Friday, October 30, 2009

Is NY-23 really that meaningful?

I'm as riveted as any other political junkie by the race in NY-23, and we're doing a pretty comprehensive poll there this weekend, but I'm not sure that it really has any broader implications.

The three way nature of the race is interesting, but it's only that way because the party bosses got to pick the candidates. If there had been a Dede Scozzafava-Doug Hoffman primary contest it seems Hoffman would have won easily, and it's really not a new development for someone from the conservative wing of the Republican Party to win a primary. Ask Joe Schwarz, Chris Cannon, or Wayne Gilchrest, all incumbent GOP Congressmen who lost challenges from the right in the last couple cycles.

A Hoffman victory could embolden more primary challengers to sitting Republican members of Congress- remember our finding last week that 35% of GOP voters think their party's delegation is too liberal. But the reality is that the Club for Growth can't fund everyone, and most of those efforts would have to be made at a significant fundraising disadvantage.

NY-23 is pretty interesting...but I don't think it has a lot of ramifications beyond NY-23.

1 comment:

gregq said...

I think you're wrong.

You are right that the Club for Growth can't fund everyone. However, if Hoffman wins this thing (esp. if your latest polls are right about how well he will do), then every "RINO" in Congress is going to be thinking "if I step too far in front, the Club for Growth will choose to fund someone against me."

8 Republicans in the House voted for Cap and Trade, and it only passed by four votes. If Hoffman wins, you won't see eight Republicans in the House voting for anything the Democrats want. Heck, there's a good chance you won't see a single Republican vote with the Democrats on anything for the next year.

Pelosi will be left with a choice: negotiate with the Republicans in good faith, and give them enough so that 100+ will be willing to vote for a bill, or else pass something that she likes with 0 Republican support.

If Christie wins in NJ (or, to put it more accurately, if Corzine loses in NJ), then I think you're going to see Blue Dog Democrats, and Democrats who won in 2008 by less than 10%, and Democrats whose district was carried by Bush in 2004, or McCain in 2008, all refusing to vote for "Democrat only" measures.

Finally, if the Democrats, with Obama in the White House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a 70+ majority in the House, still don't manage to pass any of the things their base wants, I don't see that base turning out to vote in 2010. In fact, I think the Democrat "enthusiasm' rates you're seeing now will be positively glowing compared to what you'll see next year.

So while I greatly hope your polling results are correct, I'm pretty sure your analysis of their effects is incorrect. :-)

 
Web Statistics