Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

NY-20: Stick It to the GOP

By

{First, a cheap plug for my blog Senate Guru.}

While I typically focus on Senate races, the special election in New York’s 20th Congressional district is an excellent opportunity to stick it to the Republican Party.

NY-20 is a Republican leaning district in voter registration, but has been recently represented by now-Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and even narrowly supported now-President Barack Obama over John McCain.

The Democratic nominee, Scott Murphy, has turned a deficit in the polls into a narrow four-point lead over Republican Jim Tedisco.  Momentum is on our side!  A victory in this special election wouldn’t just be a nice Democratic hold, but, since it is a Republican-leaning district, it would also be a major embarrassment for Republicans, particularly new RNC Chair Michael Steele.

How desperate are Republicans in this race?  Well, they’re very literally reduced to going with a noun, a verb, and 9-11 in flailingly attacking Murphy.  And how loathsome is the Republican nominee?  Even the Libertarian candidate, who was booted from the race after – it would appear – Republicans made a concerted effort to get enough Libertarian ballot signatures overturned, has endorsed Scott Murphy.  (And it’s one hell of an endorsement.)

The special election is this Tuesday!  So what can you do to help?

Phone bank for Scott Murphy!

This is a special election, so GOTV is everything.  On Monday or Tuesday, if you can spend literally one single hour making calls, that could be the difference in a Republican pick-up versus a Republican embarrassment.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. He blames Tedisco for not making the ballot and so has endorsed Murphy.  Does the endorsement help Murphy or does having him off the ballot help Tedisco?

    • Having him off the ballot helps Tedisco by virtue of the fact that Libertarians who just show up are historically more likely to vote Republican rather than Democrat.  That said, in a single Congressional district, Libertarian activists are probably a tight-knit group, and if there’s a widespread discontent among Libertarians with Tedisco, the support they give Murphy would mitigate an advantage Tedisco might have by having knocked the Libertarian off the ballot.

      <

      p>Further, with turnout being everything, if voters see the GOP knocking the Libertarian off the ballot as dirty pool, it could motivate a small handful of undecideds toward the Democrat.  Since the race will come down to a small handful of voters, every little bit helps.

  2. RNC Chair Michael Steele has gone all-in on this race, dropping lots of money and even campaigning personally in upstate New York.  Steele’s continued “leadership” of the RNC may hinge on the outcome of this race.

    <

    p>If Steele leaves, the most likely successor would be Katon Dawson, a man who said he became a conservative in the wake of school de-segregation.  If there’s a bigger idiot than Steele on offer, it’s Dawson.

  3. Would he be advocating for the civil rights reforms LGBT Americans need?  What is his track record on these issues?  I no longer support any candidate who will take my money or time but is happy to leave me in second class status.  

    • he says he will stand with the Blue Dogs. I say to heck with him regardless of the perceived boost this gives the GOP. That’s not a good enough reason to support him.

      • Does good governance outside of LGBT issues mean anything to you?  There’s plenty that’s equal opportunity — horrid health care, broken education, another depression.  Murphy’s vote is the most liberal we’ll squeeze out of the district, so I don’t think it’s worth it to turn up one’s nose at him.

        • there’s a lot of room between not actively supporting the anti-equality Democrat and actively supporting the Republican in the race.

          <

          p>I think Laurel is on the money.  We don’t just need more Democrats.  We need better Democrats.  That doesn’t mean to work against having more Democrats, but it sure as hell doesn’t obligate good citizens to work for Democratic politicians who frankly just aren’t good enough, district be damned.

          <

          p>

          <

          p>fn: “Good” can be interpreted any way you like.  For Laurel, it might be ‘full equality on LGBT issues’.  For stomv, it might be ‘carbon tax, high gas tax, subsidize renewable energy, etc’.  It doesn’t mean that those other things like health care and broken education and another depression aren’t important… but there are enough candidates around who are right on those issues and meet a personal standard of good that there’s just no reason to put effort into a candidate who won’t do the right thing with respect to someone’s personally important issues.

          • I like better Democrats.  That’s why I like primaries.  But Murphy isn’t a worse or better Democrat, he’s the only Democrat.  And it’s going to take a long time to get a better Democrat in this district that was Republican for 14 of the last 16 years.

            <

            p>I guess I just figure less Republicans = better government.  That isn’t a magic spell, but it’s a helpful first step.

            • he’s the only Democrat in NY-20, but each of us only has so much money, time, and sanity to spread to all kinds of campaigns.  Sure, this is a special election but there’ll be others, and there’s always local and state issues too.

              <

              p>Besides, given the strong majority the Dems enjoy in the House and the strength of a 50%+1 majority, the NY-20 seat is relatively inconsequential on a national scale for most/all issues.  So sure, I’d rather a Dem than a GOP politician from NY-20 too, and I hope Murphy wins.  But it doesn’t look like Murphy will help advance any agenda that’s particularly important to me (or Laurel, it would seem).  Is he one of the needed votes for passing marriage equality?  Is he one of the needed votes for passing a carbon tax?  Is he one of the needed votes for passing single payer?  I doubt it.  I doubt he’ll be on the “yea” side of a close vote in the House that I’d want to see passed.

              <

              p>Put another way, in terms of the median Congressional voter, I’d bet that he’s more conservative than the median… meaning he doesn’t mean much in terms of getting things passed.  That doesn’t make him worthless; a D in a district helps the balance for statewide votes in NY; that’s good.  Thinning the GOP’s minor leagues is helpful; the fewer choices the GOP has for leadership positions the harder it is to find rock stars.

              <

              p>But at the same time, adding another Blue Dog just gives the BDs more power over the direction the Dems go, and frankly, I don’t like the choice of direction the BDs make as much as the progressive Dems make.  So yeah, I’m weary about adding more conservative Dems to the caucus.

  4. He sounds a lot like a DINO to me.

    <

    p>On his web site, he claims to be seeking a bipartisan health care solution:

    <

    p>”Scott has pledged to work with President Obama, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and leaders in the health care industry to find common ground on ways to expand health care coverage to all Americans.”

    <

    p>Note that he said coverage, not care. He said nothing about a medicare-like option for those without coverage.

    <

    p>I can support parts of his jobs/economy positions (bringing in money for green jobs), but he’s not very detailed. He took easy shots at executive compensation and said nothing about the bigger ways in which the taxpayers are getting fleeced by Wall Street.

Archives