First, I think a Brown victory forces George Pataki to take a second look at a US Senate run against Gillibrand/Ford. A new Sienna Poll out today shows Pataki beating Gillibrand handily 51% to 38%. If Pataki gets into the race I think Harold Ford has a better shot at winning the Democratic primary. He has pushed one talking point and one talking point only the last two weeks -- that he is an independent Democrat who will not be beholden to anybody else but the people of New York. That message will soon resonate with Democratic primary voters if Scott Brown pulls out a victory.
I would also venture to say that a Scott Brown victory helps Doug Hoffman in NY-23 since both of their candidacies have drawn similar parallels in the media and have been compared extensively. The key difference between Brown and Hoffman is that Brown is running on a major party line in 2010 which gives him the support of both moderate and conservative Republicans alike. In 2009 Hoffman did not have that advantage, and thus he had to reach out to the far right and outside national interest groups for help. Brown has national interests playing a role in his campaign as well, but they are not as prominent as they were in the NY-23 special election last year. At the end of the day though I think a Brown victory helps Hoffman in NY-23 should he decide to run.
You're analyzing things too deeply. Brown winning will have no effect on Hoffman's chances.
ReplyDeleteHarold Ford is the candidate of Wall Street and Mayor Bloomberg. Not an independent voice.
The GOP should nominate Dede for US Senate... that's someone i would vote for. Pataki? Not if he was running against Satan.
A Brown win in MASS helps Hoffman, you say?
ReplyDeleteHow? Hoffman is an empty vessel - not one single original idea in his head ... he simply parrots the hard-core/ neo-conservative rabid, nasty soundbyte songs that appeal to what?
Anger, hatered, fear, hype, and redmeat nothingness?
Hoffman is a sign of what's wrong, not good about the rightwing GOP ... understand that and then maybe you can come up with a decent future focused candidate. But, it sure ain't Hoffman or Pataki.
Maybe-- let's hope so
ReplyDeleteWe're from Schoharie County, your southern neighbors
I totally disagree with you on Hoffman. Brown is what Hoffman was in 2009, not what Hoffman is in 2010. In other words, a vote for Brown tomorrow for many is just of a vote against Coakley. Much the same way a vote for Hoffman in 2009 was a vote against Dede and Owens. He was the republican "none of the above" candidate. Now in 2010 it is a whole different story for Hoffman. Already more viable/electable republican candidates have expressed an interest in the position. Both Doheny and Barclay are much more right than Dede was, satifying many republicans, and they are both more on top of the issues. The default republican vote will not naturally go to Hoffman this time around. Essentially the Brown 2010/Hoffman 2009 parallel is accurate but it does not apply to Hoffman in 2010. Hoffman already had his "Brown chance" and he lost...he will never be handed votes by people opposing the oppostition again (and if Hoffman miraculously gets the GOP nomination and is the only one on the ballot in 2010, god forbid, then we will just have a rerun of 2009 and he will lose, although probably by more votes as people will have the time to learn how out of touch with the issues he actually is this time around).
ReplyDeleteBarclay much more right than Dede? Really? About the only issue I can think of that he has been more right than Dede during their time in the Assembly is same sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteBoth are pro-choice and both have voted for unaffordable pension benefits for public workers. Indeed Barclay has not joined Dede in pledging to oppose to tax increases in this year's state budget. http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2010/01/13/assembly-republicans-sign-tax-free-pledge/
Could Barclay be planning on voting for higher taxes just as he sponsored the Oswego County sales tax increase?
Any republican and most independents are much more right than Dede. Even Owens. If you don't like Barclay then pick Doheny. His whole campaign is based on fiscal conservatism (small government, lower taxes, anti-union, etc.). Whoever it is as long as it isn't Ha Ha Ha Hoffman. The guy is clueless. If the ultra-right conservatives insist upon putting him on the ballot again, Owens will surely win. The moderates think he is a joke.
ReplyDeleteThe stubbornness of the far right to jam ultra-conservatitives on the ballot is overwhelming. The special election, where there essentially were no republicans on the ballot, was the best chance a conservative had at winning a national election in US history and Hoffman still lost. Most of the country is in the middle. The conservative party will cut off their noses to spite their faces. It is just stupid.
DRAFT PATAKI!!!!!! WE NEED YOU BACK GEORGE!
ReplyDelete7:34,
ReplyDeleteOwens is much to the right of Dede? Owens voted for the health care bill and supports cap trade. Dede opposes both bills. Dede political philosophy is far from conservative but that doesn't mean she's more liberal than Owens.
10:39,
Pataki was a disaster. The upstate economy crumbled under his watch and he inaugrated many costly programs which have lead to our current fiscal crisis.
In any event he's probably making too much money as a NYC attorney to want to run for Senate. He couldn't care less about the North Country.
I think the Owens thing was a joke.
ReplyDeleteIt was a joke, but obviously not a very good one...
ReplyDeleteThis one single quote from Scott Brown should scare the shit back into voters in MASS ... read it carefully and this is from a lawyer, too (Brown is a lawyer):
ReplyDelete"I do not believe it is torture. America does not torture ... we used aggressive, enhanced interrogation techniques."
He is so full of it that I can't believe people are still falling for that line: enhanced.
Have we reached this level fear and opinion over fact and truth. "Enhanced" means torture ... take it from me; an old Marine interrogator -- wordsmithing does not make it any less than torture...
Brown's Quote Here