Hoffman concedes, Bill owens wins

news link

Democrat Bill Owens beat Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the down-to-the-wire race for New York's 23rd Congressional District -- portions of which have been represented by Republicans for more than a century. Hoffman conceded early Wednesday morning.

Looks like the clean sweep isn't as clean as thought.

This is an interesting turn of events especially given the history of this district.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Seiko]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Seiko]

reply to post by Seiko


Yeah it really sucks that he lost. It makes you wonder how many dead people Acorn signed up to vote in New York.

reply to post by HotSauce


Yes I'm certain that all those dead people held up the lines.

No seriously what does acorn have to do with this?

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by HotSauce

 

Yes I'm certain that all those dead people held up the lines.

No seriously what does acorn have to do with this?

LMAO, I don't know I just like to throw random acccusations out there and see if they stick.

I did hear some liberal group was signing up dead people in new jersey, but I don't think it applied to the NY-23 race.

reply to post by HotSauce


Hoffman looks like a douche and that guy who won in NJ? He needs Weight Watchers.

In fact, the whole "Club for Growth" can kiss my tuchus.

Hard to believe that people are content with sliding right back down into the muck (aka "voting Republican") instead of climbing out and voting Independent/3rd Party.



[edit on 4-11-2009 by Janitor From Mars]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Janitor From Mars]

reply to post by HotSauce


well played then.

Here's a link to the wiki article on the district for those interested.

New york 23rd district

Looks like some landslides for the republicans in recent times. That is until now. I'd respect a strict conservative over a party republican anyway, but given the people backing him I'm not sure he qualifies.

reply to post by Janitor From Mars


Well hoffman was technically listed as a "conservative" and not a republican. Though as stated above his backers lay him closer to the republican side.

If he turned out to be a true fiscal conservative, I commend him. I may not agree with certain conservative views, but if a person stands firm and doesn't sway because of party affiliation I can respect that.

edit: spelling

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Seiko]

reply to post by HotSauce


What happens when he has a stroke in office?

I'm not sure that voting Republican is going to change much (just like voting Democrat didn't).

Go 3rd party/Independent whenever possible.

reply to post by Janitor From Mars


Why vote for a party, 3rd party or otherwise?

Wouldn't it be smarter to vote for the man or woman?

People like you make me laugh. You are so stuck on the party that you don't really pay attention to the person.

reply to post by Seiko


Do you have any stats on the demographics of NY-23? That might help explain it. Really the problem is that Hoffman looked like he was the leader of some crazy religious cult that was like a week from drinking the cool-aid. Him and that stupid ass brain washed smile of his.

reply to post by Bored To Tears


It might be better in the long run here to split the parties. I'd like to see the democratic party splinter too.

The problem is people that see in left and right are sometimes afraid to vote independent because they think the other party will win then.

It's realizing we are more then two sides, but being held hostage to the concept that you have to pick one of those two to win. I don't subscribe to this.

Originally posted by Janitor From Mars
reply to post by HotSauce

 

What happens when he has a stroke in office?

I'm not sure that voting Republican is going to change much (just like voting Democrat didn't).

Go 3rd party/Independent whenever possible.

Well I don't know what happens when he has a stroke in office. What happens when Barney Frank chokes on a bone and dies or drowns on his own lip sweat? I agree with the other guy that says vote for the person not the party. Plus do you realize Hoffman was the Independent? He ran on the Conservative party ticket.


[edit on 4-11-2009 by HotSauce]

reply to post by Seiko


I can honestly say that I have voted for all three parties.

I could care less what party they belong to. I simply cannot understand why people vote for someone simply because they belong to a certain party.

I could care less if every facet of the government was ran by one party or a even mix of all three. As long as they are the right person for the job, then I don't care what they call themselves.

This pass Presidential election I didn't even bother to vote, the outcome was so obvious that I decided to accept Obama was going to win. Everybody hated Bush and since he was a Republican I knew that the majority would go the other way. I knew this in 2007 so when I found myself not agreeing with Obama I just decided to sit this one out.

reply to post by Bored To Tears


I can't allow that to take me out of the game. I'm not saying your reasons were wrong, but it seems when given no true choice, we should have a "none of the above" option.

There is always the option of doing a write-in. It might not have a chance of winning, but you could vote your conscious and not feel excluded. There's even the point of run off elections.

The showing here by hoffman was good, it shows people are less inclined to vote straight party ticket. Well at least in the ny 23rd.

reply to post by Bored To Tears


I have voted for all three sides too in my life. I voted for Perot back in the day. That guy turned out to be a genius, because he pretty much said all of this mess was going to happen and that had to be like 20 years ago. Too bad he came accross as kind of a nut. I still voted for him because I figured being a little crazy might come in handy for him.

reply to post by Seiko


Truth be told, I liked McCain. I got better things to do with my time then to stand in line to vote for a canidate that I knew wouldn't win. That would be like buying lottery tickets that you know are losers.

As time goes by my conscious is clear knowing that my canidate would have been a better President. Obama would have been wise to have waited 4 more years.

But I have been off topic.

Hopefully the right person got voted in, time will tell.

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Bored To Tears

 

I have voted for all three sides too in my life. I voted for Perot back in the day. That guy turned out to be a genius, because he pretty much said all of this mess was going to happen and that had to be like 20 years ago. Too bad he came accross as kind of a nut. I still voted for him because I figured being a little crazy might come in handy for him.

I was to young then. I watched and that guy was a economic whiz, he just wasn't that bright with everything else that goes along with being a President. Atleast he gave SNL some great things to work with.

reply to post by HotSauce


Conservative aka Ignorant Party?

He looks like one of Limburger's proteges.

And Barney Frank gay jokes? Those went out of style 15 years ago.

Originally posted by Seiko
Looks like the clean sweep isn't as clean as thought.

This is an interesting turn of events especially given the history of this district.

Actually, it was pretty close. The big three races last night got all the publicity, and the GOP was 2 of 3 there, but there were a number of other races last night and overall, the GOP did extremely well. They won all three major races in Virginia and picked up seats in the legislature. They reportedly won at least six of seven statewide races in Pennsylvania. They didn't win the vacant seat in California's 10th, but they basically cut Tauscher's margin in an extremely blue district in half, from 34 points to 16. Not only that, but considering how partisan the same sex marriage issue is, one could certainly argue that the GOP won a major battle in Maine last night and came very close in Washington state, two places where you don't expect social conservative issues to fare well.

I would say that the GOP had a very good night. They didn't sweep everything, but they won a significant majority of their major races and were generally much more competitive everywhere versus the last two cycles.

Speaking specifically of NY-23 (and California-10), that seat will be up for re-election again next year. So basically, Owens is going to have to start campaigning again almost as soon as he takes office.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by vor78]