem not, on both counts.

As if drive home his idiocy, Cohen cites as an example of Obama's weakness the whole flap over when he would give his jobs speech to Congress. To any reasonable person, it made sense for Obama to postpone the speech, given that it would have interfered with a Republican debate. But no -- to Cohen it was "an epochal moment in weakness, confusion and brain-dead politics." Really? Epochal? That's just fucking stupid.

Alright, enough. I now need to get back to not reading anything Cohen writes. Why impose such idiocy on yourself? You might as well go wallow in the 24/7 batshittery over at Fox News. At least those right-wing clowns are stupendous in their shameless partisan shenanigans.

The special election for Anthony Weiner's old seat

By Richard K. Barry




I don't know that many people are paying a lot of attention to the special election that will take place on September 13th for New York's 9th congressional district, but things are tighter there than they should be. 



This is the seat vacated by Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner for conduct unbecoming a congressman. You remember.



To provide some context, Weiner held the seat from January of 1999 until his resignation in June of this year. He won seven terms, never receiving less than 59 percent of the vote. The seat was previously held by Democrat Chuck Shumer, who went on to run successfully for the U.S. Senate.



In a Siena poll conducted Aug. 3-8, Democratic candidate David Weprin is leading Republican Bob Turner by a 48 to 42 percent margin. With a 4.4 percent margin of error, that makes things close.



One interesting note here is that Joe Lieberman has endorsed Weprin, a move meant to counter former New York City Mayor Ed Koch's endorsement of Turner. In general, the media has been trying to characterize the special election in this heavily Jewish Brooklyn and Queens district as a referendum on President Obama's Israel policies, which Koch has characterized as not sufficiently pro-Israel.



In giving his endorsement in late July, Lieberman, a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship, said:

While David Weprin can be counted on to fight for the safety and security of the State of Israel, we can also rely on him to protect the seniors and working families in Brooklyn and Queens.

Steve Greenberg, a pollster for Sienna, said what pollster always seem to say, which is that voter turnout will be key.

Which campaign will do a better job of identifying their voters and getting them to the polls [will be important] because, as we know, special elections tend to have low voter turnout. Probably fewer than 20 percent of the registered voters in the 9th congressional district will actually go to the polls and vote.

Turner is a retired media executive who ran unsuccessfully against Weiner in the general election last year.



Assemblyman Weprin is a former New York City councilman who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination to be comptroller in 2009.



Just what the Democrats need right now: A close race in an historically Democratic district.



Thanks, Anthony.



(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The aftermath of NY-26, looking ahead to 2012

By Michael J.W. Stickings

A few quick hits as we all try to sort out the meaning of yesterday's Democratic victory in New York's heavily Republican 26th Congressional District:

Politico: "Have Democrats cracked the code for 2012?"

Nate Silver, NYT/538: "Six Months After Midterm Disaster, Hopeful Signs for Democrats."

Steve Benen sums it up: "What we saw in Buffalo was a test -- how is the public responding to the GOP's far-right agenda in Congress? It's a test Republicans failed."

Here's what I wrote last night, just after the race was called for Hochul:

Sure, a number of factors went into Hochul's victory, but, again, a lot of it had to do with the Ryan plan and, more broadly, the Republicans right-wing agenda. That's what Republicans were touting. That's what they were making so public. That's what they wanted to define them. Well, it failed -- once people learned about it, they recoiled. And in this heavily Republican district in Western New York, a Democrat, helped a little bit but not much by a Tea Party challenger taking votes away from the Republican, has swept to victory.

There's no guarantee, of course, that this is how things will play out in November 2012, and a whole lot can change between now and then, but that doesn't mean this wasn't a hugely significant and revealing result that may just be an indicator of things to come.

**********

And, of course, the Senate yesterday rejected Paul Ryan's budget, which is now Republican orthodoxy.

The vote was 57-40 against, with five Republicans (Brown, Collins, Snowe, and Murkowski, who oppose it, and Paul, who thinks it doesn't go far enough) siding with the Democratic majority. 

What this means is that Republicans voted 41 to 4 to destroy Medicare. As TPM's Brian Beutler observes:

[T]he roll call illustrates that Medicare privatization -- along with deep cuts to Medicaid and other social services -- remains the consensus position of the GOP despite the growing political backlash against them.

And they'll be running on this in 2012 (while attacking the Democrats from the left and arguing that they're the ones who will protect Medicare from Democratic cuts, as utterly dishonest as this would be). 

Good times ahead.

In your face, Teabaggers! (redux)

By Carl 

The standard mantra of the Republican party has been to cut entitlement programs and keep taxes low because that's what the rabble want, right? 

Uh-huh! 

While well aware that there were political risks, many Republicans went into this year convinced that the rapid growth of the national debt had changed the public mood when it came to tackling the entitlement programs, starting with Medicare, the biggest driver of projected future deficits. In an ambitious budget plan written by Representative Paul D. Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, House Republicans embraced a proposal that would convert Medicare into a subsidized program for the private insurance market.

Even after Tuesday night's loss in the New York special election, in a district Republicans had held for decades, some Republicans remain chin out, calling the Ryan plan much needed medicine that the public will eventually embrace.

Others up for reelection, and some of those running for president, will not firmly commit themselves one way or another. And a small but growing number are saying no. 

The "loss" the Times refers to is the victory of Democrat Kathy Hochul over a split GOP ticket of Jane Corwin and Jack Davis, a Teabagger in one of the most conservative districts in the country, much less New York State. The percentage split 47-43-9, makes the race seem closer than it was. In truth, the Republican budget proposal was defeated 56-43 (adding Davis' and Hochul's totals together, which, as Nate Silver points out, ain't too far from the truth).

Damn. Even President Obama couldn't pull off that stunning a victory! And to top it all off, Corwin had visits from John Boener and Eric Cantor to try to salvage her campaign, all for nought. Talk about rubbing noses in it!

So there's a strategy here for Democrats to take back the House, believe it or not, but it's going to require quite a bit of work and quite a bit of money to offset the Citizen's United debacle. For one thing, the first step is the one already being contemplated: Force an up-or-down vote in the Senate on Medicare reform.

And there's not a ghost of a chance this could be filibustered away. After all, it's the centerpiece of the Republican legislative agenda. Can you imagine a Senator being dumb enough to tell Paul Ryan to fuck off?

Even voting against the plan will raise hackles for Senators like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, who will undoubtedly face a tough, Koch-financed primary challenge for re-election if they do.

Sort of fun watching these asshats twist in the wind. When you don't get it, you deserve to have it stuffed down your throat, I suppose.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Live-blogging the 2011 NY-26 special election

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Okay, let's do some live-blogging -- with American Idol in the background (not my choice, I'd rather have the Jays-Yanks game on, though I admit I'm also interested in how Hines Ward does on Dancing With the Stars).

8:34 pm: The Buffalo News is the place to go for election coverage tonight. The national media are all over this story, of course, but it's good to get the local perspective. And I say that as a Torontonian -- Buffalo is local to us. And the News has a running blog right on its main page. (I've submitted a couple of questions/comments.)

8:36 pm: Jon Chait notes that the Tea Party candidate, Jack Davis, isn't really playing the spoiler. He's running on an economic populism platform, "emphasizing economic protectionism." In other words, he's running on the Ross Perot platform, and the numbers show he has support across the spectrum -- leaning to the right but not so much that all of his supporters would vote Republican were he not in the race. What this means is that Hochul (pictured here), the Democrat, is doing astoundingly well to have been up in the polls. It's not exactly a Hochul-Corwin race, but it's close to that, which means the Democrat and Republicans are on fairly even terms. And the Democrat, in this highly Republican district, appears to be ahead. (Though of course we'll have to see what the actual results are.)

8:41 pm: What to watch, according to Politico. This afternoon, Richard Barry, my friend and associate editor of this humble blog, said that his gut was telling him Corwin would win. He usually knows what he's talking about, and his political instincts are generally on the mark. Needless to say, though, I hope he's horribly wrong.

8:42 pm: In other words, the Republican spin, which is already that a Corwin loss would be because Davis, is simply wrong (and, of course, dishonest).

8:48 pm: I continue to contend that this is a significant election (even if some pundits are being rather more cautious). Maybe not a perfect harbinger of things to come but at least an indicator of where things might be headed in 2012. It's also not simply a referendum on the Republicans' right-wing agenda, and specifically Ryan's budget (and anti-Medicare) plan, but that's certainly part of it, and what's abundantly clear is that voters are rejecting it. The Democrats will no doubt continue to press the issue and tie Republicans to the plan, while Republicans will be split between those who demand that the plan be party orthodoxy from which deviation/dissent is not tolerated (as we saw recently with Gingrich) and those who, looking at the polls and thinking of their electoral chances (and careers) run away from it.

8:52 pm: I read earlier that turnout seems to be very good today. It'll be interesting to see the numbers, but high turnout should favour Hochul (i.e., change, which generally attracts more enthusiasm than the status quo). 

8:58 pm: Alright, polls close in two minutes... 

8:59 pm: Uh-oh. The News, on its running blog, is reporting high turnout in Republican-heavy rural counties and low turnout in Democratic-leaning urban/suburban counties like Erie and Niagara. Not good.

9:00 pm: Even if so much of this vote is about the unpopularity of the Ryan plan, it's telling that Hochul has been presenting herself as an independent. That's what you have to do in such a Republican district. 

9:02 pm: Awfully interesting that Corwin, according to the News, "this afternoon obtained a court order from State Supreme Court Justice Russell P. Buscaglia barring a certification of a winner in the special 26th Congressional District race pending a show-cause hearing before him later this week." What Corwin and the Republicans certainly don't want is for Hochul to be declared the winner of what is anticipated to be a close vote. A spokesman for Corwin said that "we want to make sure that every legal vote is counted fairly and accurately," but I wonder, is there really any good reason for this? I'm suspicious.

9:18 pm: I love Hines Ward.

9:19 pm: Early returns coming in. Nothing much to report. Results should start coming in more quickly around 9:30. 

9:23 pm: In the end, given low turnout generally, this could all come down to GOTV. And Corwin certainly had something of an advantage in a heavily Republican district. 

9:24 pm: Yes, Ms. Corwin, you made some major missteps. But the problem isn't just that you didn't effectively address the Medicare issue early on, it's that you're a Republican who supports the party's unpopular budget agenda. And you're running at a time when the Republican name is toxic.

9:27 pm: 14 percent of precincts reporting, Hochul up 46-43 over Corwin. For what it's worth this early on.

9:32 pm: From the News: "The theme to Rocky is playing here at Corwin headquarters. Some might consider a song about underdogs an odd choice for a Republican running in a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats by 27,000 voters." Odd indeed. 

9:37 pm: A third of the way through. With 33 percent reporting, it's 48-42 for Hochul. 

9:42 pm: Looks like results will come in slowly. Might not know much until 11. 

9:48 pm: Although we're already up to 57 percent reporting. 47-43 for Hochul. 

Richard K. Barry: "I see that Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe has joined the other GOP senator from Maine Susan Collins and Mass GOP senator Scott Brown in saying she will vote against the Ryan budget plan. No matter what happens tonight in the NY-26th, a lot of Republicans are going to be looking for ways to step away from these destructive Medicare measures."

Richard K. Barry: "New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Bill Clinton did robocalls into the NY-26. I really wonder if those things have any impact. Would it really matter to me if Bill Clinton's voice was on my answering machine? Probably not." 

10:04 pm: Now it's just the waiting game...

Richard K. Barry: "Numbers look good for Hochul but it's always hard to know how things are going without knowing which precincts have reported. Jack Davis is at 8%. Win or lose this is a terrible night for Republicans. No way to paint this as anything other than what it is, a referendum on the Ryan budget plan. Just called for Hochul.

10:05 pm: Well, no more waiting. It has indeed been called, by the AP and MSNBC and I assume shortly everyone else.

HOCHUL WINS!

10:06 pm: Honestly, how incredible is this? Think back to last November. The Republicans took back the House, reduced the Dems' majority in the Senate, and looked like they had all the momentum, with Obama and the Democrats clearly on the defensive. And then... The Democrats pulled out a few victories during the lame-duck period, including DADT repeal, and Obama seemed to emerge virtually unscathed even after calling the election a shellacking. Well, look where we are now!

Sure, a number of factors went into Hochul's victory, but, again, a lot of it had to do with the Ryan plan and, more broadly, the Republicans right-wing agenda. That's what Republicans were touting. That's what they were making so public. That's what they wanted to define them. Well, it failed -- once people learned about it, they recoiled. And in this heavily Republican district in Western New York, a Democrat, helped a little bit but not much by a Tea Party challenger taking votes away from the Republican, has swept to victory.

And, it would appear, a fairly decisive victory. With 83 percent reporting, Hochul is up 48-43. Davis is at 8 percent, and so has more support than the difference between Hochul and Corwin, but, again, from what the polls were saying it's not like all of Davis's supporters would have voted Republican. In other words, even in a straight Democrat-Republican race, Hochul would likely have prevailed.

Richard K. Barry is ecstatic. As am I. Awesome!!!

10:20 pm: Okay, well, I guess that's it for us tonight. Hochul should be giving her victory speech shortly. Thanks for being here. It was a fun few hours that ended extremely well.

Take care, everyone.

Today is the day for NY-26: Voters head to the polls in special election

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, it's today, at long last, the special election in New York's 26th Congressional District to replace Republican Chris Lee, who resigned earlier this year.

I wrote about the election here and here, but let me explain again what's going on here:

In a heavily Republican district in Western New York, the combination of a Tea Party challenger (Jack Davis) and a Republican who supported Paul Ryan's deeply unpopular anti-Medicare plan (Jane Corwin) have given the Democrat (Kathy Hochul) a great chance to win. Indeed, the latest polling gives Hochul a six-point lead over Corwin, 42 to 35, with Davis in third with 13.

It seems incredible, when you think about it, until you realize that this special election has essentially become a referendum of national proportions and a key indicator for where things might be headed in 2012. It's not all about Ryan and the Republicans' radical right-wing budget plans, as I've written, but there's enough of that to suggest that the Republicans may be in trouble, with voters coming to learn of those plans and turning away in disgust, particularly independents.

Sure, Corwin might very well win a head-to-head race against Hochul, but it would be close (as it is wrong to assume that she would pick up all of Davis's support), and, again, this is a heavily Republican district, a "safe" seat that should stay GOP. It would be enough, in a way, just for Hochul, or any Democrat, to put in a good showing, to make it a competitive race. The fact that she's well ahead in the polls is incredibly significant, both in local and national terms, the local and national essentially merging here.

And the fact that she might just win...

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. If you're in NY-26, make sure you get out to vote.

Let's hope Hochul, who certainly has our full support, pulls this out. It would be a great victory for her, as well as for the Democratic Party and for efforts to reject the right-wing Republican agenda.

NY-26: As shocking as it seems, could the Democrats actually win this?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've been meaning to do an update post on the NY-26 special election, set for May 24. I wrote about it last month, noting that what is basically a safe Republican seat in suburban Buffalo (and small-town and rural Western New York) had turned into a toss-up as a result of a divide on the right, with a Tea Partier, Jack Davis, challenging the Republican candidate, Jane Corwin, with the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, not far behind and certainly within striking distance.

Well, while Corwin is certainly conservative enough to appeal broadly across the Republican spectrum and while she certainly has significant Tea Party support of her own, The Rothenberg Political Report has now moved the race from "Lean Republican" to "Toss-Up/Tilt Democratic":

Both parties agree that the race remains close – "within the margin of error" is the phrase most often used – and Republican Jane Corwin certainly has a chance to energize and turnout GOP voters in this Republican-leaning district. But Democrats seem more enthusiastic right now.

After a series of focused attacks in the paid and earned media, Republicans apparently have succeeded in bringing down self-proclaimed Tea Party candidate Jack Davis's numbers to a place where the race should be winnable for Corwin.

But those one-time Davis voters are not going immediately to Corwin, raising new doubts about the Republican’s ability to grow her support in the final week. More importantly, Hochul appears to have solidified her image and even increased her share of the vote.

What's interesting is that this local race is essentially national in terms of issues and is thus a possible indicator of where things might go in 2012:

Democrats have been pounding Corwin for supporting Wisconsin Cong. Paul Ryan's budget, including dramatic changes to Medicare. Those attacks apparently have made it difficult for Corwin to attract disaffected Davis voters. 

It's not all about Ryan and the Republicans' radical right-wing budget plans, but there's enough of that to suggest that the Republicans may be in trouble, with voters coming to learn of those plans and turning away in disgust, particularly independents.

And if the Tea Party, or at least the part of it that refuses to be absorbed completely into and/or co-opted by the GOP, continues to throw up right-wing candidates that eat away at Republican support, as it may well do all across the country, the prospects for Democrats will be even better, with even fairly safe Republican seats turned into competitive races, like NY-26, seats that might just flip.

Bigotry in Buffalo

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Buffalo News:

A feud between two Transit Road neighbors -- a homeowner and a mosque -- turned ugly this weekend when the homeowner staked a sign on his front lawn insinuating that the new 11,600-square-foot Islamic worship site is home to a "bomb making" operation.

Michael Heick, who lives next door to the Jaffarya Islamic Center of Niagara Frontier, put a small sign that reads "Bomb Making Next Driveway" to northbound traffic on Transit Road. The next driveway on the same side of the road as Heick's home heading north is the Jaffarya Center, at 10300 Transit.

Given the culture of anti-Muslim bigotry that has sprung up all over American, with conservatives -- and, yes, leading Republicans -- stirring up fear and hatred, are we surprised?

But this guy has an excuse:

Heick said he put up the sign because he was frustrated with how the mosque and Amherst town officials have handled his concerns about the building, which opened in November.

"The place is too close. I don't care what people think. It doesn't matter what people think," he said Monday evening from his front porch. "This is a way to get answers now. I get none from the town. The intent was to catch the eye of the people who I have a problem with."

Really? He objects to the mosque's bright lights and so puts up a sign saying it's a haven for terrorists? (Because, of course, all Muslims are either active terrorists or would-be terrorists. Isn't that what we are being told?) He's certainly managed to get some attention, but he's really just exposed himself as a bigot.

Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District and the impact of Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare

By Richard K. Barry

I am not going to say that GOP rock star Paul Ryan could be in any real trouble holding onto his Congressional seat, Wisconsin's 1st, in the 2012 election. He's been winning the thing pretty handily since he first ran in 1998. He didn't even really break a sweat in 2008 when Obama was taking the country by storm, winning against Democratic challenger Marge Krupp by a 64%-34% margin.

It is worth noting, though, that the Wisconsin 1st has been a swing district in presidential elections having gone to George W. Bush with 53% of the vote in 2004 and then to Obama in 2008 with 51.4%. From 1971 to 1995 the Democrats held the seat, most of the time with Les Aspin (1971-1993) and for a couple of years with Peter Barca (1993-1995), before Mark Neumann won and help it for the GOP from 1995 to 1999 and then came Ryan. So, a little back-and-forthing there and as recently as 2008 a narrow win by Obama for the Dems.

Everyone knows it's difficult to unseat incumbents and Mr. Ryan has made a bit of a name for himself, but, as we know, more recently, the news has not been all good. When supposedly safe members are taken down it is not uncommon for it to be the result of a specific and voter energizing issue - like privatizing Medicare. And let us remember that Paul Ryan is not just a member of a party thinking about doing that; he's the prime architect.

Just for a moment, let's turn our attention to what's going on in the special election in the New York 26th Congressional district to be held May 24th. This is the seat vacated by Republican Chris Lee in February, the man who couldn't seem to keep his shirt on (long story). This should be a safe seat for Republicans but for the fact that a Tea Party challenger, Jack Davis, is threatening to take votes away from the Republican nominee, Jane Corwin, and perhaps let the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, come up the middle. The latest poll from Sienna College has Corwin at 36%, Hochul at 31% and Davis 23% with local media reporting that the race is tightening. The interesting part is that 59% of those polled don't approve of the changes to Medicare that Ryan is spearheading.

I'm not saying there is going to be a Tea Party challenger in the Wisconsin 1st, unless something really weird happens like Ryan aggressively rejecting his own budget plan. No, I'm just saying this is a great issue for a prospective challenger and Ryan represents a district that doesn't mind voting for the Democrats every now and again, especially if there is a signature issue to motivate them and if a charismatic president is running for reelection on the Democratic line.

I am quite open to being told that there are all sorts of local reasons why this could never, ever, under any circumstances, happen. At the very least, it seems worth a conversation.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

An update and a question about New York's 23rd congressional district

By Richard K. Barry 

I wrote a few day ago about where things stand in New York's 23rd congressional district. This is where a split on the right helped a Democrat take the seat in a 2009 special election and hold it in the 2010 general.

Specifically, in 2010, running as a Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman appears to have allowed a split that gave the race to Democrat Bill Owens. Despite the fact that Hoffman dropped out late, he still got 6%, which was enough to lose the seat for the GOP.

On the basis of this, I suggested that Hoffman might now disappear into political oblivion. A helpful reader indicated that I could be wrong about that, suggesting that Hoffman is raising money and continues to maintain some degree of election readiness.

What I see is that Hoffman is continuing to solicit funds to pay down his campaign debt, and that he has a live website with all the bells and whistles calling for volunteers and other kinds of help, which could be for a renewed effort in 2012. I do note very little post-2010 news on the site, but the text of the fundraising letter says, and I quote, "we need our influence to prevail in 2012," whatever that means.

We could assume that this is to again seek the Republican nomination for NY-23, which he lost in 2010 before running as a third party candidate. That could be true.

This does beg the question, though, as to whether or not Mr. Hoffman would run on the Conservative Party line should he again fail to get the GOP nod.

It would be interesting for some enterprising reporter from a local media outlet, should he or she run into Mr. Hoffman on the street, to ask not only if he is running for the GOP nomination but if another third party run is possible should he not get that nomination. (The standard answer for a question like this is, "I am not going to deal in hypotheticals." I've always loved that one.)

So, I know it's unlikely that a straightforward answer would be forthcoming, but sometimes a non-answer can say a lot.

On a personal note, it's been a long time since I lived in the NY-23rd, having gone to school at Oswego State, even working for a time at WRVO radio in the news department, so I can't claim to have my ear to the ground. I'd be happy to hear from anyone who might be in that position. Has Hoffman already been more explicit than this?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elephant Dung #28: Is NY-26 the new NY-23?

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

Earlier today, R.K. Barry posted on the goings on in NY-23, the district that in 2009 saw one of the very first Tea Party uprisings.

As you may recall, Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman emerged to challenge moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava in a special election to replace John McHugh, who resigned to become secretary of the Army. With lackluster backing from the party that nominated her and some high-profile Republicans switching their support to Hoffman, Scozzafava pulled out of the race, endorsing Democrat Bill Owens, who ended up winning the seat narrowly over Hoffman. Owens won again in 2012, even more narrowly over Republican Matthew Doheney. But it was Hoffman who made the difference. He took just enough support away from Doheney to allow Owens to pull it out.

Well, what happened in NY-23 may also be happening in NY-26, where a rich Teabagger, Jack Davis, is dividing Republican/conservative support just the way Hoffman did. The seat is currently vacant, following the resignation of Republican Chris Lee (of Craigslist scandal fame) earlier this year, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo called a special election for May 24.

There's little doubt that it's a Republican seat to lose. Republican Jane Corwin is ahead in the polls, but not by much. Democrat Kathy Hochul is just a few points behind. But Davis is running a strong third, and he's clearly draining support from Corwin. If his support holds up, Hochul could squeak through. Indeed, what should be a slam dunk for the Republicans has been turned into a toss-up by Davis, and the only way the Democrat can win is if the Republican/conservative vote is split, if Davis, like Hoffman, makes just enough of a difference.

What's interesting, though, is that Davis is an ex-Democrat. He even ran for the seat as a Democrat in 2006 and 2008, losing both times. And his views are hardly mainstream (conservative) Republican. He's opposed to the Republicans' budget proposals and is generally isolationist/protectionist. In that latter regard, he's more Buchananite paleo-conservative than business-oriented Republican. He appears to be a right-wing populist, and is certainly trying to appeal to the Tea Party, but he's certainly less of a Teabagger than Hoffman. And, indeed, the Tea Party itself is split between Corwin, something of a Scozzafava-like moderate, and Davis.

It looks to be a brutal campaign, with the right bitterly divided. The district may be Republican enough that Corwin can pull it out, but it's certainly going to be a lot closer than it otherwise should have been. And, once again, we see conservatives turning a safe Republican seat into an opportunity for the Democrats, and all because the Tea Party and its allies on the right are waging a campaign to control the Republican Party by narrowing its ideological scope and purging it of insufficiently conservative (in Tea Party terms) elements. So determined are they, so convinced of their righteousness, that they're apparently willing to commit political suicide in the process.

We'll have to see if NY-26 is indeed the new NY-23. I suspect that Davis has peaked and that Corwin, who has some Tea Party support, will pull it out. But what's going on there is instructive, and what we're seeing is a preview of much more to come in 2012.

Cuomo targets government employees, will call for pay freeze

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the Times is reporting, new New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is targeting government employees as part of a broader program of fiscal tightening:

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo will seek a one-year salary freeze for state workers as part of an emergency financial plan he will lay out in his State of the State address on Wednesday, senior administration officials said.

The move will signal the opening of what is expected to be a grueling fight between the new governor and the public-sector unions that have traditionally dominated the state's political establishment.

It will also come days after the New Year's Eve layoffs of more than 900 state workers, an event that union representatives marked with a candlelight vigil on the steps of the Capitol and outside government offices in five other cities.

"The governor said during his campaign that the difficult financial times call for shared sacrifice," said a senior administration official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the governor's address. "A salary freeze is obviously a difficult thing for many government workers, but it's necessary if the state is going to live within its means."

I have very much the same response to this as I had to President Obama's targeting of federal employees. It's a stupid and cynically symbolic move: Big headlines, minimal actual impact on the actual budget. As I put it at the end of November:

Of course, government is an easy target. People generally want government to do what they want -- and to be there when they need something (you know, like disaster relief or police protection) -- but don't want to pay for it.

And while even in this time of economic crisis companies are making huge profits and CEO are taking home huge salaries and bonuses, government employees can easily be scapegoated as the problem, or at least as a large part of the problem, even if they aren't.

It's not about reality, it's about public perception -- and conservatives have managed to convince much of the public that government employees are all a bunch of overpaid layabouts with their snouts in the public trough.

To be fair to Cuomo, things appear to be a bit more challenging at the state level, particularly in New York, where there isn't a bloated military budget that could be significantly pared down and where there aren't tax cuts for the wealthy that ought to be repealed. 

But what I also objected to was Obama's language. He talked back then about how "getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice and that sacrifice must be shared by employees of the federal government." Fair enough, but who else is being asked to sacrifice other than those who are already having so much difficulty dealing with the ongoing economic situation? It is likely that any deal with Republicans over the deficit will require cuts to Social Security, and of course Republicans federally have blocked various efforts to extend unemployment and other benefits to those who need help the most. So the rich get their ridiculous tax cuts for another two years while the poor struggle even to put food on the table. And government employees (while, admittedly, not poor) face a pay freeze while Wall Street execs, bailed out by the government, end up with bonuses as massive as ever and corporate America piles on the profits while refusing to hire.

Where exactly is the shared sacrifice?

Look, I get it. Obama and Cuomo have to appear to be doing something about their respective deficits and, as government executives, they're in a position to target government employees, not Wall Street bigwigs and corporate bloodsuckers. And I'm not saying that government should regulate the pay of the private sector -- yes, I'm still a capitalist.

But stop it with the "shared sacrifice" nonsense. We all know who's being asked to sacrifice -- or, rather, who's being forced to sacrifice -- and who isn't.

And we all know that what Cuomo is doing, like what Obama is doing, is almost purely symbolic. As the Times notes, "the immediate budget savings from the freeze would be relatively modest -- between $200 million and $400 million against a projected deficit in excess of $9 billion -- achieving it would be politically meaningful." It's a way around the Assembly, a way around his own state Democratic Party, and a way around the public-sector unions -- a way to look aggressive and non-partisan. The good thing is that any freeze would have to be collectively bargained, and the unions should demand a good deal in return should they agree to it. (A good thing, too, is that a freeze would likely just be for one year -- so it's possible that a fair deal could be reached.)

And remember, the pay that government employees don't get is money that won't be spent, that won't help stimulate the economy at a time when economic stimulation, far more than fiscal restraint, is most needed to get the economy moving again.

I understand the need for all of us -- individuals, corporations, and governments alike -- to live within our means. It is deeply irresponsible, not to mention deeply unfair to future generations, for governments to rack up massive debt. And, yes, tough choices need to be made. But now is not the time for tightening before all else, for restraint over stimulation, for stupid, cynical moves that target the public sector, moves dressed up in the high-falutin', hypocritical, and simply dishonest rhetoric of shared sacrifice.

I have high hopes for Gov. Cuomo and for the most part I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We'll have to wait for Cuomo's State of the State address on Wednesday for the details of the plan, but I'm just not sure targeting government employees at this time of economic uncertainty and widespread despair is really the way to go.

Carl Paladino -- New York can do a lot better

Guest post by R.K. Barry

I'm not sure if New York Republican gubernatorial nominee Carl Paladino has officially changed his name to "Tea Party Favourite Carl Paladino," but I rarely see his name mentioned without being described in this way. 

In any case, they can have him. Paladino is crazy and slimy and bigoted and all kinds of other disgusting stuff, but he's also really stupid, which is a good thing for his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo.

Following his gay-bashing rant at an event over the weekend, pundits of all stripes have been trying to understand what makes Carl tick. They want to know how someone in his position could say, "I don't want [our children] to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option." They want to know how someone so clueless could have had this much political success. Even inquiring Republicans want to know.

Let's face it, in this campaign season all you have to do is blather a few platitudes about Washington insiders and then some nonsense about runaway government spending, wrap yourself up in the flag, and, lo and behold, you are the Republican nominee in too many states to mention.

But the reason I know Paladino is clueless is that Fox News told me so, or at least Bill O'Reilly on Fox News told me so. Yes, in an interview with right-wing commentator Ann Coulter, O'Reilly said the following: "The bottom line on this is, I think everybody but you in the world agrees this isn't going to help the guy. He wants to win the election. He needs independents to come over."

Yes, he does. He needs independents to come over if he hopes to win a general election and you mostly don't do that in New York State by being a crazy social conservative. I know New York. I was raised in the southern part of the state, educated in the northern part, and have lived in the Buffalo media market for thirty years. These days, gay-bashing is just not going to be that helpful with independents, nor is pandering to those who embrace all those other issues that make social conservatism what it is. I'm not saying that New York can't be pretty conservative, only that it's not Jim Demint's South Carolina.

So here's the thing: some recent research has indicated that of those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, 57% identify as part of the religious right. That's a pretty big number, and a number that would suggest that pandering to the Tea Party requires more than a nod to secular libertarian economics.

When a guy like Paladino sticks to his script (which is rare) and talks about fiscal conservatism, he has a chance with independent voters. But every time he feels the need to pander to his Tea Party base, to the extent that this base is far more socially conservative than is frequently advertised, he runs the risk of pushing away a lot of independents. Hell, even Bill O'Reilly gets that.

In the short term, the Tea Party movement itself is in an internal battle between fiscal and social conservatives that hasn't quite shaken itself out yet, but will.

In the end, coalitions always fall apart and the Tea Party is no different; Paladino's ramblings speak volumes about the difficulty of keeping this coalition together. Significantly, independent voters are watching, without perhaps even knowing what they are watching.

Every time a slug like Paladino says something like "there is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual," the universe of independent voters available to him contracts just a little bit and the myth that the Tea Party is mostly about fiscal responsibility melts away ever so slightly.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the Tea Party movement over time. It may be that the old Christian Coalition will absorb it. The fact is that social conservatives, Christian Coalition types, are always in it for the long haul; they have better organizational structures and they may just outlast fiscal conservatives once the economy improves. We'll see.

For the time being, the hardest act in politics for a conservative candidate in a place like New York State is to keep the two sides of the Tea Party coalition – the social and fiscal conservative sides - in proper balance so as not to push away much-needed independent voters, while also giving enough red meat to the true believers to keep them happy.

That would take a lot more skill and discipline than someone like Carl Paladino could ever hope to have. That would take Clintonian levels of ability, albeit from the other side of the playing field.