[mrak]

White House: "Ah but see things aren't all bad if Bill Owens can win a seat that's been with the Republicans since the Civil War, surely you have nothing to worry about (not like we stacked the cards or anything) (SURE it applies to your districts, SURE it does...)".

Of the various holes in your "logic", this one is the most glaring:

You're claiming that the Obama admin hand-picked this district full of socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative "Rockefeller Republicans", which should have gone overwhelmingly for the socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative, Gingrich-endorsed GOP nominee, Dede Scozzafava, over any Democrat.

And she probably would have won handily, had the teabagger right not reared its astonishingly stupid head and turned this district into a cause célèbre.

But without that variable, the scenario you describe seems an improbably risky Hail-Mary move by an admin that if anything, has been far too cautious.

Unless...

1. Obama anticipated the tea-bagger eruption through a skillful mastery of time, space and human behavior that even his most ardent admirers don't attribute to him, or:

2. The teabaggers colluded with the Obama admin to force this outcome.

If I were you, I'd go with the Obama-teabagger collusion hypothesis. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever - but why start now?

[Dulouz]

Jersey is the armpit of the Union. A machine state run by corrupt, union-controlled worms... unless they're electing a Republican governor. And then, suddenly, that state represents national resentment. Or something.

Really? A member of the Isthmus Editorial Board considers NJ Government based on "union controlled worms"?

Wow. It isn't labor unions that ruined newspapers (or any of the industries for that matter). Unbelievable.

[Cortez]

BTW, the White House doesn't tell Representatives to "vote for their bill" because the White House doesn't have a bill because they're the executive branch and bills are written by the legislative branch. Holy cow... Obama has gone out of his way to let the House and Senate hammer out health bills without his tampering and you're sitting their complaining about the White House's bill. Why? Because you're a tool. Because you hate all things Obama and since you hate the health care bill (which one is that?) it must have been written by Obama. Personally. He signed it and everything.

Without getting too into the whole health care debacle, for one thing why not show a little manners? Anyway, your question is "who's bill is it?" Who's bill is which? The house bill? The senate bill? The different versions, the ultimately theoretical version are entirely inconsequential. None of them would be the final bill, and who's final bill will it be? The Democrats'. If you still, after all this time, think its a good idea they're brewing over there, I hope the truth will dawn on you before 2010 when it finally gets pushed or killed. It will be the product of the leading liberals all around the country. Whoever writes it, whoever votes it, whoever signs it, it's Pelosi's, Reid's, Obama's, the White House's, Max Baucus's, and every other prominent left winger who sets the agenda. Obama has not gone out of his way to let the house and senate "hammer out health bills", he's gone out of his way to avoid being politically liable in name.

White House: "Ah but see things aren't all bad if Bill Owens can win a seat that's been with the Republicans since the Civil War, surely you have nothing to worry about (not like we stacked the cards or anything) (SURE it applies to your districts, SURE it does...)".

Of the various holes in your "logic", this one is the most glaring:

You're claiming that the Obama admin hand-picked this district full of socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative "Rockefeller Republicans", which should have gone overwhelmingly for the socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative, Gingrich-endorsed GOP nominee, Dede Scozzafava, over any Democrat.

And she probably would have won handily, had the teabagger right not reared its astonishingly stupid head and turned this district into a cause célèbre.

But without that variable, the scenario you describe seems an improbably risky Hail-Mary move by an admin that if anything, has been far too cautious.

Unless...

1. Obama anticipated the tea-bagger eruption through a skillful mastery of time, space and human behavior that even his most ardent admirers don't attribute to him, or:

2. The teabaggers colluded with the Obama admin to force this outcome.

If I were you, I'd go with the Obama-teabagger collusion hypothesis. It doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever - but why start now?

Ah for god's sake i don't care about the NY-23 election. I could care less who won. You've said Scozzafava would've won handily (I will mimic PJ by forgetting the word "probably"). She probably also would've voted with the Dems on the health care bill. Win-Win scenarios are the ones the president likes best - as long as it applies to him. He used his influence to stack the decks in an election. The election means nothing to me, stacking the decks does. You disagree? Plain and simple the WH has gotten involved in a lot of elections this fall - not in terms of endorsements either. In terms of using sway to nudge them. New York's current governor for instance, right? The WH saw his approval ratings, said the longer he is in the race the more likely it will be for Guliani to enter it so what do they do? They have a meeting with him to try to convince NY's first black governor to drop out of the race (and looking at New Jersey you can see why) - this should tell you folks something right there about this notion of a "permanent" Dem majority. Anyway NY Gov says "no" and they leak it, now they've soured his election hopes but hey I love the guy. Deeds, the fink from Virginia, when he starts losing the WH sours his last 2 weeks by leaking a report that his failure to perform was a result of "failing to properly sync with the White House". Owens here in NY didn't fail to properly sync he synced so good they recruited his unbeatable opponent to be the secretary of the army, then horay horay here is Mr. Owens running against himself and an empty chair (another much practiced Obama strategy circa Illinois). Those are facts. Scattered with opinions, lol.

You know what I miss about liberalism of old? Nonconformity. You really want to tow the line that hard? The "improbable scenario" isn't even a scenario - its what happened, yo. That is exactly, plainly what happened, to the extent that its so obvious that seriously you don't even have to feel guilty for admitting it. You're here, you're in Madison, you're among liberals, you can go ahead and admit - they stacked the cards and got the chair. Nothing more nothing less. Enjoy the seat, man - enjoy the seat and let it go.

[pjbogart]

Jersey is the armpit of the Union. A machine state run by corrupt, union-controlled worms... unless they're electing a Republican governor. And then, suddenly, that state represents national resentment. Or something.

Really? A member of the Isthmus Editorial Board considers NJ Government based on "union controlled worms"?

Wow. It isn't labor unions that ruined newspapers (or any of the industries for that matter). Unbelievable.

I took Joyce's comment as sarcasm, though maybe it was only partly so. Basically, Republicans refer to New Jersey as irrelevant and corrupt and nothing their government does can be trusted, unless they happen to be electing Republicans, in which case they're a bellweather and representative of the nation as a whole.

Maybe that's not what he meant, but that's the way I took it.

[TheBookPolice]

Yup. The "or something" was clearly meant to indicate that the preceding statement was sarcasm.

[rabble]

Ah for god's sake i don't care about the NY-23 election. I could care less who won.

You sure do like to talk about it, though.

You really want to tow the line that hard?

What does "tow the line" mean? You've got the line hooked to a cable and you're hauling it somewhere? What's the analogy?

[Cortez]

Ah for god's sake i don't care about the NY-23 election. I could care less who won.

You sure do like to talk about it, though.

You really want to tow the line that hard?

What does "tow the line" mean? You've got the line hooked to a cable and you're hauling it somewhere? What's the analogy?

Like to talk about it... not really. I like to talk about politics in general. Mainly regarding NY 23 I've been meaning to lead into this article:

The Most Absurd Post-Election Spin

There are a lot of absurd post-election memes floating around out there. For instance, I've seen people suggest that NY-23 has national implications, but the GOP takeover of the NJ governor's race and its running of the tables in VA (winning all three statewide races and extending its majority in the House of Delegates) were purely local. That one makes me chuckle. If there was an Olympic medal to be had for pretzel logic, it would probably win the silver.

But not the gold. The gold must go to the ridiculous notion that the GOP is in so much trouble because it is divided, as evidenced by the results in NY-23. Never mind the fact that the party came together in New Jersey and Virginia. No: the divisions in a district that saw just 135,000 votes cast is a sign that the GOP is divided.

I think this is ultimately a faulty argument, but I can see how one would make it (kind of). The reason it gets the gold is not by an error of commission, but of omission. For, the GOP's divisions - whatever they may be - are utterly, totally dwarfed by the continuing divisions in the Democratic Party. Not only in scale, but in significance. Republicans might be divided over the symbolic role of Sarah Palin in the party, but Democrats are divided over what to do about health care.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/

For the sake of conversation. Tow the line now... yup lol typo.

[fisticuffs]

She probably also would've voted with the Dems on the health care bill.

Seriously what do you base that on? I see that assumption as completely baseless. Please tell me why you would think that when there is no evidence to support it. 1 single Republican in the house voted for the health bill. Why would this one be any different?

He used his influence to stack the decks in an election. The election means nothing to me, stacking the decks does. You disagree?

Yes I disagree. You still haven't explained how the deck was stacked. I don't see how that could have been the case. If this is the basis for your entire argument your argument is wrong.

You're here, you're in Madison, you're among liberals, you can go ahead and admit - they stacked the cards and got the chair. Nothing more nothing less. Enjoy the seat, man - enjoy the seat and let it go.

It has nothing to do with towing a line or being among liberals. No matter what point of view you hold there is no way you can come to the conclusion that the deck was stacked. If anything it was stacked for Republicans. It always has been. If Scozza didn't have the wingnut right up her ass she would be another Republican in the House. I don't know where you get your info on her views but from what I know about her she's hardly a liberal. She's not a psycho about gays and abortion other than that? Republican. Is that your litmus test for a good Republican? Abortion?

[Cortez]

It has nothing to do with towing a line or being among liberals. No matter what point of view you hold there is no way you can come to the conclusion that the deck was stacked. If anything it was stacked for Republicans. It always has been. If Scozza didn't have the wingnut right up her ass she would be another Republican in the House. I don't know where you get your info on her views but from what I know about her she's hardly a liberal. She's not a psycho about gays and abortion other than that? Republican. Is that your litmus test for a good Republican? Abortion?

Owens barely won against a 3rd party candidate. Scozza might've won but she wasn't who was wanted. The person who was wanted was recruited by the president. If Owens can't beat a 3rd party candidate by more than 5 points he had no chance in an unaltered race. However, the race was altered. Scozza was put forward. Not being a social conservative, and having the president to thank for her chair, she very likely would've voted for the health care bill. I don't care what kind of Republican she was or if she s a good one or a bad one (or abortion etc).

Using power to alter the race to the advantage of the Democrats is stacking the deck. Because the deck was stacked, Owens won. Because Owens won, the WH can say "what referendum". Because they can say "what referendum", they can seek to convince vulnerable Dems in congress with more assurance that they can safely support highly controversial legislature and still hold onto their seats in those districts. Which is not true. Manipulation is how things get done in a government as corrupt as ours.

[pjbogart]

Assuming that there's any logic at all to your "stacking the deck" argument, Obama would have "stacked the deck" in a district or State that the Democrats had a better chance in. For instance, if Obama had nominated Ah-nold, a completely unqualifed candidate for an important Army post, that might have been considered "stacking the deck" because Obama would have known that it was unlikely California voters would elect another Republican. One more Governor's seat heading into the 2010 census, right?

But Obama didn't do that. He nominated a highly qualified Republican who wanted the job in a district that Democrats were extremely unlikely to win. In fact, Democrats were so unlikely to win that it took tampering from the right-wing fringe of the Republican Party to give the Democrat a ghost's chance and even with the Republican vote split, Owens still barely eked out a victory. You give Obama way too much credit if you think he engineered or could have even fathomed that Republicans would do something so silly.

Obama didn't stack the deck, he handed the seat back to the Republicans and they decided they didn't want it. Pretzel logic indeed.

[Cortez]

But Obama didn't do that. He nominated a highly qualified Republican who wanted the job in ONE OF THE ONLY MAJOR ELECTIONS GOING ON IN THE COUNTRY ONE YEAR AFTER HIS ELECTION (THE OTHER TWO DEMS LOST)

Recognize this river?

In a country full of 304,059,724 people, this was the ONLY guy for the job? Now that would be random. That's like winning the lottery: one in three hundred million. The idea just "popped into his head", he thought, "hm this guy from NY-23 is really up to snuff." NY-23 on the other hand, is one in three. Three places the Dems would've gotten trounced. But because the new secretary of the army won the lottery......... Think however you wish, partner. Benign it allllll away to your hearts content. But I will say for your own good... Eyesight isn't partisan. It's very plain to see.

[mrak]

Owens here in NY didn't fail to properly sync he synced so good they recruited his unbeatable opponent to be the secretary of the army, then horay horay here is Mr. Owens running against himself and an empty chair (another much practiced Obama strategy circa Illinois). Those are facts. Scattered with opinions, lol.

NY-23 on the other hand, is one in three. Three places the Dems would've gotten trounced. But because the new secretary of the army won the lottery...

Are you really saying that there was a congressional election already scheduled in NY-23 on November 3, 2009 - and then Obama altered its makeup by nominating one of the candidates for Secretary of the Army?

Because if you are, well, there's your problem.

Here's the actual timeline of NY-23:
November 4, 2008: McHugh is re-elected to his congressional seat.
September 21, 2009: McHugh, one of more than 430 members of the House of Representives elected in 2008, accepts Obama's nomination as Sec'y of the Army, and resigns his congressional seat.
September 29, 2009: Governor Paterson of New York issues the proclamation for the special election to fill the seat vacated by McHugh.
November 3, 2009: That special election takes place; on the ballot are the candidates nominated by each party's county leaders in the district.

Owens had no "unbeatable opponent" in McHugh. It doesn't appear that Owens and McHugh have ever set out to run for office against one another. Not surprisingly, McHugh was not a candidate in the special election to fill the seat that he himself vacated.

In nominating McHugh Obama did not meddle in or tamper with an election contest that was already underway. He nominated an incumbent congressman, who accepted, necessitating the scheduling of a special election - one that would not have otherwise taken place.

[rabble]

Like to talk about it... not really.

Yeah. That's obvious from your last three or four screeds. I mean "posts."

I like to talk about politics in general. Mainly regarding NY 23 I've been meaning to lead into this article:

Yeah, that's what the GOP bootlickers are saying these days ain't it?
In NY-23, a potentially troubling preview for the GOP

High-profile members of the more conservative wing of the GOP – former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint – have already announced that they will support conservative challengers to Republican front-runners in US Senate races in Florida and California. That could present trouble for the party in those places.

...New York’s 23rd district held some peril for the GOP. It went for Barack Obama in 2008. In Patchwork Nation’s eyes, it is largely made up of small-town “Service Worker Center” counties. These tend to lean Republican, but they are more exposed to economic problems than some other places and are thus less tethered to political ideology.

When the results for the district were tallied, Owens’ margin of victory mostly came from three counties – Clinton, Franklin, and St. Lawrence. Owens would have won all those counties even without the Scozzafava protest vote. (Emphasis mine.)

What do they have in common? They all are thinly populated, and they have some of the area’s higher unemployment rates – between roughly 8 and 10 percent. St. Lawrence in particular is dotted with small colleges. And they went heavily for Mr. Obama in 2008 – between 57 and 61 percent of their votes.

Owens didn’t get quite those numbers, but voters in these counties still seem willing to give the Democratic Party more time in control in Washington.

Political views that work well in, say, Nixa, Mo. – our socially conservative “Evangelical Epicenter” – are very different from those that sell in Eagle, Colo., our “Boom Town.” We’ve chronicled such differences for almost two years now.

Then again, for many Republicans, the fight is over the party’s soul, not over winning seats in Congress. And applying more of a one-size-fits-all approach may help clarify a party’s identity.

The conservatives thought that district was so soundly in their grasp that the fight was between which conservative was going to win. They were positive the Dem would lose no matter what. Now that it's been proven the GOP's divisiveness is killing them, what are they doing? They're yelling "Obama stacked the deck! It's the SOUL of the party we're fighting for! The Dems are just as divided as us because we won here and in that place too! Just because we lost a seat we've held since the Civil War is no big deal and Obama did it by cheating anyway!"

I have to admit I like it. The more you guys do this, the more you marginalize yourselves.

Now get out there and purge those moderates!

[fisticuffs]

Cortez. Are you really sheppy? You've been towing the right wing line so hard and with such dedication. Not stopping for one second to adress the many many holes in the complete pretzel logic spin that is your arguement. There's no point in filling them now. Hope being delusional makes for a happy life.

[Cortez]

Like to talk about it... not really.

Yeah. That's obvious from your last three or four screeds. I mean "posts."

Come on, be nice.

Yeah, that's what the GOP bootlickers are saying these days ain't it?
In NY-23, a potentially troubling preview for the GOP

Article Vs. Article... this would be the main point: "The gold must go to the ridiculous notion that the GOP is in so much trouble because it is divided, as evidenced by the results in NY-23. Never mind the fact that the party came together in New Jersey and Virginia. No: the divisions in a district that saw just 135,000 votes cast is a sign that the GOP is divided."

Analogy: Why isn't Lawton running for governor 2010? She dropped out. She was not acceptable. If she was, Doyle would've resigned early and left her as the incumbent. I like her, Wisconsin Dem leadership doesn't. Wrong candidate. Anyway, think what you will but your estimation of the perceived divisions in the GOP are not... productive; left wing estimations of the impact and severity of such rifts are not accurate, nor in their proper scale.

Anyway, if nothing else, please keep in mind that I'm not at all passionate about the results of that election. The plain answer is that the white house is involved with state elections, exerting both direct and subtle influence, for the sake of their interests, though little to their benefit. Trying to get NY's first black governor to drop out of his own election as the incumbent. Souring Deeds' pitch in Virginia, really dragging him over the coals for losing even before election day. Leaking memos. And yes, stacking the deck in NY-23. So be it. Take it for what it is worth. See how it turns out. Anyway the 2010 elections will be much wider scale and I suggest you take the opportunity to see for yourself as the year drags on. Deal?