yep....already are.

__________________

The government cannot give without first taking.

Well, first of all, Scazzofava was not selected in a primary, she was selected by a group of party leaders. Second, if the choice is between a moderate Republican and a moderate to liberal democrat, no hard choice there and I would not risk the election of a democrat more as or more liberal than the Republican to support a third party or independent candidate. But that is not what happened here. Scazzofava was MORE liberal than the democrat was, with the only vote she was at all likely to cast with the GOP in Congress was against Pelosi as Speaker (and honestly, I can't say I don't think there is a good chance she would have switched parties after the election if she'd won)/ So, the downside to the conservative running againt the GOP nominee was nill, if he cost her the race and lost himself, there would still be a less liberal person who was more likely to be a thorn in the side of the democrats in Congress than a willing GOP lapdog who supports them on virtually everything with the added bonus of providing a veneer of "bipartisan" support.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

This sure looked like an usurpation of the party structure by the Palin wing.
Scozzafava was selected by the NY GOP party, not by the national party, to challenge her with a candidate that was not from the district, that knew little to nothing about the issues facing the district showed complete disdain for the local party, and for the best interests of the district, in the hopes of characterizing an election in a district that has been Republican since 1871 as a referendum on Obama. Maybe the best thing for the remains of the moderate Republicans is to join the Democratic Party and to work for their moderate goals from within that party, which at least will be represented in congress.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Gee, a third party candidate comes within 5 points of winning after being opposed by the party establishment until two days before the race. Sounds more like a solid base of support to build on for the more conservative elements in the district. Furthermore, the most liberal of the three candidates LOST.

I have said all along, I would be far more sympathetic to arguments for "party unity" and national support for local candidates when those candidates are the clear choice of the voters, Scozzafava was not.

This race did show the importance of party unity (for all the negatives you cite, and add to that being a third party candidate, he did come very, very close to winning) but were you are wrong is in what message it sent as to which of the two candidates the party should have united behind.

Bottom line, disappointed that Hoffman didn't win, but not at all disappointed that Owens was the winner rather than Scozzafava. Odds are that Scozzafava would have been just as, if not more, reliable a vote on legislation for the democrats as Owens, but would also have provided a veneer of bipartisanship to boot (that is if she didn't flat out become a democrat after the election if she'd won). Good night for the GOP, but could have been a great night if they hadn't backed Scozzafava and flushed nearly a million bucks down the toilet. Consider the impact nationally if they had spent a million in CA-10 rather than NY-23. Hoffman may have won without all the money backing Scozzafava, and the CA-10 could have been even much closer than the 10 pt race it was in a reliably blue disctrict.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I am in full agreement.

This was a pitiful attempt by the Repubican establishment in that part of NY to appease the media and attempt to ride the non-existent coat tails of Obama. Scozzafava was in no sense a Republican by even the most generous and flexible definition.

While this was a disappointing loss as a whole, it should be understood as an object-lesson for those Republicans who believe that moving sharply to the left will help the party. A sharp move to the left is as stupid and elf-destructive as worshiping Rush Limbaugh. Both are emotional responses that will marginalize and alienate the majority of serious conservatives.

More viable parties are better. I'd think half a dozen would be a minimum needed for everyone to have an accurate voice. But it looks like to me that what we might end up with is only one viable party going forward. The Repubs seem to have lost their ability to fool the socially backward elements of thier party. These forced-morality folks seem to imagine that they can accomplish something on their own, which is kinda laughable.

Expect them to go the way of Ron Paul, who attracted such loud and unattractive zealots that the vast majority of his natural constituency walked away embarassed.

Without their mouth breather wing, though, Republicans can't win anything.

From the NY-23 thread...

__________________

He's come to save the day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVFdAJRVm94

The breakdown points the other way IMO. It's going to have to triangulate its conservativism and strategise to the moderates using local factors much better, some of which was done here well (VA and NJ) and done poorly (NY-23 and CA-10).

Christie is a Scozzafava GOPer, even moreso--on the social issues. He accepts and will uphold a pro-choice NJ and its laws, supports NJ’s ultra-strict gun control laws and tacks to the left--not right--on the national immigration issues. He smartly disassociated himself from the national social conservatives like Palin, etc, to avoid being identified and pigeonholed with them. All of that is, of course, total anathema to the dedicaded social conservative GOPer. During the NJ primary, Christie creamed his primary opponent, Steve Lonegan the strong social conservative, simply because he is Rockefeller Republican on social issues.

Bob McDonnell down in VA is a social conservative, but he tacked left, not right, to win the race handily. He smartly downplayed his social conservative views whilst emphasising jobs, taxes and transportation, which were the dominant issues on many minds. Likewise, he kept his proper distances from social conservative national types, and where anyone was selected, their messages were tailored to the populist message. His opponent, Deeds, was weak and never articulated answers to these issues and did some really stupid things, especially by defining himself away from Obama instead of learning from him and utilising him. And when Deeds tried to paint McDonnell as an ultra-conservative using his doctoral thesis, he tacked way left, allowing him to define himself as a person who has grown 'older and wiser' into moderation. That helped kill Dem enthusiasm towards Deeds where he was looked at as 'un-Obama' as well as waffling on the issue and into the politics of personal destruction, something that hurt the GOP in recent years instead of helped them.

McDonnell opened and hammered away from there, learning much from the Obama populist handbook and co-opted Obama's energy. Christie played that playbook even better. Heck, he even made a superbly clever commercial out of it using a long key clip of Obama's outstanding 'A More Perfect Union' speech and putting his name on it as an answer to such a call given NJ's massive corruption and incompetence problems, much I'm sure to the White House's chagrin given Christie used Obama's populism and broader (no R or D) calls to those who will do better.

On the other hand, whilst NJ and VA turned out to be champagne nights for the GOP, NY-23 panned out to be a disaster for the GOP where--coupled with CA-10--the Dems instead bought the champagne. The NY-23 district is supposed to be one the safest seats for the GOP in the country--a Dem hadn't won it since 1851. The Hoffman movement and invasion of national strong conservative politicians and radio, TV and written media talking heads seeking a Inquisition and internal revolution from within there caused sufficient Scozzafava supporters and even herself to vote for Owens and/or Scozzafava and allowed what should have been a 'no-chance' Dem to easily win that red safe seat.

The seat could also have been won it had a more conservative moderate social conservative and possibly even a strong social conservative, but the race was lost because of the strong 'purging' message sent by the national interferers in that local election like Palin, Beck, Rush, Armey, etc. It sent the strongest message that all liberals, moderate and even light conservatives are totally unwelcome in the GOP and must bend at their knees to the ultra-right or get lost. And they did, and that supposed to be super safe seat was lost. John McHugh, the former Rep for that district was a moderate GOPer, and had been reelected 8 times with no meaningful challengers, even running unopposed in 2002. Even in the Obama 2008 election, McHugh won that district by 65.3% of the total vote there. So, it wasn't lost by just a little as the ultra-right spin machines and pundits spin away--it was lost in huge numbers given what they did.

They also missed the ball in CA-10, where the Dem won rather easily. If there was a true test case of a backlash against the moderates and/or Obama, it would have been felt there given it's a blue leaning district but without the New Orleans syle mass corruption and incompetence issues currently going on in NJ. NJ was a cakewalk for a Rockefeller Republican given it's been run so corruptly and incompetently. CA-10 showed no signs of it being anything more than a backlash against the utter lack of clean and effective state--not federal--government.

The hard right also gave the Dems a huge talking point here on the purging efforts inside the GOP of its moderates, even making Scozzafava a spokeswoman/poster child for that considering I expect she will now change parties. The movement will also have the problem of seeing the NJ and VA Governors be expected to act moderately on social issues as they presented themselves. That's going to be at odds with the social conservatives who, if pumped up by the Rushbecks, is going to cause fissures and, for the Dems, a way to use that against the GOP on issue intregrity as well as to bait the ultra-right to keep purging, screaming, etc for the extra help of internal self-immolation of the GOP.

And it isn't going to be easy for McDonnell and Christie either. In fact, that's especially so for Christie given he inherits a state with over billions in deficit and massive problems and the state GOP is just as corrupt as the Dems are there in patronage, cronyism, indictments, incompetence, etc. And Christie himself is badly tainted with all of those things, so he's going to be watched carefully and lambasted on all fronts once he assumes office.

Chris Christie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looking at those things, it's not exactly what the ultra-right looked for on the fiscal and governing side either, never mind the liability of it being borne by the GOP at a time it's looking to get back in the federal game. The Dems actually transferred all the liabilities now to a GOP figure who is internally and externally problematic for the GOP instead of continuing to bear a huge statewide liability for next year and 2012. It was no accident that Obama and the federal elected officials did not do more than some obligatory appearances for Deeds and Corzine. With certain candidates, you fish or cut bait, and they were for cutting bait--now, rather than have the two smelly fish on their decks.

The big national focus and efforts spend by the GOP were to get back into power spots at the federal level. States and locals are cats and dogs to that objective. It missed the mark. But, it can learn how and what needs to be done. The question, IMO, is can it get its Rushbecks to stop wrecking its path back to the federal power. Strongly liberal and social conservative representation will always exist in regional areas that support such hard core views enough, but all politics is local, and neither parties can win national control without the moderates and respecting the viewpoint sentiments of the region in which each person runs. When the Dems tried the 'purge' the 'Reagan Dems' appeared given right wing Ronnie worshipping aside, Reagan was nowhere near as conservative as he either said or, where he claimed he was, he actually performed (hell, he'd get 'purged' big time). Bush won twice as a 'compassionate conservative.' The Dems had to learn that again until in 2006, the Blue Dogs got their due. The GOP should not make the same mistakes because the lessons are abundantly clear and long that it is consignment to colloquial representation. If they follow the Walter Mondale/McGovern example of purging, it will have problems.

__________________

I disagree, NY-23 still dropped 6 points from Obama's showing last year, and it is very likely that had either Scozzafa or Hoffman been the sole candidate of the party establishment from the start either would have won handily. As for CA-10, there was a 20-point drop from Obama's margin in 2008 to the Democrat's in yesterday's election. Closing a 30 point gap to 10 points with virtually no support from the party establishment nationally is pretty impressive.

Again, I think it is a bit off base to classify Christie as being like Scozzafava (or even "Rockefeller") on social issues. He is pretty consistently supportive of social conservative views, but he doesn't make it his thrust. I would call him a pragmatic social conservative, who will DEFEND those positions from backsliding, but isn't going to take up the cause like Don Quixote in a state where he won't make any headway on them (not all that disimilar from how McDonnel ran his campaign).

Scozzafava would not likely sign a gay marriage bill or a bill expanding abortion rights, but he is not going to expend political capital on what would be a losing battle to move the ball on them to the right either.

Hardly the "safest" GOP seat in the country, look to other posts regarding how meaningless the history of the "district" (in quoations because what has comprised the district called "NY-23" geographically has changed far too much to draw long-term trends from).

I agree that the intra-party squabling in NY-23 cost them the seat (and the abject neglect of CA-10), but it was not that the conservative wing cost them the seat, it was the lack of unity period. Had either Scozzafa or Hoffman not have been in the race, and the party establishment was behind whichever one was from day one, they would have held the seat (pointlessly other than one news cycle of bragging rights if it had been Scozzafava in my opinion)

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

There is going to be some drop naturally in an off year and with loads of national problems and issues and Obama rutted down on health care. The question is what lasts--issues like the economy, etc, always fluctuate, as does the political scene.

If seats like CA-10 hold in tough years, that's a good sign for them. It certainly means no mandate for ultra-conservativism, especially there, where CA is the land of the RINO insofar as the minority 'conservative' base there in ultra-conservative eyes.

And insofar as NY-23, the larger and more damaging message was sent by the purgers. It was easily won as shown when Obama was winning the national election last year when he was running on all talk and charisma with a Category 5 hurricane of bad events and performances by the GOP then to assist him. That the seat was lost now the year with the blooms off and in rough seas shows the disaster of what the movement there did. Scozza should have won that seat better than McHugh's numbers had the GOP just left it alone. That's a seat that should have never, ever, ever, ever, have been lost if Jesus Himself ran on the Dem national ticket and/or NY-23.

Christie cares about Christie, and he's a liability in that regard, and he's never had personal interest in conservative social issues. Yeah, he'll defend some for tokenism talking points for playing the games he needs to play, but Dick Armey he's not.

But you've got to be kidding me that he's socially conservative. Hell, I'm more socially conservative given I am a big 2A supporter and gun owner, of which he belongs in Washington DC on that score (Scozza got the NRA endorsement, however). It pissed me off to no end that the GOP is consistently no alternative to the Dem in NJ on guns, and he's no change from that. And forget immigration and abortion. He'll do zero on abortion given the state is clearly pro-choice and especially with the rich beach GOPers who are concerned with taxes like a fiscal conservative (beach homes are hugely taxed) but are sceptical on religion and social conservativism like the prevailing sentiments of NJ (it's not blue by accident, and former GOP socially liberal Governors like Kean and Christine Todd Whitman aren't either), and he'll take his inroad with the large Latino community everyday over what some non-NJ folks in the GOP in other parts of the country say. That's their problem to him and not his concern. Keeping his big inroads into the immigration population is, however, his precise concern, if he wants to remain in power. And in his cigar room BS, he's no change either.

Quite frankly, as a person who also works, pays property and revenue taxes, etc, in NJ, my main hope is that Christie and the NJ legislature spend their times in gridlock investigating each other, wind up arresting each other, and leave the state without a government. For once, I can sit in peace in my beach home and do my work there in the courts in peaceful coexistence.

I had a Daggett sign out on my beach home. IMO, he's really what the state needed given the bipartisan shithole the two parties are there. I didn't like his gun position (only criminals are allowed to own guns there, which they do aplenty), but at least the endemic corruption, cronyism, etc, of the system there would be put aside. In the end, though, the voters broke back to their parties with Daggett going from 20% down to 5% by voting time.

I assume you meant Christie here. If not, please correct me. No, likely not. But given civil unions and extensive abortion laws are already the law, it's moot that he'll sign them and he'll do nothing to stop what is there. But that's the same thing as supporting something if you are the head of state if you do not move to oppose what is already in the law. And he's said he's already backing those laws. As for gay marriage, the nation has moved way left from where it was, but on marriage--the last issue besides military integration--the nation is moving there slowly but is not quite there yet (as seen in Maine in a close anti-gay marriage proposition passing). Acceptance of once untolerated groups comes in gradually. But the progression of societal evolution on the subject of homosexuality points to that barrier eventually falling too. It's the last stand to something that wasn't even in the national mindset in the 1980s but the mere fact of being homosexual was, and not in a good way.

That's a red herring that I think ought to be re-examined. Upstate NY was always blood red until recent times. Over the history, some areas developed and obviously the districts were broken down, subdivided, etc.

But there's no way to polish the turd that the national but-ins shit there. And lord knows I was listening to the attempts today on Beck, Rush, etc. When GOPers win there so consistently for so long and even goes unopposed or badly whips the Dem candidate in something like the Obama 2008 season--over 63% to McHugh despite the Obama wave--then that seat is so ordinarily safe it could be sowed onto the elephant itself. I live in red country PA right on the Amish Country border (the buggies start 10 minutes away from me), which is Amish and rural white church everywhere Evangelical old stock Scots-Irish and Germans--and that safe red seat got more Obama votes than NY-23 (obviously Joe Pitts still won though). When NY-23 get more GOP votes in Obama 2008 than it does in the Amish Country, PA, that's one damn safe ass red seat. The Dems never even bothered to consider a chance there until the national ultra-right interlopers butt in and blew it up. That's why McHugh took the seat in Obama's admin as the Army Sec--everyone knew there was no chance of it going to the Dems--until that dream come true happened to them.

Yes, except it was precisely the conservative wing that lost it. They caused the lack of unity.

Moderate GOPers, like all moderates, understand that they have to deal with conservatives and liberals. I have to do that in every election. It's just whether I want to lose some of my right or left arms. Sometimes we get lucky and get a moderate from the Dems or GOP. That's who we happily pick. The ideologue fights of left v right in a race is just a matter of who might be slightly better on other issues, and that's always going to be personalised to a race.

But moderates also join parties for various reasons, and those who like politics enough to want to get involved in it practically speaking must join one or the other. And part of politics is how the machines work. They work as a team and they compromise with each other. That's the deal. Sometimes the number comes up for moderates to 'get their due' rising up the local party ranks as they in turn will work for the conservative/liberal in their machine and in the other aspects of the national, state and local politics. This was her turn as a loyal assemblywoman who stumped for the GOP and got loads of GOP moderate, independent and crossover votes for them. But she got shot badly in the back when it was her turn, and the bullets were being sprayed against moderate GOP members across the board and moderates generally in Inquisition style "War on Moderates" given the characters involved in it. They lost the seat because the enough of the local people not only resented that interference but also because enough of the moderate GOP supporters, independents and would-be or contemplating crossovers knew the GOP was gunning for them in total repudiation of them. The message was sent to the moderates...and a message was sent in reply with a Dem stamp on it.

I believe as a side note that the GOP also ought to watch Rush, Beck and/or FOX and talk radio talking heads and pundits, Palin, etc. These people make their living marketing this angle. What's best for them is self-promotion, fan support, etc, because they make mega millions apiece being that. But they are putting themselves before the party...using it and abusing it for financial purposes. Sure, they may believe what they say (and I mean might, not do), but it doesn't trump the money, and they manipulated the GOP and its strongly conservative segment of its base there IMO. So, I fault the ultra-conservative segment base on a couple grounds on this debacle. They ought to have known better. But if they want to fight both the moderates and the liberals, they can expect to see lefties and centres in power compromising centre-left rather than centre-right. And quite frankly, they'll deserve it for violating the 'pig' rule.

__________________