NY's 20th Congressional District Election Finally Over!

@anniepa (27279)
United States
April 25, 2009 12:45pm CST
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-ny-house-race,0,612158.story The special election for the 20th congressional district of New York finally ended after nearly a month. Democrat Scott Murphy has won and Republican James Tedisco has conceded. This district has over 196,000 registered Republicans as compared to just 125,000 Democrats. This election, for those of you who may have forgotten, was to replace the woman who replaced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate. Shortly before the election RNC Chairman Michael Steele had said this was an election the Republican should win and some pundits were pointing at it as an indication of the nation's direction. I'm really not sure how I feel about that but since this WAS the first Congressional election after November's strong Democratic victory it doesn't seem to bode well for the GOP. What say you? Anyone here from that district? I'd love to get your take on it. Annie
2 people like this
5 responses
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
25 Apr 09
All I've got to say is that it seems ridiculous that it took a whole month to count the absentee ballots. Whats up with that? Couldn't they take off their shoes and use their toes? I am sure that the people are glad that it is finally over!! Shalom~Adoniah
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27279)
• United States
25 Apr 09
I have no clue why it took so long to count the absentee ballots. My county was all paper ballots until a few years ago and we still always had the results by the next morning. I guess absentee ballots are little different and may take a little longer to count, but a MONTH!! Annie
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
25 Apr 09
There was some sort of bill passed shortly before the election allowing for additional time for absentee ballots to be received. I think that added two weeks to the waiting period. Also, most elections are decided without even counting the absentee ballots because the margin of victory isn't always that close. In this case they were poised to count every vote before announcing a winner because the count without absentee ballots was like a 60 vote difference.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
25 Apr 09
Just for comparison sake, it took about a month for Missouri and North Carolina to declare the winners of the presidential election in their states as well. Most people didn't notice or care because the electoral college had already given Obama the win.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
25 Apr 09
Even before this election I was saying that it was really meaningless. The turnout for these things is never that high and is not indicative of any national trends. Also, Murphy is not a very liberal democrat just like Gilibrand wasn't. He's a middle road kind of guy and I think the real trend right now is to get more moderates which is why Obama pretended to be moderate and bipartisan during the election.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27279)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I also thought they were giving more attention to this election than it merited as far as being indicative of a trend. I'm not sure how high the turnout ended up being. I think more voters are moderate than anything else but I think the GOP is trying to get rid of their moderates, like Arlen Specter of PA for example. I respectfully disagree with you about Obama "pretending" to be moderate. He really isn't that liberal either. Annie
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
26 Apr 09
"I think the GOP is trying to get rid of their moderates, like Arlen Specter of PA for example." I completely disagree. If that were true than the GOP's number one target would have been Norm Coleman. He used to be a democrat and his voting record last year was 45% democrat. In 2007 it was 50% democrat. I've also seen no attempt to oust moderate republicans like Hagel, Luger, or McCain. I think you know that the only reason they are trying to get rid of Specter is that he took the bribes/earmarks from the democrats to vote for the stimulus bill. Collins and Snowe from Maine are being opposed by the GOP for the same reason, but they can't be called moderate. They are democrats with an R next to their names. Their voting records are democrat 75% and 85% respectively. That's higher than most people who actually call themselves democrats. "I respectfully disagree with you about Obama "pretending" to be moderate. He really isn't that liberal either." He was the most liberal guy in the senate. In his most moderate year he voted 97% democrat. Since becoming president he has rammed through every bit of his agenda without any attempt at bipartisanship. Now he's using Reconciliation to fast track his agenda without even a chance at debate before voting with no bipartisanship. Please show me an example of his moderate behavior, besides the claims of it during his campaign.
• United States
25 Apr 09
I am not from that district, but I can tell you that I was so sick of all the bashing that went on with this election. It was nauseating! The election was very close but in the end it was clear who the winner was.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27279)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I can imagine how sick you were of it especially after just going through the never-ending Presidential campaign. Annie
@jonesy123 (3949)
• United States
25 Apr 09
Wow, they finally got the results? I don't know how many registered voters they have and how many actually voted. I find that more indicative of a trend than to compare how many registered voters are there for one party or another. Where I live, there are more registered republicans than democrats. Yet usually we have a governor from the democrats, just like now, although in the last presidential election this state went strongly for the republicans, also as usual. It's really hard to see a trend either way. This election was apparently very close. You have to keep in mind that the district before voted for Hillary Clinton and therefore was on the democrats side despite the fact that there is a majority of republicans registered there. And if I remember correctly, it wasn't this close with her. I can see how the republicans see this as a victory although their candidate lost. I can also see how the democrats claim this as a victory, seeing that their candidate won, lol. Personally, I think nobody really can read any trend into this election result.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27279)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I think you're right. I said before the election was held that both sides would put their spin on afterwards that their party had won unless it would have been a landslide either way, which it obviously was NOT. So here we have it - a Democrat won in a district with more registered Republicans but a Republican got very close to winning in a district that had gone for Hillary for Senate, for Obama and for a Democrat in their last Congressional election. It's trending for both sides...lol! Annie
@suspenseful (40312)
• Canada
25 Apr 09
I am waiting to see what America will be like in four years after a majority Democratic president, congress and senate. I do not think it will be the same America we in Canada have seen. But sometimes you get what you want even though it is not the right thing. I hope his Mr. Murphy is a good decent man and has good moral values and that he does not believe in spend, spend, spend. Because if he is not, then it does not look well for New York.
@anniepa (27279)
• United States
26 Apr 09
Hopefully the voters of N.Y. got a good enough look at both of the candidates to make informed decisions. I think American will be fine in four years. We'll never be perfect but hopefully the economy will improve for us and the rest of the world soon. Annie