RSS Feed MenuAcross the country, Republicans are scratching their heads and wondering, “How in the world did we end up with Scozzafava?” How did the GOP pick someone who is in favor of card check and had been approached by the Democrats to be their nominee? How did the Republicans in upstate New York choose a candidate who, according to one rating system, is more liberal than 43% of New York State Assembly Democrats?
The answer lies in Scozzafava’s close friendship with fellow Assemblywoman and Clinton County Chairperson Janet Duprey. “Dede and Janet Duprey are soul mates when it comes to voting,” said Mike Long, chairman of the New York Conservative Party, in an interview with NewMajority. Going against the wishes of her county’s delegation, Duprey abruptly switched her vote to put her pal Dede over the top.
When Rep. John McHugh resigned to become the Secretary of the Army, Republicans in NY-23 hastily prepared a candidate selection process that assigned weighted votes to the county chairpersons of the district’s eleven counties.
As the county chair for Clinton County, where 11% of the district’s Republicans live, Janet Duprey wielded power over 11% of the district’s ballots. Unfortunately for Duprey, Clinton County Republicans were dead set against the Scozzafava nomination.
In the first ballot of the candidate selection process, Scozzafava led the pack of three contenders with 45% of the ballots cast. Initially, Duprey consented to the wishes of her delegation and cast her vote for Paul Maroun, who was viewed as more conservative. In the second ballot, however, Assemblywoman Duprey abruptly changed her vote to Scozzafava, sealing Scozzafava’s nomination.
Duprey has since acknowledged that her delegation had wanted Maroun as their nominee, admitting that “the Clinton County committee members… voted for the candidate they supported. Paul Maroun received the majority of the votes.” Janet Duprey later justified her shift by saying that “it was clear that Dede was the winner… Everyone wants a winner.”
Republicans in upstate New York were aware that the Conservative Party would not support Scozzafava’s nomination, but likely nominated her despite this on the grounds that the Conservative Party would probably not be able to come up with a viable candidate.
“I was willing to support any other [Republican] candidate running [in NY-23], and I let it be known to the Republican Party, but they went with her. They just assumed that we weren’t going to be able to mount a serious campaign… now she’s going to come in dead last,” said Michael Long.
Indeed, Scozzafava’s candidacy is becoming a lost cause – internal polling from both the Republicans and the Democrats show her in third place. “As it stands, Scozzafava’s campaign is in a lot of trouble,” said Steven Greenberg, a Siena Institute pollster, to NewMajority. A picture of a poorly executed Scozzafava campaign event sums it up – her votes are flowing swiftly to the Conservative Party.
Polling numbers have changed dramatically over the last few weeks due to the massive amount of cash being spent in the district, and the furious pace of campaigning that this is allowing. The Washington Post reported that the Club for Growth alone spent $700,000 in support of Hoffman’s campaign.
“$200,000 to $300,000 owns the TV market up here [in NY-23]… it’s easy to spend money in upstate New York. Money is coming in from the DCCC, the NRCC, the Club for Growth… Every time you watch TV, you see a commercial for one of the candidates. Every time you check your mail, you see a direct mail envelope from the campaigns,” noted Greenberg.
Greenberg said that an October 1st poll made it look unlikely that Hoffman could win the election. However, just two weeks later, Hoffman’s poll numbers have risen dramatically. “Hoffman is now competitive,” he added. “It will come down to the wire.”
SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 24, 2009 at 12:39 am
Churl,
I’m not sure which squishy ideas of Frum you’re referring to, but it’s worthwhile to remember that Reagan was nowhere near as conservative as today’s conservatives believe. Both as Governor of California and as U.S. President, Reagan endorsed the then-largest tax increases in history. He also was much less bellicose and aggressive in foreign policy than any of today’s GOP rhetoric would suggest. And, of course, he was never the angry fearmonger that today’s prominent conservatives are.
Compared to the standards of today’s conservatism, Reagan was probably way more squishy than Frum would ever be.
ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:15 am
95 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm
” The fact that the GOP is unpopular is not of major concern.”
………..As you are totally impervious to any sophisticated, or indeed intelligent, reading of these very different polls (eg. “congress” whoever is in control is always fairly upopular), preferring bluster and name calling, it’s perhaps not surprising you think the GOP’s massive unpopularity is irrelevant to their electoral prospects.
” If you had any political acumen, you would realize that Democrats are not ahead on ay credible generic ballot ”
……….Innumerate as well as immature……….the Dems are about five points ahead on Pollster ’s congressional generic “average”……….I’d be surprised if the Dems don’t lose a few seats in the house, as I said, but given the number of Republican retirements (8 or 9?), the continuing zaniness, and the fact the economy will be in full recovery by the fall of next year and the Republicans have given lots of hostages to fortune in opposing recovery, as of now, I’ve no doubt the Democrats are going to pick up at least three senate seats whatever Rothenburg (who is something of a weather vane) says…….but go ahead and bet your money.
ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:21 am
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“And there will never be one if the squishy ideas of Frum and Chums come to dominate the Republican party’s candidate picking apparatus.”
………For once I’m with you Churl…..let’s have lots more Toomeys, Santorums, Inhofes, Palins, De Mints, Bunnings, Pences, Ensigns, Vitters, Gingrichs, Rubios, Hoffmans……..the more the merrier……..the fact that these guys are the future of the GOP must be enormously encouraging for you.
Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 11:08 am
ottovbs,
The future of the GOP will become clearer when we get a look at the economy in 2011 – 2012. Maybe even in 2010. If things keep going as they are, even your list of the lefties’ favorite bogeypersons might look good to voters.
Time, as always, will tell.
ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 11:08 am
“The future of the GOP will become clearer when we get a look at the economy in 2011 – 2012. Maybe even in 2010. If things keep going as they are,”
……..You seem unaware that with the exception of unemployment, the universally acknowledged lagging indicator, just about every economic barometer from home sales to corporate profitability is pointing north, that the Fed chairman has declared the recession likely over, that just about all economists are anticipating growth around 2.5-3% in the second half of this year, and 65% of the stimulus has yet to kick in……..time will of course tell but if economic improvement is the criteria then the preponderance of evidence suggests time is very much on Obama’s side……not that empirical evidence plays a overly large part in making your value judgements I know.
Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:59 pm
otto, I’m quite aware of the things you mention.
Home sales were up, we’ll see if they stay up without the $8,000 subsidy.
Profitability is up for those outfits still in business, let’s see how business formation and capital investment rates progress.
65% of the stimulus has yet to kick in. Porkbarrel I.O.U money from the stimulus will start to gush in time for the 2010 elections, I’m waiting to see what the consequent rise in deficits or taxes will do to future economic growth. (I know, I know Bush ad infinitum et nauseam, but Obama is in charge now and deficits are soaring on his watch.)
But, to someone unemployed without prospects for a new job, the fact that somebody else gets a $8,000 check to subsidize buying a house or that the folks from the local union hall are getting good wages from stimulated dirt moving isn’t much comfort. You can’t make payments on your under water home mortgage with leading indicators.
So, for Obama’s future electability, unemployment had better not lag too much.
ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:59 pm
…….I know you long for the economy to remain in deep recession but try and get beyond the silly buzz phrases because you’re going to be disappointed buddy trust me……..the US economy once it gets on a roll is extraordinarily dynamic; it’s already in recovery mode and I wouldn’t be surprised to see well over 4% growth in next years first half; the stimulus much of which is going into socially desirable concrete (it’s huge and I know something about concrete) over the next year not nature walks as you fondly believe will provide an additional boost to already recovering consumer spending; and the weak dollar is going boost exports to a world that is also in full recovery mode……….I’m not making all this up……why the f*** do you think oil is back at $80 and the Dow at around 10………if the Republicans are relying on the economy being in the tank next summer let alone the summer of 2011 to revive their fortunes they’re out to lunch believe me…….but if it keeps you warm at night……You probably think he’s the anti christ but you should read old Bartlett’s new book, he’s that rare thing today an intellectually honest conservative economist.
Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 7:27 pm
otto, perhaps by pouring concrete we will march behind our Leader to a glorious future. Or not. We’ll see in due course.
As to exports improving due to the weak dollar, it has been weaker in the past without much of an effect on exports. Oil is back over $80 per barrel perhaps because of the weakness of the dollar of which you speak. Indeed oil exporters are mumbling about dropping the dollar as their contract denominating currency. As to the DJIA in the 10k range it may or may not be another bubble. Again, we will find out.
You are a little off in reading my mind, however. Try stock picks, you might be better at that.
ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 9:32 am
104 Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“otto, perhaps by pouring concrete we will march behind our Leader to a glorious future. Or not. We’ll see in due course.”
……so you’re hoping for substantial economic recovery in the next year?………..It’s going to happen whatever’s in your mind beside bumper stickers
Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:00 am
otto, I am indeed hoping for a substantial economic recovery in the next year. I would like to continue eating, for example.
But what I hope for, or what anybody hopes for is irrelevant. Clapping for Tinkerbell always works in performances of Peter Pan but the real world sometimes has harsh and unhoped for outcomes.
There are certain initial conditions in the economy, certain policies are being implemented and certain external influences exist. We’ll see how it all shakes out. I remain pessimistic.
sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 9:23 am
ottovbs: The economic recovery isn’t going to reduce unemployment for quite some time to come. One reason being that the major effect of the stimulus package is ebbing.
Top White House economist Christina Romer of UC Berkeley told Congress on Thursday that employment growth could remain “painfully weak” through next year, and that the largest effect from the $787 billion stimulus enacted in February, mainly aid to states, is past. By mid-2010, she said, the stimulus will no longer contribute to growth….
Even under optimistic assumptions, it could take seven straight years of solid growth just to get employment back to where it was before the downturn, a Rutgers University analysis found.
Almost no one is expecting job growth to roar back, given its anemic increase in the last decade, when the economy generated on average 1 million jobs a year, less than half as many as during the booms of the 1980s and 1990s. Median income actually fell more than $2,000 over the decade.
Economists are puzzled as to why job growth has slowed, citing everything from higher health care costs, to higher productivity, to Chinese currency manipulation.
http://tinyurl.com/yk3678b
ottovbs:
You frequently cite structural and demographic shifts over the last 20 years in support of your theory of continuing Democratic dominance in Washington. But you should realize that some of those same structural and demographic shifts are also contributing to chronically high unemployment over the next 20 years, a la France.
ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:19 am
sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 9:23 am
“ottovbs: The economic recovery isn’t going to reduce unemployment for quite some time to come. One reason being that the major effect of the stimulus package is ebbing.”
………Er…..how would that be since only about 30% of it has been spent?…… Romer didn’t say the major effect of the stimulus would ebb until mid 2010……why would that be………clearly you don’t understand that of the 800 billion only about 280 billion has so far been spent in tax cuts and transfer payments to states……..the bulk of it (some 4oo billion) is going to be spent principally on public works projects over the next 14 months………this is huge……as a benchmark compare it with the highways bill that gets passed every five years and is the largest single federal public works appropriation…….the highways bill is around 500 billion to be spent over five years ie. roughly 100 billion a year…..whereas the stimulus is going to inject about 350 billion over just over a year…….I don’t dispute for a moment that the US has structural employment problems but that’s a far cry from saying the unemployment rate is going to be hovering around 10% indefinitely…….it’s probably going to take a few years for unemployment to drop to around 6% but by the middle of next year it definitely be recovering quite strongly due to recovering consumer spending, the stimulus, and growth in export oriented industries……and guess what…… Obama will get the credit
ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:28 am
Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:00 am
“But what I hope for, or what anybody hopes for is irrelevant. Clapping for Tinkerbell always works in performances of Peter Pan but the real world sometimes has harsh and unhoped for outcomes.”
……..Nothing to do with Tinkerbell………just making an intelligent estimate based on empirical evidence………as your last para concedes this has moved from the arena of political rhetoric to the technical…….economics is not an exact science but given the expertise that exists today amongst govt policy makers you can be reasonably assured of outcomes……..be as pessimistic as you like……the US economy is clearly on the move and will be in full recovery mode by next summer
Churl // Oct 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm
otto, “the US economy is clearly on the move and will be in full recovery mode by next summer”.
Any quantitative definitions of “full recovery mode”? Sounds a bit vague to me, as it might to many folks who would like jobs again or to save their businesses.