Snarky as I am being in the comments section of yesterday's post, I have to admit that conservatives have many reasons to be encouraged by the results of yesterday's election. Congratulations, y'all! Democrats will probably lose some seats in 2010 - certainly any chance of a supermajority.
Still, I wonder if they'll take away any lessons from NY-23 where they forced out the Republican Candidate and supported a far-right independent? He lost to a democrat. Here's the analysis of Erick Erickson at Redstate.com.
I'm thinking maybe I was a little hasty with that supermajority talk.Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Wednesday, November 4th at 12:04AM EST 145 CommentsThe race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens.
This is a huge win for conservatives.“Whaaaa. . . ?” you say.
First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.
I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.
4 comments:
What point do you think the author was trying to make?
Cause I don't think ya get it.
I think Erickson believes that it is a triumph that the people (I'm refraining from quote around that phrase) wrested the candidacy from the incompetent Republican establishment. I suppose that's true, and I also suppose that had Scossafava had been allowed to run, then a Democrat still would have won in that particular district.
The question is who would have lost by less?
Where did Erickson say "supermajority" again?
Obviously the supermajority observations were my own; I like to add my own comments. Otherwise I'd just be parroting the talking points of others, and we all know how dopey that is.
Post a Comment