Hoffman Still Around, May Win?

17 Nov 2009

Hoffman Still Around, May Win?

In case you are still following the continuing mess in NY-23.

Tweet This Post

Nov 17th by Too Conservative

41 Comments

So, the margin after the canvass was around 3,000 votes and there are around 6,000 absentee ballots to be counted. Hoffman needs to win around 75% of the absentee ballots in order to pull even.
.
There is little evidence that the Hoffman campaign was the type of tightly run organization that had a strong effort to draw absentee voters’ support. Hardly likely the absentee votes will magically fall that far outside the range of the election day numbers.
.
Hoffman should just enjoy the last seconds of his fifteen minutes of fame. Maybe one more appearance on the Glenn Beck show. He can tell Glenn one more time how he is his hero or mentor or whatever it was he said.

Dan
on November 17th, 2009
Unless they find some other votes not counted for Hoffman, he will not catch up to Owens. He should be in good position to win in 2010.

Kevin
on November 17th, 2009
“Unless they find some other votes not counted for Hoffman, he will not catch up to Owens. He should be in good position to win in 2010.”

Especially since Owens broke like 4 campaign promises on his first day in office. Nancy Pelosi is like the Pied Piper of DC leading the DemocRATS off the cliff, or into the Potomac, or whatever makes the better metaphor.

Magnum PI
on November 17th, 2009
“Unless they find some other votes not counted for Hoffman, he will not catch up to Owens. He should be in good position to win in 2010.”
.
You are assuming the Republican Party won’t nominate an acceptable candidate and that a third party candidate will win the district in 2010?
.
And I wouldn’t assume that Hoffman will win the Conservative Party nomination. He was not exactly what an objective person would describe as a strong candidate.
.
If the Conservative Party thinks they have a legitimate shot at beating both the Republican and Democratic candidates in 2010 I imagine they will nominate a good candidate next time. If they could have foreseen what was going to happen this year I am sure they would have put forward a better candidate than Hoffman this time.

Dan
on November 17th, 2009
The Republicans will hold a primary and Doug Hoffman will run on both the GOP and Conservative lines. The only reason why he wasn’t the GOP nominee for the special was because the party hacks picked a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, tax-n-spend liberal instead.

Kevin
on November 17th, 2009
Dan the clueless liberal, the simple fact that Hoffman received enough votes that the election has not yet been finalized is a tribute to his ability to run a campaign. (Either that or to Owens inability) Either way, Hoffman was a “good” candidate. When was the last time a 3rd party won (what was it?) 46% of the vote anywhere else?

Ryan
on November 17th, 2009
I hope Hoffman pulls it out. I’m not optimistic.

Brian S
on November 17th, 2009
Kevin, I understand that in New York a candidate can run on multiple lines if they secure the nomination of multiple parties and that it would represent an advantage to be the nominee of both the Republican Party and the Conservative Party. I question whether Hoffman will necessarily be the nominee of either party in 2010.
.
I don’t know that much about the state of the Conservative Party in that part of the state, but if the nomination in the 23rd is perceived as being well worth having in 2010 I imagine more attractive candidates will vie for the nomination.
.
I certainly wouldn’t think Hoffman would have the inside track for the Republican nomination. In a district the Republicans had held for well over a century one would expect they have a fairly deep bench and wouldn’t be going outside the party for a nominee.
.
There is nothing particularly special about Hoffman. He simply became the darling of the far right in a bizarre set of circumstances in one of only two Congressional races in an off year. Hardly enough to give him a decisive edge for either party’s nomination.

Dan
on November 17th, 2009
Ryan, why is it that when folks on the far right perceive that someone isn’t fawning all over one their heroes you reflexively resort to personal insults?
.
I didn’t say anything insulting about your hero Hoffman. I merely expressed the opinion that he wasn’t a particularly good candidate. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a good person. And being a less than ideal candidate is not a crime. They can’t all be Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton.
.
Judy Feder is an instantly likable person, but she neither looks nor sounds like a Congressman. And for those reasons one might say she was not a particularly good candidate. Especially running against a guy who very much looks and sounds the part.
.
The same criticism can be made of Hoffman. He was not an attractive candidate. Not a personal attack. Just an observation of the candidate as horseflesh. Superficial? You bet. But such things do influence votes.
.
What isn’t superficial and can be legitimately laid at Hoffman’s doorstep is his poor knowledge of issues important to the district. But then he didn’t initially expect to have a real chance to win this race. So maybe he didn’t see much need to do his homework.
.
But fortune, as they say, favors the prepared. Had he done his homework and been a better candidate he might have been able to ride the circus that unexpectedly came to town right into Congress.

Dan
on November 17th, 2009
“party hacks picked a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, tax-n-spend liberal instead.”
.
Kevin, really?
.
First, those “party hacks” as you call them are the elected chairmen of the local GOP units in the district. They hold those positions because they were elected by rank and file Republicans just like you. And the method of choosing the nominee was in accordance with a party plan voted on by rank and file Republicans just like you. And it involved a process that allowed for input from many others besides the 11 unit chairs who made the final choice. It was in no way an “undemocratic” method of choosing a nominee. The main reason the method of selecting the nominee has come under such harsh attack is that so many have chosen to believe the wild characterizations of the candidate chosen without bothering to investigate the veracity of those wild claims.
.
I guess for some the word of Glenn Beck is equivalent to the word of God. If you are inclined to just believe any crazy thing Beck asserts without question you won’t bother to investigate on your own. If you are an objective person interested in actual facts you might want to look into the accuracy of the way you described Scozzafava. You may be surprised at what you learn and how much it is at odds with what that nutty Beck fellow had to say on the subject. Remember, he says that stuff to make lots of money.

Dan
on November 17th, 2009
Hope this knocks that Scuzzyfluzzy woman or whatever her name is off the news shows and back into the irrelevancy where she is best suited.

Gnarly
on November 18th, 2009
Gnarly, unlike both the Democratic and Conservative candidates, Scozzafava was not politically irrelevant before this campaign. She was one of the Republican leaders in the State Assembly.
.
And making fun of her name just makes you sound small and Limbaughesque.

Dan
on November 18th, 2009
For the love of Pete Dan, no one can say anything on this blog without your typical “I’m offended” leftist retorts, and the in the meantime you vacilate between flamimg away with your “limbaughesque” comments and trying to be relevant.
*
Your opinions on the Republican Party are wortheless. Regardless of the differences within our Party, we all understand that listening to leftists is not the answer. OK?

Loudoun Lady
on November 18th, 2009
Loudoun Lady, while I readily admit to a snarky side at times I hardly think a reading of my comments can fairly be described as “flaming” people. And I strive not to paint with the broad brush that you so freely use. You seem to be quite a fan of the echo chamber. You object to any comment with which you disagree without regard to its merits or lack thereof.
.
You render a word like “leftist” completely meaningless by applying it to anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. I suppose it has never occurred to you that you may have lost sight of where the center truly is in American politics because your vantage point is so far from that center. To you, people who believe that Social Security was and is a pretty good idea and that Medicare is too are leftists. I think there is a broad consensus that those programs have been good for America. And the vast majority of Americans who hold those views would be shocked to learn that they have suddenly become leftists. They might wonder what bizarro world you are talking about.
.
My use of the term “Limbaughesque” was not gratuitous. It was specifically chosen because Limbaugh repeatedly made fun of the woman’s name on his show during the campaign. It was a cheap, and bullying way to try to marginalize her. God forbid Rush’s dildo heads should examine her record themselves to see what it actually was. That would spoil all the fun.

Dan
on November 18th, 2009
“people who believe that Social Security was and is a pretty good idea and that Medicare is too”
*
What do you suppose these same people will think in 15 years or so when we have another major fiscal crisis precipitated by these programs? When multiple generations are told that they’ll only receive pennies on the dollar if not less on contributions that have been extracted from them their entire lives? All these things are good in theory, but are ultimately unsustainable. Kind of like asking a polling question about whether or not you like sunshine and unicorns.

Cato the Elder
on November 18th, 2009
Except that Social Security has performed well for the American people for over seventy years and, unlike unicorns, has benefited millions of Americans who would have been hard pressed without it. Its difficulties stem from the politicians of both major political parties who have persisted in using the money for things other than that for which it was intended. Your contention that it will only pay out pennies rather than dollars is good for the political narrative you are selling but is not widely shared by economists or the public.
.
At any rate, we should be thankful for Social Security. In this era when the deregulating, apostles of “the free market will take care of everything” have seen to it that fixed benefit pension plans that previous generations relied on are a thing of the past and that the repeal of common sense laws like Glass-Steagall has enabled Wall Street gamblers to gut the value of our 401Ks we may need to rely more on Social Security than we ever might have imagined.
.
Could luck trying to build an electoral majority on the notion of dismantling Social Security. You saw how far George W. Bush got with that when he made it his priority immediately after his re-election.
.
It is a legitimate political position. But it will be a frosty day in hell when you get anything close to a majority of the American people to buy into it.
.
As I say, folks who spend too much time listening only to those far to the left or right of the political spectrum tend to develop a rather distorted view of where the center (and the vast majority of the public) is.

Dan
on November 18th, 2009
dan

You were obviously asleep or in the parking lot smoking dope during your high school economics classes.

G. Stone
on November 18th, 2009
G. Stone, I must have had a lot of company since the bulk of the American people, including many who went on to become economists, seem to share my view of Social Security and soundly rejected President Bush’s attempt to implement yours.

Dan
on November 18th, 2009
Dan,
*
The Democrats soundly rejected privatizing SS and did a good job scaring seniors with dog food ads. The younger population, to include many economists, see SS for what it is – a Ponzi scheme that was never intended as a source of sole income for seniors. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we will see a little of that hell unwrath it’s fury when the Baby boomers start to retire in large number. Add to that Obamacare and Crap and Tax and the road to hell will look like a cake walk.
*
We can’t sustain projected domestic spending today, let alone after Obama gets booted out of office. As a relatively young person (with over 20-25 year to retirmemnt), I’d LOVE to opt-out of SS. Give me my 6% (to privately invest) that the Feds confiscate right now and I leave everything I have contributed for the past 25 years in the pot – sounds like winner!
*
BTW Dan, your periodic rant posts and subsequent attempts at logical posts are funny, you vacillate anywhere between flaming Palin hating and laughing “right wingnut” hilarity then try to scale down to become relevant. Multiple personalies on screen on fun, but when they creep into your personal life is when it becomes a problem.

Loudoun Lady
on November 18th, 2009
Loudoun Lady, while you are busying yourself with pop psychology you might want to look into the obsession you seem to be developing with me. You are welcome to characterize my posts as rants if you like. I’m content to let them stand on their merits and allow others to form their own opinions.
.
While I have used the terms “right winger” and “wingnut” in some of my comments, I do not use them indiscriminately as you do with the term “leftist”. I believe I have used them in relation to people for whom the description fits.
.
For instance, while Frank Wolf is quite conservative, you will not find any instance of me calling him a right winger or a wingnut because those terms clearly don’t apply to him. I think it is clear that I draw a distinction between people who hold conservative (sometimes very conservative) views with whom I disagree and the type of people who loudly protest against what they call a “government takeover of health care” while simultaneously threatening their individual Congressman if he let’s the government get its hands on their Medicare (does that not strike you as wingnutty to be so ill informed as to not realize that Medicare is a government program?). Or people who parade about with posters of the dead at Dachau and equate that with health care reform and the demagogues like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann who screech about “death panels” and look at those pictures from their vantage point on the podium and say nothing about them. They are hardly conservatives.
.
And it wasn’t merely Democrats who opposed President Bush’s effort to dismantle Social Security. Nice attempt at a rewrite of history though. Bush had just won re-election and had, to use his words, “political capital to spend”. The Republicans still held secure majorities in both Houses of Congress. Politically speaking he had the horses.
.
What he didn’t have was the American people behind him. Both Republicans and Democrats. You may think scuttling Social Security is a dandy idea but most Americans don’t agree with you. The fact that Bush got zero traction with his proposal even immediately on the heels of his re-election victory is evidence of that.

Dan
on November 18th, 2009
Dan, at some point you will have to means test Social Security, for precisely the reasons you state (i.e. politicians of both stripes with their hands in the lockbox). This is a very different position from “scuttling” Social Security. Also, plenty of credible economists share the outlook for Social Security – I suggest you spend a little more time reading those from the Austrian school of thought.
*
Another thing (or two) – just as over-regulation can create market distortions, so can deregulation. Going after the Glass/Stegall is debatable, straight from your talking points. Going after CFMA would have been far more credible, as when you allow people to write derivatives to put off risk in a manner that’s invisible to other market participants it’s eventually going to create a destructive distortion, which it did. Not all regulation is bad, just like not all deregulation is good.

Cato the Elder
on November 18th, 2009
“Not all regulation is bad, just like not all deregulation is good.”

That is a point of departure from which a rational discussion can begin. God save us from the ideologues who believe that government is all good or all evil. A return to crafting solutions that serve the public interest without regard to ideology would be most welcome.
.
You are wrong when you characterize my comments about Glass-Steagall as coming from talking points. As a history geek and charter member of the Boring Men of America I will admit that Sam Rayburn is a personal hero of mine. The Securities and Exchange Act and other legislation that passed through his Commerce Committee in the 1930’s served us well for many decades. While some changes to that regulatory structure were in order I have to say that it should shock no one that the wholesale removal of so much of it caused economic dislocations we haven’t seen since the 1920s and 1930s.
.
Members of both parties bear responsibility for this. But Phil Gramm was the head cheerleader. And we all know where his money was coming from. I can’t say I was disappointed when he switched parties. You guys are welcome to all the Phil Gramms you want.

Dan
on November 18th, 2009
Now that the thread has been completely hijacked, have they counted those absentee ballots in NY-23 yet?

Dan
on November 18th, 2009
Dan, were the founders wingnuts too?. ‘Cause I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t approve of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, socialized medicine or most federal programs. I’m with them. Just where in the Constitution do you find the power to enact such redistributive programs? Government spending is not charity, it is theft and leads to tyranny.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money. ” Alexis de Tocqueville

Magnum PI
on November 18th, 2009
“I suppose it has never occurred to you that you may have lost sight of where the center truly is in American politics because your vantage point is so far from that center.” Funny thing is …66% of those centrists just carried Bob McDonnell and at least 61% carried ….oh my God, say it with me…Cuccenelli!! Where are they again? Oh…that’s right, they’re awake now…having seen ‘ol Hopey Changey’s true intention.

The Bulletproof Monk
on November 18th, 2009
I have yet to see Dan disprove one point that Beck has ever made. Facts and back-it-up are going to be required from this day forward, Dan. Bullspit ain’t gonna cut it.

The Bulletproof Monk
on November 18th, 2009
Magnum PI, so when my tax dollars are used to fund public schools for other people’s children (I no longer have children in the public schools) that is redistributive. Do you contend that the Founding fathers would not approve of this “redistributive” program?
.
Thankfully, I have never had my house catch fire. But if yours should catch fire is it okay for some of my money, through my taxes, to be redistributed to you in the form of the firefighters salaries and the fire fighting apparatus needed to keep your house from burning to the ground? Do you really believe the Founding Fathers would have frowned upon such a redistributive program? Do you seriously believe the Constitution prohibits it?
.
Thankfully, I have never required an ambulance to carry me to the hospital in a medical emergency. But I have had neighbors who have needed that service. My tax dollars were redistributed to my neighbors so that their lives could be saved. I hardly think the Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves over this redistribution or that it is in any way unconstitutional.
.
There are any number of things we do cooperatively as a community and a nation to promote the general welfare and because they make simple common sense. It is hardly a violation of the Constitution that we do so.
.
I realize there are hardcore libertarians who would privatize everything. They would like to disband the fire department for instance and have us all contract with private firms to put out the fire that may engulf our homes. They either don’t know or conveniently forget that it was once done that way in cities in this country. It didn’t work very efficiently. And most Americans would be loathe to return to such foolishness.
.
Our Founding Fathers were a pretty exceptional group. That such men came together in one place at one time is remarkable. Perhaps miraculous. Many see the hand of the Almighty as having guided them.
.
But they were imperfect human beings. Let’s not forget that they also enshrined in our Constitution that some of our fellow children of God who simply had darker skin were not fully human beings. That at the same time they were writing stirring words about liberty and all men being created equal they were condoning slavery and in many cases owning slaves themselves.
.
It was with good reason that Jefferson hoped future generations would not regard them with godlike awe.
.
You are wrong. Government spending on things that we do cooperatively is not theft. Nor is it unconstitutional. What you are really saying is that you disagree with some of the things on which we have agreed as a people, through our elected representatives, it is in our common interest to do.
.
Yours is a perfectly legitimate political position. However, your assertion that these things are unconstitutional has no basis. What you need to do is get about the business of convincing a majority of the American people that we should eliminate Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare (Good luck on that one. Did you see the tea party protesters? They don’t agree with you on that.) USDA food inspections, interstate highways, veterans services and all the other redistributive things government does that you find objectionable. .
If you can sell your worldview to a majority of your fellow citizens and elect folks who will eliminate all those things, good on you. That is democracy. And I believe in democracy. I won’t be happy if you succeed, but I promise you I won’t adopt your bogus stance that what you are doing is unconstitutional.

Dan
on November 19th, 2009
I’m with Magnum, characterizing our Founding Father’s as an exceptional group isn’t really an argument. The populus has been conditioned to accept gov’t handouts, even if it was with good intent. It is nearly impossible to take away these benefits once they have been implemented, look at the unemployment extensions – how can we continue in this environment – 10.2% and rising!

Dan, my obsession with you? You reply and retort to 95% of my posts and when I reply it is just that. And yes, you are a leftist if you support Barack Obama and his policies. Sorry the truth hurts.

BTW: “That is democracy. And I believe in democracy.” We are not a Democracy, a true democracy is nearly impossible. We are a representative (democratic) republic. You need to go back to History 101 despite your claim to be a history geek.

Of course, if you are of a certain age – you didn’t learn real history. Political Correctness took over the classrooms starting in the 80’s.

Loudoun Lady
on November 19th, 2009
Loudoun Lady, I am going to shock you by agreeing with you on something. Once someone enjoys a benefit, whether it is through their employment or the government, they resent when it is taken away. Anyone who has run a business who has found they needed to cut some benefit they had previously provided knows that morale takes a hit. Politicians know that they will take a hit at the polls when they cut benefits too.
.
But that is not what Magnum PI was talking about. He asserted that any government spending that is redistributive in nature is somehow unconstitutional. It most certainly is not.
.
While the Constitution definitely enumerates what government can and can’t do and what rights are reserved to the people it is not nearly so restrictive as Magnum would have us believe. The Founding Fathers would have needed one hell of a Ouija board if Magnum’s interpretation were correct. Because they certainly didn’t put anything in there about establishing a Federal Aviation Administration, for instance. Is the FAA unconstitutional?
.
I don’t quite understand why you find fault with my praising the Founding Fathers. Do you not think they were an exceptional group of men?
.
My comment about the Founding Fathers was not really part of my argument. Although I am surprised you seem to find it controversial. It was a response to Magnum PI who brought them up and asserted that they would support his position opposing programs which enjoy broad support among the American people. He said,
.
“I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t approve of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, socialized medicine or most federal programs.”
.
I don’t understand your need to be combative at every turn. People can disagree on any number of things without being unpleasant. In common parlance the United States is most often referred to as a democracy. When one refers to it as such it hardly indicates a lack of understanding of the concept of representative democracy or the expectation that a country of 300 million can be governed in the manner of ancient Athens.
.
There you go again throwing the term “leftist” around so casually that you render it meaningless. While I was still in the Army in the 1970’s they rendered the word “outstanding” meaningless. If everything and everyone is outstanding then nothing and no one is outstanding. Kids in the 1980’s did the same thing with the word “Awesome”. If everything is awesome then how do you determine that which is truly worthy of awe.
.
There are those whose political philosophy could accurately be described as leftist. I assure you that definition is not “those who happen to disagree with Loudoun Lady”. How in the world is anyone supposed to be able to decipher what you are talking about when you describe the bulk of the American political spectrum as leftist? That is just silly.

Dan
on November 19th, 2009
Dan, Once again – if you agree with Obama and his policies you are a leftist – period. And we will defeat you, period. Have a pleasant evening.

Loudoun Lady
on November 19th, 2009
Hoffman just jumped the shark. Fonzie and LL were there too.
.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/11/calling_election_stolen_hoffma.html?hpid=news-col-blog

.
They threw a lifelong Republican under the bus for this guy? There’s hope for the Democrats yet.

AFF
on November 19th, 2009
AFF, you call her a lifelong Republican. You obviously don’t realize that was all an act. To those in the know she is a leftist.
.
I know she was supporting Republicans since before Reagan, but she probably wears a Che Guevara t-shirt and has portraits of Marx and Lenin in her home.
.
She is a leftist I tell you. Her and apparently about 80% of the country.

Dan
on November 19th, 2009
Dan, I want you to know I appreciate your comments on this blog. I may not agree with every position you take, but you take your positions with care and with a sense of history — a small “c” conservative trait that has all but been exorcised from the current Republican Party.
.
Soon, Reagan’s legacy will begin to be repudiated by the right. He would not pass muster with many in today’s GOP
.
Too pragmatic.

edmundburkenator
on November 19th, 2009
Dan, Which enumerated power allows for programs like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc? BTW, ambulance and fire services are done by the state or, God forbid, volunteers.

Magnum PI
on November 19th, 2009
Magnum, this Tenth Amendment v Article I argument has been waged since the 30s. The problem your side of the argument will have is precedent. Decision after decision has been made in support of the Constitutionality of pieces of legislation that are related to the list you provide, including Civil Rights legislation, child labor laws, GI bills, etc…

edmundburkenator
on November 20th, 2009
Dan, Your thoughts on Reagan are strange and who the hell is talking about Che t-shirts? This is the rambling I keep referencing. I have no desire to rehash Hoffman Vs Dede with you. We had leftists giving us advise in our party and this is what it got us, Hopey Changey. If you agree with a leftist and his policies, you are a leftist. You should be happy, happy, happy – but you are still trying to advise our party, give up already. Don’t you have your own party to celebrate with, or advise?

Congratulations on winning Edmund’s support, he is a self-avowed politically confused man.

Loudoun Lady
on November 20th, 2009
What? Is this a budding bromance between noamchomskyator and Dan??

Cato the Elder
on November 20th, 2009
Cato and LL, I do believe you both are jealous.
.
You’ll always have each other.

Edmundburkenator
on November 20th, 2009
“budding bromance” …now THAT’s hilarious.
Cato, leave them be. They just got their asses handed to them by a party that they thought was irrelevent.
And poor Dan…look around. Most of the groups that you are consumed by hold Reagan in very high regard.

The Bulletproof Monk
on November 21st, 2009
On a serious note Ed, you’ll enjoy this read: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp0024.cfm (yes it’s Heritage, but read it anyway)
*
Some of the conclusions on modern pragmatism are fascinating to say the least.

Cato the Elder
on November 22nd, 2009
I’m half way through… thanks for the link Cato…

Edmundburkenator
on November 23rd, 2009

Subscribe:

Too Conservative

Hoffman Still Around, May Win?

41 Comments

Leave a Reply

Links

Blogroll

Conservative Tweets:

Contact Us:

Archives