Wag the Blog Redux: NY-20 as Referendum
The (still) unresolved special election in New York's 20th district has lent itself to all sorts of analysis about what the vote meant and why.
Some argued that the election signaled a continued rejection of the Republican brand, noting that the Upstate seat had a 71,000 person GOP registration edge that should have guaranteed a victory for state Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R).
Others countered that the district is far more of a tossup -- pointing to President Barack Obama's victory there in 2008 -- and see some evidence that Republicans have bottomed out and are on the march back albeit slowly.
We put the question to Fixistas and culled through the responses for the best of the best. You can find them below.
A quick update on where the race stands: According to the New York Board of Elections, Tedisco currently holds a 24 vote lead over venture capitalist Scott Murphy (D) as the counting of thousands of absentee ballots continues.
Good For Democrats
"The results are not quite meaningless as many are saying. In this normally rural and conservative district, the expected result would have been a Republican sweep....Thus, the fact that Tedesco performed so poorly is evidence that the Republican cause is still stuck in the cellar in the Northeast." -- Posted by: jm917
"It is a big win for the Dems, because, even if Murphy loses, he pointed the way for the Dems to run against Rush 'n Bush 'n Right wing Gush. Wearing any of those albatrosses is enough to take down even a well established pol like Tedisco." -- Posted by: ceflynline
Good For Republicans
"Yes, Obama won this district and Gillibrand won easily despite a serious opponent in Sandy Treadwell. I wouldn't put a number on it but Democrats would have been more likely to hold an open seat last November than now." -- Posted by: kywddavid1
"This race was meaningless because special elections are always meaningless. Because special elections have much lower turnout and much more hype than regular elections, you can't compare them." -- Posted by: Blarg
"I don't think it means anything except that party registration figures may not be a good guide to predicting elections." Posted by: RickJ
Posted by: mattintx | April 10, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: capemh | April 10, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: newbeeboy | April 10, 2009 7:51 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 9, 2009 11:58 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: thecorinthian | April 9, 2009 11:30 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 9, 2009 11:20 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.