Republican Bob Turner, in a political nail-biter, snagged a House seat tonight in New York’s Ninth District, which straddles Brooklyn and Queens. The Big Apple special election, of course, was called after Anthony Weiner resigned. Turner’s victory gives the GOP two seats in New York City boroughs, following Michael Grimm’s win last year on Staten Island. Democrats, to no one’s surprise, are already shushing Republicans for calling the race a referendum on President Obama. They’re right — to a point. Voters in the district, where Democratic registration outnumbers Republican three-to-one — have indeed soured on Obama. But the election was shaped by a variety of factors, local and national, not just the president’s unpopularity. Here are five lessons learned.
Candidates matter. Since 2009, New York has endured a flurry of special House elections. And from Dede Scozzafava to Jane Corwin, Republicans have struggled to field strong contenders. Bob Turner, at first blush, seemed to be more of the same — a 70-year-old grandfather and businessman with tea-party ties. Democrats, for their part, nominated a well-known state assemblyman, David Weprin. Yet it was Turner, a former television executive, who excelled on the trail. Credit his success to his experience: He ran as a sacrificial lamb against Weiner last cycle, and it wasn’t for naught — he garnered 40 percent of the vote and built his name recognition, which made him a sharp, well-known candidate for this compressed campaign. Weprin, on other hand, stumbled under the spotlight. He was unimpressive in editorial interviews and flat on the stump. In these blue-collar New York neighborhoods, intangibles carry weight.
Advertisement
National security matters. In early 2010, Scott Brown launched an improbable bid for the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. The Bay State Republican railed against Obamacare, to be sure, but he also made a strong national-security case. In a sense, it’s a backdoor way to victory in blue states, where Republicans, if they lead with conservative policy ideas, face frowns. In NY-9, Bob Turner did the same, riding the anti-Obama wave, but placing a major emphasis on national security. The bet paid off: Turner was able to cobble together a coalition of Republicans, independents, and, most important, Democrats frustrated with Obama’s foreign-policy positions. Ed Koch, a Democrat and former New York mayor, endorsed Turner, mostly due to his dissatisfaction with Obama’s handling of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Rudy Giuliani also signed on. In a district with a strong Orthodox Jewish community, Turner, a Catholic, found a way to beat one of the bloc’s better-known political figures — he underscored his commitment to Israel and tied Weprin to a president seen by many Jews as unpredictable, to say the least.
Marriage matters. Democrats may think the debate is over, but in a district they’ve held for decades, it is a hot-button issue, and may have cost David Weprin a seat in Congress. Orthodox Jewish leaders hold major sway in Brooklyn and Queens and many of them campaigned against Weprin for supporting same-sex marriage, which was legalized by the state legislature in June. Queens assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Democrat, endorsed Turner due to Weprin’s vote. Sensing opportunity, the National Organization for Marriage poured thousands into the district. And the polls encouraged them: One Public Policy Polling survey showed district voters opposing same-sex marriage, 45 percent to 41 percent. PPP’s numbers also showed that nearly 30 percent of locals viewed marriage as a deciding factor. In an interview with an Orthodox Jewish news outlet, Weprin, on the ropes, fumbled, awkwardly tiptoeing away from the law. He may have convinced a scattering of conservative Democrats to stick with him, but he let down his base, generating ire from his Democratic colleagues for questioning, of all things, the procedure used to pass the bill. “I find this offensive,” complained one Democratic state senator. “Once people think you’re not being honest about your position, then they question all of your positions.” Turner, who spent months reaching out to rabbis and their flocks, cleaned up.
Obama remains a liability for Democrats. There will be much debate in coming days about the extent to which the president was a factor in NY-9, but the poll numbers and final results should signal trouble for the White House. As Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.) noted in conversation with reporters this week, the race was “closer than we would have liked or hoped.” Weprin didn’t even get a jobs-speech bump. Obama won 55 percent of the vote here three years ago, but these days, due to the sagging economy and his disconnect with conservative Jews, he is losing ground not only in swing regions, but in such longtime Democratic strongholds as NY-9. The number has flipped: A McLaughlin poll released earlier this month shows Obama’s disapproval at 55 percent. Democrats can’t say they didn’t try: In the final days, they poured a half-million dollars into the district and Bill Clinton attempted to rouse liberals to the polls. It wasn’t enough, and Weprin, more than anyone, didn’t want the president’s help. Weprin’s (and Democrats’) uneasiness with Obama was captured in one infamous interview, in which he said, with utter seriousness, that he “will probably not refuse to endorse him.” That kind of comment, from an elected big-city Dem, must make David Plouffe squirm.
Republicans should not ignore New York. For many New York conservatives, Jim Buckley’s 1970 Senate victory was a high point — the last high point. They should stop being so nostalgic. Turner’s victory is far from an Empire State anomaly. It’s one of a slew of districts that has trended right in recent years. Sure, the state GOP, when it comes to special-election circuses, has often misfired. But beyond their frequent mismanagement and low cash flow, Republicans are actually winning seats, building a strong base for 2012. Turner is part of that story, as are Grimm, Nan Hayworth, Chris Gibson, Ann Marie Buerkle, Tom Reed, and Richard Hanna — all Republicans who won House seats last year across the state, from the Southern Tier to the North Shore. GOP leaders, in both Washington and Albany, should pay attention.
— Robert Costa is a political reporter for National Review.
I thought the same thing, but then I remembered the vote totals I saw this morning at 6 AM -- the margin was less than 5,000 votes out of roughly 32,000 cast.
Those vote totals scared me: the district has roughly 500,000 people in it, and 32,000 showed up to select their congressman? Apathy run amok.
It looked like someone had organized a special school board election.
Has anyone seen or talked to a "moderate" Democratic politician lately? One who at least accepts economic fact and is strong on national security? I can't think of a single Democrat who fits the bill. There must be some but I can't bring them to mind.
I ask because I think a lot of blue states, especially in the Midwest, are chock full of such moderate Democratic voters. These are people with whom I disagree on some issues but with whom I can carry on a mutually respectful conversation about nearly anything.
In short, these are reasonable people, and I think they're reachable by the Republican Party so long as the Party sticks to economics and national security. There is simply no plausible Democratic alternative out there. The outcome in New York further reinforces that I'm correct in my assessment.
The principle problem with NY's (New York) Republican Party is that many of its members are RINO's (Republicans in name only.)
SSM never should have been allowed to come up for a vote in NY this year given that the Republicans held sway over the NY Senate, but vote they did; and in opposition to their stated core values.
The principle reason why the Repubs were able to get control of the NY Senate was the parties stated opposition to marriage corruption.
We the people appear to be giving the Repubs one last chance to demonstrate that they truly believe in what they preach; that they do not belong to the same elitist good ole boyz club as the left - a club that has lost its connection with its humanity.
Randy E King: As a happily married hetereosexual male, I ask you: are gays not part of "humanity"? The "RINO's" you speak of know that SSM is a non-starter in NY, they are better off to fight with values on the economy (where they might be able to win over some minds). The religious stuff just does not work for Republicans in Blue States. The Presidential candidate might want to take note of that fact should they wish to get those swing votes.
When you have to redefine words just to lend an appearance of acceptability to your pathology you have to know that you are on the wrong side of this debate.
Perverts are not a species unto themselves.
The special election recently held in NY was all about an 'orthodox Jews" support of an activity that his faith stands in opposition to. 40 Rabbi's stated that a vote in opposition to marriage corruption was a vote in accordance with the Jewish faith.
The "religious stuff" is what just carried the day in NY.
I have seen the wreckage that moderate GOP members have done to the NYS party first-hand. I grew up surrounded by their empty brand of leadership, devoid of any purpose other than their own power.
It's no different than the good-ole-boy network in places like Arkansas, where the voters are as conservative as it gets but they continually vote for their great-great-great granddaddy's political party.
I still live in a county controlled by it, but not for much longer. The county will swing left, and then give a more conservative GOP one more chance, like voters have done nationally.
Gerrard is wrong -- most of the GOP senators who voted for SSM won't be sent back to Albany. Same sex marriage is not at all a "non-starter" anywhere in the country.
I don't even think moderate GOPers are in favor of SSM, although they're not really opposed to it, either.
They are, in the end, just like Mitt -- a little insecure on the playground, so they'll say whatever and do whatever just to be accepted by everyone. That is what they care about the most -- reassurance that they are likable.
Likability -- not really a motivating force to place people in leadership.
They'd be more conservative, if it didn't mean uncomfortable conversations at the suburban school soccer games and bake sales.
So they play half-moon cookie. Liberal when they think a particular issue's wind blows in that direction, and conservative on issues like national security.
Really inspiring non-ideology they have, huh?
"Better to watch the country go down the tubes with, my dear."
I wonder how Mr. Gerrard explains the loss on the ballot of SSM in a northeastern state (was it Maine?) where "religious ideas" had no discernable impact on the final vote?
Most of the polls I've read on the subject indicate that the argument is not whether homosexual contractual unions should be recognized by the state. The majority of the argument centers on the idea of redefining marriage to be more than "one man and one woman".
The transparent goal of enshrining SSM into law is to mainstream homosexuality as culturally "normal". It has nothing to do with rights or benefits.
Skelos should never have allowed this to come up for a vote. It was also several Democrats - such as Joe Addabbo - switching their vote to pro gay marriage - that sealed the deal. Democratic State Senator Ruben Diaz stood alone among the Demos in opposing gay marriage.
tractorboy was right on (at least for NY-9): you challenge Israel, you lose this seat. That doesn't really apply most other places where Democrats are in place already.
bobbalouie: you also are partially correct. There are many moderate Democrat votes for the taking, who are very much concerned with the economy and perhaps to a lesser extent, national security (i.e. security within the United States, not starting wars overseas). In the time of Reagan, Bush I and even Bush II (of 2000 vintage), those votes could be had. But in 2011, the Republican Party has gone so far right, hijacked by the Tea Party with presidential candidates that dismiss intelligence and science, those votes are unattainable. It's a shame.
Any Democrat who believes that talking point is generally true about the current Republican Party should have their right to vote rescinded based on a clear case of mental incompetence.
And what "science" do you think the Republican Party generally (and the Tea Party specifically) "dismisses"?
They dismiss almost ANYTHING scientific and environmental that challenges commerce and big business, and they dismiss anything scientific that doesn't fit in with either their own fundamentalist Christian beliefs or those of the base that they are trying to pander to. Moderate Democrats are willing to hear the BEST solutions on the ecomomy, but may not feel so assured when certain candidates (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum) still believe that the Earth is flat and is only 5000 years old.
5k years ago the word was handed down to Abraham; prior to that time man wondered since the time of Adam and Eve when the word was lost.
If you are going to attack the principles and values that this nation was built on at least have the common decency to do so from an honest perspective. Biggest problem I have with the Marxist left is that they are demanding the right to use our God given gift of freedom to deny us access to the source of our freedom.
"It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins"
"certain candidates (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum) still believe that the Earth is flat and is only 5000 years old."
Prove this statement in it's entirety. You can't because it's a lie and you know it.
If you want to see people ignore science, you need look no further than environmentalists, who react emotionally to almost any problem. They always seek to pin the blame on humans. In the long term, they are almost always wrong.
To go further, should we talk about the heritability of intelligence? Which party denies "The Bell Curve" when it comes to women's intelligence or that of the races? Which party tends to be filled with the moonbats who refuse to immunize their children? Give me a break on this garbage.
Meanwhile, so what if the world is 6000 years old or 6,000,000,000 years old? I believe it's 4,500,000,000 years old, but, how does that effect anything, like jobs, soft tyranny, crony capitalism and the nanny state? The same can be said of evolution, which I personally believe in, but clearly has it's own set of problems and does not address ambiogenesis.
As to the economy, "BEST solutions" is laughable, since the current administration is relying on people affiliated with one school of economics. There are many economic theories. Economics is not the science that liberals would like to think it is. Sorry, that's just reality. Supply-siders still abound, but the president doesn't believe in supply-side, so he ignores them.
On vaccinations, which party is trying to bring down its own on HPV just because it has a connection to ... "girls and sex". Seriously, the hyprocrisy is mind-boggling: "government needs to be out of people's lives .. unless it involves things we oppose like a woman's right to choose or gay people getting married", "people should be free to live their lives .... unless it involves that icky thing caled sex."
Steven, you try to make the case that the Republican Party has moved too far to the right - and yet, in case after case, it is moderate Democrats and Independents that find refuge there and swing these elections to the Republican column.
I think a much larger problem is that the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left, many of its members that were thought to be moderates consistently marching in lockstep with the far-left wing of the Party, as represented by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, on vote after vote.
To the extent that there are any moderates left in Washington, most of them sit on the Republican side of the aisle. To use an old saw, these new people voting for Republicans haven't left the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party has left them.
Follow
