Republican wins Democratic district in New York race to replace Weiner

Poor Lloyd.

(CNN) -- In a huge upset that few would have predicted just months ago, a Republican won a special election in a heavily Democratic district in New York for the seat of former Rep. Anthony Weiner.

Republican Bob Turner won the special election Tuesday in 9th Congressional District, defeating Democrat David Weprin after a heated, summer-long race that ignited Democratic fears of a quiet election morphing into a referendum on the party and President Barack Obama, ahead of next year's elections.

"We've asked the people of this district to send a message to Washington, and I hope they hear it loud and clear," Turner said at his election party in Queens with a packed room, many of them Orthodox Jews.

"Mr. President, you are on the wrong track."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/...ss_igoogle_cnn

Ah yes. More quick and easy analysis. Rush to judgement on steroids. I know, I just know, say the anti-intellectuals about everything. No time for analysis - who needs that shit! It's fking obvious - only an idiot would disagree, or a liberal.

Giving the electorate and their decisions any credence without analysis is stupid. But sooo satisfying. And that's all that counts.

By Steve Benen

The polls were right. As expected, Republicans had a very good night, easily winning two congressional special elections in districts Democrats hoped to compete in. In Nevada’s 2nd, Republican Mark Amodei cruised to an easy, 22-point win over Democrat Kate Marshall, and in New York’s 9th, Republican Bob Turner won by eight over Democrat David Weprin.

There are plenty of angles to consider to the results. We could talk about the fact that Weprin just wasn’t a good candidate. We might mention that New York’s 9th isn’t quite as “blue” as advertised, the race had some unique local issues, and the district will likely be eliminated through redistricting anyway. We could explore just how conservative Nevada’s 2nd really is, and why it was always probably a pipe dream for Dems anyway.

And while all of those angles matter, let’s instead put all of that aside and talk about special elections in a larger context. Because, after all, the main question the political world seems to be asking this morning is whether the results portend larger trouble for Democrats in general, and President Obama specifically.

Jonathan Bernstein had a sharp item on this yesterday.

Republicans, and some neutral commentators, are already spinning that outcome as proof that Democrats will have a tough time next year. In reality, you can safely ignore everything you hear about What It All Means and What It Tells Us About 2012.

Certainly, the electoral landscape — as reflected in these races — would be difference if Barack Obama’s approval ratings were in the low 60s instead of the low 40s. But we don’t need special elections to tell us that. As for predicting the future, it’s well-established that special elections don’t do that (although partisans and some reporters seem to have very short memories). […]

So do pay attention to these two special elections. Just don’t expect them to tell us what the American people think of Barack Obama — national polls do that job much better. And don’t expect them to tell us anything about November 2012. For that, we’ll just have to wait.

Let’s flesh this out a bit, looking at the last few cycles. In the 109th Congress (2005 and 2006), going into the November 2006 midterms, there were four U.S. House special elections — Republicans won three, Democrats won one, and neither party flipped any seats. Did this offer hints about the Democratic wave that would sweep the GOP out of their majorities in both chambers?

Obviously not.

In the 110th Congress (2007 and 2008), going into Election Day in November 2008, there were 12 U.S. House special elections — Republicans won four, Democrats won eight, and Dems successfully turned three “red” seats “blue.” Were these Democratic gains an “omen” of things to come? Maybe! It’s worth noting, though, that the Dem wins came much closer to the ‘08 elections (rather than the summer before, which is where we are now).

And in the 111th Congress (2009 and 2010), going into the 2010 midterms, there were 10 U.S. House special elections — Republicans won two, Democrats won eight, and each party flipped one district previously held by the other party. Of particular interest, from March ‘09 to May ‘10, Dems won seven straight special elections, even flipping one district Republicans had held for more than a century. Did this offer evidence of the burgeoning Republican wave? Not even a little.

So far this year, there have been four U.S. House special elections — Republicans have won two, Democrats have won two, and each have flipped a seat previously held by the other party. What does this tell us about the 2012 elections? Ask me again a year from now.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...n_c032183.php#

__________________________________________________ ______
Ah...good preliminary analysis. I want more. Information. I want more. Facts. I want more. Why? Because I value facts not ideology.

It's news Atypical. Not analysis. It's an article. One article. The event happened........ yesterday. Timely, no?

So does that qualify as a "rush to judgement on steroids" as you suggest?

So you'd like to call me "stupid" because I posted this one article on the results? So you think I have a feeling of satisfaction from the post? Are you kidding me? Really?

"Anti intellectual" "idiot"?

It seemingly rings true.

"Liberals speak often of tolerance, but they only tolerate Liberals and Liberal ideas."

And, "Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them."

Wow. How accurate these stereotypes are.

I'm dissapointed.

You're just a tad too happy for an "independent". lol.

You never were too good at analysis. :) "not analysis. Its an article."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

You're just a tad too happy for an "independent". lol.

You never were too good at analysis. :) "not analysis. Its an article."

---

Correction - non party affiliate.

Actually, I'm fantastic at analysis as in statistical analysis and things like that. I aced all that $hit in grad school.

Rep. Waxman: Jews Support GOP Because They ‘Want to Protect Their Wealth’

More information.............

One of the main takeaways made by political analysts in regards to Republican Bob Turner’s congressional win in New York Tuesday has been the district’s apparent shift in support from Democrats by the Jewish community since 2008. But don’t tell that to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a prominent Jewish Democratic congressman.

He gave a surprising and perhaps offensive assessment about such support to The Hill on Tuesday. When the loss of the seat seemed imminent, Waxman said:

“’I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry, ‘he said. ‘But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.” [Emphasis added]

The rest is here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-...-their-wealth/