PPP poll: Hoffman up big in two-man race

posted at 6:53 pm on November 1, 2009 by Allahpundit

Good news, but with lots of caveats.

Here are some interesting facts from our unweighted numbers so far:

-In a three way contest Doug Hoffman leads Bill Owens by 19 points. In a two way contest Hoffman leads Owens by 15 points. So the Dede Scozzafava withdrawal and endorsement will probably tighten the race some but not nearly enough.

-58% of Republicans think that Scozzafava’s a liberal and that was obviously before her endorsement today.

-The Rush Limbaugh effect- Hoffman has a 79 point lead with Rush listeners while Owens has a 6 point lead with people who don’t listen to the show.

On its Twitter account, PPP flatly states that it expects Hoffman to win easily. Now the caveats: (1) Every other pollster thinks the race is close; (2) the White House evidently thinks so too given their outreach to Scozzafava (which, allegedly, included a phone call from Rahm Emanuel); and (3) PPP has a sample problem given that they started their poll before Scozzafava dropped out yesterday and kept it rolling on through today’s bombshell endorsement. That’s a lot of new information for respondents to assimilate on the fly and it guarantees that only part of the total sample will be reacting to Scozzafava’s switch. In fact, so dynamic and convoluted is this race — for example, just as I’m writing this, I’m hearing that Scozzafava’s campaign manager has endorsed Hoffman — that Nate Silver at Five Thirty Eight has given up on trying to make a prediction, claiming that he wouldn’t be surprised if either Hoffman or Owens wins by double digits. (How’s that for a margin of error?) And he adds a fourth caveat to PPP’s blowout forecast: If Scozzafava thought that her supporters would defect to Hoffman after she withdrew, she wouldn’t have withdrawn, would she? She’d have stuck around for two more days until the election to help out her pal the Democrat by keeping those votes from DH.

But look. As gratifying as it would be to see Hoffman win, the guy didn’t become a conservative grassroots cause celebre because people are dying to see Doug Hoffman in Congress. He’s a cause celebre because conservatives wanted to send a message to the GOP about the future of the party, and that message has now been sentand received, to the tune of $900,000 down the toilet — regardless of what happens on Tuesday. The party can still get away with putting up socially liberal Republicans in select purple districts next year, but fiscally liberal nominees are going to earn them either a primary challenge, a third-party challenge, or a disaffected base spending election day at home. And a Hoffman defeat will do nothing to change that. As for sending a message to Democrats and The One, that’s already been achieved too thanks to the looming landslide in Virginia for McDonnell and the fact that, even if Corzine wins a squeaker, it’ll only be because Zeus himself had to carry his ass across the finish line in what’s normally a dependably blue state. All of which is to say that Tuesday will be a good day no matter which way the polls in NY-23 and New Jersey end up tilting.

Exit question: Is Newt planning to comment on Scozzafava’s betrayal, perchance? He’s tweeted four times since she made her announcement and not a peep out of him about it yet.

Update: Ah, my mistake. Newt did comment on it, as an update to a blog post on his site:

Scozzafava did the right thing in dropping out. I am, however, deeply dissapointed that she has chosen to back Owens over Hoffman.

I am endorsing Doug Hoffman and believe everyone who wants to create jobs with lower taxes and to control spending and deficits should vote for Doug Hoffman Tuesday.

Follow the comments over there. Right now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

centre on November 1, 2009 at 7:41 PM

What’s scary is that Newt can buy into all this man-made warming b.s. He’s sharp and analytical on many things, yet he seems unable or unWILLING to see thru this propaganda. PLUS further lending credence to it by appearing on a commercial with Pelosi. Good Lord.

rtsidedragon on November 1, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Kensington on November 1, 2009 at 7:44 PM

I agree. Palin would have come around to the national scene. But I for one am glad it was sooner rather than later. I went to 2 rallies with her and she is quite a force. The crowd was there for her, not McCain.

truetexan on November 1, 2009 at 7:48 PM

rtsidedragon on November 1, 2009 at 7:39 PM

yeah, but the current Demo Party is like the Viet Cong–if you underestimate them ( which is always tempting ) you end up being separated from your vital bodily organs

Rhambo & Co have the money to poll relentlessly, so they ain’t gonna be sneaked up upon……

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 7:48 PM

I am endorsing Doug Hoffman and believe everyone who wants to create jobs with lower taxes and to control spending and deficits should vote for Doug Hoffman Tuesday.

Tell us something we didn’t already know.

mankai on November 1, 2009 at 7:49 PM

I had her liver with some Scozzafava beans and a fine chianti…

Orange Doorhinge on November 1, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Are we sure that in NY23, “dropping out” = name not in voting machine? Otherwise, the Zombie Republican vote may still be factor.

ParisParamus on November 1, 2009 at 7:49 PM

I agree with a poster over there – the GOP should sue her a$$ to get their money back. They won’t, and couldn’t win (not sure what the grounds would be), but I hope that b1tch is out of politics forever now.

Midas on November 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM

At this point do any one us care what Gingrich says about any candidate? I don’t.

shick on November 1, 2009 at 7:45 PM

I wouldn’t mind hearing him admit that he got this whole thing completely wrong, followed by an apology, followed immediately by a retirement announcement.

Besides that, I’ve zero interest in hearing anything from him ever again. Not strategy, not principle, nothing. Let him rot on the couch with Botox Nancy and fret about global warming to the interns.

Kensington on November 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM

I’ve got a feeling Newt is blaming all of this on the conservatives around the nation who made this a bigger deal than he and the other “elites” wanted.

Yet again they figured that a RINO candidate would get shoved down our throats without a peep of protest. Steele needs to go to, he and Newt can share a rail out of town.

Bishop on November 1, 2009 at 7:52 PM

The party can still get away with putting up socially liberal Republicans in select purple districts next year, but fiscally liberal nominees are going to earn them either a primary challenge, a third-party challenge, or a disaffected base spending election day at home.

Finally, if this is the lesson they’ve learned. Then good for them. But you have more faith than I do.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Are we sure that in NY23, “dropping out” = name not in voting machine? Otherwise, the Zombie Republican vote may still be factor.

ParisParamus on November 1, 2009 at 7:49 PM

She will still be on the ballot. Not to count people who already have voted in early voting for her.

Enoxo on November 1, 2009 at 7:53 PM

People do not show up at the polls in large numbers to support the status quo. This could be very good news come next Tuesday.

halfastro on November 1, 2009 at 7:54 PM

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 7:48 PM

You’re right. RahmBallerina and his cohorts ARE a force to be reckoned with, this is true. But stuck in that ‘bunker’ of theirs, I don’t think they can accurately gauge what is really going on west of DC and east of San Francisco. We certainly shall see.

rtsidedragon on November 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Maybe someone already posted this tidbit, but Scozzafava’s campaign manager is backing Hoffman.
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/11/scozzafava_mana.php

onlineanalyst on November 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM

I’ve got a feeling Newt is blaming all of this on the conservatives around the nation who made this a bigger deal than he and the other “elites” wanted.

Yet again they figured that a RINO candidate would get shoved down our throats without a peep of protest. Steele needs to go to, he and Newt can share a rail out of town.

Bishop on November 1, 2009 at 7:52 PM

I agree. Fred Thompson showed real leadership during this time period. I wouldn’t mind him as the chair.

deidre on November 1, 2009 at 7:56 PM

This might be a double (or triple) for us. The Watertown area may get a new assemblyman next election and the local Republican committee may also get revised.

burt on November 1, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Maybe someone already posted this tidbit, but Scozzafava’s campaign manager is backing Hoffman.
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/11/scozzafava_mana.php

onlineanalyst on November 1, 2009 at 7:55 PM

He knows where his bread is buttered while she knows where her bread will be buttered soon.

CWforFreedom on November 1, 2009 at 7:57 PM

We really shouldn’t be surprised with Newt’s actions. He is a career politician; they are all in it together, and that’s why they need to go. For him and others like him, it is about getting and keeping power. Same with Mitt, Huck, etc. Newt knows perfectly well that global warming is a hoax, but it’s an avenue to power, and power is what he and his ilk are all about.

That’s why Palin is so popular. Her refusal to play by the same corrupt rules and her love for this country and willingness to step up and call the good old boys and girls out is what literally pulls the people who love this country to her.

texanpride on November 1, 2009 at 7:58 PM

The party can still get away with putting up socially liberal Republicans in select purple districts next year, but fiscally liberal nominees are going to earn them either a primary challenge, a third-party challenge, or a disaffected base spending election day at home.

To me that is the key. The lesson here shouldn’t be that the Republican party has to become a hardline conservative party, but that it has to provide a clear alternative to Obama and socialism. The Republican party should aim to unite all the opposition against Obama, which should include libertarians and “classic liberals”.

modifiedcontent on November 1, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Maybe someone already posted this tidbit, but Scozzafava’s campaign manager is backing Hoffman.

I bet her husband is too.

ted c on November 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM

A newt is a common amphibian. For several years I have thought that Gingrich is a common amphibian.

burt on November 1, 2009 at 8:04 PM

Check out some of the comments on Newt.org:

“Hey Newt, how about that MILLION dollars of donations you threw at this Union Pelosi CLONE? Can you sue her for it back since she has BACKED THE DEMOCRAT now…..”

“How’s that egg tasting right about now, Newt?”

“Newt NY-23 was your waterloo with conservatives. Now, don’t go away mad, just go away.”

“Why are you with howard dean?
Why were you with nancy pelosi on the couch?
Bye newt. Taking my money and support to a CONSERVATIVE.”

pretty much says it!!

rtsidedragon on November 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM

AP’s analysis is so good it is almost like Ed wrote it.

notagool on November 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Sweet. Memo to Michelle – contact Dr Zero…

callingallcomets on November 1, 2009 at 8:07 PM

“even if Corzine wins a squeaker, it’ll only be because Zeus himself had to carry his ass across the finish line”

That made me laugh. Thanks.

Rational Thought on November 1, 2009 at 8:09 PM

It’s irritating how this story is being spun on both sides as some kind of referendum on moderates within the GOP. This story is not about moderation, it’s about a democrat pretending to be a republican and a state republican party organization that apparently doesn’t know the difference.

Infidoll on November 1, 2009 at 8:09 PM

AP’s analysis is so good it is almost like Ed wrote it.

notagool on November 1, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Sweet. Memo to Michelle – contact Dr Zero…

callingallcomets on November 1, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Allahpundit isn’t the boogeyman some claim him to be.

SouthernGent on November 1, 2009 at 8:11 PM

@Infidoll, exactly! That’s the way conservatives generally frame it as well and it plays right into Obama’s hands.

modifiedcontent on November 1, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Would people stop gripping because Allah doesn’t blow pixie dust and unicorn sh!t up their a$$ all the time. This isn’t Obama world and reality stinks if you aren’t prepared for it. Stop acting like the outcome you desire is a done deal.

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Allahpundit isn’t the boogeyman some claim him to be.

SouthernGent on November 1, 2009 at 8:11 PM

A al Polanski,

AP’s blogging is so good, he can snark on Palin and suck up to Meggie and still get a paycheck from Michelle.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Newt is, on principle, generally correct…the NY Republican will look/sound different than the TX Republican.

we all have to learn to live with that. the choice is all together too dreadful

r keller on November 1, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Sorry, but I’m not jumping on the bandwagon. Newt’s still got good ideas, he made a poor decision on Dede, but I challenge any one to find a Republican leader who is flawless.

p0s3r on November 1, 2009 at 7:38 PM

There is no bandwagon. What this shows is that Newt’s judgement no longer resonates. He became a political cautionary tale to the conservatives when he sat down w/ Pelosi. You can either be all one or all the other, not both. Newt has been pandering to specific interest groups. This NY23 race has revealed much about Newt’s idea of what it takes to be a member of his “BIG TENT” party. Reaching out to Scozzafava proved this pandering immeasurably. All his pandering has caught up with him now more than ever and his voice as far as leadership goes has evaporated. He should have stuck with bringing on the conservative ideas and left the rest alone. Now he will be cast aside for awhile and will only be called upon when conservatives think his message holds true to the core principles of conservatism — meaning — I don’t expect to hear much from him often in the next year or two.

Newt’s political future is somewhere in between the states of mass: gas, liquid, & solid. I’m figuring boiling liquid right now which requires quite a cooling off period. His global warming tendancies does not bode well for him ever becoming a solid Republican again. Where are the solid Republicans? You’ve no further to look than Republicans who garner the conservative brand. Senator DeMint is where we need to look for direction and young people like him. Not Newt Gingrich, his time for relevance — well, is history now.

Americannodash on November 1, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Allahpundit isn’t the boogeyman some claim him to be.

SouthernGent on November 1, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Really. I thought he was Anti-Christ Lite.

A Pagan for All Seasons

he can write good sometimes, tho….

Janos Hunyadi on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

truetexan on November 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM

I AGREE. PALIN WOULD HAVE COME AROUND TO THE NATIONAL SCENE. BUT I FOR ONE AM GLAD IS THAT IT WAS SOONER THAN LATER…

COMMENT:

You are dreaming in technicolor if Sarah Palin, a female governor from Alaska would ever have been given a chance to become a prominent player in GOP national politics.

I am a Palin supporter but there is no way in God’s green earth that Palin would have got to first base with any future campaign on her own. The only reason that she dominates the political culture of America now is because John McCain chose her as his VP. It’s as simple as that.

For that reason I am not so hard on McCain as some posters at HA. It truly is a miracle that Sarah Palin is where she currently finds herself and how precious she has become to the American conservative movement.

technopeasant on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

The petulant child has spoken. “Yeah, moderates lost here, but only because of this and that and this and that….”
 
Still have some growing to do here moderates. You need evolve and come to realize that conservatives are either going to get conservative candidates or solve the problem some other way, but it will be solved.
 
No longer are we going to work hard to elect you traitor moderates who than tell us how much wiser you are for voting with the Democrats to give us some form of bi-partisan hell we never wanted. If you seriously believe in your liberal/socialist positions than join the new socialist party that is what the Democrats have become.
 
Leave the Republican party and let us turn it into the sensible alternative to the big government fascist Democrats. I think you will find it wins even without taking Democrat positions like you moderates have forced in previous years. No only will it win, but win big because it will finally give the people what they want.
 
By the way, I don’t think Allah is a “boogeyman”, I just think he is a wissy-wassy moderate who really is more liberal than conservative and if he were true to himself, would be a Democrat. Instead he likes SOME of the positions of the Republican party, but most of those from the Democrats and so is trying to turn the Republicans into Democrat lite, where his positions fall…..

woodythesingingcowboy on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

r keller on November 1, 2009 at 8:19 PM

On principle yes. But the point is (as AP stated a few days ago), this is a red district. There was no need to put up a liberal democrat in R clothing. Hoffman could have been on the R ticket and won this thing straight out.

GOP made a bad decision. Newt didn’t need to compound it.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

You can’t be socially liberal and fiscally conservative! Well, I mean, yeah, you CAN, but it’s hard because all these socially liberal programs require $$$ and that means tossing fiscal conservatism out the window!

Orange Doorhinge on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

My comment to Newt Gingrich was:

I’ll grant that a Republican candidate ought reasonably to fit his district’s electorate, but you seem to have forgotten that a Republican Congressman ought reasonably to fit his party. I’ve spent a lifetime being tolerant of Republicans’ and conservatives’ foibles, Newt Gingrich. Right now, though, my horsewhip would like a few minutes alone with your back. If you’re thoroughly humiliated by Scozzafava’s having endorsed the Democrat after all you did for her, then I allow that Scozzafava has, in that one respect, served the GOP well.

Kralizec on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

There is a Plouffe video over at Politico where he slams Palin as the game changer in the race but attempts to belittle her influence and the influence of conservatives, as well.

The Dems are running scared. They smell the winds of change in a very unhappy America, and Americans are laying the blame for our economy at Obamao’s feet, as well as Congress’s

onlineanalyst on November 1, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Orange Doorhinge on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Social liberalism doesn’t require any $$, it’s social conservatism (and its enforcement) that requires it. Leaving people alone to their choices if they don’t affect anyone else is free.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Newt is deeply disappointed. Ah Newt, you’re such a gentleman, but we’re not just deeply disappointed in you, we’re fed up.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Social liberalism costs money if you build a welfare state and encourage people to be dependent on the government.

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM

You are dreaming in technicolor if Sarah Palin, a female governor from Alaska would ever have been given a chance to become a prominent player in GOP national politics.

I am a Palin supporter but there is no way in God’s green earth that Palin would have got to first base with any future campaign on her own. The only reason that she dominates the political culture of America now is because John McCain chose her as his VP. It’s as simple as that.

For that reason I am not so hard on McCain as some posters at HA. It truly is a miracle that Sarah Palin is where she currently finds herself and how precious she has become to the American conservative movement.

technopeasant on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

I think so too, how else could she market herself in that big way from Alaska. Traveling around as a VP candidate gets attention . Few knew who she was , not so anymore..

the_nile on November 1, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Social liberalism doesn’t require any $$,

Not so. For instance, gay marriage – and the resulting benefits for partners – is a huge cash grab.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM

That’s economic liberalism. Democrats have perverted social liberalism with the idea that you aren’t responsible for your choices.

Social conservatism doesn’t even trust people with those choices.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Ah, my mistake. Newt did comment on it

Am I reading that right, or does Newt actually say “Real Change Requires Real Change”? Is that an intentional tautology? A mistake? Is he tripping or am I?

Tzetzes on November 1, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM

No public money – don’t be dense. If people want to enter a contract and split their crap upon divorce, who cares.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:35 PM

I disagree with Allah – this is not just about sending a message to the GOP. That message has been sent – but now we need for Hoffman to win and send a message to Democrats – especially the Blue Dogs.

I’m holding my breath – but I’m hoping for a trifecta on Tuesday. If we get it …

Kiss ObamaCare goodbye.

HondaV65 on November 1, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Good post AP!

FloridaBill on November 1, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Social conservatism doesn’t even trust people with those choices.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:35 PM

We could debate that all day long. Why worry about choices when there are no consequences? We are pretty close to the point where the only person who suffers from peoples’ bad choices are the taxpayers.

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:43 PM

NY Republicans need to toss this woman from the party. Let her caucus with the Democrats but run someone with conservative viewpoints against her in the next general election.

Same goes for the party hacks who appointed her to run in the first place.

jpmn on November 1, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Has anyone heard from ANYTHING from the maverick or his lap dog, Graham?

HornetSting on November 1, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Not so. For instance, gay marriage – and the resulting benefits for partners – is a huge cash grab.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Bulls#it.

Ampersand on November 1, 2009 at 8:45 PM

We are pretty close to the point where the only person who suffers from peoples’ bad choices are the taxpayers.

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Yes, with social freedom, comes economic responsibility for it. I’ve written many times how to do it.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:47 PM

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:47 PM

That would require a huge changes in attitude from both sides of aisle. What are the chances?

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:50 PM

I’m hoping things like this get people to look past party and look at what people actually support.

I know democrats won’t – they’ll mindlessly vote for any D on the ballot, but at least there is hope for republicans.

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM

Sorry, but I’m not jumping on the bandwagon. Newt’s still got good ideas, he made a poor decision on Dede, but I challenge any one to find a Republican leader who is flawless.

p0s3r

We’re not looking for a flawless leader, just one who doesn’t endorse democrats and democrat causes.

xblade on November 1, 2009 at 8:55 PM

lorien1973 on November 1, 2009 at 8:52 PM

Although socially conservative myself I have an aversion to telling people to live just like me. Although they could certainly do worse. Democrats seem to either want to get something for nothing or be Santa Claus to everyone. If Republicans will tow the line fiscally and not put up with corruption, I could be a lot less stringent. Right now I just think D.C. is a cess pool and nothing good can come from there. I am pretty sure that’s not a great attitude, or at least unhelpful.

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Is that you downthread Allahpundit ? The Eeyore of the Vichy conservative blogosphere here defending Newt?

Hey, pull up a seat between Newt and Nancy. Meghan will have horderves and cocktails out in a Jiffy.

Cigar?

Anon Commenter at Newt’s site

Ouch. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that was Allah the commenter is targeting. It was Kathleen Parker.

Jaibones on November 1, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Social liberalism doesn’t require any $$,

Not so. For instance, gay marriage – and the resulting benefits for partners – is a huge cash grab.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM

–Quite a few large companies already offer benefits to partners of employees.

Jimbo3 on November 1, 2009 at 9:15 PM

Social liberalism costs money if you build a welfare state and encourage people to be dependent on the government.

Cindy Munford on November 1, 2009 at 8:32 PM

and this is where the progressives have co-opted the ‘Liberal’ label. Social Liberalism is keeping gov’t out of peoples personal lives, not creating programs to support them.

I consider myself a true liberal democrat….socially liberal,fiscally conservative. Keep gov’t out, period. we can argue amongst ourselves all we want but never involve gov’t.

Fighton03 on November 1, 2009 at 9:18 PM

AP said:

The party can still get away with putting up socially liberal Republicans in select purple districts next year

They shouldn’t. They should put up socially conservative (or at least socially conservative-leaning) Republicans in purple districts, and socially liberal Republicans in the blue districts. Social conservatives can win in purple districts/states (as a conservative GOP candidate is currently demonstrating in VA), and as the conservative party, the GOP’s default position should be to nominate conservatives, wherever they can win.

Jon0815 on November 1, 2009 at 9:19 PM

If Hoffmnan wins maybe he can afford to whiten his teeth.

Grow Fins on November 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Sorry, but I’m not jumping on the bandwagon. Newt’s still got good ideas, he made a poor decision on Dede, but I challenge any one to find a Republican leader who is flawless.

p0s3r

We’re not looking for a flawless leader, just one who doesn’t endorse democrats and democrat causes.

xblade on November 1, 2009 at 8:55 PM

One not sitting on the couch with Pelosi would be a nice start.

Jeff from WI on November 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Has anyone heard from ANYTHING from the maverick or his lap dog, Graham?

HornetSting on November 1, 2009 at 8:45 PM

I’m hoping they took a trip together and the plane crashed and they’re ok but stuck on an uncharted island for a while.

Jeff from WI on November 1, 2009 at 9:23 PM

If Hoffmnan wins maybe he can afford to whiten his teeth.

Grow Fins on November 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Hoffmans teeth whitening is scheduled the day after Obama’s “ear bob”

Jeff from WI on November 1, 2009 at 9:35 PM

If Hoffmnan wins maybe he can afford to whiten his teeth.

Grow Fins on November 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM

why?

Fighton03 on November 1, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Hoffmans teeth whitening is scheduled the day after Obama’s “ear bob”
spine implantation
Jeff from WI on November 1, 2009 at 9:35 PM

fify

Fighton03 on November 1, 2009 at 9:39 PM

Are we sure that in NY23, “dropping out” = name not in voting machine? Otherwise, the Zombie Republican vote may still be factor.

ParisParamus on November 1, 2009 at 7:49 PM

.
Of course not. Scozzafava’s name will be on the ballot. There is almost zero chance of it being removed. And likely a lot of absentee ballots have already been submitted, and possibly counted.

Dasher on November 1, 2009 at 9:43 PM

One not sitting on the couch with Pelosi would be a nice start.

Jeff from WI on November 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM

.
100+
.
And one not drinking AGW kool-aid.

Dasher on November 1, 2009 at 9:45 PM

Follow the comments over there. Right now.

You or not, this is so full of win:

By Anonymous @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 8:59 PM
Is that you downthread Allahpundit ? The Eeyore of the Vichy conservative blogosphere here defending Newt?

Hey, pull up a seat between Newt and Nancy. Meghan will have horderves and cocktails out in a Jiffy.

Cigar?

Rae on November 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Not so. For instance, gay marriage – and the resulting benefits for partners – is a huge cash grab.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Bulls#it.

Ampersand on November 1, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Perhaps his will help you understand why you are wrong.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/yourspouse.htm

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Besides that, I’ve zero interest in hearing anything from him ever again. Not strategy, not principle, nothing. Let him rot on the couch with Botox Nancy and fret about global warming to the interns.

Kensington on November 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM

You said it. The man was so wrong in endorsing her for political reasons rather than endorsing Hoffman on principles.

He and other republican politicians clearly didn’t grasp the major upset of the tea-parties and townhalls. We want change based on principle.

For me to even consider giving him an ounce of respect he needs to publicly apologies to conservative voters. Really!

shick on November 1, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Fact 1:
If Corzine wins it is because conservatives in NJ are waking up to the fact that Christie is a RINO just like Christie Todd Witless.

Fact 2:
If the Dems keep NJ when it should have been a cakewalk then the blame should be laid at the feet of Sean Hannity who was the deciding factor in the RINO Christie defeating an electable Conservative who would have destroyed Corzine.

bill30097 on November 1, 2009 at 7:22 PM

You might as well throw Neil Cavuto under this bus as well. He lives down the street from Christi and has had him on box Fox News and Fox Business repeatedly.

gary4205 on November 1, 2009 at 10:17 PM

You are dreaming in technicolor if Sarah Palin, a female governor from Alaska would ever have been given a chance to become a prominent player in GOP national politics.

I am a Palin supporter but there is no way in God’s green earth that Palin would have got to first base with any future campaign on her own.

technopeasant on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Sorry but I have to disagree with you on the above statement. Gov. Palin would have made a name for herself considering the current state of affairs on a national level. Sarah as you should know by now can only keep her thought to herself for so long. It is in her nature to speak out when wrongs are happening. In this case O’s election is a case in point. I do not what to get into a long drawn out discussion on this let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that–Coda.

Clyde5445 on November 1, 2009 at 10:29 PM

I agree. Fred Thompson showed real leadership during this time period. I wouldn’t mind him as the chair.

I was thinking the same thing.

alexwest on November 1, 2009 at 10:40 PM

The party can still get away with putting up socially liberal Republicans in select purple districts next year, but fiscally liberal nominees are going to earn them either a primary challenge, a third-party challenge, or a disaffected base spending election day at home.

This.

BadgerHawk on November 1, 2009 at 10:50 PM

Not so. For instance, gay marriage – and the resulting benefits for partners – is a huge cash grab.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM

You’re the bullsh*t conservative. Enough with the pious, tongue-lashings from those seeking to limit my freedoms.

Evangelicals have successfully shifted the focus, energy and ire of conservatives from fiscal to metaphysical issues. They have twisted the abortion argument from one of states’ rights to one of Christian doctrine. IMO it’s those same tiny minds that bend border-security and Tea Party protests to fit their nativist, crypto-bigoted mindset.

Marriage should be handled the state. It should be treated as a contract between willing parties and if freely entered into should not be restricted or regulated beyond typical fees and documentation. There is no legal reason to deny gay men and women equal protection under our laws.

You refer to the full recognition of their civil rights as a “cash-grab” for gays. I find it interesting that you seem to think that homosexuals would be exploiting the system by doing what heterosexuals do unencumbered.

What is it about gay men and/or women that would earn them such marginal civility?

Explain to me your interest in whom some random dude marries. What is your obsession? It would seem that a conservative would seek to respect personal sovereignty, personal freedom.

It rings hollow and smacks of hypocrisy-squared to watch Republicans try and demonize sex and love between consenting adults. What’s worse is it rings un-American.

The Race Card on November 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM

I agree. Fred Thompson showed real leadership during this time period. I wouldn’t mind him as fell asleep in the chair.

The Race Card on November 1, 2009 at 11:46 PM

What is going on? Is everyone on this blog a bunch of angry white guys? No thanks to you Lindsey Graham, WE ARE CONSERVATIVES, and we are sick of Rinos.

mobydutch on November 2, 2009 at 12:35 AM

The Race Card on November 1, 2009 at 11:44 PM

There is no legal reason to deny gay men and women equal protection under our laws.

Uh.. what equal protection are they being denied?

Marriage is a privilege not a right. That’s why you have to get a _license_ for it.

Care to tell a child which sex parent it just doesn’t need in his/her childhood?

Republicans aren’t ‘demonizing sex and love’. Adults can do whatever they want. Marriage is about children and the next generation of citizens.

How about we get the gvmnt completely out of the marriage business. None for straights or gays?

I’m so dammed sick of this ‘ I wanna re-define a word to make me feel better about my life’ debate.

Partisan on November 2, 2009 at 1:28 AM

Newt’s the Jesse Jacksome of the wight.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on November 2, 2009 at 7:12 AM

There is no legal reason to deny gay men and women equal protection under our laws.

You can live as you please but the only justification for the state to recognize and support marriage is because it usually results in the raising of children.

Basilsbest on November 2, 2009 at 8:20 AM

I agree that the message has been sent and received. And I also agree that sending a million bucks to a representative in the last days was a waste of money, frankly.

But…whatever.

AnninCA on November 2, 2009 at 8:44 AM

re: white house call.

I wager they offered to pay off her campaign debt in return for her endorsement of the leftist. Pity the RNC or CFG or perhaps the Taxed-Enough-Already folks didn’t get to her first. We need (a conservative organization) to establish a standing offer to pay off reasonable campaign debts given (1) early withdrawal (4 weeks or more before election), (2) run on issues not attack ads on other conservatives, (3) give endorsement to the conservative. It’s very hard for a party to do this (given the party is the elected members, in large part), so we need an alternative that does not have to defer to an incumbant. Would also make RINOs less so.

aritai on November 2, 2009 at 1:02 PM

You can live as you please but the only justification for the state to recognize and support marriage is because it usually results in the raising of children.

Basilsbest on November 2, 2009 at 8:20 AM

It usually ends in divorce too…depending on your stats/source.

The Race Card on November 2, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Marriage is about children and the next generation of citizens.

Let’s suppose that what you’re saying was true and you aren’t expressing some irrelevant emotion. That would not supercede any American’s civil protections. Also, you have no proof or evidence that gay marriage is harmful to anyone.

Do you believe you have waged a good argument on your behalf? How so?

I ask because I am trying to understand if you really believe what you’ve said or if you are just regurgitating anti-gay rhetoric.

The Race Card on November 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2