How well did Doug Hoffman do?
There's a lot of debate out there in the blogosphere about just how well Conservative Party phenom Doug Hoffman fared on Tuesday.
By the most important standard -- going to Congress -- he lost. It's also fair to argue that he helped mightily to elect a Democrat, Bill Owens.
Owens is now promising to vote for President Obama's healthcare reform package, which Hoffman repudiated passionately.
So -- why are some conservatives still crowing?
First, they argue that they humbled and "corrected" the Republican Party, which -- in their opinion -- erred grievously by nominating moderate Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava.
Secondly, they claim that Hoffman actually performed very well, emerging from nowhere and nearly winning.
This second claim deserves a little exploration.
In fact, Hoffman performed 10-20% below the typical outing of former Rep. John McHugh, a moderate Republican. Hoffman won just 45% of the vote.
By contrast, Owens won just under 50% of the total vote -- roughly a 20% improvement over past Democratic outings.
In political terms, that's a massive shift, and obviously not a good one for anyone hoping to get Republicans elected.
Conservatives suggest that if Scozzafava's name hadn't been on the ballot, her 5% of the vote would have gone to Hoffman. I think that's wishful thinking.
None of this is meant to detract from the remarkable accomplishments of Hoffman's five-month political journey.
But the math raises real questions about whether a purely conservative candidate -- one who offers little to Republican moderates -- can prevail in NY-23.
Labels: election09
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/06/2009 08:27:00 AM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
You have to take into account that McHugh was very, very popular and had what 8 terms? To get elected that many times you have to be popular accross the spectrum of voters so of course his average numbers are going to be much higher than Owens or Hoffman got in the election. Kind of a reaching arguement that this was a "massive shift". You'll get a shift any time you have a popular incumbent not in the race and opening the field up. It's like you're saying that some long timer (say Leahy in Vermont or Kerry in Mass.) averaged 70% of the vote over 30 years and then he doesn't run and it is an open field of candidates and the race goes 51% to 49% and that's a major shift? Just shows there were multiple decent candidates.
Before being trashed, Dede has been a popular 5-term Assemblywoman elected by comfortable margins. She was considered one of us. We knew her views, and even though we may not agree with her, she did job representing the North Country. In a two way race with Owen she would have won 60% of the vote.
If Dede wasn't on the ballot I would have written her in.
The statement that Doug Hoffman did not do well is a stretch at best. He did extremely well for a third party candidate. Although he vied for the (R) nomination he is more of a Libertarian than Rep. The only real message I got from him is the dire need to rein in the imbecilic spending perpetrated by the 2 criminal elements in DC. Spending done only to empower and enrich the principals with no principles. Doug Hoffman may have lost the 23rd but the country lost this election. But alas It probably is already too late. We are in the era of the jobless recovery. So keep on voting (R) or (D). There's not much produced with a limited alphabet.
Anonymous is confusing Conservatism and Libertarianism. Hoffman is conservative in his fiscal views but he is Authoritarian in his social views.
If the right wing can find a local candidate who knows local issues and is backed by local people, they might just have a shot at winning this thing.
But hanging with Dick Armey and being mentored by Glenn Beck is a lot more kewl.
I don't think any if us can accurately guess where the votes would have gone had it been a 2 way race. Even after Dede dropped out it was still a 3 way race.
Hoffman is a nice guy with zero pizazz and fire in the belly. For me he was the best of 3 poor choices. He stood the chance of doing the least damage. He was an unknown until about 2-3 weeks before election day and was a 3rd party man till the last week or 10 days. In addition he reneged on his promise to support Dede and had 2 teams working against him from day one. He also had both the Republican and Democrat national parties working against him. When you consider all that I think he did remarkably well.
Although endorsed by National org for marriage I never got from Hoffman any anti gay bias. you are blinded by the (R) and(D) effect. All of this will be academic if we continue down the road to national bankruptcy ie redistribution of wealth. Not National redistribution but Global
That Hoffman received 20 points less that John McHugh is telling and it is a big shift. McHugh was a pragmatic moderate: pro-choice, greener on air quality, porker when it came to ag and to bringing $ back to the district. He expressed caution on the two wars, far from a hawk. He seldom involved in the issues in a way where he took an abrasive, ideological position. This showed good political judgement that mirrored success of other upstate Rs. Sherwood Boehlert of Utica was an R who operated much the same. He endured a string of primary challenges from ideologues, where he'd pull out all stops to win 51-49 and then he'd win big in the general election. His district now belongs to a D who faced down two ideologues. R Randy Kuhl operated as a far-right ideologue after the moderate R Amo Houghton stepped down and his district is now owned by a D. The Rs nominated an ideologue in place of moderate R Walsh in Syracuse and that district belongs to a D. The same with John Sweeney. In the Hudson Valley R Sue Kelly moved steadily to right to protect herself from the ideologues and a primary challenge and her seat now belongs to a D. Upstate right-wing ideologues generally don't do that well (Tom Reynolds from Buffalo and Gerry Solomon, formerly of Glens Fall, the exceptions). McHugh's pragmatisim and moderate positions largely innoculated him against strong D challenges. Hoffman may well win an R primary for a 2010 race, but his decision to involve himself in social regulation issues of abortion and gay marriage and the general Glen Beck outraged and aggrieved world view runs opposite of the North Country (and upstate NY) live-and-let-live cultural ethos and will sharply limit his reach. It's likely that Owens will do better in 2010, especially with Cuomo-Gillibrand at the top of the ticket. The Hoffman gambit is indicative of the Rs choice across the country: nominate true believers who will generally lose close seats to blue dog Ds or nominate moderates who can win swing districts. Rs cannot win a functioning majority in the US House anytime soon, given the changed demographics across the US (much different than 1994 and changing more so every year), without a viable moderate faction. If the Rs run out the moderates, then the'll operate across the US much like the Rs in the NYS Assembly minority and endure careers of powerlessness and meaninglessness. Hoffman is only the latest R in upstate NY to show the fruits of nominating a true believer.
Hoffman did very well, especially given his lack of personality. If Hoffman stuck to a fiscally conservative message, he would have done even better. Jim is correct, Hoffman is no Libertarian. CFG, his primary spokesgroup portrayed him as anti-gay, therefore I could not vote for him. Note to policians: stay out of our personal lives.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Brian Mann's plain stating of the stats, facts and percentages that came out of this recent electoral contest for the 23rd District, speak volumns about the potential future of the Republican party in the 23rd District in general and the North Country in particular.
And yes, our dear, but misguided and fearful, brothers and sisters who supported Hoffman, seem to be engaging in wishful thinking, creative excuses, misdirection and miscalculation. The Tea Partiers may "have the guns, but we got the numbers." And by "we" I mean those of us, from whatever political stripe, who have not been made mentally insecure due to cognitive disonance.
That's insulting Frank. I get yelled at here for doing that.
That's insulting? Playing the innocent victim are we. Don't you go back and read through your postings? The vitriol, mean accusations, anti-government fantasies, it is all too much.
What's even more worrisome is your constant need to make everything equal. If FOX News lies so does MSNBC. If Rush, Glen, Sean, Mike and Ann lie and spout hatred, so do Olbermann and Maddow. If Bush placed criminals and cronies in places both low and high in his Administration, well then so has Obama. If the Teapartiers and Birthers have used unsavory and threatening behavior at rallies, so has the peace movement.
I'm just sticking to the topics from this post forward.
Frank- don't you see both sides do it? Whether it's conscious or not we all do it. Neither party has the title to honesty and integrity.
Post a Comment
<< Home