Owens carried the three counties Scozzafava represents in the New York State Assembly (Jefferson, St. Lawrence, and Lewis) by a decisive 53% to 42% margin. This was an 11% margin increase from the 36% to 36% tie the Siena Poll released on Monday revealed. Scozzafava’s vote dropped from 9% in the Monday poll to 6% in the actual results. Meanwhile, the 19% undecided in the three county region broke hard for Owens. 13% of the undecided went to Owens during a 48 period, while only 6% went to Hoffman.
Scozzafava’s strenuous support of Owens during these critical hours was probably the most decisive factor in moving those undecideds. She recorded two robocalls, which were delivered throughout the district, and appeared with Owens at a local event.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
“Meh. What’s a measly $900,000?” — NRCC.
notropis on November 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Money well spent, GOP, money well spent.
BadgerHawk on November 4, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Dede Scozzie will now have a new, second career appearing on MSNBC and CNN as the poster gal, moderate Republican, victim of those scary, angry conservatives, and their war on and attempts to purge the GOP of moderates.
ChrisB on November 4, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Gee, do you think that an endorsement by one of the two party candidates of the other of the two party candidates hurt the candidate of the third party?
Gee, you think that the White House’s full war chest in a CONGRESSIONAL seat had anything to do with it either (coupled with RNC money attacking the third party candidate)?
It is a two party oligarchy in America. We need more third party candidates. If the two parties gang up against everyone else, there will always only be two parties.
ThackerAgency on November 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM
No worries. The seat was won with trickery. It will only last a year.
Trickery usually doesn’t pay, not even for Obama.
Schadenfreude on November 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I hope she gets a makeover.
notropis on November 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM
You know who won’t be in Congress, now or ever?
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZZZZZZZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAAAAAFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVAAAAAAAA
Enoxo on November 4, 2009 at 12:16 PM
No crap. Could have told you that at 10pm last night. She was well over the 6% margin at times and her endorsement clearly paid off in certain counties.
I wonder when she’s switch parties.
taney71 on November 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM
It cost him at least 8-10 points.
Firebird on November 4, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Newt will not take any blame…he is not man enough to admit that he and the RNC created this boondoggle.
The loss is painful, but not as painful as watching the RNC and Newt not understanding their roles.
right2bright on November 4, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I don’t think that scozzafava battlecry will ever get old.
Of course her endorsement had an effect. If there was more time then Hoffman could have won some of those voters back but that wasn’t the case. Her name being on the ballot didn’t help either and the absentee ballots which were cast before she dropped out (read – Military) was of no benefit to Hoffman either.
In short, she’s a big fat ****.
But I rather owens than her. See you in 2010 suckas!
Daemonocracy on November 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM
i’m expecting him to proclaim that the fact that Owens won proved that he was right all along to back Dede.
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I said it in the run up to last night, and I’ll say it again:
I would rather have a Blue Dog Democrat in that seat, than a Liberal marked as a Republican.
And make no mistake, Bill Owens IS a Blue Dog. He ran AGAINST the Public Option. Scuzzyfuzzy? Not so much, she was “not decided,” but would have voted for it–and we don’t need to give them anymore clout of “Bi-Partisanship.”
Bill Owen will be a thorn in Pelosi’s side for a year, a very prickly thorn, because if he wants to run for a full term he’s going to have to vote against all of their plans. Otherwise, he’s going to lose handily next year.
Enoxo on November 4, 2009 at 12:23 PM
She switched to run as a R. I have no idea why she was in the R party. . . all of her stances are D platform stances. I can appreciate not agreeing with everything. . . but disagreeing with everything should disqualify someone.
ThackerAgency on November 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Don’t forget: Conservative Republicans should fall in line and vote for anyone with an (R) next to his or her name, regardless of liberal ideology, because we need a BIG TENT… “Moderate” Republicans, however, are free to do whatever, because, um, the tent doesn’t have to be QUITE big enough to fit the base inside. Classsssy.
rightheaded on November 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Hoffman was brave fighting with limited resources not only against his foes but also his ‘friends’. To me that counts for more than all the polish and politically savvy.
scrubjay on November 4, 2009 at 12:26 PM
No more Arlens.
the_nile on November 4, 2009 at 12:26 PM
What did ACORN do this time?
YYZ on November 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM
And maybe – just maybe - he was right.
YYZ on November 4, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Sorry but all things considered, I’d rather have a D than an R who votes with the Ds and gives Obama “bipartisan cover.”
BardMan on November 4, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Can a franchise owner sue one of the franchisees who defames or debases the brand?
Can McDonalds sue a franchisee who changes the formula for the happy meal?
Can we sue whats-her-name in civil court for fraudulent defamation of the GOP brand?
Anyone?
jeff_from_mpls on November 4, 2009 at 12:30 PM
The GOP “Newt-er’d” this one.
Badly
jake-the-goose on November 4, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Rush Limbaugh just said that Owens and SCCCCCOOZZZZAAAFAAAVAAAA were on the ballot twice. The layout was like this:
Democrat Owens
Republican Scuzzy
Independent Scuzzy
Conservative Hoffman
Working Family Owens
Enoxo on November 4, 2009 at 12:31 PM
The GOP’s ineptitude is what caused Hoffman’s loss.
NOT ONE MORE DIME TO THE GOP.
cubachi on November 4, 2009 at 12:31 PM
3rd parties have no chance without runoffs. Institute national runoffs, so as to negate the strategic voting that goes on, and maybe theres a chance at breaking the 2 party system.
ernesto on November 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM
As is generally the case in NYS.
ernesto on November 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Trickery. Ha ha ha ha. Riiight.
Who tricked who? And how, exactly?
Grow Fins on November 4, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I can’t imagine that even you would be stupid enough to want a woman in Congress who believes that when you’re asked a tough question by a reporter, the correct response is to call the cops.
notropis on November 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM
This is just the beginning. There are going to be setbacks and disappointments like Hoffmans loss but we have to keep our eye on the target and keep moving forward.
journeyscarab on November 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Newt was wrong – just wrong. The people who voted for a guy whose name appeared under “Conservative Party” label weren’t going to vote for Scoffalava, not after her policy positions received a little sunlight.
Bishop on November 4, 2009 at 12:35 PM
David Axelrod called and said all of you trolls are to take the day off.
Knucklehead on November 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Interesting idea. I’d go for it.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 4, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Gop and Dede tricked people that she was a republican.
the_nile on November 4, 2009 at 12:39 PM
That’s a different argument. You’re suggesting that she wasn’t a good candidate and a bad Republican. Fine.
But she might have won had many high profile conservatives not endorsed Hoffman. I think Newt was more interested in getting an (R) into Congress than anything else. And in that regard, he may feel vindicated this morning.
YYZ on November 4, 2009 at 12:40 PM
RNC should ask Scozzafava to repay that 900k, that money was not meant for her to go and support a dem. Breach of contract….
runner on November 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Its not without its faults, but political science has one postulation thats as close to a law as social science gets: Duverger’s law. It states that winner take all, first past the post voting systems inevitably lead to 2 party systems.
ernesto on November 4, 2009 at 12:43 PM
This is a hilarious Post Script to yet another installment of National GOP Incompetence. Hoist on their own petard. Morons.
james23 on November 4, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Scozzafava beans
Erich66 on November 4, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Never convince me that is was Dede’s input. I will always chalk it up to Hoffman’s inexperience and absolutely awful media personna. He simply does not have a demeanor that inspires confidence—no fault of his own, he just needs practice and experience. If I had watched and listened to him in 23NY, even though I agree with his politics, I would have wondered if he had the necessary chutzpah for the job.
jeanie on November 4, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Scozzafava has more influence than Obama.
LibTired on November 4, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Slightly off topic, but have you ever looked up the origin of the phrase “hoist on his own petard”?
It’s quite unseemly really. It refers to a person who elevates himself, who lifts himself higher by the force of his, shall we say, flatulence.
There’s your Hot Air trivia of the day.
jeff_from_mpls on November 4, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Only a fool would think so.
Which explains you.
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM
A franchise owner usually signs a contract specifying what behaviors are and are not permitted.
No such contracts in politics. More the shame.
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Which target? We can’t beat the Democrats until all Fifth Column among the Republican leadership have been dealt with.
When it comes to the functionaries, the RNC isn’t really that different from the DNC. Lifeling political animals – on both sides of the aisle – are about as conservative as the average public school art teacher.
When dealing with each other, the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership may be competitive, but it’s all really a friendly rivalry at heart.
Republican leaders try to make the right noises to appease conservative voters. But I don’t know if one in ten lifelong politicians means it. When a real person suddenly becomes involved like Sarah Palin or Hoffman, that’s when the long knives come out.
The RNC leadership are prepping a scorched earth campaign. But it’s not the DNC they are gunning for. They see the Republican voters as the problem, not their “esteemed colleagues” on the other side of the aisle.
logis on November 4, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I like instant run-off elections. Cheaper and more accurate than traditional run-offs. (In run-off elections, you rarely much more than 10% the turnout you got in the first election.)
In instant run-off elections, you vote for your first choice, second choice, etc. You don’t have to vote 2nd, 3rd, etc.
If no candidate gets a majority, then the candidate that gets the fewest first place votes is eliminated. On every ballot the elimated candidate is removed (electronically of course, nothing done to the original ballot) all candidates below the eliminated candidate are promoted, and first place votes are counted again. The process is repeated until some candidate gets a majority.
Assume a three candidate race and 5 voters.
1) ABC
2) ACB
3) BCA
4) BAC
5) CAB
A has 2 votes, B has two votes, C has one vote. C has the fewest first place votes and is eliminated.
1) AB
2) AB
3) BA
4) BA
5) AB
Candidate A now has 3 votes and is declared the winner.
A simpler method is called, I believe, preferential voting.
In that system you simply vote for every candidate that you find acceptable. All votes for all candidates are totalled up, and the candidate with the most votes wins.
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Something really weird is going on with my posts. Line are disappearing.
Between the two groups of votes, there should be a line that explains that no candidate gets a majority, and since C has the fewest first place votes, C is eliminated.
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Actually, No.
The phrase “Hoisted upon his own petard” is an old military term. It refers to an early attempt at a shaped charge, the “Petard”.
First used in the 16th century, the Petard was a metal container filled with gunpowder on a stick with a wick. The wick was lighted, and the container wedged up against the wall of a fortification with the stick.
The problem was that wicks of the era were notoriously unreliable. Often they would burn MUCH faster then intended and the charge would go off early, blasting the Petard user into the air. Thus “Hoisting” upon one’s own Petard, being an expression meaning “to be destroyed by one’s own weapon”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard
wearyman on November 4, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I think the LOCAL GOP to that area over-obligated themselves to Scuzzybuffalobutt. In retrospect they should have kept their options much more open as to who they planned to run when the governor called for the special election.
When the election was finally called, they were committed to a candidate who wasn’t looking like such a good idea anymore. They were too committed to just drop her without ramifications. One of those ramifications could be very negative for the national GOP trying to recruit candidates for 2010—add to that the implications of a conservative kamikaze revolt, and the national GOP got involved.
Believe it or not, this is not that bad a result. Local GOPs are unlikely to recruit more Scozzafavas, this third party BS got strangled in 2009 instead of during the regular 2010 elections, and kamikazes now cannot wrap themselves in denial about the consequences of their actions (But Cloned Jesse Helms can win in Massachusetts, really!).
We can get the seat back in 2010, the GOP will nominate much better conservatives, and “true conservatives” will now know to save the fight for the Democrats.
Sekhmet on November 4, 2009 at 1:25 PM
More accurate? You’ve obviously forgotten how the “disputed” ballots looked in the Minnesota Senate race.
A significant proportion of people can’t even fill in a single oval correctly. This “ranking” nonsense would create a nightmare, and that’s precisely why the left is so enamored of it. Every close race is guaranteed to be determined in the courts, where they very seldom lose.
notropis on November 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Owens is a Blue Dog.
So the Republican Party backed a candidate who was more liberal than the Democrat!
Bravo!
pseudonominus on November 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM
So we can’t try anything new, because people are stupid and Democrats cheat. Sounds to me like you are more interested in ensuring that the currently duopoly can’t be challenged.
If there is a problem, then the scanners need to reject the ballot the first time.
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I reboot my computer, and the missing line re-appears. Weird.
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Duh…I said this last night. There are just some voters who will follow the person with the R behind their names no matter what.
SouthernGent on November 4, 2009 at 1:42 PM
We can try plenty of new things, just not that one. It’s designed to not work. It’s a leftist ploy to send as many close elections as possible to the courts.
And yes, certain ideas will not work because too many people have too tough a time following simple instructions.
And certain other ideas will not work because Democrats cheat.
An idea that will actually work? Good old fashioned regular run-offs. There should be a requirement for a simple majority to win any election. Top two move on.
Not sexy, but not designed to fail (as instant run-off is.)
notropis on November 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM
your paranoia apparently knows no bounds. As to the claim that it is too complicated, why bother having elections at all if voters are that easy to fool?
MarkTheGreat on November 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM
What am I missing here? Skuzzy literally got 5% of the votes. Votes that Hoffman should have gotten.
nottakingsides on November 4, 2009 at 8:30 PM