11.02.2009

NY-23 Re-Re-Re-Reconsidered

The pollsters continue to have rather different impressions of NY-23, where Siena shows the race Hoffman 41, Owens 36, with a huge number of undecideds, whereas PPP shows Hoffman with a much larger 54-38 lead given a two-way vote choice.

Mark Blumenthal has a very good, and very thorough, overview of the polls, and basically argues that if people want to concentrate on the Siena result while ignoring PPP, they're probably engaged in wishful thinking (provided they're rooting for Owens, anyway).

I'm not going to try to further dissect the particular polls in question.** The main thing, though, is that the true margins of error are much different in different sorts of contests. Presidential primary polls, for instance, have missed by an average of about 7 points in recent cycles, which equals a standard error of about 8.5 points. This race is more analogous to a primary than a general election in most ways, with multiple candidates, some of them relatively unknown to the voters, and what will probably be a low-ish turnout (as is the case in almost all special elections). And I'm not sure that either poll will fully capture the impact of Scozzafava's endorsement of Owens -- most of PPP's interviews were conducted before the endorsement took place (although they showed no real difference once they began informing voters of the endorsement), while Siena noted that she had dropped out, but not that she had endorsed her former rival. Plus, the polling was conducted over a holiday weekend.

The way I'm looking at this race is basically thusly. Take the polling average -- Hoffman +10.5 -- and give Owens a net of two points from the Scozzafava endorsement, which is probably not fully captured by the polling. That would make it Hoffman +8.5. But assume a very high standard error -- perhaps something like 10 points -- given the disagreement between the pollsters and the dynamic nature of the race.

Even with those assumptions, however, Owens would be about a 4:1 underdog. So I suppose I'm getting off the fence here and declaring Hoffman the favorite, although I wouldn't attach any precise probability estimate to it. On the basis of the polling evidence, indeed, 4:1 is fairly generous to Owens. But the polling evidence isn't everything, and on the basis of the fundamentals of the district (which is Republican but not so conservative) it is generous to Hoffman.



** I will say that the higher number of undecideds that Siena identifies -- 18 percent versus just 3 percent for PPP -- feels more "right" to me, since a large number of Scozzafava voters were quite literally released back into the electorate overnight.

92 comments

PeteKent said...

PPP is a clusterfuck. They interviewed people the day before Scozzafava dropped out, the day she did, and the say she endorsed Owens. I wouldn't trust it.

Mr. Universe said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Mr. Universe said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Jacob said...

At any rate it looks like a win for the far right nutjobs.

I wouldn't take the non-conservativeness of the district as that much of a plus for Owens. If the people there are used to voting Republican they will vote for the Republican (or GOP-endorsed candidate).

Much like the MN 6th, which is only a little more heavily Republican and not so overwhelmingly conservative. And yet they elected and reelected far right moonbat whacko Michele Bachmann in two of the most Democratic cycles in decades against reasonably strong opponents.

As much as I hate to say it, it looks like we'll have one more whackjob to deal with in the House. Hoffman's floor remarks should be good for Democratic fundraising though.

Amliss Vess said...

PK & Mr. Universe: Are you guys high?

DCM in FL said...

WOW !!!

PK actually made a fairly rational comment @ #1 above...

I agree that PPP's methodology is questionable, although they claim the #'s hardly varied during the weekend as the situation continued to evolve.

My larger issue would be in the sampling universe of voters on a 'holiday' weekend for a 2 day poll [when they typically conduct 4 day polls if I recall correctly].

Still, Hoffman should win this election since it is a very short cycle driven by enthusiasm, low turn-out & media impact with a strong historical tailwind behind him in NY-23...

the story will be IF Owens does win or even comes close, then the GOP/CONs blew an easy 'hold'

and the district could flip either way in 2010, so this will be a target district for both parties

but perhaps the carpetbagger/outsider label for Hoffman will bite 'em in the butt tomorrow more than the other 'issues' & endorsements

given one more week, I would have bet that Hoffman's wave would crest & he would drop off dramatically as the locals backlash against the outside interference

however, this 11th hour election eve 'surprise' of scozz suspending her campaign & backing the DEM probably needed more time to stew before the full backlash against Hoffman would/will resonate

since the narrative until Sat was all about Scozz the RINO, rather than Hoff the carpetbagger/outsider

if labor in NY-23 is a strong as some say and supported Dede, then will they actually push this potentially serious issue in these last days ???

methinks they will run out of time & Hoffman will prevail

either way, it is all GOOD for the DEMs in the long-run imho, as this is hopefully an indication of the long knives & intra-party fratricide for the GOP v CON

just what we need, the wingers distracted internally as they shout that any RINO is worse than ________ [fill in the blank]

GO HOFFMAN !!!

Josh said...

Seriously, can we just boot people out of the comments?

PeteKent said...

Scuzzobama's ejection from the party proved beneficial for the GOP, and he will win this election handily, especially now that Owens got Scuzzobama's tainted endorsement.

I just don't believe he will win by the margin PPP shows. If he does the Democrats should be ready for a massacre other than just a defeat in 2010. As RINOs like Scuzzobama are expelled, conservatives will take over, and we Americans will elect people they TRULY feel fit their ideals.

MidPointMan said...

It astonishes me that people are bashing PPP, a reliably Democratic pollster, for actually conducting a poll using a proven methodology.

This illustrates the length that some will go to deny factual evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence.

They remind me of creationists. No amount of data is worthy. Shoot the messenger instead.

Edmunds.com anyone?

This is pathological behavior for leftists. Evidence does not matter.

Facts do not matter. Controlling information and perception is all that matters.

I applaud Nate for seeing the light, but it could have come 24 hours ago.

I still see no chance that Scozzafava voters are going to flock to Owens in big numbers. Angry, petty endorsements matter little.

If they are that angry with Hoffman, they will just vote for Scozzafava.

Hoffman will win, probably by double digits.

We will know whether PPP has it right or not. They have aggressive polling in NJ as well.

Jesse Livermore said...

I am totally calling your predictions correctly! http://bit.ly/k47CY

PeachcreekMedia said...

Wow......This has to be the most messed up election in the country. It would appear that the major parties are at best dysfuntional. Now this would never happen in Minnesot.....oh yeah Ventura....Well it only happened in Minnesota once!! Its a trend in NY!

Pragmatus said...

If the GOP does well tomorrow (even if they do only so-so) the airwaves will be full of crowing from the likes of Limbaugh and crew. The GOP has yet to understand that these folks are a liability, so whatever effects accrue from seeming to do well in three off-off year elections will be squandered as…

♦ The wingnutosphere goes ballistic
♦ The push to make the GOP even more conservative (and thus exclusive) will be irresistible

Remember, folks, that there is a difference between winning a battle and winning the war.

One of the more brilliant surprise victories of the Civil War was Chickamauga, where the Confederate Army routed and very nearly destroyed the Union Army under William Rosecrans south and east of Chattanooga. But after the battle the Rebel commanders fought viciously amongst themselves, and paralysis set in, until finally Grant and Sherman counterattacked and broke the Rebel line on Missionary Ridge in the Battle of Chattanooga, and the Confederates ended up retreating all the way to Atlanta.

I hope I don’t need to remind anyone how that war turned out…

Alex S. said...

Hmm, I think that the polling of this race is somewhat useless because of the turn of events. It's not completely useless, but yes, a high margin of error so to say... About a week ago, Owens was 1 point ahead of Hoffman, then Hoffman was ahead, then Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed and the pundit universe and national politicans (almost every Republican, but also Joe Biden) dropped by or got him/herself involved. The structural advantage goes to Hoffman though.

GROG said...

@Jacob:

At any rate it looks like a win for the far right nutjobs.

True, because NY23 is one of those far right, southern redneck, racist, white supremacist disctricts full of radical rightwing religious zealots.

In no way does NY23 mirror middle working class America.

shma said...

"It astonishes me that people are bashing PPP, a reliably Democratic pollster, for actually conducting a poll using a proven methodology....This is pathological behavior for leftists. Evidence does not matter. Facts do not matter."

Take that, PeteKent, you communist scum!

MidPointMan said...

@PeteKent -

Wouldn't your logic apply to Siena as well?

They interviewed people over roughly the same time period.

The real difference is that PPP has a MUCH tighter LV screen than Siena because they do not use RDD, they use actual voter rolls.

In a special election where turnout is likely very low, I like a tighter LV screen.

Just me...

Still, I am not so bold as to claim Hoffman will win by 17.

Maybe 12 points.

However, these latest polls are going to suppress Democrat turnout a fair bit because it looks like Owens is a lost cause.

You have to really believe in your candidate or be really bored to vote in Special Elections.

That is why the R2000 polls are a ridiculous joke for their awful sample frames.

This may cause PPP to be closer to the mark than we think.

Joy said...

Doesn't anyone believe there's a chance Palin's intrusion could energize enough Dems to make a difference in polling numbers?

MidPointMan said...

@shma -

I like your post, but what makes you think I was talking about PeteKent?

I know he is not a leftist.

There are several others on here who have been dogging on PPP, not as much in this thread, but in the others.

I know PeteKent is no leftist...therefore I was not really talking about him.

Jacob said...

@GROG

I have no idea what the good people of New York's 23rd Congressional District are like. I am merely pointing out that they are likely to elect a far right nutjob to the House of Representatives.

The good people of Minnesota's 6th Congressional District (an area I have worked in extensively) in no way fit the list of epithets you set out but have twice sent a far right nutjob to Congress.

Good people can and often do elect awful Representatives, and Doug Hoffman will certainly vote for the benefit of far right racist redneck white supremacist religious zealots far more than middle working class America, just as Michele Bachmann has in her middle America district.

DCM in FL said...

The caveat that SUSA attached to their own weekend poll for NJ could also be applied for any poll in NY-23 [or even for ME re: SSM]

"On 2 of the 3 nights, much of NJ was home watching local teams play in the World Series. And: 1 of the 3 nights was Halloween, when families with children are home in uniquely large numbers. As such, results of this survey should be interpreted cautiously: a narrow Corzine victory is not inconsistent with the data, but a narrow Christie win is more consistent with the data."

in other words, they caution not to read too much into their own final weekend #'s - the same conclusion that Nate draws for all 3 elections [NJ, NY & ME]

VA is consensus, but that is no surprise

Pragmatus said...

My Predictions (in case anybody cares)…

♦ Virginia—McDonnell wins.
♦ New Jersey—Corzine ekes out a .5% win.
♦ Maine gay marriage—the measure will pass by less than 1%, meaning gay marriage will no longer be recognized.
♦ NY-23—Owens will win by 2-5%.
♦ There will be no end of crapola about what this means from Glenn Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Pete Kent, BDP, Walker et alia.

The situation is too fraught in NY-23 to be captured reliably by polling IMO, and the huge number of undecideds can’t be assigned with any certainty, although that hasn’t stopped pollsters from assigning them anyway.

Pragmatus said...

My Predictions (in case anybody cares)…

Er—good thing to keep in mind though is that my gut predictions frequently turn out to be very wrong.

:o) :o) :o)

shma said...

PeteKent Said: "PPP is a clusterfuck. They interviewed people the day before Scozzafava dropped out, the day she did, and the say she endorsed Owens. I wouldn't trust it."

MidPointMan Said: "It astonishes me that people are bashing PPP, a reliably Democratic pollster, for actually conducting a poll using a proven methodology. This illustrates the length that some will go to deny factual evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence...This is pathological behavior for leftists. Evidence does not matter. Facts do not matter."

Then MidPointMan Said: "@shma - what makes you think I was talking about PeteKent?"

Oh...no reason.

Just John said...

I posted this in a thread earlier... then it died... it's germane to this discussion, so here it is again so you can re-ignore it.

Nate seems to have pretty much convinced himself ahead of time that a Conservative Party candidate couldn't win and so he's been interpreting the little data he has with that prejudice in the way.

But if some looney tunes mega-shag-carpetbagger extremist like Hoffman DOES have a path to Congress, it has to be in an off-off-year election (check), the mainstream R has to drop out (check), the money has to flow into his coffers (check), outside influences have to be invested in his campaign (check), the district has to tilt R to begin with(check), and turnout has to materialize (check????).

Perhaps Hoffman's stars have aligned themselves just right this time. But should he win, that hardly seems like a surefire recipe for re-election. And that's assuming his district even continues to exist after 2010.

filistro said...

Also, there hasn't been time for polls to reflect the fact that Hoffman has just now claimed Glenn Beck as his "mentor," and signed a pledge to be faithful to Beck's "principles."

You'd think that new info would give great pause to the good folk of NY-23, many of whom are NOT wild-eyed crazies (or rodeo clowns.)

Just John said...

Pragmatus-
1. and 2. and 5. are spot-on. Although maybe Corzine by 2 or 3 points.

Mainers will approve SSM. And here in WA, Ref. 71 will pass, keeping domestic partnerships rights equal to rights of married couples.

Hoffman will win.

Tomorrow night will be entertaining. (The only foolproof prediction of the lot.)

DCM in FL said...

JOHN

my feeling is that the turn of events happened so late & so fast that the Hoffman wave has not had time to crest & subside yet - as it would have by 'gravity' given sufficient time.

same as when Palin was nominated by surprise & McCain's numbers seemd to surge - but then receded as the electorate got to know her.

not much time in NY-23 for the Hoffman bubble to burst yet...

but I predict it will well before the real election in 2010

so IF the DEMs in NY-23 put up a better candidate in 2010 against Hoffman, then that will be a real WIN [even if the district is subsequently eliminated in redistricting]

on the other hand, apparently DeDe Scozz is seriously considerijng jumping ship from the sinking GOP to the DEM state assembly in the near term [see Politico]

now THAT should make the state & national GOP shudder [wish she was a state senator though where her caucusing would be more crucial in NY]

perhaps then NY-23 will run Scozz as the DEM in 2010 if/when Hoffman wins the special

ah, the twists & turns as the GOP implodes [let them win this short-term minor battle, as imho it will push them into a corner so they will lose the 'war' in the longer run]

Jacob said...

Just John said...

"Nate seems to have pretty much convinced himself ahead of time that a Conservative Party candidate couldn't win and so he's been interpreting the little data he has with that prejudice in the way."


Excellent point. He made the same mistake in the AK Senate race last year if anyone remembers.

When polls started to show a dead heat between Begich and Stevens, Nate continually readjusted their meanings because a convicted felon just COULDN'T be competitive, so he created various effects to explain it away and give Begich a huge lead.

And in the end, Begich won with a margin of fewer than 4000 votes.

Happy GOPer said...

My predictions

NY-23
Hoffman 48
Owens 45
Scozz 7

VA-Gov
McDonnell 56
Deeds 43

NJ-Gov
Corzine 43.0
Christie 42.5

Pragmatus said...

A suggestion…

In a contest such as the one in Maine over gay marriage, wouldn’t it be better to list the choices on the ballot as—

□ Yes
□ No
□ No Opinion

By providing only “Approve” or “Disapprove” as options a very real segment of the voting public is left out, for instance those that think the entire controversy is frivolous or that the voters shouldn’t be given the opportunity to change the law around so capriciously, and frankly they have as much right as anyone to be heard.

Allowing a vote of “no opinion” would tend IMO to tamp down the extremists who love to mount these ballot initiatives to overturn actions of the legislature or courts that they personally object to. As it stands now, every vote is either for or against, and measures like Maine’s can pass with 50% plus one vote. I think it would be a good idea to soften those odds a little.

Pragmatus said...

Happy GOPer…

Wow—you and I are on the same page re New Jersey, or was that a typo on your part?

DCM in FL said...

HAPPY

your predictions look reasonable & may well be correct on the winners in all 3 elections.

I personally doubt that McDonnell will win by quite that large of a margin, but 10 +/- is certainly possible.

NJ either way one will win in a close count [maybe a recount]

Hoffman might even get 49-50, but it could be closer than the GOP 'should' have won by in a special election...

how about Maine ? pass or fail

I think [and hope] Mainers will end up voting NO 51-49

interesting that in ME these same hard-core CONs [Palin, Beck, Rush et al] that are pushing Hoffman are not trying as hard to make that statewide vote a referendum on all things RIGHT

could it be that they know it would be counter-productive ???

Just John said...

Intriguing idea Pragmatus. It creates the need for a supermajority of sorts to undo legislation already in place... intriguing and no doubt unconstitutional in most states.

DCM-
I'm all in favor of a GOP meltdown/split/fracture/schism/civil war/whatever you want to call it. I'm just not as of yet comfy with the idea of the wingnut party winning a seat tomorrow in the U.S. Congress. It may turn out well for liberals in the long run, but I still hate to see one of ours lose to one of theirs.

DCM in FL said...

PRAG

I agree, and having a 'yes' mean 'no' also mangles the issue

still, such issues never belong on a popularity vote anyways

BUT if I recall correctly having lived out in CA for over 20 years in that state for a proposition to pass I believe it required 50%+1 of the voting electorate that actually cast ballots in that election [rather than 50% of the votes cast on that one issue]

that allowed voters who did not want to cast a vote to in effect vote 'no opinion' - but not either for or against

mcc said...

I guess one question would be how well the Scozzfava endorsement is being reported in NY-23. Will voters be fully aware of this by the time they vote? Does NY-23 have a tendency to do early voting?

Happy GOPer said...

Pragmatus,

As much as I would like it to turn out otherwise - if I were forced to put money down I'd have to put it on Corzine.

On NY-23 - if this were a normal election year (2010 or 2012) and there wasn't such a large disparity between enthusiasm of conservatives and that of liberals I would give the edge to Owens.

I always thought (and still believe) that more often than not a civil war within a political party leads to a loss on ELection Day.

Pragmatus said...

Just John…

I agree on the constitutionality question, the argument being—a “no opinion” vote could be construed as being virtually the same as a “no” vote, and this would violate, at least theoretically, the “one-man-one-vote” requirement. But there could be a way to phrase the third option in such a way as to avoid that trap.

At any rate, I do think the “no opinion” option would be useful because, to take a recent example, 6.2 million of California’s population of 37 million (that’s about 17%, folks) decided whether or not gay marriage should be recognized legally in the state. A ballot with a “no opinion” option would have made Prop 8 much tougher to pass, and the outcome, whether pass or fail, IMO would have much better reflected the will of the people.

forok: Forok all yu pipples that dunt ugree vit me.

Rasmus said...

Here are my predictions:

VA: McDonnell 57
Deeds 42

Maine: Yes on 1 51
No on 1 49

NYC Mayor: Bloomberg 58
Thompson 42

NJ: Christie 45
Corzine 44
Daggett 9

NY-23 Hoffman 50
Owens 44
Scozzafava 6

Amanda said...

"When polls started to show a dead heat between Begich and Stevens, Nate continually readjusted their meanings because a convicted felon just COULDN'T be competitive, so he created various effects to explain it away and give Begich a huge lead."

That's not what happened. The conviction occurred very close to the election, and all polls after the conviction showed substantial leads for Begich. Throwing out the pre-conviction polls, as Nate did, was probably a bad idea, but there weren't any polls after the conviction that showed a "dead heat"- the closest had Begich +7.

Voice of the Midwest said...

NY 23 polling can be taken with a grain of salt. Honestly, these days, a guy calling me from anywhere asking if I prefer the Democrat (candidate name) versus the Conservative (candidate name) would sound like a push poll for a Republican to see what the ideological baseline would be. Hoffman is saddled with a bad spot on the ballot. DeDe will still get 20% of the vote...and Owens will win by 1 to 3 points because 20% of the Republican vote is moderate and sick of conservatives pushing them out.

VA to McDonnell by 7 to 10%. NJ to Corzine by 1 to 3%. In all, it will leave more questions than answers for all going into 2010. Look for an emboldened Conservative Party to finally come out of the closet and run in every district or seat held by the few moderate GOP office holders left.

There are more Lincoln GOP moderates in the GOP in a district like NY-23 who will not vote for Hoffman. If this was Tennessee, he could hold the base of the GOP. But it is not. These are the last of the Rockerfeller Republicans. They have more in common with Owens than Hoffman.

Pragmatus said...

DCM in FL…

It took a little digging to find this.

Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution says that an initiative only needs to be “approved by a majority of votes thereon”, so it doesn’t matter how many votes are recorded for other candidates or measures in the same election.

Voice of the Midwest said...

Gotta give it to Bloomberg: he will skate despite his own mouth screaming term limits all throughout the 1990s.

Look for a low turnout in NYC and NY-23 to have 1-3% more turnout than a mid-term for the special election.

Jacob said...

Ah right you are Amanda, my mistake.

During the indictment and trial period rather, not after the conviction.

Pragmatus said...

Can anybody recall an off-off year election that generated so much heat and interest as this one? Seems the stakes have risen pretty high in the Culture Wars.

Pragmatus said...

Initiative voting…

How about…

□ Yes
□ No
□ Neither Yes or No

Bart DePalma said...

filistro said...

Also, there hasn't been time for polls to reflect the fact that Hoffman has just now claimed Glenn Beck as his "mentor," and signed a pledge to be faithful to Beck's "principles." You'd think that new info would give great pause to the good folk of NY-23, many of whom are NOT wild-eyed crazies (or rodeo clowns.)

Have you even read Hoffman's pledge?

Here are "Beck's principles" with which Hoffman agrees:

1) America is good.

2) I believe in God. He is the center of my life.

3) I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

4) My family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5) If you break the law, you pay the price. Justice is bind and no one is above it.

6) I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7) I work hard for what I have an I will share it with who I want to. The government cannot force me to be charitable.

8) It's not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

9) The government works for the people. The people do not answer to the government, the government answers to the people.

Sound principles, those. It is very likely that the revolutionaries who lived in what will soon be Hoffman's district and defeated the invading British Army at Saratoga subscribed to each and every one of these principles. Don't you?

Jacob said...

@Pragmatus

Though I was too young to remember it very well, I seem to recall that '93 was pretty big interest for Repubs at least, when they took the NJ and VA governorships, the NYC mayoralty, and a Senate race in TX.

Might not have been as culture-war infused as this one though.

PeteKent said...

This is a huge victory for conservatives. Scuzzobama was an Arlen Specter Democrat, and was running against another Democrat. Until Hoffman entered this race, there was only one party to choose from. Now he's going to win handily.

Suck on that, stupid libs!

Persuter said...

9) The government works for the people. The people do not answer to the government, the government answers to the people.

Huh. On the 912 Project that principle was originally listed as "The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me." Nice to see that Beck eventually figured out that he isn't "the people".

By the way, hilarious quote explaining #8 from that link:

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

“In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington


Good ol' George... :P

filistro said...

No, Bart DePalma, I don't subscribe to every one of those principles. Hardly any of them, in fact. Nor do I think most of them have much place in the arena of politics or lawmaking.

For example, I don't believe my family is "sacred." (And if you attended our Thanksgiving dinner, you'd probably agree ;-)

I think the government (or society, if you like) has every right to force people to be charitable if the alternative is a country without a social safety net for the deeply unfortunate.

I believe the people DO, in many cases, answer to the government, which after all we have collectively empowered with the right to make and enforce laws.

Most passionately, I don't believe "God is the center of my life." I am a thoughtful, cheerful agnostic. It's perfectly all right for me to be agnostic. What's more, I will continue to deploy all my considerable energy and resources to defeat any and all politicians who seek to make THEIR God the center of MY life.

Mr. Universe said...

This is a huge victory for conservatives.

No, it is not. It has been a Republican spot for 150 years. No one expects the Democrat to pick it up. But if he does, you are forever to be ridiculed on this site. I am so hoping Owens pulls this off. And I don't even care about this little race.

malevole1 said...

Nate,

I assume the ballots are already printed and Scozzafava is going to show up on them with an R next to her name. Does the two way poll still give the option? If not, aren't the polls going to miss a lot of low-information voters who just vote straight ticket "R"? When a pollster tells you your choices are a Democratic Party or a Conservative Party nominee versus the ballot which includes a Republican, how can this be even remotely accurate? I know you're saying it isn't, but how big could this effect potentially be based on similar situations? After all, dead people get elected this way.

Also, can you ban this troll PeteKent? Or can you at least hide him away so I can focus on posts of interest? I like this site, but fishing through his comments and all the troll feeders is really turning me away. It seems like most of the posts anymore are dedicated to his pointless ravings and the responses to them. Don't get me wrong, I like hearing from the other side, but if all this particular person has to offer is ad hominem attacks on politicians and other users, then he's not offering a dissenting view, he's just being a troll (note that I mean per the internet slang definition, before I get accused of being a hypocrite for calling him an unattractive Nordic giant).

Dissenting views = good for the site.

Calling the candidate "Scuzzobama" and other users "stupid libs" = damaging to the site.

Don't be fooled into thinking he's a dissenting view. He's not! He's just a troll. BAN HIM!

Jacob said...

What's really sad is that they can't come up with a better offensive nickname than "scuzzobama." If you're going to be an asshole, at least be mildly clever about it.

Tobias said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Drowzee said...

Mr. Universe:

You forget, PK has been getting clobbered by reality lately, what with the Democrat 'Majority' in the house, senate, and control of the white house. To him, the possibility that a conservative will win, no matter how expected it is, is a huge victory for those who share his views.

It's confirmation bias.

But I think it will be helpful if Hoffman wins. Because it will force the GOP to divide more quickly, as the vitriolic bombast of the fundamentalist fringe of the GOP will smash against the remaining political realists and moderates, and snap. Three party system at long last, and perhaps the moderates can finally get something done. Or be unable to oppose the Democrats.

Dave said...

It's hardly a one-sided thing. We do a bad job policing our fellow progressives as well. For example, MikeinMD is one of the biggest name-throwers around and the community does nothing to him.

I'd certainly be in favor of banning trolls, so long as it's not simply banning viewpoint who run contrary to the viewpoint of most of us.

crimanysakes said...

Doesn't #8 directly contradict #2? In so much as if I don't agree with #2 I get railroaded by those that have singed this silly charter?

Happy GOPer said...

Democrats that claim now that it would be *so unusual* for Owens to win this seat are being a bit disingenuous. Yes, the area has been represented by a Republican for 150 years - but the trends over the past decade have been such that the 23rs is now a swing district. Obama won it by five points. It's R+1. A Democrat winning here in a normal environment in an open seat contest would be about even money.

The fact is that conservatives are more energized than liberals. That in itself bodes well for Republicans if it continues into next year and if the party doesn't cannibalize itself.

If the intensity of the electorate in 2010 mirrors that of 2009 - then yes, the Democrats are going to be in a heap of trouble. We'll see.

Happy GOPer said...

Calling the candidate "Scuzzobama" and other users "stupid libs" = damaging to the site.

It's no more damaging than the words of a certain angry homosexual that frequently says similarly infantile things about conservatives and Republicans on this very site.

malevole1 said...

@Dave: I agree, banning all the trolls on both sides is good. However, I don't spend a ton of time on this site, so I don't know who they all are. I come to look at the posts, and the comments, and sometimes even comment myself. But, off the cuff, one name is coming up over and over and over again, to the point that it's taking too much time to find the good comments because every other post is either PeteKent or someone responding to him. Based on my observations, many of the other inappropriate remarks seem to stem from this one troll. When you have a troublemaker who riles up the whole class, sometimes you just need to remove the one problem child, and the rest tend to calm down without the instigator around anymore. JMTC.

I understand policing isn't easy or black and white, but this guy is clearly a problem. Whether I agree with him or not isn't the issue.

malevole1 said...

@Happy GOPer: Again, I agree that attacks from either side are an issue (though it's entirely unclear to my what the poster's sexuality has anything to do with this discussion). I'm just suggesting that Nate start with the biggest offender and then go from there. I'm not sure who you're referring to, so, in my view, that suggests that he/she's not as big of an offender, and is therefore less damaging. I could be wrong, of course. A lot of people make stupid comments from time to time, and maybe it's just coincidence, but there's a clear repeat offender here based on my observations.

filistro said...

Pete Kent has been here since forever... literally since the site began, I think.

He is like the shaggy old hound who sprawls on the hearth rug emitting noxious gassy odors, and embarrassing the company by leaking foul dribbles and occasional smelly bits of ordure as he makes his unsteady way outside.

But as unpleasant and offensive as his presence often is... he remains a family pet, a fixture, and almost everybody in the household would miss him if he were gone.

DCM in FL said...

well, that depends on which version of PK drops by [same for MR]

sometimes it is their doppleganger/sock puppet[s]

but I can easily scroll right past 'em & ignore

Joe said...

Being from the NY 23rd, I can tell you that we're not used to all this attention.
We have very little here that our congressman can take advantage of to build political capital in DC. It takes a good politician with an ability to cross the isle to effectively represent us. The investment in our military base (Fort Drum) is key example of how John McHugh did that well, as a moderate republican.

If Hoffman wins he will be divisive and probably last only a year in the seat before the bubble is burst.

If the DEMS had run State Sen. Aubertine this race would be a lock for him, but they needed him to stay in the Senate with their slim majority. My hunch is if Hoffman wins tomorrow, Auburtine is the opponent in 2010.

Pragmatus said...

IMO I don’t think we’d solve anything by banning certain commenters. This was tried already in the past, when Fifi the Mule got so out of hand he was threatening to murder everybody.

Both Bart and Pete Kent are GOP spin doctors—not the worst thing to put up with. Pete’s stuff, I have learned from experience, will always be junk, so I skip it; Bart’s I skim, so miss probably 80% of what he says, but no harm done since it’s always just the same old talking points and spin.

George Taylor said...

@filistro

No, I'd wager that very few would miss him if he vanished.

I'm with malevole1. I read 538 because it's one of the few good value-added blogs around. Nate, et al., post interesting stuff with regard to polling and statistics especially, making it far superior to other blogs in which a blogmaster coughs up a few poorly considered opinions, and then commenters savage each other on the threads.

And whereas everyone is free to comment as they see fit, I do wish that more folks would practice some restraint when one of the usual trolls pops in to commandeer a thread with the same sort of pointless, factually inaccurate talking points that have been in circulation for what seems like forever.

---

@Joe

Your comment is the kind that I think is great--it provides insight into the matter at hand that is difficult to find elsewhere.

More Joes, fewer trolls please.

Jacob said...

@HappyGOPer

Speaking of infantile slurs, who is this "angry homosexual" you complain about?


Still, no point in screening out the trolls. Once you start to limit opinions, even hateful and useless ones like Pete Kent, the boundary of "acceptable" starts closing in and you're left with nothing but boring moderates.

Pragmatus said...

Happy GOPer…

You’re wrong about NY-23 trending Democratic based on Obama winning the district in 2008. You seem to be forgetting that the incumbent, a Republican, was returned to office in the same election with a 65% majority.

rubing: Turning a perfectly sensible person into an idiot.

Pragmatus said...

My nominee for Angry Homosexual, from last weekend’s Halloween festivities here in West Hollywood CA.

Mr. Universe said...

@Jacob

re: angry homosexual

We have a poster who is rather impassioned about gay rights (particularly after a couple of glasses of late night wine). His pedigree and education make for scathing commentary if you happen to be on the wrong side of the argument.

I'll take a dozen of him over PK, MR, & BDP any day.

Happy GOPer said...

Pragmatus,

Sure McHugh won with 65 percent. I am aware of that. He also has been in congress since 1992. But his popularity had much more to do with the fact that he was John McHugh than that he was a Republican.

But Mike Castle is popular in Delaware and won with 60 percent of the vote as well. That hardly has an bearing on any Republican running for the House - and because of the overall mood of the electorate, Castle's relative popularity notwithstanding, a Democrat is highly favored to win the seat.

Partisan Voting Index dominates much more in open seat contests.

Mike said...

filistro said...
No, Bart DePalma, I don't subscribe to every one of those principles. Hardly any of them, in fact. Nor do I think most of them have much place in the arena of politics or lawmaking.

For example, I don't believe my family is "sacred." (And if you attended our Thanksgiving dinner, you'd probably agree ;-)

I think the government (or society, if you like) has every right to force people to be charitable if the alternative is a country without a social safety net for the deeply unfortunate.

I believe the people DO, in many cases, answer to the government, which after all we have collectively empowered with the right to make and enforce laws.

Most passionately, I don't believe "God is the center of my life." I am a thoughtful, cheerful agnostic. It's perfectly all right for me to be agnostic. What's more, I will continue to deploy all my considerable energy and resources to defeat any and all politicians who seek to make THEIR God the center of MY life.
______

if you knew anything about Beck's 9 principles, you'd know that he doesn't believe you need to attest to all 9 of them to be part of the process. He said 6 was enough.

Secondly, the government has no moral right whatsoever to compel me, you, or anyone else to be charitable. It is a progressive abomination that flies in the face of the founding of this country. How can I be able to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when the government has that kind of power!

Mike said...

Mr. Universe said...
This is a huge victory for conservatives.

No, it is not. It has been a Republican spot for 150 years. No one expects the Democrat to pick it up. But if he does, you are forever to be ridiculed on this site. I am so hoping Owens pulls this off. And I don't even care about this little race.

____________

Emphasis mine. There is such a thing as a conservative Democrat you know? Do you think they're happy with the current liberal agenda being rammed down our throats by Congress? Is that per chance why Hoffman is running away with NY-23 ? (Ignore the poll results -- look at the trends; Hoffman is clearly surging in all the polls!)

Mike said...

malevole1 said...
Dissenting views = good for the site.

Calling the candidate "Scuzzobama" and other users "stupid libs" = damaging to the site.

__________

But right-wing kook-fringe nutjob is OK?

I see...

Ryan said...

Longtime reader, first time commenter. Glad to see the "First!" nonsense has been eradicated since I last read the comments on here. It's still a great site by the way Nate.

As a Libertarian, I am pleased with the events of NY-23. I do think it is a victory for conservatives, not necessarily Republicans. We've managed to force out a Republican pretender and put in someone who actually claims to have conservative values.
Although many of Hoffman's positions are far too militaristic for me.

filistro said...

Mike said: Secondly, the government has no moral right whatsoever to compel me, you, or anyone else to be charitable. It is a progressive abomination that flies in the face of the founding of this country. How can I be able to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when the government has that kind of power!

Oh, for goodness sake. You people are so wearying.

The government compels you to do all kinds of things from the very moment you wake up in the morning. You are required not to operate your lawnmower before breakfast. You fry up some eggs which have not been collected from your backyard, because you can't keep chickens in the city. You drive to work in your car which has to have a working muffler, and you'd better do up your seatbelt or it's going to cost you. Ditto for speeding through that school zone.

Get the picture? And you're just an hour into your day! So spare me all the impassioned paeans to "liberty."

In communal society liberty is ALWAYS curtailed.

And if your government compels you to share a bit of your wealth with your fellow man through taxes since you're too much of a hardhearted capitalist to do it voluntarily... well maybe they're just concerned with the eternal welfare of your immortal soul. (You're a Republican so I assume you believe you posess one of those, right?)

geek said...

The voter turn out is of more interest to me.
It will be interesting to see if the GOP base is alive or in hiding.

dsimon said...

Happy GOPer: It's R+1. A Democrat winning here in a normal environment in an open seat contest would be about even money.

That's speculation. There is a large "independent" contingent, and many of those "independents" may not be those who consider themselves "between" the two major parties but conservatives who refuse to affiliate themselves with Republicans. So the R+1 may be misleading depending on the makeup of the independents.

I'm really tired of the spin on NY-23. "It went for Obama, so a Democratic defeat would be devastating!" "It's majority Republican and has been so for over a century, so a Republican defeat would be devastating!" Truth is it's one district that's not representative of the nation in a quirky special election with specific candidates. It's not a referendum on anything, much less a national referendum. It is what it is, nothing more.

People are hungry for some proxy to gauge the national mood, and this is the only one of the few we have. But just because it's only one of the few doesn't mean it's a good one, nor are any of the others.

Sure, let's root for whomever we want to root for. But let's not pretend that it means much outside the preferences of those who happen to actually bother to vote in a single district tomorrow.

happycozy said...

It baffles me that Hoffman is ahead in the polls. He's not from the district. He doesn't seem to understand the issues and concerns of the people in that district. Outsiders--Sarah Palin and Dick Armey--are telling these voters who should be their rep. And Hoffman's pledged allegiance to Glenn Beck. I just can't help but believe that the majority of people, whether they're democrat, republican, or independent, are rational, and they would see that Hoffman is a trainwreck waiting to happen.

chas said...

My concern is that, with all the media and blogoshpheric focus on this single race, the import of the result will be blown out of proportion.

Fact is, this is one of the very few remaining conservative strongholds in the N.E. The last election was won by a Republican during a democratic sweep. This district has been held by Republicans since well into not just the last century, but the one before that. In the absence of some kind of split, this seat was always going to go to a conservative.

Had Scozza stuck around, it is possible that Owen could have snuck through the hole created by the republican split; in her absence, the polls make perfect sense - the undecideds in this conservative district will break conservatively, and Hoffman will win. Duh.

Unfortunately, given all the drama surrounding this podunk district in an off-year election, Hoffman's win will be trumpeted as some kind of conservative/republican resurgence, even though it was ALWAYS going to go to a conservative candidate - dem or republik.

Long term, this is good news for democrats. But tomorrow night, the coverage will be unwatchable.

happycozy said...

@ Chas: I think that was Nate's point yesterday: that right-wingers will feel embolden by this win--even though a conservative of some kind was always going to win in this district--and they will start purging the moderates from races that right-wing conservatives can't possibly win. This means the dems will sweep in 2010. It's sad that the only way Dems seem capable of winning elections is when the opponent is busy destroying itself or has screwed up so royally that even their own supporters hate them.

Mr. Universe said...

Again, I don't think voters in NY-23 are that dumb. They have been played by right wing conservatives. I think they will vote for the right people tomorrow. I don't think they will buy that Hoffman is that person. They know when they are being bamboozled.

Perhaps I'll eat crow but I don't think so.

DCM in FL said...

NATE

any prediction for the other special election today in CA-10 ?

how come no play at all on this one ?

just because it has a recent history of DEM winning, the 'odds' up front should have been just as strong that NY-23 would remain GOP since both districts had given the winning party over 60% in the 2008 election...

that would be comparing an apple to another apple - because IF CA-10 was to flip [or even be close] THAT would be a real story

but NY-23 NOT flipping should hardly be a story [unless the DEMs win or even come close]

this is all just a MSM & CON meme

please ADD CA-10 to the election watch list

Mike said...

filistro said...
Mike said: Secondly, the government has no moral right whatsoever to compel me, you, or anyone else to be charitable. It is a progressive abomination that flies in the face of the founding of this country. How can I be able to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when the government has that kind of power!

Oh, for goodness sake. You people are so wearying.

The government compels you to do all kinds of things from the very moment you wake up in the morning. You are required not to operate your lawnmower before breakfast. You fry up some eggs which have not been collected from your backyard, because you can't keep chickens in the city. You drive to work in your car which has to have a working muffler, and you'd better do up your seatbelt or it's going to cost you. Ditto for speeding through that school zone.

Get the picture? And you're just an hour into your day! So spare me all the impassioned paeans to "liberty."

In communal society liberty is ALWAYS curtailed.

And if your government compels you to share a bit of your wealth with your fellow man through taxes since you're too much of a hardhearted capitalist to do it voluntarily... well maybe they're just concerned with the eternal welfare of your immortal soul.
_____________

You make me sick. Physically.

1) I am a Libertarian.
2) I am an Atheist.
3) I probably donate more of my hard-earned income to charity (more than 30%) than anyone else on this forum.
4) The eggs I fry are from my neighbor's back yard.
5) I work from home.
6) I have no desire to mow my lawn at 6am, but if I did, I would, and no one would stop me. (You see, I don't live in one of your inner city, or suburban communes; I live in a place where people are still free!) On the other hand, if my neighbor had an objection to me mowing my lawn at 6am, he'd ask me nicely to stop, rather than calling the gestapo.

More importantly, the founders of this country didn't want us to suffer any of the government-imposed rules and regulations that you just listed. If you had done any study of this yourself, you'd know that. But you probably only listened to your teachers and read only the revisionist history books.

Oh, and btw...

6) I am an immigrant. Many parts of the world still see America as that shining city on the hill. And frankly, if you don't like what this country is supposed to stand for, the principles upon which it was built, you should get the hell out.

But no, you're a typical liberal, you know, the ones that always threaten to move to Canada, but never do. (Or, if the Canadians have any sense, they turn you away at the border.)

filistro said...

Good for you, Mike. I like you a lot better when I know that you actually live your principles.

It amuses me to see people who live in condos and work in cubicles, sporting Libertarian bumper stickers on their Volvos.

I like to think of you getting eggs from your neighbor :-)

Mr. Universe said...

Mike said,

You make me sick. Physically.

1) I am a Libertarian.
2) I am an Atheist.
3) I probably donate more of my hard-earned income to charity (more than 30%) than anyone else on this forum.
4) The eggs I fry are from my neighbor's back yard.
5) I work from home.
6) I have no desire to mow my lawn at 6am, but if I did, I would, and no one would stop me. (You see, I don't live in one of your inner city, or suburban communes; I live in a place where people are still free!) On the other hand, if my neighbor had an objection to me mowing my lawn at 6am, he'd ask me nicely to stop, rather than calling the gestapo.

More importantly, the founders of this country didn't want us to suffer any of the government-imposed rules and regulations that you just listed. If you had done any study of this yourself, you'd know that. But you probably only listened to your teachers and read only the revisionist history books.

Oh, and btw...

6) I am an immigrant. Many parts of the world still see America as that shining city on the hill. And frankly, if you don't like what this country is supposed to stand for, the principles upon which it was built, you should get the hell out.

But no, you're a typical liberal, you know, the ones that always threaten to move to Canada, but never do. (Or, if the Canadians have any sense, they turn you away at the border.)


Welcome to America. Welcome to diversity. Welcome to the freedom to have an opinion. And also welcome to the land where stupidity gets called out when it deserves to. I just called you out, dipshit.

I am:

1) Agnostic
2) Democrat
3) Fuck your 'holier than thou, I donate more to charity than you' bullshit.
4) I eat free range eggs
5) So?
6) We don't mow yards with gas guzzling mowers in my neighborhood (if we have lawns at all), we use push mowers so fuck your more sustainable than thou attitude. Besides, we respect our nieghbours to not disturb them at 6:00am.

Oh, and BTW,

6) [Because you can't count, dumbass.] Welcome to America. If you don't like it, GO THE FUCK BACK FROM WHERE YOU CAME!

filistro said...

Mr Universe.. LOL! It's easy to see how you won the title.

Okay, okay... maybe you didn't win Mr Congeniality (but I'm betting you were dynamite in the Speedo contest ;-) and I'm sure you would have done a whole lot better on this question.

Thanks for making my day.

Mr. Universe said...

MEMO TO: Joe Lieberman
FROM: America
RE: Your tenure

Hello, Joe,

You know, we didn't really understand Al Gore's selection of you as VP candidate in 2000 other than to placate the Jewish vote. Personally, I think you had a hand in losing that election.

You left the Democrat Party in 2006. Okay, that was a slap in the face but we understood that it was a politically expedient move.

You backed John McCain for President in 2008. Well, that was pushing the envelope. You really expect to maintain respect in the Democratic Party after that? But we forgave you. You caucus with us and John McCain is the least insane member of the Republicans. We respect him. Okay, you can keep your chairmanship on the Domestic Security Council.

2009. You threaten to filibuster health care reform after several failed attempts. You object to the public option. You want to kill the bill before it ever reaches the floor? You think maybe Lincoln and Nelson or Bayh will join you in this folly? Are you nuts? You think you will get yet another pass for this?

You will not. You should declare yourself a Republican now. Join the 'Party of NO' Get out of town. You have used up your political capital and you must now face the consequences that Judas faced. Because that is what you are: a Benedict Arnold, a turncoat. We are done with you, sir.

Mr. Universe said...

@filistro

I wouldn't dare to wear a speedo, as they are kinda gross. But I am sexy.

nkpolitics1279 said...

NY-23 is similar to NY-24- a +1 or +2 Republican District held by Moderate Republicans for 20 years. But Democrats have a 50-50 chance of winning.

shiloh said...

nkpolitics1279 said...
~~~~~~~~~~


Yeah, let's see how Democrats have been doing in this +1/+2 Rep NY district:

2008 - 35%
2006 - 37%
2004 - 29%
2002 - 0%
2000 - 23%
1998 - 21%
1996 - 25%
1994 - 18%
1992 - 21%
1990 - 38%
1988 - 25%
1986 - 0%
1984 - 29%
1982 - 28%

hmm, recently quite well, eh:

2008 - 35%
2006 - 37%
2004 - 29%
2002 - 0%


plus 1 or 2 Rep my ass!

take care

hunter429 said...

In one of the Siena polls the crosstabs showed that undecideds in the race had a 62% approval of President Obama. That was a good indicator they weren't going to break for Hoffman.