From an analytical standpoint, whether Scott Murphy remains ahead of Jim Tedisco after absentee ballots are counted (and that is anything but a sure thing) is largely immaterial. One of the candidates is going to win by not more than a hundred, maybe a couple hundred votes (and possibly by quite a bit less than that). The difference between winning and losing could be because someone's daughter got an ear infection and they drove her to the doctor instead of going to the polls, or someone happened to turn on their TV five minutes after a Tedisco commercial aired rather than five minutes before. When elections are decided by hundredths of a percentage point, there is a lot of luck involved.
But what does it mean, exactly, for the vote to have been split about evenly in this particular Congressional District?
What this very narrow fragment of evidence suggests -- it may be dangerous to overgeneralize -- is that not much has changed since last November. The PVI of NY-20 based on the 2000 and 2004 elections is R+3; based on the 2004 and 2008 elections, it's more like R+2. That is, NY-20 is between two and three points more Republican than the average Congressional District.
But keep in mind that the average Congressional District, at least in 2006 and 2008, had been highly inclined to vote Democratic. A Republican-leaning district at a Democratic-leaning moment in the political cycle is usually going to translate into being a toss-up -- and indeed, that's exactly what we find if we look at how the two parties performed on November 4th in districts that looked like NY-20:
Of 58 Congressional Districts with PVI's of between R+1 and R+4, the vote was almost an even split; Democrats were elected to the House in 30 of these districts on November 4th, and Republicans in the other 28. So our default expectation is that a district like NY-20 should indeed be a toss-up -- which is exactly what we wound up getting. The contest turned out about the same yesterday as we might have expected it to had it been held on November 4th.
The status quo, in other words, was more or less preserved. But the status quo, of course, is a much happier place if you're a Democrat than if you're a Republican...
4.01.2009
What the NY-20 "Tie" Means
@ 3:43 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments
First?
Go Murphy!
I've already had the pleasure of conversing with a Republican who believes ACORN rigged this election "just like they did for Obama". Go Spin!
@ Hu Chi: Go Murphy!
Second that. And apparently it doesn't smell good for the Republicans in NY-20 tonight. I love it when a plan comes together.
Hey Nate, you got Big Love on Tweety's Big Number tonight with your latest Esquire article.
nick
If ACORN can do that, what chance does the GOP have? None! It's over. Well, they tried. So much for the old political game.
Nothing to be done now but drink some single malt scotch, smoke a cigar, and go play golf, eh what?
@ nick
Republicans? On the receiving end of a rigged election?
Karma is such a bitch.
Sad but true, earlier submitted votes, if you believe the polls were slanted toward the Republican, which could eat up the Democrat lead here.
Can somebody explain this:From a NY Times article on the NY-20 election:
" Mr. Tedisco, who lives just outside the district and so could not vote himself...."
You don't have to live in the district in order to run?
You can run in a district where you are not eligible to vote? How is that possible?
@ Gordyblom
Even if Tedisco eventually sneaks the win, this election still dishes up a big plate of STFU to those who would crow about the oncoming Republican resurgence. And MC Steele may still be toast. Not a horrible result from a "solidly" Republican district.
@ Opus
Not sure about New York, but California has pretty lax rules about residency and (like a lot of states) follows the U.S. Constitution requirement that a person need only be an "inhabitant" of a state, meaning one could have an apartment or other type of non-primary address in a congressional district and still be eligible to represent that district. (I know this only because I have family in CA-13 where Pete Stark is currently having his balls busted over residency and tax issues.)
Maybe this contributed to Tedisco's lackluster performance in the election?
The constitution states that you only have to be a resident of the state, not of the district. It has been ruled unconstitutional to impose further restrictions on federal candidates. A state could NOT require the candidate to live within the district. Its just not very smart politically!
Thanks Rufus and Dan.
More on Tedisco's non-residence:
Tedisco can't vote for himself in Congressional race
MALTA - When voters head to the polls for the March 31st Special Election, Jim Tedisco, Scott Murphy and Eric Sundwall will be on the ballot. But one of these guys is not like the other. One of them, Republican Jim Tedisco, won't be able to cast a ballot for himself.
"Next year, I will, when I'm the congressman. My wife will be able to vote in the district because we own a home there. I've lived here my entire life, served here my entire life. We own a home in the middle of the district," Tedisco said.
But Tedisco doesn't list his wife's home as his residence. The Assembly Republican's primary residence is in Glenville, which is outside the 20th district.
According to the Board of Elections, Tedisco can register to vote using the Saratoga Springs home, but has not. If he decides to, he has until Friday to do it in person. But the Assemblyman said he's not planning to.
Will he be frustrated come election day, that he can't pull that lever for himself?
"I'm going to take my wife, she's going to be able to be there and I got a whole bunch of the most important people (who) will decide that and I would like to leave it up to them, the voters of the 20th Congressional District," said Tedisco.
(from http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S838484.shtml?cat=0)
Well, I'd guess carpetbagging is a fine tradition is the U.S., but blatantly arrogant carpetbagging, maybe not so much.
BTW,re the ruling of the three-judge panel in Minnesota:although they ruled that only 400 more ballots can possibly be counted,they have not yet ruled on the alleged "double-counted" ballots or the so-called "missing ballots."
So Al is not yet completely safe.
I was going to complain that the prank wasn't at all subtle (I get a little tired of the over-the-top stuff, myself) - but since no-one else has even alluded to it, I suppose it must be.
But even if it's subtle is it *funny*? I admit I laughed.
On the substance - the question is not "how likely is a tossup in an R+2 district | climate of 2008", of course it's high.
The question is "how likely is a tossup in an R+2 district | climate of 2008" vs "how likely is a tossup in an R+2 district | some radically different political climate." A tossup in an R+2 district with an incumbent Dem is not unlikely even under the climate in 1994 or 2002 (you might repeat that analysis and see how much it differs). So this doesn't tell us anything at all.
Here's how the hard-core conservatives are spinning this. Super right-wing Newsmax.com just sent out an email with the following:
Obama Hurt as New York Race Ends in Dead Heat
"Barack Obama won the Congressional district handily and just two years ago the Democrat carried the seat by 14 percentage points. Bu Tuesday New York voters in a special election put on the brakes — as just several dozen votes separated the Democrat and Republican."
Never mind that Gillibrand is a conservative Democrat and was running against a Republican with all kinds of problems in a year. I guess you really do see only what you want to see.
Amazing how close those numbers are.
Considering how absentee ballots tend to favour Republicans (unless there's a huge Dem absentee/early-voting campaign as in '08), shouldn't we expect Tedisco to win this one?
As for Steele's job, my hunch is that even if this one's lost by Tedisco, he'll be allowed to serve out his year as RNC chairman (it's a year, right?) - unless he keeps on making goofy headlines (which, of course, is quite possible considering who he is).
I saw a local television interview with Tedisco Monday night where the reporter suggested he was sounding awfully positive about Barack Obama, and Tedisco said "I want him to be the most successful President we've ever had." So the results there need to be seen as pro-Obama no matter who wins.
> I saw a local television interview with Tedisco Monday night where the reporter suggested he was sounding awfully positive about Barack Obama, and Tedisco said "I want him to be the most successful President we've ever had."
A number of GOP Reps. said that who were in Obama districts. Not one voted for the Recovery Act. So I'm not sure such electioneering talk really translates into extra votes. At least not in the House. The Senate is somewhat different, though, I believe.
@Nate:
That is, NY-20 is between two and three points more Republican than the average Congressional District.
As a fellow statistician: You are exactly wrong.
With less than 1/20 of 1% of votes separating them with 155,000 votes cast; what it means is that registration of Republicans and Democrats in NY-20 is no longer a valid proxy for political sentiment in NY-20.
Win or lose, this is simply more evidence that the momentum of Republicans losing voters is not yet done.
I don't think the status quo of Nov 4 was "preserved" here, these results indicate it has gained strength. After all Gillibrand won under special circumstances with a scandal against her opponent, and it looks now like Murphy will win fair and square.
As a resident of the NY-20 (and yes I did vote yesterday) I'm really glad that this article put a little sanity into what this race was.
The NY-20 is a very gerimandered district that was designed to ensure it would always elect a Republican. When Gillibrand flipped the seat a few years ago, it surprised everyone. When our governor decided to "promote" Gillibrand into the Senate, we were pretty sure that the district was going back to Republican for ever. The fact that Scott Murphy actually got close in the last couple of weeks should be considered a brand new miracle. I'm sure the fact that we had college kids going house to house in our neighborhood two weekends in a row had something to do with it, but it's still really impressive considering that the Tedisco signs blanket everywhere (I must pass 100 on the way to work).
OK I am not trying to compete with Nate but i did get a 690 on the math SAT in 1965!! So here is my conjecture about the absentee ballots and where they might lead us. Please give feedback but not too harshly :)
There were 10,000 requests for absentee ballots. If they were all from military folks and if this district is representative of the average American district ( this is not an outrageous assumption for my purpose as the districts of the southern states tend to have more military folk per capita) that would mean there are about 435x10,000 or 4,350,000 people in the military. The fact is that there are only about 1,500,000 on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves. I figure most reservists are living and working at home and probably not voting as absentees. So based on these ideas it is more likely that a third to half of the absentees are from military folks. The rest are people who are home bound, abroad, or who own "second homes" in the Hudson Valley ( which was strong for Murphy) and Upstate but use them as their primary residence for tax purposes and consequently cast their votes from those addresses. This would be the other two thirds to one half. Now if only 6,000 of these ballots actually get sent in ( which is a number I am hearing from somewhere ) and if Tedisco takes 55% of the third that comes from the military he picks up 100 votes. If Murphy takes 53% of the other two thirds he picks up 120 votes and ends up winning the election by 89 or 96 votes or so. If we go with the assumption that half the absentee ballots are from the military Tedisco wins by one vote or loses by five depending on whether Murphy is ahead right now by 59 or 65. Whew!!!
I really don't think military personal overseas vote in special elections. Especially during March Madness.
Newsmax can't get anything right!
Two years ago (2006 actually) Gillibrand won by 6 percent, not 14.
And last fall she won by 23 percent.
So besides their pathetic attempt to portray this result as bad for Obama, which no one else in the media is even attempting, they don't even have their numbers right on previous elections.
Also, the fact that this was a special election but the democrat still managed to come out ahead, however tiny the margin, indicates that he would have won by even more had it been a regular election.
Pack your bags, Michael Steele!
Tony C: As someone who's not a statistician, I thought I'd point out you need to get your facts right. A PVI of R+3, as defined by the wikipedia link in Nate's post, means that in the last two presidential elections, the Republican candidate beat the Democratic one by an average of 3%.
It was +3 in 2008, based on the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and now it may be (according to Nate) +2. Don't ask me how it's rounded, but it's always given as an integer. So your post should read that the last two presidential elections aren't "valid proxy" for political sentiments in a Congressional election in NY-20.
I'm also wondering what your mathematical definition of "valid" is.
PVI of R+3 means that the Republican candidate got 3% more (or the democrat got 3% less, or a mix of both most likely) the Republican candidate got nationally- since NY-20 was 51-48 for Obama (he won by 3%) and the national vote was 53-47 for Obama (he won by 7%), that means that if you calculate from 2008 alone, NY-20 is an R+4 district.
March Unemployment – April Fool’s Day Commentary?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-private-sector-axes-742000-rb-14812076.html
March Unemployment – April Fool’s Day Commentary?
Job losses accelerate. While many believe that unemployment is a lagging indicator this dismal job reports shows that to this point employer sentiment is extremely bearish and cost cutting, not investment, is the order of the day.
Obama with his stimu-less is just pissing into the wind.
This reflects the deep level of pessimism in the business community. There is nothing in the Obama program to turn that sentiment around and indeed his programs and public pronouncements are making matters worse. Can a recovery happen in spite of him?
Perhaps a short-term and anemic one.
The headline unemployment number is now destined to jump for March and there is little to suggest that April will be much better. The consumer is going to begin to notice their neighbor's troubles and it is only natural and rational for them to fear for themselves.
Plasma TV sales will fall further. Disney vacations will not be taken. No one is buying cars.
It is a negative feedback loop that will perpetuate the recession.
I do not expect any kind of real recovery and anticipate that GDP growth at best may hit 1 to 2% sometime in 2010, an anemic recovery that will do little to alleviate the PEOPLE'S misery. Once the dollar crumbles (and it will, the only question is when), the jig will finally be up and we will plunge back into an entrenched recession/depression that will last for years.
Obama will be your new FDR, but only for four years!
His economic ideas are a pile of crap and his intentions it seems are not to restore the economy but to rework the social order. I wonder how tolerant people will be of this as long as the people lack jobs and an optimistic future.
Already we see the Dems having trouble holding NY 20 which they have won two cycles running. This may be the harbinger of a 1994 style electoral shellacking in 2010 that will set the stage to either bring Obama to heel or sow the seeds of his defeat.
Bill Clinton was a pragmatist and bowed to popular pressure. Obama likes to vaunt his "persistence". We saw how that translated in “stubbornness” with Bush and lead to the ruination of his popularity. Things have accelerated now and Obama needs to make a quick mid course adjustment or doom his political chances.
Only when the world sees us abandoning this ill-considered social spending agenda and acting to spur investment and business activity will there be a real and lasting recovery.
The Republicans will find their Ronald Reagan. In this populist era, I'll put my money on Sarah Palin!
(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01)
A tie is a win for the Dems.
The district is Repub leaning (70,000 more registered voters, $1 million more national money than from Dems, a longtime pol w huge name recognition vs an unknown.)
The only way the Repubs can spin this is to say that at least they didn't get pummeled in a Republican leaning area. The so called republican comeback is not starting here.
Nate: The difference between winning and losing could be because someone's daughter got an ear infection and they drove her to the doctor instead of going to the polls, or someone happened to turn on their TV five minutes after a Tedisco commercial aired rather than five minutes before.
...or perhaps the beaten candidate neither resides nor is registered to vote in the district of the seat in play. Wouldn't that be sump'n?
Right, we've got a syntax issue here. Don't mean to single out Nate for a slating, and this is a teachable moment. From Nate's post:
someone's daughter got an ear infection[,] and they drove her to the doctor
and
someone happened to turn on their TV
It's not difficult to see the plural-case pronoun/singular-case antecedent agreement issue here, and it pervades the language anymore.
I blame the noble attempt to avoid the use of sexist language ("someone's daughter got an ear infection, and he drove her"/"someone happened to turn on his TV"), which is laudable --but just as one wouldn't say "Students should remember to bring his or her notes to class," one would do well to avoid the preceding.
So to fix: someone's daughter got an ear infection, and one drove her to the doctor and someone happened to turn on one's TV.
Clunky perhaps --but none the less correct.
WV: trots...er, need one say more?
@Matt:
By "valid proxy" I meant reliably predictive. You are right, however, it isn't registration, it is votes. My error. But Nate is still wrong in saying "is between two and three points more Republican than the average Congressional District."
Clearly it is not; so your statement is more correct than mine, which was more correct than Nate's. Perhaps I should have phrased it: "The past two elections are not predictive of political sentiment in NY-20."
ere it not for Tedisco's stated opposition to legalizing Equal Marriage in New York and Murphy's being a Democrat' I really wouldn't care what the outcome of this one was. I didn't put any money into this race, since NY-20 seems so far away and whoever gets in there will have what, 6 months before they need to start planning a re-election campaign? The Dems already hold a heavy majority in the House, what's one more?
But, since Tedisco's a homophobe, and there's too many of those in government anyway, I find myself hoping Scott Murphy wins anyhow.
@Gregg: thanks for the interesting take on those absentee ballots. I like it that you're doing a reasoned guestimate. I hope you're right.
"The PVI of NY-20 based on the 2000 and 2004 elections is R+3; based on the 2004 and 2008 elections, it's more like R+2."
The precise PVI of NY-20 is R+2.5
Source
There's some basic misunderstanding of PVI in the comments. It is not based on a "spread"--i.e. how much one candidate beat another. It is based on the difference between a candidate's two-party vote share (percent of vote inlcuding only R and D) in a particular district vs. the candidate's two-party vote share nationally. Example, if Obama gets 52% of the two-party vote in NY-20 and 54% of the two-party vote nationally, then the district has a PVI of R+2, if it were based on one election only (it's actually based on the last two). See the link I gave above for the precise formula.
Winning this would be good news for the GOP - spin aside. Suddenly this distinct is deep red Alabama? Give me a break. Spitzer, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer have all won here recently, and its been represented in Congress by a Democrat for four years. How conservative can it be? And don't give me the +3 nonsense based on Bush's victories and the registration edge. Two days ago everyone was explaining why that registration edge didn't matter.
Simple fact: the GOP may win in NY despite Obama's 60% approval and their own bad polling. Once those things start to tighten, they'll be even more competitive.
Tedisco doesn't live in the 20th and can't even vote for himself, so there's one lost vote. I also live down the street from Tedisco and I couldn't even vote. So half of his district couldn't vote for him!!!!
gregg, I appreciate the effort, but your numbers are off. According to TPM there are 10,055 absentee ballots that were issued, including only 1,882 military/overseas ballots. 5,907 absentee ballots had already been returned before yesterday. Since there's another week for domestic absentee ballots to arrive and another two weeks for overseas absentee ballots to arrive, the 5,907 number is bound to increase. Regardless, it's clear the vast majority, way more than your guestimate, are local residents, not military. Even of the 1882 military/overseas absenteee ballots there were issued, some certainly won't be returned and others are civilians living overseas, rather than military. If you guestimate 80 of all absentee ballots are eventually returned and the same rate holds for military/overseas, then you're looking at about 1,500 votes. Assume two-thirds of these are military and one-third are civilian, then you're looking at a very rough estimate of 1,000 military votes.
Also, the only reason that Tedisco could win or even close to a tie is because of his name recognition. I think if it was an unknown Republican, that person would have lost big time like Sandy lost to Gillebrand. The only reason that Tedisco is close is because of his high name recognition and loyalty.
51st Ward Pct Capt...
You've wandered far out of your precinct.
Check Fowler's "Modern English Usage" for his entry on the use of the pronoun "one"--you have entrapped yourself in what he terms the "pitiful wrigglings" of those who don't understand its appropriate use.
The use of "they", "them" and "their" as indefinite pronouns is gaining currency in this gender-sensitive world. The older ways of dealing with such sensitivity, i.e. "him or her" or alternating between "him" and "her" are cumbersome enough that grammarians, albeit somewhat grudgingly, are become less and less hostile to the impersonal "they-them-their".
George Orwell had six rules about clarity in expression, the last of which was "Violate any of the other five in order to avoid the grotesque".
"The Republicans will find their Ronald Reagan. In this populist era, I'll put my money on Sarah Palin!"
...April Fool!
another mike, thanks for the feed back. so if there are fewer military ballots outstanding does that increase murphy's chances of winning or decrease them in your view? i can't find any info on the history of absentee voting results in new york. also i think your guesstimate of an 80% return rate is high but maybe you have some historical data to support that from some other elections? if so i would appreciate a look at it.
gregg,
I'd guess fewer military ballots is good for Murphy, but it seems like the military has been trending Democratic even faster than the nation as a whole, so that's really just a guess.
80% was just a guess and picked because it's about halfway between number of absentees reportedly returned and numbers of absentee ballots issued. We do know there's still lots of time for ballots to be received, so you'd certainly expect the number to rise. How much? I don't have any real basis for estimating.
Seems like the best way to way to estimate how the absentee ballots will break is to see how Obama did among absentee voters. Murphy is running about 2 points behind Obama and needs something like 49.5% of the absentees. So, if Obama got 51-52% of absentees, then too close to call; Obama > 52% probably Murphy wins; Obama <51% probably Tedisco wins.
Two other complications. First, people who have worked elections caution that the reported numbers may contain transcription or mathematical errors. So, Murphy leading by 65 votes is very, very unofficial and may change.
Second, there are some unknown number of provisional (aka affidavit) ballots. One precinct worker posted that there were about 4 provisional ballots out of about 800 in his or her precinct. If you estimate 0.5% provisional ballots for every regular ballot, then there are something like 500-1,000 provisional ballots in addition to the absentee ballots. Who knows how many of the provisional ballots will be counted as valid and how many will be invalid and not counted.
For the absentee ballots that are received after the election: do they need to be postmarked by the date of the election?
If not, I'd expect the absentee return rate to be quite high. By this point, an individual vote matters much more than normal in an election, since it's still close with almost everyone having voted.
For the absentee ballots that are received after the election: do they need to be postmarked by the date of the election?
Yes!
Democratic party predicts victory in NY-20 after absentee ballots are talleyed.
juris, that Democratic projection looks like 100% spin to me. Their model apparently assumes that absentee voters from a particular county will vote in the exact same percentages as regular voters did from the same counties. That's a highly questionable assumption.
@Another Mike: point well taken. However, I would say that's probably a better working estimate (on average) than imposing some intuitive judgment about each county.
Of course watching the vote come in last night, esp. for Saratoga County, I notice that Sean's "straightline" projections from precincts counteed to remaining precincts was quite far off -- the last bunch of precincts came in with a much more favorable count for Murphy. But I think Sean's projection was the "best guess" absent additional information.
What I am particularly interested in is why people so commonly assume that the overseas (not all of which is military) vote is net GOP. I recall that assumption being made in the 2000 election in Florida; but I have a hunch why the Bush people were so confident about that vote, because they had engineered it and even, dare I say, possibly manipulated it with the filing dates and so on.
@Juris:
My father was enlisted military (as was I for two years). The answer to your question is self-interest. Traditionally, the Republicans have been more pro-military, pro-benefits and pro-veteran in their policy and budget.
But in the last several cycles, they have dropped the ball, and more and more military are seeing the Democrats standing up for them against the Republicans. For example, John McCain was voting against a new GI Bill while Democrats were exposing fuckin' rats and cockroaches in military hospitals, and
Increasingly the Republicans have shown they are for the rich, and the military personnel sees contractors getting rich, and American mercenaries posing as "security" getting rich, and Halliburton getting rich charging $40 a plate for food and $25 a gallon for gas, while they get screwed out of basic weaponry and armoring for vehicles because the military sub-contractor got a no bid contract and isn't delivering.
Republicans for twenty years have been screwing the low level military and mouthing support for troops they are helping to kill. In families with a military tradition, it is dogma that Republicans support is stronger than Democratic support. But a few decades of reality erodes dogma, and certainly for some of the recently enlisted it has become abundantly clear that Republicans are excellent at waving the flag and cheerleading and putting "Support Our Troops" ribbons on their cars and briefcases, but when it comes time to walk their talk, their pockets are empty, while Democrats like Webb and Obama and Clinton are doing all the heavy lifting.
Hurrah for the information revolution.
@Tony C: the recent experience reported in your comments is why I question the automatic assumption that military are pro-GOP.
Absentee ballots tend to help the Democratic candidate: In 2008, Republicans were ahead in the Alaska Senate race, OH-15 + VA-5 on Election Night, but absentee ballots put the Democrats over the top, and almost closed the gap in CA-04. NY-20's bluer than most of those, with fewer active service members, so the absentee ballots will be overwhelmingly Democratic. Murphy will win.
@ Tony C.
That, my friend, was in exceptionally illuminating and refreshing post.
I'd like to hear the republican rats and cockroaches that inhabit this site to try to spin their comment on it. I bet they won't touch it with a ten foot poll.... the truth hurts too much.
Thanks!!
-Behr
Tony C...
Let me also add my kudos. Very good post.
That said, traditions such as party loyalty die very hard. Look how long it took the white South to abandon the Democratic Party.
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/13162/breakdown-of-the-absentee-ballots
The Albany Times Union has a break down of the absentee ballots by county, for anyone who is inclined to crunch the numbers & make a prediction.
My latest blog post on this at www.poststar.com, a local daily paper in the 20th district:
Murphy will win
Scott Murphy, the Democrat, is only ahead now by 25 votes in the 20th congressional district race, with more than 6,500 absentee ballots left to count. According to a Skidmore professor quoted in The Post-Star today (Thursday), the “conventional wisdom” is that absentees will favor Jim Tedisco, because they will be made up of snowbirds and people in the military, who are more likely to be Republicans. I don’t buy that.
Murphy and Tedisco split the 10 counties either wholly or partly in the district, with Murphy winning five and Tedisco winning five. If you take the 6,542 absentee ballots already received as the pool of votes that will decide the election, Murphy has an advantage, I believe.
Murphy has an edge because 3,398 of those ballots come from the five counties he won — Warren, Washington, Essex, Columbia and Dutchess. Only 3,144 of those ballots come from the counties that Tedisco won — Saratoga, Delaware, Greene, Otsego and Rensselaer. So Murphy’s counties have a 254-vote edge in absentee ballots received.
If you go county by county and allocate to the candidates the same percentage of absentee votes as they won in that county, then Murphy ends up with 3,345 and Tedisco with 3,197. If the percentages hold, Murphy will actually have widened his lead by 148 votes once the absentees are counted.
Looking at a 25-vote gap, with more than 6,500 votes left to be counted (at least, because more votes can arrive in the next week or so), Murphy’s lead seems fragile. But, considering which counties those absentee voters come from, I think it will hold.
The absentee ballots primarily fall into 3 categories:
1. Military
2. College Students
3. Retired people living else where.
The % by category would be speculative.
Tedisco was known, Murphy not. The election should have been a lock for the Republican. Tedisco is a mean spirited politician who ran a negative campaign and the more exposure he had the more his edge went south.
Tedisco could win but he will be a 1 term house member. The GOP did themselves more harm than good in trying to win this seat or I should say deploying the smear type of campaign they have become noted for.
here is the breakdown of outstanding ballots. given that murphy won columbia, warren, ostego and washington by at least ten percentage points each....well anyhow i am linking you to both the outcome of last nights vote and the data on absentee voting. i think the picture looks really good for murphy...i would be interested in reading if any of you agree or disagree
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/13044/new-york-20th-cd-election-results
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/13162/breakdown-of-the-absentee-ballots
"Tedisco was known, Murphy not. The election should have been a lock for the Republican. Tedisco is a mean spirited politician who ran a negative campaign and the more exposure he had the more his edge went south."
Obama won this district by 3 points (and Gillibrand by a heck of a lot more). That NY-20 is a tie is a good sign for the GOP, not the Dems. Is it enough for the GOP to take back the country? No, but its a start. In fact, it isn't even enough for them to win the horserace spin war over who "won".
Voter recognition was largely mitigated once enough money was thrown into the race. That is precisely why the "Tedisco was ahead but now he is behind" meme is not sensible. Tedisco was ahead earlier largely because of name recognition - the race was always going to be close.
However, I don't expect anybody here to buy anything but the Obama camp party line (which seems to have been taken up by the news headlines). A 1.5 point swing to the GOP is seen as a victory for Obama. hmmm.
Also, where is the source for the "70,000 person GOP advantage in voter registration" thing going around? If you look at the Siena poll (which overestimated Murphy's support by 4 points) it clearly does not give the GOP a 15 point edge in voter ID.
hosertohoosier said...
Obama won this district by 3 points (and Gillibrand by a heck of a lot more). That NY-20 is a tie is a good sign for the GOP, not the Dems.
In 2006, Kirsten Gillibrand won the district (as the challenger to the incumbent) by 6 points (53% to 47%). Not by a 'heck of a lot more', I'd say.
Granted she won by a larger margin in 2008, but she was running as a conservative Democratic INCUMBENT in a modestly conservative district.
and hosertohoosier also said...
Also, where is the source for the "70,000 person GOP advantage in voter registration" thing going around?
Do little to no research for yourself, hosertohoosier?
Make everyone else your research monkeys?
The URL for the New York State Board of Elections registrations by County in each Congressional District (something I EASILY found using Google) is:
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/enrollment/congress/congress_nov08.pdf
Just in case your peanut brain can't figure it out, there are, in the NY-20th Congressional District:
Total registrations - 477,682
Republicans registered - 196,118
Democrats registered - 125,486
That "70,000 person GOP advantage in voter registration" thing is actually an almost 71,000 person GOP advantage in voter registration.
Now go get lost until you can do your own research.
Mike in Maryland,
Thank you for the source (what is it about the Internet that makes people assholes though).
I am not sure that the registration numbers reflect all that much, however. If you look at the counties that make up NY-20, and their primary results, the Democrats got substantially got much higher turnout.
I wonder if NY-20 is sort of the reverse of the conservative Southern Democrat. In Oklahoma the Dems have a party ID lead of 200,000 votes. They also lead in Arkansas.
What would be more interesting to know would be the liberal/moderate/conservative breakdown of NY-20.
Certainly, Sweeney was a moderate Republican (235th, 252nd, 254th most conservative in the house).
http://www.elections.state.ok.us/reg_0109.pdf
hosertohoosier said...
(what is it about the Internet that makes people assholes though).
Maybe it's not the Internet - maybe it's the people who have the information available, but expect other people to do their research for them? And I am describing you, since you have access to the Internet, as evidenced by your posting messages here.
I am not sure that the registration numbers reflect all that much
Well, gee, whilikers, hosertohoosier.
YOU are the one who wrote (and I'm quoting), [W]here is the source for the "70,000 person GOP advantage in voter registration" thing going around?
Why, if you don't think registration numbers reflect all that much, did you bring up the subject in the first place?
Talk about you being, in your own words, an "asshole".
1. You were under no obligation to answer my question. Is is rather schizophrenic for you to altruistically answer, and then complain about having to answer.
2. Yes, information is freely available on the Internet. However, some people know where certain information is, whereas others don't (I googled ny-20 70,000 and got a lot of forum posts on tpm and the like without citations).
3. I asked in order to discredit the claim obviously. The strongest argument I could have given would be that the claim is untrue. It isn't. Thus I am left with the next best option - casting doubt on the evidence and qualifying my own argument:
NY-20 is Republican, but full of moderate Republicans. Certainly the GOP will need to win these folks with a much bigger margin if they are going to retake the house. That said it is still a baby-step forward.
However, the false expectations created by a 20+ point lead (when Murphy's name recognition was 17% - remember when Giuliani was a lock for the GOP nomination?) will spawn bad horserace coverage, which will discredit (moreso) Michael Steele, and the moderate wing of the Republican party.
This is unfortunate, because as we know, Michael Steele believes street cred is very important, particularly when it comes from his homies in upstate New York. Represent.
Mike, I suggest you do not in future answer anyone's questions if you're unable to do so without being rude. Lets make this a more civil and pleasant forum for all involved, please. :)
As for my take on the results, I think it's hard to argue with Sean's sober conclusion that the 2008 status quo was pretty much preserved.
Other than that, I don't think one ought to read too many national implications into the results.
To All:
HosertoHoosier says: I asked in order to discredit the claim obviously. The strongest argument I could have given would be that the claim is untrue. It isn't. Thus I am left with the next best option - casting doubt on the evidence and qualifying my own argument:
Sounds like HtH already decided what the "truth" was, and figured he could deny the science, and when MikeIM called him on that, decided he could cast doubts instead. Sounds like a typical, lazy ass lying Republican. Remind anybody about the debate on climate change? Like, "It isn't happening," followed by, "Well maybe it is, but it isn't our fault."
Or does it remind you more of the idiotic "Abstinence Only" campaign against teen sex? After millions of dollars, "It's working great!", after tens of millions and studies proving it increases unsafe sex and STDs, they say "Okay, but your way would be even worse!" All in denial of basic arithmetic.
HtH's other claim: Is [sic] is rather schizophrenic for you to altruistically answer, and then complain about having to answer,
No it isn't, but it is understandable how a lazy self-centered idiot can make this mistake. You see, childrens, Mike is a thinking person and felt that HtH's spewed idiocy needed correcting, and he took it upon himself to do that. But it is work, and when you do distasteful work for free you earn the right to complain about it. Mike was being altruistic to the rest of us, not to HtH, who was trying to deny the facts and later sow doubt about the facts.
But of course HtH is not a thinking person, and like most republicans feels no responsibility to either the truth or to other people, and like most republicans is so self centered he cannot imagine that he is not the hero of the story or that altruism would be directed at anybody but him. Thus his failure to comprehend that Mike's altruism is not directed at helping him, but that Mike was standing up against hoser for the benefit of the public. It is not an unusual feature of human psychology to feel the urge to berate liars and cons after exposing them.
I see no schizophrenia necessary. So Thanks, Mike In Maryland, for your diligence in preventing ideological littering.
Tony, I don't think you are helping Mike's case there. I find it amazing that any diversion from the party line immediately causes certain people to man the battlements. I mean look at all the assumptions you have made about me with no data.
Heck I am being implicitly accused of opposing birth control because I have the ire to suggest that a district might be less Republican than it looks. I am not even arguing the merits of a single Republican policy.
Yes, I was skeptical of the claim, and yes I was wrong, and therefore I qualified my argument. Are you guys really that threatened by a contrarian viewpoint (one which you deem to have no merit)? Are you trying to create a place where people can discuss things civilly, or an echo chamber? Is it offensive to ask for sources? Obviously an actual search for truth requires alternative perspectives (some of which will be wrong).
Look guys, firstly, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. From what I have seen of the Obama and Bush administrations, you Americans have a pretty sorry choice and a dim future. I'd brush up on my Cantonese.
I recognize that folks on the left have had a pretty rough 8 years. I understand Bush made it so much harder to get laid on your work-studies in Europe, I really do (thankfully Bush gave you good training in abstinence).
When 9/11 happened I read Noam Chomsky and bemoaned the evil American empire. Eventually though, it got old. Ideologies have all answers, so long as you can ram square pegs of empirical reality into round holes. I found I hated agreeing with people all the time, even if they were correct that the war in Iraq was a dumb idea.
Received wisdom (and I mean received wisdom of the literati - the man in the street's muddled jingoism and populism is not worth engaging intellectually) is kind of like a bubble - it slowly grows as everybody accepts it to be real, until it is accepted by people that often don't understand the underlying premises and limits. Somebody has to sell received wisdom short.
Try challenging your basic ideational premises, even if it forces you to temporarily accept ideas that you deem incorrect. You can't understand other people by applying your own biased lens to them (I recall a particularly galling thread here on why anybody would become a Republican - I believe down syndrome won the day).
It helps in all of that to be civil to others - even if they are stupid or wrong (which I may be). Indeed, the beauty of incorrect arguments is that they often contain enough truth that you can steal them and fix them - and you have created something new. Marx, for instance, was generally wrong about economics, but his work launched the study of business cycles, which has earned many a professor tenure.
Why should a discussion about a special election in New York be about somebody standing up against me? Indeed, Tony, why should virtually your entire thread be rooted in unsupported ad hominem?
I have not slandered you. Perhaps you are some grotesque barely human slug whose keyboard drips of a filthy, reeking ooze (my keyboard probably does). Perhaps you are a chiseled dynamo who saves orphans from burning buildings. When we post on the Internet, we can't know such things about each other, we only know what is true of ourselves. The tangential rant you went into tells me far more about you, than it tells me about me. On the internet we get to choose a persona without anybody watching. Why have you chosen this one? Why are you so angry?
Why do you use the term "ideological littering" - I find it disturbing that somebody would characterize other ideas as litter. I suppose you would prefer to keep your mind uncluttered - that is, empty. This worries me, precisely because it reminds me of the folks that didn't ask questions about the war in Iraq, or those who deny climate change (I excluded the sex ed debate, not because I disagree with your position, but because you clearly do not understand the perspective of the abstinence-only hardliners. They have a moral philosophy which emphasizes that the ill of sin and hellfire outweighs earthly concerns. Whether they accepted the results of studies or not would not change their perspective.)
Tony, you sound like a young man. I will admit I don't care about you, per se, but if you are representative of generation Y (of which I am a member) I am a bit worried. You seem to crave conflict. You seem more interested in turning the debate to divisive culture war issues than making a relevant point. I have also noticed a pronounced tendency among folks to take the line that Republicans and other fellow-travelers are stupid (and the few not stupid - Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Richard Nixon - are immoral). I mean isn't it a moral outrage that the 40% of postgrads that voted for McCain aren't having their degrees revoked right now?
So Tony, I have one hope for you. I hope one day you meet a beautiful girl and are captivated by her - so much so, that you don't mind when she says "ah have no idea how anybody coulda been against the president on that war in eye-rak." I wish you many babies, who will have heard two stories to everything.
@hoser:
Tony, you sound like a young man.
Thanks. I have two graduate degrees and over 30 years in business, and I am currently a research scientist at a university; this is what I have chosen to do for my retirement.
My wife of twenty years is an independent thinker that happens to agree with my politics about 98%. As do my daughter, and my daughter's husband, who is the sole owner of a very successful retail establishment (even during this downturn).
What I object to is people that form their opinions before they know the facts, which you clearly did in this case. That is "ideology", faith in an idea regardless of actual fact.
In your case, you try to challenge the fact, and THEN when proof is offered, try to say the fact makes no difference. Clearly, you have made the a priori decision it makes no difference, and THEN try to justify that decision.
Rational people test their ideas and if they fail, come up with new ideas, sometimes contrary to their first instinct. You, like all conservatives, only look for ways to make your first idea right, no matter how contrary to fact that idea may be. You attacked the stated facts as if they were relevant and if proven wrong would support your contention, and when that failed, you dismissed the facts as suddenly irrelevant.
You are logically inconsistent, like a four year old, you will say anything to get your way or justify your actions. No matter how contradictory, no matter how inane.
As for judging you on little evidence: That is the purpose of the brain, buddy, to make quick and accurate decisions from scant clues. But you provided plenty.
Hey Nate -
Perhaps your analysis is overlooking the elephant in the room - this vote occurred in the middle of President Obama's first hundred days - traditionally when a new President gets the benefit of the doubt from a much larger percentage of the population than on Election Day.
In other words, the honeymoon is over, and we're right back politically to Obama's popularity as of election day, inaug bounce gone.
Nice try putting a good spin on things for your audience tho.
"What I object to is people that form their opinions before they know the facts, which you clearly did in this case. That is "ideology", faith in an idea regardless of actual fact."
-I did not form that opinion based on no facts. I was skeptical based on primary results (more Dems voted in the counties in NY-20 than Republicans), and the district barely leaned Bush even in good years. Gillibrand won by 23 points. I think skepticism of a 15 point party ID advantage is reasonable in those circumstances.
"In your case, you try to challenge the fact, and THEN when proof is offered, try to say the fact makes no difference. Clearly, you have made the a priori decision it makes no difference, and THEN try to justify that decision."
You seem to be basing this on the notion that I am a conservative, and therefore have some stake in the outcome of that race. I am not a conservative.
I think marijuana, LSD, stem cell research, human cloning, gay polygamy, sex ed with masturbation and condoms, HPV vaccines, and abortions should be legal and supported by the state. America's gun culture frightens me. I think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan wasted national resources on tasks peripheral to the national interest. I think America's system of private healthcare is terrible. I think global warming is real, and support making private companies internalize the negative externalities of pollution. I support amnesty for illegal immigrants and open borders to most newcomers. I think the banks need to be regulated more heavily (my country hasn't had a bank failure since before the Great Depression). I think temporary bank nationalization like the Swedes did a few years back would work better than bank bailouts.
I part company from the left on some issues. I am a free trader; I support public schools, but also charter schools and vouchers (for low income children in failing schools). I think America's corporate taxes are too high. I like nuclear power. I am okay with a somewhat interventionist foreign policy (of the Nixon-Bush Sr. sort) and propping up friendly dictators if it serves the US. I think consumption taxes should be raised. I also prefer a more limited stimulus focused on infrastructure spending.
The notion that I have ideological blinders preventing me from seeing reality is bizarre. Also bizarre is that you challenge my suggestion that the Republican party ID advantage makes no difference. Clearly it isn't making much of a difference the GOP performs poorly in spite of it. This suggests an interesting research question - WHY can't a substantial voter ID advantage get results?
-are these mostly Republicans in state politics, or old Rockefeller Republicans?
-do the Republicans have a lousy GOTV machine?
-is Tedisco a bad candidate (or Scott Murphy a good one)?
-and so on.
"As for judging you on little evidence: That is the purpose of the brain, buddy, to make quick and accurate decisions from scant clues."
Of course you also said:
"What I object to is people that form their opinions before they know the facts,"
Which sounds a lot like something you said about me:
"You are logically inconsistent, like a four year old, you will say anything to get your way or justify your actions. No matter how contradictory, no matter how inane."
Hmm... how wonderfully consistent. No wonder you preface your rebuttal with an appeal to authority (your degrees, and for some reason, your daughter's husbands business success) instead of letting your points stand on their own merits. Given your logical shortcomings, you might be wiser to have run with the "young man" thing.
@hoser:
Scant clues is not no clues. Your posts constitute facts of what you said; making a decision on them is not making a decision without facts.
The fact is, you are lazy, and that produces ignorance. I don't care if you are conservative, you share that in common with conservatives. So enjoy your lazy ignorance, hoser!
That's all I have to say, we will disagree forever which means you are no longer worth wasting any time on. Feel free to have the last rant, I'm moving on.
Intrade has had some movement toward Tedisco in the last day. What is that based on?
The Republicans should have decisively won this, and a few weeks ago they were assuming they would.
I think Tedisco will ultimately win.
I think that 2006 Gillibrand victory over Sweeney is more indicative of this case. Sweeney had high name recognition, so does Tedisco. 2006 was not a presidential year so turn-out was low, and in 2009 I think turnout was lower than in 2008. So Tedisco should have had a strong advantage similar to Sweeney. But Murphy came out as a complete unknown. There was no reason he should have beat Tedisco in any other year (he's served for 30 years and everyone knows him). So you have to point to why Murphy won (or tied). Tedisco had every advantage possible to win a local race.
Gillbrand defeated John Sweeny in 2006 in no small part because Sweeny was accused of domestic abuse by his wife. In 2008 Gillbrand then an incumbent ran against a candidate with lots of money but with no personality and he ran a horrible campaign.
Tedisco served 26 years in the Assembly and had name recognition, Murphy had none. In the weeks prior to the election Tedisco lost traction in the polls, a reflection of his exposure and negative ads.
The national implications were overblown. The analysis of how or why republicans failed to turn out in larger numbers is speculative. The district is a mix of urban and rural, but in recent years have turned away from candidates who run to the far right.
How this election will turn out is unknown. I would however be willing to bet that in 2010 Tedisco does not win a second term.
Post a Comment