NY-20: Gibson's extremist supporters, plus poll good news

Gibson is in a bind (4.00 / 8)

He can't present himself as a moderate, because that would antagonize his base and most of his volunteers.

Yet the moderate middle is where the votes are in NY-20.

---

by: devtob @ Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 14:53:01 PM UTC

And that is different than any other Republican House candidate how...? (4.00 / 2)

They are all in a bind. Unfortunately, there are districts where there is no bind. In those districts, they can't get enough crazy.

We've got some work ahead of us.

---

by: NYBri @ Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 15:42:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's Probably the Best Example (4.00 / 2)

NY-20's current significance can't be understated.  It's been a national battleground spotlight since 2006 when it was Gillibrand's win that tipped the balance of the House, and it was again after her appointment to the Senate and Scott Murphy's win against a major state Republican leader.  It will probably be a bellweather this year as well, where the divisive effects of the Tea Party on the Republican party will reveal themselves.

Y'know, I've had a strong feeling for a while now that America was ready for a third party coming down the pipeline in the early part of this century.  But I didn't expect it would be a hard-right wing organization.  That's a major historical change...third parties were usually pretty progressive in this country and even have their roots in the Capital Region that Murphy's district overlaps.  Interesting district to be in at this time...

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 14:56:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The majority of the people in that District are not "moderate" (0.00 / 0)

about PPACA: they HATE it.  It breaks a LOT of rice bowls.  Murphy should have gone with his instincts and voted against that bill.  I have heard that Gillibrand was hated in her caucus because she did things like vote for off shore drilling, but you are a REPRESENTATIVE, and if you can't represent your constituents, may be you should do something else.  

---

by: John Minehan @ Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 19:26:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have To Do More Than Represent (4.00 / 1)

If a representative's job is to do nothing more than "represent" the majority of the community, then there's no reason to have political parties or even elections since in theory whoever is in office will just vote the wishes of the constituents. May as well just have direct democracy, with the people themselves voting on every issue. The problem with that is that you'll have people voting for both tax cuts and spending increases and all sorts of "popular" measures that together are completely inconsistent and will lead to ruin (see the results of California ballot initiatives).

Agree or disagree, Edmund Burke said back in the 1700s: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Yes, if a representative takes too many tough votes that go against popular will, the people will replace that person with someone else, and rightly so. But representation requires leadership as well as sensitivity to local opinion, otherwise there's no point to having parties with different points of view. Arguments can be made, opinions can be changed, and lots of people don't vote on one issue alone.

(Also, sometimes there is no "majority" to represent. Suppose a third of constituents want to solve a budget problem by raising taxes but no other method, a third want to cut spending but no other method, and a third is fine with borrowing money but refuse to raise taxes or cut spending. This means that two-thirds of the community will oppose any proposal. Should the representative therefore vote no on everything?)

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 12:29:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you are a Democrat, elected in a heavily Republican District, you can, of (0.00 / 0)

course, support your party rather than your District.  Of Course, you only have a two year term.  Gillibrand was wise enough to buck her party where she had to to get re-elected.  (By some accounts, earning her emnity of the Speaker.)

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 21:29:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't Feed the Troll n/t (4.00 / 2)

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 14:01:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Didn't Answer The Question (4.00 / 1)

I'll ask it again: if the only job of a representative is to represent the majority view of the district and vote that way, why would it matter who is elected? Wouldn't anyone gets the nod then have to do whatever the constituents say? What would be the point of having elections, then?

---

by: dsimon @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 14:55:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Independents and Republicans (4.00 / 2)

have been voting Democratic in increasing numbers in the 20th district and across New York State as the national Republicans have moved farther and farther to the far right fringe. The lunatic fringe that is now taking over the Republican Party simply does not represent the values of my many reasonable, responsible and sane Republican neighbors. We welcome them to the Democratic Party. You may not agree with us always and we may not agree with you always but at least we live together on the same, sane planet and can discuss our differences respectfully, rationally and with the common goal of bettering the lives of all Americans and getting this country back on track.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 15:47:04 PM UTC

I think that is going to change. You have NO idea how (0.00 / 0)

unpopular PPACA is in the health care world.  It isn't even partisan; people HATE this bill.  

---

by: John Minehan @ Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 19:28:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's pretty unpopular among insurers, (4.00 / 1)

if that's who you consider "the health care world."  And that is a good thing.  

---

by: Roatti @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 20:30:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, the payors were bought off, try docs. (0.00 / 0)

Some support among PCPs, zero among other providers.

---

by: John Minehan @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 22:15:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I mean seriously (4.00 / 1)

PPACA is an extremely moderate, reasoned, no-brainer solution to serious health care problems.  Can you even name any part of it that you would repeal, except the insurance mandate?

---

by: Roatti @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 20:48:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about the effects on the Federal Health Care statutes, like the (0.00 / 0)

legislative overturn on Hanlester Network with regards to intent and AKS?

---

by: John Minehan @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 22:16:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, didn't think so (0.00 / 0)

too bad facts got in the way of your ideology

---

by: Roatti @ Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 23:52:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The facts are that this is a cruddy bill that won't control costs and has (0.00 / 0)

a lot of little hidden road apples.  Talk to your PCP or specialist about this bill.

---

by: John Minehan @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 22:18:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, we got our answer there. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: John Minehan @ Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 16:14:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Creepy ad (4.00 / 2)

I saw that creepy ad this morning and thought that if that is what they're going to try Murphy will soon be up by 30 points.

---

by: Wuwei @ Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 16:57:25 PM UTC

The TU reporter called (4.00 / 2)

the ad's script-readers "sneering seniors."

That's about right -- a bunch of angry, entitled, white Republicans.

---

by: devtob @ Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 17:26:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Entitlement! (4.00 / 2)

I like that how that framework totally turns things around.  It's true: Lots of conservative seniors, while they rail against "entitlement programs" must actually have some of the strongest feelings of entitlement in the world.  They think they can tell everyone how to live, want to keep all their money for themselves, and above all feel entitled to run this country no matter what the electorate says.  Nice framing breakthrough!

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 14:59:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's talk facts: they have paid in since 1966 and it is too (0.00 / 1)

late to make other arrangements.  Lots of Docs relied on the cash flow from Medicare patients (it used to pay w/in 45 days, like clockwork) and that looks like it is changing fast.  The health care reform effort was suicide for the Democrats.    

---

by: John Minehan @ Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 19:32:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too bad for Rand Paul n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 16:42:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If that ad is the best they can do (4.00 / 4)

the "60plus" will be the number of Democratic Senators in Washington.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 18:02:39 PM UTC

I love the "out of touch" comment that started the ad - (4.00 / 1)

that used to be a standard Republican meme - "out of touch" and "out of the mainstream."  Now, that meme applies to Republicans.

I've seen some Gibson posters around here, in the reliably Republican households, but not tons of signs.  

HylasBrook

---

by: HylasBrook @ Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 17:02:30 PM UTC

Please note that Siena (soon-to-be-Rep. Gibson's alma mater) (0.00 / 0)

also had Lazio as the winner over Paladino.  

Please note also that there were probably other reasons for Sweeney's loss in '06 than the quality of the Democratic candidate and that Treadwell had one issue, gas prices, which Gillibrand effectively neutered by voting for off shore drilling, against her caucus.

Please note also the number of people in the NY 20th who work for MVP, CDPHP and (the region's largest private employer) Albany Med, in addition to people who work in the medical device industry.  I work in an area related to the health care field: support for PPACA is LESS than nil.

Gibson will win.  It won't be close.  Gibson is an honerable man who will represent the district much more comfortably than Murphy, also a decent man but clearly less able to stand up to his leadership than Gillibrand, was able to do.  

---

by: John Minehan @ Sat Sep 18, 2010 at 19:21:49 PM UTC

Data? (4.00 / 1)

"Gibson will win.  It won't be close."

Anything other than speculation to back that up? Because the Siena poll from just last week has Murphy up over Gibson among likely voters 54-37. http://www.swingstateproject.c...

Polls can be wrong, but with numbers like that it's pretty strong language to claim that it won't even be close.

It would also be helpful to have something to back up the claim that people in the district hate the health care bill. Murphy is a sharp guy, and it's hard to imagine that he didn't know the sentiment in his district before he voted. (If the district was pretty split on the issue, which I believe was the case, then he'd have similar political consequences no matter how he voted.)

---

by: dsimon @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 12:38:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Murphy had a choice between his caucus and his constituents: he made (0.00 / 0)

the wrong choice.  It happens, politics is not a perfect world.

---

by: John Minehan @ Thu Oct 14, 2010 at 22:20:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It WASN'T close. "Those who have ears, let them hear." (0.00 / 0)

---

by: John Minehan @ Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 16:16:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your Two Cents Makes No Sense (4.00 / 3)

I fail to see why you continue to come here.  Nothing you've ever said has been based on hard fact.  Your view of what the facts really are is incredibly warped becaue you, like most other close-mided libertarian-conservatives, are completely averse to seeking out or respecting any dissenting opinion.

There's no poll numbers to support your assertation that Chris Gibson will win, just like dsimon points out.  You also provide no basis for your insinutation that the health care bill has "zero" support.  It's likely that you simply hang around with the same opinionated right-wingers and simply listen to this message pounded into your head on the Fox News and Talk Radio all day that you've fallen into the trap of simply believing what's repeated over and over.  You could very easily fact check these organizations, but you haven't because if you did you'd discover you were being lied to and manipulated.  Way to take advantage of your free will and liberty...

You cannot even appreciate the subtleties between the trustee and delgate approaches to democratic representation.  The pattern here is the same as all other mindless conservative: over simplificiation.  Running a healthy democratic republic is about more than just "majority rules."  If it were that simple, the Constitutional Convention would have taken five minutes instead of grueling on for several weeks in the summer swelter.

It's a good thing, too.  I shudder to think at what this nation would look like if your type ever achieved a true majority (as it stands, you represent about a fifth to a quarter of the population, that's it). Too many grown men and women these days are too easily brainwashed into simplistic thinking.  Here's a suggestion: burn your Ayn Rand books and re-read some Mark Twain and Charles Dickens.  It only took me a few runs through "A Christmas Carol" and "Huck Finn" to realize the morals of the stories: Don't Be A Greedy, Bigoted Conservative!

Fortunately, the wonders of Hollywood have packaged these messages into moving pictures, which a fewer number of brain cells to consume, which is quite accommodating to Randy-Paulie objectivists and conservatives.

Cheers!

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 15:56:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Murphy made a bad (hell, insane) call voting for PPACA. (0.00 / 0)

If you do not work in healthcare (the industry which is critical to the District) you do not know HOW unpopular it is.  Moreover, in my own conversations with Murphy at various events in 2009, it was pelucid he had problems with the Bill.  

I'm sorry this is going this way.  As a centerist Democrat in a state (cf. the Cuomo camnpaign) that is getting more concervative, he had a lot of potential.  However, I think he made his bed.  As for the Siena poll, did you see how much they missed on Lazio/Paladino?  

---

by: John Minehan @ Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 21:37:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's been a while since I worked in the healthcare (4.00 / 1)

industry, so it's entirely possible that I'm out of touch.  But your blanket statements are impossible to believe.

(I'll freely admit that the following is based on my limited knowledge of the details of the ACA:)

Most people are covered through employer-sponsored plans.  The changes to their coverage as a result of the ACA will be minimal.  Stands to reason that all those folks who work for the local insurance companies (the ones you claimed are against the ACA, above) are also mostly involved in employer-based plans.  So, again, they would be minimally affected by the legislation.

The biggest changes will be for people who buy individual coverage, and for people who are currently priced out of the market.  You know what?  Those people will be able to get better, cheaper coverage than what's available now.  How about if I make a blanket statement and say that the ACA will be hugely popular with that segment of the population?

The ACA is predicted to cover an additional 35 million Americans, and to be deficit neutral.  Keep talking about how unpopular that's going to be, and while you're at it, explain at length how you justify coming out against extending coverage to those 35 million people.

---

by: albany layman @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:26:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Both of my parents are in healthcare (4.00 / 1)

And, at least in the NYC area, the bill is not nearly as unpopular as you claim.  I'd say the bigger concern is that the bill is confusing and people are still sorting out the details.

---

by: BingChester @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 04:32:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, Where Is The Data? (4.00 / 3)

Anecdotes are not data. Where is your evidence that the health care bill is so wildly unpopular that it will cost Murphy his seat?

And yes, everyone had problems with the bill. If people held out for a perfect bill, nothing would ever get done. That's simply not how the process works. You vote for what you can get.

And all the polls missed on Lazio/Paladino. Turnout was unexpected, as sometimes happens in primaries. You can't point to one poll and say polls are bunk; they all miss occasionally, but they're closer to being right most of the time. Turnout will likely be closer to models for the general election--though it's possible they could all miss again.

But a poll is still 9 times out of 10 better than pure speculation. So again, where is your data? Murphy is not insane; indeed, he's very sharp (I've met him on several occasions). Do you think you know things he didn't?

---

by: dsimon @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 04:41:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you chose to represent a district, you have four options: (0.00 / 0)

1) vote your own beliefs and expect to lose if they diverge significantly from the district's;

2)  vote the district's beliefs and interests;

3)  vote your beliefs and change the district's beliefs and interests; and

4)  pick your fights intelligently, based on local politics  (see, e.g., Rep. Charlie Wilson).

Scott Murphy did option 1 and paid the price.    

---

by: John Minehan @ Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 16:22:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's so Great About This Poll (4.00 / 2)

Is the fact that it totally rebuts the notion that there is some huge Republican surge sweeping the country.  If that were the case, then you would expect to see Murphy starting out behind in a district in which the Republicans have a big edge in registration.  The fact that you don't see this tends to confirm something I have suspected, namely, that the Republican "surge" is largely a phenomenon of the South and other places that start out with a strong dislike of our current President (gee, I wonder what that could be based on?).

This race is still going to wind up being close, and we have work to do to make sure that Murphy holds on to the seat.  But it is very nice to see that we are not starting out in the hole.

---

by: prince nekhlyudov @ Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 14:09:32 PM UTC

Guess you were wrong about that one. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: John Minehan @ Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 16:22:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]