Coattails? Couldn't Get Shorter...

[Kathianne]

I'm sure ACORN can help...

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2009/April09/01/CD20-01Apr09.html


Murphy, Tedisco in dead heat


Murphy
Tedisco
SARATOGA – Democrat Scott Murphy is leading Republican James Tedisco in the race for the 20th Congressional District seat, but only by a hair.

With 100 percent of the districts reporting, Murphy is ahead by 59 votes.

He polled 77,344 votes to Tedisco’s 77,285.

In a district that spans from Dutchess County to Essex County, absentee ballots will decide who will be the next representative in the House. There are over 5,900 of those ballots to be opened next week at the state Board of Elections.

The winner will replace Kirsten Gillibrand who gave up the seat when she was named to the US Senate seat held by Hillary Clinton, now Secretary of State.

[moderate democrat]

it's a strong republican district...the democrat who held it before was uber conservative...the fact that the democratic newcomer even got close against a popular long time republican state legislator is a pretty good sign. the fact that he is LEADING is even better!

[Kathianne]

it's a strong republican district...the democrat who held it before was uber conservative...the fact that the democratic newcomer even got close against a popular long time republican state legislator is a pretty good sign. the fact that he is LEADING is even better!

Always have an excuse. LOL!

[moderate democrat]

Always have an excuse. LOL!

no excuse...just stating the facts. Do you happen to know, by any chance, how that congressional district voted, percentage-wise, in the November presidential election, and what the percentages were in the house election. that would be informative.

[Yurt]

Always have an excuse. LOL!

don't listen to him....for the past 100 years there have been 13 dems in the seat compared to 7 repubs....and obama won handily in the district...

he is dead wrong to claim it is a strong republican district...but you are right...more excuses and bull from him

[moderate democrat]

don't listen to him....for the past 100 years there have been 13 dems in the seat compared to 7 repubs....and obama won handily in the district...

he is dead wrong to claim it is a strong republican district...but you are right...more excuses and bull from him


Obama won handily in many republican districts....that means nothing.

Before Gillibrand won her seat in 2006, the previous five congressional elections went to republicans by margins of:

1996: 57-37
1998: 58-38
2000: 57-40
2002: 73-24
2004: 65-33

[Yurt]

Obama won handily in many republican districts....that means nothing.

Before Gillibrand won her seat in 2006, the previous five congressional elections went to republicans by margins of:

1996: 57-37
1998: 58-38
2000: 57-40
2002: 73-24
2004: 65-33

LOL, you are the one that said it would mean something :poke:

do you dispute that the dems have a majority holding that seat for the past 100 years? if it so strongly republican, why did a dem win AGAINST the republican incumbent....

face it, i provided evidence to counter your claims and you now, instead of being a man and admitting you are wrong, back peddle and claim it means nothing...your dishonesty is boring.

[moderate democrat]

LOL, you are the one that said it would mean something :poke:

do you dispute that the dems have a majority holding that seat for the past 100 years? if it so strongly republican, why did a dem win AGAINST the republican incumbent....

face it, i provided evidence to counter your claims and you now, instead of being a man and admitting you are wrong, back peddle and claim it means nothing...your dishonesty is boring.

I do not dispute your factual statement. Do you dispute that this is a rural area of New York that had been a strong republican district for the decade PRIOR to Gillibrand - a noted conservative democrat - winning it in 2006 against the incumbent republican? Why did she win? I certainly have no idea, but perhaps the fact that the incumbent had some pretty bad press about being photographed drunk at a frat party, and then, a week before the election, the cops had been called to his house on a domestic violence call where he reportedly grabbed his wife by the neck and pushed her around the house. My guess is, that sort of press might have hurt the incumbent and helped the conservative democrat win in a conservative rural district. What do you think?

[Yurt]

no excuse...just stating the facts. Do you happen to know, by any chance, how that congressional district voted, percentage-wise, in the November presidential election, and what the percentages were in the house election. that would be informative.


Obama won handily in many republican districts....that means nothing.

Before Gillibrand won her seat in 2006, the previous five congressional elections went to republicans by margins of:

1996: 57-37
1998: 58-38
2000: 57-40
2002: 73-24
2004: 65-33

my bad, i forgot that factual information means "nothing" to you...

[moderate democrat]

my bad, i forgot that factual information means "nothing" to you...

no.... you miss the point (what a surprise!)

The INFORMATIVE part would be to compare the winning percentages between how much Gillibrand won by in 2008 versus how much Obama won by in 2008. If the conservative Gillibrand did better percentage wise than Obama did, that would be interesting to decipher. Merely knowing that Obama won handily brings NOTHING to that analysis. got it? good.

YOU might also comment, if you get the chance in your busy schedule, on post #8 and my suggestion as to an answer for your question regarding how Gillibrand got elected.

[Yurt]

no.... you miss the point (what a surprise!)

The INFORMATIVE part would be to compare the winning percentages between how much Gillibrand won by in 2008 versus how much Obama won by in 2008. If the conservative Gillibrand did better percentage wise than Obama did, that would be interesting to decipher. Merely knowing that Obama won handily brings NOTHING to that analysis. got it? good.

YOU might also comment, if you get the chance in your busy schedule, on post #8 and my suggestion as to an answer for your question regarding how Gillibrand got elected.

what does that have to with anything?

[moderate democrat]

what does that have to with anything?

I noticed that you quoted my post #6 in post #7 and then again in your post #9, but I surmised that you must have been too busy to read my post #8. I just pointed it out to you again...but now it seems as if maybe you just didn't care to deal with the evidence I presented after all. whatever.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm sure ACORN can help...


Well, I'll do what I can. :cheers2:

[Yurt]

I noticed that you quoted my post #6 in post #7 and then again in your post #9, but I surmised that you must have been too busy to read my post #8. I just pointed it out to you again...but now it seems as if maybe you just didn't care to deal with the evidence I presented after all. whatever.

first you said it would be informative, then you said it meant nothing, until you resolve this glaring discrepancy or dishonesty, further discussion with you on this matter is not going to happen.

[moderate democrat]

first you said it would be informative, then you said it meant nothing, until you resolve this glaring discrepancy or dishonesty, further discussion with you on this matter is not going to happen.

I explained what would be informative, and that was the differential between Obama's winning margin in that district and Gillibrand's margin from the same election day. Merely saying that Obama won handily means nothing in that analysis. I said that above...

"The INFORMATIVE part would be to compare the winning percentages between how much Gillibrand won by in 2008 versus how much Obama won by in 2008. If the conservative Gillibrand did better percentage wise than Obama did, that would be interesting to decipher. Merely knowing that Obama won handily brings NOTHING to that analysis. got it? good."

but you ignored it. I suppose you will just ignore it again, like always. And ignore post #8 while you're at it.:poke:

[Yurt]

:lame2:

[moderate democrat]

what is lame, yurt, is your insistence that an upstate rural congressional district is not conservative when it had been in conservative republican hands for the last ten years and the only way the incumbent republican lost - to a conservative democrat, by the way - was to get caught beating his wife the week before the election.

[Yurt]

and it was liberal before that...and conservative before that...and liberal before that...waaaaaambulance

i showed you that it was not conservative NOW, obama won that district NOW and you back peddle....and say it means nothing when you said it would be something. face, you have no integrity, you have no honor, you can't admit one tiny little mistake like this

pathetic

[moderate democrat]

and it was liberal before that...and conservative before that...and liberal before that...waaaaaambulance

i showed you that it was not conservative NOW, obama won that district NOW and you back peddle....and say it means nothing when you said it would be something. face, you have no integrity, you have no honor, you can't admit one tiny little mistake like this

pathetic

like I said, Obama won a lot of conservative districts. and I never said his winning alone would mean something... I said it would be informative to explore the differential between his margin and Hillibrand's margin... knowing that Obama won handily in a conservative district is not that big of a deal... seeing how he did versus how well she did would, perhaps, be illuminating. Go back and read my posts in context, and you'll see that you are wrong..and that you are, as is your wont, picking at nits because that is what you do best.

[emmett]

What an informative thread. Yawn.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz.



You guys petty bickering of one another is really getting boring. The damn guy probably did lose because of his bad press before the election. This would by proxy disrupt the anylitical comparison however of whether Obama's victory in the district has any relevance if comparing his margin to that of Hillibrand. Since Hillibrand is a somewhat "moderate" lefty, I dare call her conservative, Zell Miller was a conservative Democrat, she was able to secure some votes as a result. Obama voters were Obama voters. The rest of the country clearly show margins not quite so extensive in favor of other Democrat winners in Legislative elections. This was due to the US Government Agency. (CBS,NBC,ABC etc,....CNN and on and on and on).

Here is a fact that does not lie however.......Obama is a loser!

[Yurt]

i'm really tired of this board complaining so much about people's posts. its not just complaints about my posts.

its a debate board, no rules were broken in this thread, yet complain, complain....

that is boring...

see ya

[moderate democrat]

What an informative thread. Yawn.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz.



You guys petty bickering of one another is really getting boring. The damn guy probably did lose because of his bad press before the election. This would by proxy disrupt the anylitical comparison however of whether Obama's victory in the district has any relevance if comparing his margin to that of Hillibrand.


I would agree that the scandal would have invalidated any correlation, but that scandal took place in 2006, and Hillibrand was running for reelection.

[moderate democrat]

running for reelection in 2008, that is. 2006 was the year of the aforementioned scandal and the year that she upset the incumbent republican caught in that scandal in his conservative district in upstate new york. ;)