October 26, 2009

NY-23: Hoffman Leads - Unless He Doesn't

Hatched by Dafydd

In the special election in New York's 23rd district to replace Rep. John McHugh (RINO-NY, 40%), who just accepted Barack H. Obama's appointment to be Secretary of the Army, a new poll for the first time finds Conservative Doug Hoffman winning with 31%; Democrat Bill Owens comes in second with 27%, while DIABLO (Democrat in all but label only) Dierdre "Dede" Scozzafava trails badly with a scant 20% -- even less than the undecided response of 22%. (Sarah Palin endorsed Hoffman last week, leading to an additional $116,000+ in fundraising.)

All right, that's the good news; the skepticism-inducing news is that the poll was conducted by the Club for Growth, the pro-Capitalism group that has backed Hoffman to the tune of $600,000; thus the poll was conducted by the very people who recruited Hoffman and desperately want to see him doing better than Dede Scozzafava, which would bolster their argument that Republicans should coalesce around him, not her. (It's like the poll commissioned by Daily Kos that showed Bill Owens winning and Hoffman in third place.)

Too, the poll of 300 likely voters has a margin of error of 5.66%... which means that Owens is as likely to be ahead of Hoffman as the reverse (though that would still leave Dede -- does "DD" stand for Democratic Decoy? -- out of the running).

Take it for what you will; I think the poll is probably accurate, and I believe the race, in the end, will come down to Hoffman versus Owens. Scozzafava will fade as she comes to be seen, over the next eight days, as nothing but a stalking-horse for the Democrats: Her only function is to split the Republican vote.

I believe that on November 3rd, in a head to head race, Hoffman will overwhelm Owens, and the seat will go to the conservative -- for a year. What happens in 2010, however, will depend entirely on how well Hoffman serves. So it's a good shot for another fiscally conservative representative in Congress, but it's not part of a permanent "revolution" unless we can sustain the gain next year.

Oh, one other unintended consequence: I see this election as completing the marginalization of the famous endorser... but I don't mean Sarah Palin. At the eleventh hour, former Speaker, guru, revolutionary, conservative, whatever Newt Gingrich announced his endorsement -- of the stalking-horse!

Newt used to represent the cutting edge of a conservative revolution; today, he represents the failed policies of the GOP congressional establishment prior to 2006 -- the same folks who cynically picked (in a back-room deal) a out and out liberal, who agrees with Democrat Owens right down the ideological line, to replace the previous RINO McHugh.

The Gingrich endorsement of Scozzafava is just the last nail in the coffin of Newt's reputation. What a shame... I really liked and respected him in the 1990s.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 26, 2009, at the time of 12:55 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4002


The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I want to know: exactly who is this "GOP establishment" that gave DD the endorsement anyway? I'm getting quite tired of conservative Republicans talking about the Party as if they were somebody from the sinister mother ship. And remember that in NY there is an actual Conservative Party that is not the Republicans. They're a fairly successful 3rd party because the GOP has long chosen a more centrist philosophy, yes?

That said, I can't fault Newt for backing the Republican, apparently for good reason. It isn't enough to stand on principle and lose, nor to forsake principle and win. If Hoffman can stand on principle and win, he's pulled off the perfect storm. If he splits the conservative vote and the Democrat wins, he has harmed the cause, albeit temporarily.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 26, 2009 2:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mastermind2much

Newt gave a very intelligent reason to back Scozzafava, it was the same reason to back Arlen Spector in 2002. I think it was 2002. But too many people are asking why be loyal to republicans who are not loyal to you? Why vote for republicans who get annoyed with pork busters and vote to spend, spend, spend my money.

If Hoffman splits the vote and the democrat wins what is the harm. The republican wouldn't be voting any different than the democrat. I can't tell the difference. Better a democrat than a RINO we can't get rid of.

I'm only voting for conservative candidates from now on and I'm voting every chance I get.

The above hissed in response by: Mastermind2much [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 26, 2009 5:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

From what I understand of what is happening.

The Republican party is filled up with conservatives and moderates. We mostly agree but there are some deep divisions in areas where we disagree.

Ever since George W. Bush won in 2000 (And probably before that) the moderates have ruled the roost. We conservatives, with deeply held convictions about taxation, school choice, the limited power of the government, etc, were able to forgive George W. Bush his many "sins" because of his strong stance against our enemies after 9/11.

I mock men who cry, like on So You Think You Can Dance and American Idol, when they lose. But when a man cries for others, like President Bush did after 9/11, I cried along with him. He earned my love and my respect and he could do almost no wrong. I even forgave him his stance on immigration.

So now the moderates of the Republican party are in control. I listened to Hugh Hewitt when I lived in California and voted for Arnold over the conservative (I believe it was McClintock). For years now many of us conservatives in the Republican party have been holding our noses because people like Hugh Hewitt and Newt Gingrich have been telling us that we have to compromise in order to win elections.

Now we're fed up.

Now we're saying that it's time for the moderates to compromise. Now its them that needs to make that choice. Why should it always be us conservatives who compromise?

Now they get to decide. Vote for the liberal or vote for the conservative. No more moderate candidates who turn out to be liberals.

We conservatives are saying no more.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 26, 2009 8:53 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved