Special Elections

Here are the AP results for the NY-9 race, and the NV-2 race.

The NV-2 race is just about a foregone conclusion – as it turns out, I’ve been up in Reno the past few days and so caught a bit of the GOP advertising:  all Obama, all the time…”don’t send a rubber-stamp to DC”, that sort of thing.  I don’t recall they even mentioned the Democrat candidate’s name.  Expectations are for a double-digit GOP blowout…but Mark Amodei, taking nothing for granted, has been pressing the turnout efforts.

The polls in the NY-9 race just closed a few minutes ago and while polling has been good for the GOP, I do expect a Democrat win…they are pulling out all the stops and the district does have a reputation for voter fraud.  But even if the Democrats managed to squeak out a win, it will be a signal for defeat in 2012 unless Obama changes course.  And if the GOP does pull out a win, just that much more devastating for the Democrats.

UPDATE:  In NV-02, Amodei has 64% against Marshall’s 31%; NY-09, Turner has 51% against Weprin’s 48%; still way early.

UPDATE II:  NY-09, 271 of 512 precincts reporting, GOP winning 53/46; NV-09, 166 of 858 reporting, GOP winning 58/37.

UPDATE III:  AP calls NY-09 for Republican Bob Turner.  First GOP win in NY-09 since 1921.  Dems already spinning it as  meaningless…meanwhile, in private, they are starting to wonder if they should “primary” Obama…

UPDATE IV:  AP calls NV-02 for Republican Mark Amodei.  A crushing victory – 57% to 37%.

19 thoughts on “Special Elections

  1. RetiredSpook September 14, 2011 / 12:21 am

    I was just going to post that Fox News has called the NY9 race for Turner, but I see you already have an update to that effect from AP. The fact that this is Chuck Schumer’s old House seat before he was elected to the Senate has to be especially humiliating for Dems.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 14, 2011 / 12:55 am

      Spook,

      Indeed – but they are trying to pass it off as if nothing happened. But the fact is that the district is D+5, just as the NV-02 is R+5…the GOP won by 20 points in NV-02, the Democrats simply should have walked away with NY-09. Democrats are trying to say that the district wasn’t all that Democrat…but the fact is that Weiner won it in 2010 61% to 39%; going back to 1996 the Democrat vote was 61, 93, 100, 71, 66, 68, 66 and 75 percent. This is not a seat the GOP should have a chance of winning – tonight, the Donk got about 47% or so.

      This is a major indicator of what is coming in 2012 unless Obama radically changes direction or some entirely unforeseen event occurs…

  2. camsteel September 14, 2011 / 1:09 am

    Elections are not humiliating Spook. They are the result of the democratic process, not the end of the world. If the people want Turner, that is their choice. Good for them. If he does a good job and the people like the results or at least if the superpacs get behind him he will get reelected. If the people don’t like his performance he will get the boot. The world will keep on turning and Republicans will continue to beg for and sing the praises of stimulus spending when they are not campaigning and then turn around and mock it when they speak to the base.

    • RetiredSpook September 14, 2011 / 1:03 pm

      Elections are not humiliating Spook.

      Not normally, but this one certainly was.

      • camsteel September 15, 2011 / 1:24 am

        Nope, still not humiliating.

        On another note, I wonder how long it takes for this newly elected Representative to beg for money for his district arguing that such money will create jobs making him like all the other Republicans who have spoken out against the stimulus spending when talking to their base but then begging for more when it is offered.

  3. camsteel September 14, 2011 / 1:24 am

    Just locked up a 3.25% fixed rate refi and bank rep said she was dealing with backlog of applications for similar loans. Hmmm, sounds like Obama has one up his sleeve. This might lead to more spending by consumers. That would be a bummer. It would suck if it lead to an improving economy at least long enough for Obama to get reelected. Boy you better hope against that. You better cheer for failure. Who knows if Obama has anything to do with it but if the economy turns around he will get the credit just as he is now getting the blame. Maybe Mitch can continue to obstruct so that he can accomplish the #1 goal. Maybe he can continue to obstruct until that bridge crossing from Ohio to Kentucky collapses. This could be like 2008 all over again when McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were sound. Timing is everything.

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 14, 2011 / 1:39 am

      Cam,

      Re-fis are great, but they don’t indicate an improving economy.

      • camsteel September 15, 2011 / 12:13 am

        That was never my point. Let me splain it to you Lucy. If people refi at a lower rate they will have more money to spend on other things. In my case I think we save about 500 a month. That is like getting a $6000 tax break. I have never received anything close to that. But now I will and so will a lot of other people. Now mind you, some of that savings comes from a longer term. In our case we will use it to pay down the principal and so will pay off our mortgage sooner than with the previous loan. So, in the end the benefit will be deferred. Regardless, I expect it will give people more disposable income. And if they spend it, it will improve the economy. So it is not an indication of an improving economy but rather a likely cause for one. If people take that newly realized disposable income and spend it the economy will improve and the effect can potentially last as long as the lower rate is in effect.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 15, 2011 / 1:37 pm

        Camsteel,

        Consumption cannot lead us out of this – for each of you who can re-fi and get increased disposable income there are probably three who have lost income due to unemployment or reduced wages. Only production – wealth creation – can dig us out of the hole, and Obama is not only not fostering production, his regulatory schemes are hampering it.

    • RetiredSpook September 14, 2011 / 10:05 am

      It would suck if it lead to an improving economy at least long enough for Obama to get reelected. Boy you better hope against that. You better cheer for failure.

      Cam,

      I know you’re being sarcastic here, but, I for one would be delighted if the economy improved — surprised, but delighted, even if Obama were to get full credit for it. What you obviously don’t remember or didn’t understand at the time, was that the calls for “failure” by folks like Rush were for failure to destroy the economy, not for failure to get things right. It would be like you saying you’re gong to help me by burning down my house, and I say, “I hope you fail”. I don’t really expect you to get it, because your mind simply doesn’t work that way. It’s OK — at some point, if you’re not completely brain-dead, you’re going to get it.

      • camsteel September 15, 2011 / 12:47 am

        Spook,
        First of all I was not referring to Rush’s comments about failure. More on that later. Rather I was referring to those like Mitch who said his number one job was to make sure Obama would serve only one term. If we take Mitch at his word we could presume that he would do whatever it takes to make sure Obama loses. And anyone who is paying attention should realize that if the economy were to turn around in any substantive way Obama would likely get the credit and would likely be reelected. That would run counter to Mitch’s number one priority. While I know you want Obama to lose the next election too, at least if we are to believe what you say, it appears that is not your first priority.

        You set up a nice metaphor. But you seem to forget the house you refer to was burning down when Obama arrived on the scene. And yet Rush blamed him for the fire. And, when Obama asked for stimulus, water, and poured it on the fire you Republicans blamed him for spending money on water even though water is what puts out fires. And now that the fire has been contained and Obama has asked for more water you point and mock. Would you point and mock a fireman who asks for more water?

        Oh, never mind. I heard the people at the last Republican debate cheering to let a man in a coma die because he does not have insurance. So much for the pro life party. I always knew it was a ruse. Yet when Representative Grayson said the Republican plan for health insurance is, if you are uninsured be sure to die and die quickly, Republicans protested.

        In the end I can relate to your take on the economy. Believe it or not I was happy the economy did well when Bush was President. It was good for me. We also benefited from the real estate bubble. There is no way a bank would have given us the kind of money we needed to make the improvements to our house we made during that time. Without the boom in equity that we experienced we could have never realized our dream.

      • camsteel September 15, 2011 / 1:17 am

        Spook,
        It is interesting that you (Republicans) make a nuanced argument when it is convenient and yet regularly purposefully misconstrue when that is convenient. Remember “death panels”. Those were never part of the bill. Rather, that version would have allowed patients to consult with their care givers when they reached the end of life. That is something we will have to take seriously if we hope to get health care costs under control. If Republicans were serious about improving the situation they would have repudiated those who used those talking points and rather made honest arguments about how they disagreed with Obama.

        I don’t recall you running in to straighten out those who would intentionally mislead. Further, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall Rush qualifying his remarks when he first said them. Rather he just said I hope Obama fails. And because Obama was the President of the United States most people took that to mean he hoped America would fail. Now I know you can take the nuanced approach, as you have, but that has not been your pattern and practice. Rather, many in your party have been content to allow the water to be muddied if that was for the good of the party over the country.

  4. arcman46 September 14, 2011 / 1:38 am

    One thing you have right there Cam; It would suck if Obama gets reelected.

  5. Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 3:50 am

    Haven’t you wacky wingnuts learned anything yet? Elections only mean something if a donkeyrat wins.

    • neocon1 September 14, 2011 / 7:24 am

      GMB

      they never win, they cheat, lie, steal their way in.
      then it is next to impossible to remove them.

      • neocon1 September 14, 2011 / 7:29 am

        WEINERS seat goes to GOP??
        ROTFLMAO…..LOL

      • Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 7:41 am

        Somebody should do a study. Go back 40 years and see how many donkyrats and rethuglicans have died in office. Should be interesting. Maybe one of our “smart as a whip” libbies could research this.

  6. Cluster September 14, 2011 / 9:35 am

    Let’s not forget that when NY19 (I think that was it) was won by a democrat a year or so ago, liberals championed that win as a sure sign that the progressive agenda was mainstream. I’d be interested in hearing their thoughts now.

  7. camsteel September 15, 2011 / 12:13 am

    That was never my point. Let me splain it to you Lucy. If people refi at a lower rate they will have more money to spend on other things. In my case I think we save about 500 a month. That is like getting a $6000 tax break. I have never received anything close to that. But now I will and so will a lot of other people. Now mind you, some of that savings comes from a longer term. In our case we will use it to pay down the principal and so will pay off our mortgage sooner than with the previous loan. So, in the end the benefit will be deferred. Regardless, I expect it will give people more disposable income. And if they spend it, it will improve the economy. So it is not an indication of an improving economy but rather a likely cause for one. If people take that newly realized disposable income and spend it the economy will improve and the effect can potentially last as long as the lower rate is in effect

Comments are closed.