Pelosi Says The Democrats Won Last Night

Last night was a bad night for Democrats. After storming in and taking Virginia last November, they lost the state by a huge margin. In New Jersey, where being a Democrat is a birthright, Corzine lost pretty big to Chris Christie.

In New York’s 23rd District, the Democrat beat the Conservative party candidate and this has Pelosi happy. She even used a little revisionist history to express her glee:

“From our perspective, we won last night,” the California Democrat told reporters during a Wednesday photo op. “We had one race that we were engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War. And we won that seat. So, from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people.” Politico [emphasis mine]

Maybe I am not that familiar with US History but I am sure that the Civil War took place from 1861-1865. So, according to the Facelift Queen, no Democrat has held the seat Democrats just won since then. The problem with that is that a number of Democrats have held the seat there since 1945 or 80 years after the Civil War ended.

  • Walther Lynch 1945-1951
  • Sidney Fine 1951–1953
  • Peter Peyser 1973-1977
  • Samuel Stratton 1983-1989
  • Michael McNulty 1989-1993

There were other Democrats who held the seat during this time.

It was a good win for the Democrats but it is not relevant. They already have more than enough votes to pass what they want and the guy who won is reportedly a fiscal conservative (or Blue Dog) so he might not vote the way she wants. In addition, he has to run for reelection in a year so he can’t afford to tick off his new bosses (his constituents for you liberals). I am not worried about him winning. If a liberal is going to win then I would prefer it be a real Democrat and not a RINO like Scozzafava who was more liberal than the Democrat. Ideology over party.

Pelosi can be happy but the bigger picture is the loss if Independents in Virgina and New Jersey. If this trend continues then Democrats in red states are going to have a tough time next year.

They have to be nervous right now so will they be willing to walk the plank for Pelosi and risk their jobs?

We will know in the next few weeks and in less than a year we will know how their decisions affected them.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

27 Responses to “Pelosi Says The Democrats Won Last Night”

  1. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “The problem with that is that a number of Democrats have held the seat there since 1945 or 80 years after the Civil War ended.”>>

    DAR
    Curious why this claim about republicans holding it since the civil war is cited all over if it’s so incorrect. For instance:

    “It is the 23rd Congressional District, which has been represented by Republicans since the Civil War.”

    US News and World Report, Oct 28.

    As your wiki link shows, it has often been “redistricted” to and from the 21, 22, 24, 25th districts. So perhaps this claim only refers to it as currently constituted?

    D.
    —————-
    The spin: “Fox & Friends graphic says, “Republicans’ hope rekindled; Wins send shockwaves thru Congress””

    The reality: “In fact, Democrats won the nation’s only two congressional races”

    • Blake says:

      If that was the case, then the claim “since the civil war” wouldn’t apply, correct?
      And don’t dis the Governors- it is a start, and until Hussein brings in his shock troops and eliminates State’s Rights completely, Governors still retain the power to say no to the Federal Government on some matters.

  2. Adam says:

    I don’t see how it was a bad night for the Dems. It wasn’t a real great night for either party considering what was won and lost. But the GOP has to feel better in general than the Dems.

    Virginia has been a red state in many ways. Obama won it by just 5% or 200,000 votes. There was no expectation to win in the final weeks there so it wasn’t an upset.

    If there was a big blow it was Jersey but just barely. It’s just the Governorship. Dems wanted it of course but the seat is changing hands for the 9th time in 10 years, 5 of which have been Republicans. It’s not exactly a shocking development to and it was a pretty close finish either way, just a matter of 100,000 votes.

    Pelosi’s point is simply that House seats matter more than Governors right now for the Dems. It was a lot bigger upset in NY-23 than you make it out to be. This takes away the ability of many folks to call it a negative referendum on Obama because obviously the Dems were still viable in even a strong GOP district.

    I’m not really sure about the Civil War seat thing. There might be some explanation for the confusion but it seems pretty clear that a Dem has sat there many times since the war.

    • Big Dog says:

      The big deal is the percentage of swing considering how much they won by and how much Obama won by. Both sides have some things to be happy about and both have some to be worried about.

      The national elections are no bellwether. The Democrats were going to win in CA and it was held by a Dem in the past. The one in NY was a fiasco with regard to the so called Republican and how she was selected. No big deal though because they already have more than enough votes in the House to get what they want. Pelosi cannot herd her cats.

      As far as the seat goes, I know it has been redistricted many times but each of the people I listed was listed as the Congressperson from the 23rd District. I did not include any person where it was unclear, only those who were listed as holding the seat in the 23rd. It really does not matter if it was redistricted (as it has been many times since the Civil War) because the seat was still numbered the 23rd.

      I don’t know where they get the information and perhaps they are using a different definition. But it is clear that the seat has recently and many times held by Democrats.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “I know it has been redistricted many times but each of the people I listed was listed as the Congressperson from the 23rd District.”>>

        DAR
        I checked just the first one on your list, Walther Lynch. When he won the seat in 1940 (actually 1939), it was New York’s 22nd congressional district.

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          This might be the case but there is no doubt that Peyser was elected in the 23rd when it was the 23rd. I don’t see where it matters. If the seat was won by a Dem no matter where it was the redistrict moved a few property lines but the demographics changed little.

          The reality is, Peyser won it as the 23rd whihc negates that Civil War mantra. Of course, Peyser was a republican and changed parties before he won so maybe they don’t count that.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “there is no doubt that Peyser was elected in the 23rd when it was the 23rd.”>>

          DAR
          It seems it was the 25th when Peyser won. And he was a republican so why is he on this list anyway?

          D.

    • In on it not says:

      Obama won it by just 5% or 200,000 votes?
      Then by liberal standards, he STOLE that state! Only 200,000? Recount! And recount again until it adds up to…get Al Franken in on it! He knows the ropes.

  3. Adam says:

    The lesson for the GOP in NY-23 is that conservative infighting can clearly turn a red district into a blue one. This is a test run for 2010 for both major parties and the GOP blew it big time there.

    We’ll keep seeing the blowback from the loss as the days go on because practically every major figure in GOP media backed Hoffman on their shows and are now left with egg on their face.

    • Big Dog says:

      It is funny you say that. I don’t think the infighting had much to do with it. I think the process that selected the candidate as well as the newness of Hoffman made a difference. Scozzafava then endorsed the Democrat which I think was the difference.

      There is no blowback. If you are making the claim that since every major player (it is not every but many) in the GOP backed Hoffman so there will be blowback then you have to make the same claim for Obama.

      He backed both governors and campaigned for them. He and his mouth pieces said that VA was a bellwether and that it was important. In NJ he campaigned 5 times for Corzine. If the endorsements by GOP heavyweights for a loser will result in blowback then the same is true for Obama who is a much bigger heavyweight by virtue of his office.

      This also means Obama has egg on his face.

      And you know as well as I do that if they had won Obama would be discussing how this reaffirms that we are going in the right direction and people support what he is doing.

      If that is the case then the opposite is also valid.

      • Adam says:

        It’s not the support alone that gets the egg on the face. Of course Obama backed the Dem to win. Who else would he back?

        My point is simply that there was an ideological tug of war between Scozzafava and Hoffman and many major GOP media heads came down on the side of Hoffman saying basically the same thing you were saying the day before: We don’t want Scozzafava, we want a “real” conservative. They get neither, and you can tell by Limbaugh’s show yesterday that the questioning of the race there has already begun.

  4. Adam says:

    I’m not going to pretend NY-23 is how the GOP will roll from here on out though but it definitely wasn’t pretty.

    Exit polls show Carville is still right after all these years. It’s still the economy that matters most. As a group Americans care very little about deficits or big spending. They only care about their perception of the economy and how their family is doing.

    If the economy continues to recover as it is now up to November then the Dems will be fine. If the doom and gloom you predict about high inflation and a double dip recession comes to be and unemployment isn’t down several percentage points then it could be a tough time for the Dems.

    This election makes me mad now because I got just a little taste and now it’s gone again. Baseball is officially over now and I’ll be stuck looking for meaningless poll numbers from outlets for the next few months.

    • Big Dog says:

      It is the economy and it is not recovering. The increase you saw was the cash for clunkers which moved 4Q (or later) sales to 3Q and the result of many businesses cutting costs to the bone. They showed an increase without an increase in production.

      I think the Christmas season will be flat in sales and there will be a drop after Christmas where production goes down again. Inflation has to hit. There is no way to print money and not have it. Think germany in the 30s.

      Americans are concerned about deficit spending and that is reflected in polls because they know that this is adding to the bad situation.

      Funny though, all you libs who bashed Bush (and rightly so) for spending and deficits are now on board with that tact.

      Keep in mind, if spending would solve the problem there would be no problem because we already spend and we did befor ethe problem. The spending is one of the things that helped push us into this and it was the result of both parties being involved.

  5. Adam says:

    “It is the economy and it is not recovering.”

    The economy is indeed recovering whether you believe it or not. Will job growth rebound enough to make it sustainable? That seems to be the more appropriate question.

    “There is no way to print money and not have it.”

    We haven’t been doing that, though. It’s like going down to the bank and getting a loan for $2000 and then pretending you just printed that money yourself.

    “Funny though, all you libs who bashed Bush (and rightly so) for spending and deficits are now on board with that tact.”

    It wasn’t the spending and deficits themselves so much as why we were going into debt: Tax cuts for the wealthy and two wars.

    A recession is no time to tighten the belt and restrict spending. It’s just not the way it works.

    “Keep in mind, if spending would solve the problem…”

    Again with that idea? It’s bogus on so many levels. You’re mistaking what can boost economic activity after a recession with what would prevent another recession and these two pieces are very far apart.

    • Big Dog says:

      Sorry Adam, the Dems bashed Bush for deficit spending and Obama was one of the leaders in that area. It is just the way it is.

      You DO tightn your belt in a recession. You cannot spend your way out.

      This country is printing money. I think the goal is to inflate our eway out of debt but that would be catastrophic.

      And the idea that tax cuts were for the wealthy is a fallacy. The people who paid no taxes at all actually got money back. The middle class had a higher tax cut and the wealthiest, who pay the most taxes, got the smallest cut (in percentage). Remember, all the rebate checks went to people who paid little or no taxes. Those of us who pay a lot got no check.

      The wealthy pay almost all the taxes so they should get a cut but the cut was for everyone.

      You are being disingenuous and parroting party but it is not true.

    • Big Dog says:

      How about a small wager about growth? Want to bet that 4Q 09 or 1Q 10 there will be a drop or even negative growth?

      This is not a recovery as you will see.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “This is not a recovery as you will see.”>>

        DAR
        Let those who have eyes, see:

        “Stocks soar — Dow ends above 10,000 again

        The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 200-plus points Thursday closing above 10,000, while the Nasdaq composite index gained more than 2 percent…”

        The biggest jump in productivity in six years drove hopes that lower costs will boost corporate profits….

        The government said the amount of output per hour worked rose 9.5 percent in the July-September quarter.

        Meanwhile, retailers posted sales gains for the second straight month in October after more than a year of sliding sales. The retail industry posted a 2.1 percent sales gain for October…”

        Link.

        You said something about Obama owning this economy/stock market. The DOW has gone from 6,550 to 10,000 in eight months. The S&P from 683 to over a thousand in the same period. What’s that worth? I am guessing about $20 trillion.

        You just keep rooting against America to salve your ideology. We’ll keep cleaning up the mess.

        D.

        • Big Dog says:

          Darrel, when the Dow was at 14,000 you guys said Bush had a bad economy.

          Don’t let the market fool you. The sales numbers are misleading as well. Cash for clunkers and reductions and cutting in business accounted for the increase as well as the homebuyer tax credit. All they did was take our tax money that could be used for other things and give it to people to spend but the spending just shifted.

          Besides the fact that I should not be paying for your car, the scheme moved sales up and now they will slump again.

          Next year we will see massive inflation. The dollar is at all time lows and gold is at all time highs. This is a bad sign.

          Obama owns it but since he and you blamed all the problems on Bush then I say Bush gets the credit for it.

          You can talk about rooting against America but that is moronic pap. I want us to succeed but history tells us this is not the way to do it.

          I promise not to say I told you so very much when the collapse comes.

    • Adam says:

      I’ve learned not to wager money on areas outside my scope of expertise so I’m not going to take you up on your offer.

      I will say that the CBO and others are predicting Q4 2009 to be a drop from Q3 2009 but I’m not sure what they are saying about Q1 2010 so I’m not going to try and predict.

      • Adam says:

        We may very well see negative growth in a quarter and it still be a recovery though. I’m not really seeing where any folks are saying the recovery will be quick or the growth outstanding. CBO is predicting just about 2.8% growth between Q4 2009 and Q4 2010, so nobody is really expecting Q3 2009’s 3.5% growth to continue over the long term until around 2011.

        • Blake says:

          Adam- today’s job losses are at 10.2%- way worse than predicted, and at least 2.5 points worse than Hussein promised , with the stimulus- could it be that he is just a liar?
          Say anything to get what he wants- promises are relative, and can be walked back when they do not pan out. That seem to be his philosophy, and it sucks as bad as he does.

  6. Big Dog says:

    No Darrel,
    Peyser was a Republican and changed parties and then he won the seat which was the 23rd at the time.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “Peyser was a Republican and changed parties and then he won the seat which was the 23rd at the time.”>>

      DAR
      Wrong on both counts. According to his well referenced wiki page, he won it when it was the 25th, and he was a republican the entire time. He didn’t become a Democrat until 1977 and he didn’t win elected office as a demo until 1979.

      Careful when you depend on your right-wing sources.

      D.
      ————–
      “Peter A. Peyser (born September 7, 1921) was a United States Representative from New York, serving from 1971 to 1977 as a Republican and from 1979 to 1983 as a Democrat.” –ibid

      • Big Dog says:

        I think you made my point. In 1979 he won the seat and it was in the 23rd. He was a Democrat.

        He won it the FIRST time when it was the 25th and he was a Republican. He won it the second time in 79 when he was a Democrat. The chart for the 23rd shows it as the 23rd and not redistricted when he won it.

        And my right wing source was the Wiki article. You confirmed what I said, a Democrat has won that seat since the Civil War.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “In 1979 he won the seat and it was in the 23rd. He was a Democrat.”

          DAR
          Hmmm, I thought your point was:

          * Peter Peyser 1973-1977

          Bigd: “And my right wing source was the Wiki article.”>>

          DAR
          No it wasn’t. Where did you pinch this error laden list from?

          * Walther Lynch 1945-1951
          * Sidney Fine 1951–1953
          * Peter Peyser 1973-1977
          * Samuel Stratton 1983-1989
          * Michael McNulty 1989-1993

          Not wiki.

          D.
          —————
          Notice how this one is worded:

          “ALBANY – Democrat Bill Owens Tuesday won New York’s 23rd Congressional District, parts of which have been in Republican hands since the Civil War.”

          Newsday.

  7. Big Dog says:

    This is from the Wiki article on the 23rd:

    (This paragraph is incorrect. Democrats represented this district from 1979-1993. Check it out below.)Italic textNew York’s 23rd congressional district has historically been one of the most Republican districts in the United States. Most of the area in what is NY-23 has not been represented by a Democrat since the 19th century. A large portion — including the largest city, Watertown — has not been represented by a Democrat since the 1850’s. In parts of the district, the last non-Republican Representative was a Whig.[1]

    emphasis in original