It’s easy to forget, but Tuesday will be Election Day in two corners of the country.
In Nevada, residents of the 2nd congressional district will select their representative in Congress for the remainder of 2011 and 2012, choosing between Republican Mark Amodei, Democrat Kate Marshall, and two other candidates. Tim Fasano and Helmuth Lehmann.
Early voting has been brisk, with 20,038 registered Democrats, 32,068 registered Republicans, and 7,208 other voters casting ballots so far. That’s a healthy 12,030-vote margin for the Republicans, but there’s no guarantee that that translates to a 12,000-vote margin for Amodei.
Amodei’s closing negative ad compares Marshall’s cookie-cutter campaign rhetoric to that of some other well-known Democrats who aren’t polling well in this district these days:
And Amodei’s closing positive message is that “we’ve been promised recovery, and we’ve been given misery. Let’s send a message to Washington.”
A late-August poll from Democratic firm Public Policy Polling put Amodei ahead by only one, but there are signs that Washington Democrats are giving up:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s investment has been limited to a few field staffers dispatched from Washington. In truth, the party has all but given up on winning; early-voting numbers show a sluggish Democratic turnout, suggesting that Amodei is en route to a big win.
The two districts are mirror images of each other, in that Nevada’s is an R+5 while New York’s 9th congressional district, the district once represented by the infamous Anthony Weiner, is D+5 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. But Democrats seem nervous about the chances of their nominee David Weprin, who’s apparently barely head of GOP candidate Bob Turner. For what it is worth, a poll of 2,055 likely voters by Magellan Strategies shows Turner with a four-point lead over Weprin. Patrick Brennan, NRO’s 2011 William F. Buckley Fellow, laid out why Turner could be “the Scott Brown of Queens” here.
Redistricting will force New York to lose a congressional seat in the 2012 elections, and so it’s possible that the winner of this special election will find himself running against an incumbent next November.
It’s worth noting that special-election victories don’t always foreshadow the trend of the following elections; Democrats enjoyed special-election wins by Scott Murphy and Bill Owens in New York, Ted Deutch in Florida, and Mark Critz in Pennsylvania in 2009 and 2010 before getting thrashed in the 2010 midterms; the GOP won special elections with John Campbell and Brian Bilbray in California in 2005 and 2006, and then went on to lose the House and Senate in 2006. But a GOP sweep on Tuesday would help set the conventional wisdom that 2012 is shaping up to be a tremendously difficult year for the Democrats.
Those districts are not mirror images of each other. Cook PVI is based on the results of the last two elections, so with Obama +6 and Kerry -2, R+5 is 54-46 and D+5 is 56-44.
The ECHO ad is terrific. The concept could be used anywhere that Obama is unpopular. I'm in Missouri. McCaskill is very vulnerable and Obama is very unpopular. It would work here. McCaskill was very big on Obama on 2008.
Re the race for the Weiner seat -- This is my district, having lived here since Chuck Schumer handed it off to Anthony Weiner. Just as a measure of Democratic concern for this race, we get 2-3 polling calls on this race every single weeknight. In 25 years here, I had never previously been polled.
Just on a purely anecdotal level, there are a large number of Orthodox Jews in this district and they seem to be very mobilized AGAINST Weprin, who is also Orthodox.
You can certainly judge the concern, but I wouldn't read much more into it.
If Weiner hadn't resigned, this seat would've stayed safely Dem. They ran a bad candidate who campaigned badly. The GOP found a good enough candidate who connected with the voters.
But that guy wouldn't beat Weiner.
So, good luck to the district and I hope the GOP gets the seat and he serves honorably.
Wait, I vaguely remember hearing some similar language after another election. I think it was in Mass. for a certain Senator. As I recall, the only reason Mr. Brown won was because of a bad candidate and a terrible manager coupled with a strong Republican candidate. But wait, didn't the Tea Party start just weeks after in opposition to Mr. Obama. Clearly, history wont repeat itself because Weiner is just a weak candidate.
No sane person would elect Obama and his Democrat buddies. They lost their power over the media - that's the difference, and with that power they lost everything.
18% that call themselves liberal can't lord is over the rest. One of these days blacks will wake up to the fact that the party of Jim Crow, the KKK and lynchings has not changed, and is still sticking it to black people. And Latinos - watch it because the Democrats will do the same thing to you they did to African Americans - you want permanent empoverishment, de-education and no family? The become Democrats!
Weiner's seat, if it goes Republican after decades, would serve as the dead canary in the coal mine for Dems indicating a truly toxic environment for 2012.
The voters of NY-9 have a unique opportunity to send a message to Obama. A message that just says NO to 9.1% UNEMPLOYMENT, NO to Record Long Term UNEMPLOYMENT, NO to massive nation destroying levels of debt, NO to more Solydras and other wasted spending on special interests, NO to "Son of Stimulous"! Maybe if they tell Obama NO, they can still stop another $500 billion being added to our debt and damaging our economy?
I assume you are unemployed, Valwayne, right? Or else what in the world would you have to complain about compared to someone who is? If you are unemployed, you have a reason to have a beef with the current crop of politicians. Please remember, that the president has precious little to do with creating jobs unless you'd like him to increase the White House staff. Bank of America, on the other hand, despite the recent $5 billion investment of Warren Buffett in the company, has just announced it's cutting 30,000 jobs. How is this a positive contribution to the future of the country and why shouldn't they be held accountable? Please send your complaint to them.
Wait, I don't get it -- if I have a job. I shouldn't feel compassion for those who do not, nor expect our leadership to do what they can to help create a climate where businesses can hire more folks? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Bunk! The president can and does have a great impact on jobs. It's through regulation and tax policy. Under this president, the number of regulations are going through the roof. Additionally, other things such as Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, NLRB, EPA's war on carbon , the oil drilling moratorium, and other such bills, policies and decisions have made for a very unfriendly business climate. Businesses typically will not invest in such an environment.
Well Gnirol I agree with Valwayne and I'm definitely employed. You're right in that the President doesn't control the economy but he has great influence on public policy. Without Obama's pressure, Obamacare would have never passed. Likewise, he controls the crushing regulation on businesses that's costing billions. It is Obama that continues to call for additional taxes on everyone. The effect of all this is that business and consumers are paralyzed with uncertainty contributing to economic stagnation. You go right on believing that Obama is simply an innocent bystander in our current problems and we'll see if the voters agree with you come next November.
"the president has precious little to do with creating jobs"
I figured by now the coolaide had all been drank up by the left but there seems to be a little left. Are you serious in saying the President has Precious little to do with Job Creation? The President has everything to do with Job creation,It is his job to create an environment where corporations and small business can hire, that's you lefties problem you just do not get it, the free market economy that is. If the President instills confidence in the employers that we will regain our prominence among Nations, and pull us out of this debt, they will hire, you see they do not see this in your guy, he tried to learn on the job, and all the mirror MLK speech repeating he did in college did get him elected, Slick in no longer Clinton's term, O' won that one easy, this guy can give a speech and at the end, endorse both sides of the issue, Let's face it, he's a vote Present guy, because he like he said is way over his pay grade. He's toast come November, then we will see if a President can influence Job creation......oh you lefties
Bank of America's job is to make a profit: produce more goods than they consume. If they have to many employees to do so then the best thing they can do for the economy is to get rid of them. Maybe the BofA layoffs are related to the Buffett investment ... he hates inefficiency.
Right off the top of my head I can think of 60,000 direct jobs that Obama has already eliminated by his moratorium on petroleum exploration in offshore waters. Add to that the 1,000,000 or so direct jobs that cannot be created while he continues to prevent activities such as building of the Keystone pipeline and development of mineral resources on federal lands. There'd be another 200,000 or so new jobs in a hurry if Obama would get off the dime and move the country decisively in the direction of encouraging and approving the building of new nuclear plants including the safest new designs. Other than his power to prevent economic activity, no, he doesn't do much about jobs.
that's a great idea! in fact, we should pass a law that says bank of america not only has to keep all those employees, they have to hire 100,000 more! And pay them all $500,000 a year! Why didn't anyone else think of that!
President Obama does have direct decision on some jobs. Ask engineers and scientists who will have travel to and from the International Space Station aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
Those districts are not mirror images of each other. Cook PVI is based on the results of the last two elections, so with Obama +6 and Kerry -2, R+5 is 54-46 and D+5 is 56-44.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe ECHO ad is terrific. The concept could be used anywhere that Obama is unpopular. I'm in Missouri. McCaskill is very vulnerable and Obama is very unpopular. It would work here. McCaskill was very big on Obama on 2008.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat first ad was fantastic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe the race for the Weiner seat -- This is my district, having lived here since Chuck Schumer handed it off to Anthony Weiner. Just as a measure of Democratic concern for this race, we get 2-3 polling calls on this race every single weeknight. In 25 years here, I had never previously been polled.
Just on a purely anecdotal level, there are a large number of Orthodox Jews in this district and they seem to be very mobilized AGAINST Weprin, who is also Orthodox.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can certainly judge the concern, but I wouldn't read much more into it.
If Weiner hadn't resigned, this seat would've stayed safely Dem. They ran a bad candidate who campaigned badly. The GOP found a good enough candidate who connected with the voters.
But that guy wouldn't beat Weiner.
So, good luck to the district and I hope the GOP gets the seat and he serves honorably.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope so too. Just leave the pants pulled up and the GOP should do ok.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait, I vaguely remember hearing some similar language after another election. I think it was in Mass. for a certain Senator. As I recall, the only reason Mr. Brown won was because of a bad candidate and a terrible manager coupled with a strong Republican candidate. But wait, didn't the Tea Party start just weeks after in opposition to Mr. Obama. Clearly, history wont repeat itself because Weiner is just a weak candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEnough about beating Weiners! We all know the Dems are lemmings. Barney Frank got re-elected for goodness sake...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo sane person would elect Obama and his Democrat buddies. They lost their power over the media - that's the difference, and with that power they lost everything.
18% that call themselves liberal can't lord is over the rest. One of these days blacks will wake up to the fact that the party of Jim Crow, the KKK and lynchings has not changed, and is still sticking it to black people. And Latinos - watch it because the Democrats will do the same thing to you they did to African Americans - you want permanent empoverishment, de-education and no family? The become Democrats!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWeiner's seat, if it goes Republican after decades, would serve as the dead canary in the coal mine for Dems indicating a truly toxic environment for 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe voters of NY-9 have a unique opportunity to send a message to Obama. A message that just says NO to 9.1% UNEMPLOYMENT, NO to Record Long Term UNEMPLOYMENT, NO to massive nation destroying levels of debt, NO to more Solydras and other wasted spending on special interests, NO to "Son of Stimulous"! Maybe if they tell Obama NO, they can still stop another $500 billion being added to our debt and damaging our economy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI assume you are unemployed, Valwayne, right? Or else what in the world would you have to complain about compared to someone who is? If you are unemployed, you have a reason to have a beef with the current crop of politicians. Please remember, that the president has precious little to do with creating jobs unless you'd like him to increase the White House staff. Bank of America, on the other hand, despite the recent $5 billion investment of Warren Buffett in the company, has just announced it's cutting 30,000 jobs. How is this a positive contribution to the future of the country and why shouldn't they be held accountable? Please send your complaint to them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait, I don't get it -- if I have a job. I shouldn't feel compassion for those who do not, nor expect our leadership to do what they can to help create a climate where businesses can hire more folks? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBunk! The president can and does have a great impact on jobs. It's through regulation and tax policy. Under this president, the number of regulations are going through the roof. Additionally, other things such as Obamacare, Dodd/Frank, NLRB, EPA's war on carbon , the oil drilling moratorium, and other such bills, policies and decisions have made for a very unfriendly business climate. Businesses typically will not invest in such an environment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell Gnirol I agree with Valwayne and I'm definitely employed. You're right in that the President doesn't control the economy but he has great influence on public policy. Without Obama's pressure, Obamacare would have never passed. Likewise, he controls the crushing regulation on businesses that's costing billions. It is Obama that continues to call for additional taxes on everyone. The effect of all this is that business and consumers are paralyzed with uncertainty contributing to economic stagnation. You go right on believing that Obama is simply an innocent bystander in our current problems and we'll see if the voters agree with you come next November.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the president has precious little to do with creating jobs"
I figured by now the coolaide had all been drank up by the left but there seems to be a little left. Are you serious in saying the President has Precious little to do with Job Creation? The President has everything to do with Job creation,It is his job to create an environment where corporations and small business can hire, that's you lefties problem you just do not get it, the free market economy that is. If the President instills confidence in the employers that we will regain our prominence among Nations, and pull us out of this debt, they will hire, you see they do not see this in your guy, he tried to learn on the job, and all the mirror MLK speech repeating he did in college did get him elected, Slick in no longer Clinton's term, O' won that one easy, this guy can give a speech and at the end, endorse both sides of the issue, Let's face it, he's a vote Present guy, because he like he said is way over his pay grade. He's toast come November, then we will see if a President can influence Job creation......oh you lefties
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBank of America's job is to make a profit: produce more goods than they consume. If they have to many employees to do so then the best thing they can do for the economy is to get rid of them. Maybe the BofA layoffs are related to the Buffett investment ... he hates inefficiency.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight off the top of my head I can think of 60,000 direct jobs that Obama has already eliminated by his moratorium on petroleum exploration in offshore waters. Add to that the 1,000,000 or so direct jobs that cannot be created while he continues to prevent activities such as building of the Keystone pipeline and development of mineral resources on federal lands. There'd be another 200,000 or so new jobs in a hurry if Obama would get off the dime and move the country decisively in the direction of encouraging and approving the building of new nuclear plants including the safest new designs. Other than his power to prevent economic activity, no, he doesn't do much about jobs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethat's a great idea! in fact, we should pass a law that says bank of america not only has to keep all those employees, they have to hire 100,000 more! And pay them all $500,000 a year! Why didn't anyone else think of that!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePresident Obama does have direct decision on some jobs. Ask engineers and scientists who will have travel to and from the International Space Station aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse