Too much is being made out of the NY special election. I actually think the R Pilip actually did very well in getting 46% of the vote in that district. My observations:
First, nobody should be calling an 8% win a decisive win or even a landside. We're talking about 11,000 votes. 5,501 switch and the district would have elected a Republica…
Too much is being made out of the NY special election. I actually think the R Pilip actually did very well in getting 46% of the vote in that district. My observations:
First, nobody should be calling an 8% win a decisive win or even a landside. We're talking about 11,000 votes. 5,501 switch and the district would have elected a Republican. 70 to 30...that's a landslide.
Second, when a candidate runs following a scandal in his or her party, that candidate is carrying to a degree the baggage from that scandal. Santos' left Pilip with enormous baggage and she still got 46%. That's pretty impressive.
Third, Pilip was an unknown running against a well-known popular former incumbent who represented the district for multiple terms. It's surprising Suozzi didn't win by a bigger margin.
Fourth, I do think the bonehead move of the R House to refuse to consider any bill addressing the immigration issue hurt Pilip. I don't think the maneuver turned the immigration issue into a net negative for Pilip, but I think it limited her advantage on that issue.
Fifth, of course Trump is denouncing Pilip's candidacy as failing b/c she didn't fully embrace Trump and Trumpism. If Pilip had done that, Suozzi would have wrapped it around Pilip's neck and she would have lost by more than 20 points. Of course, the fact Pilip is a successful woman of color makes her Trump even more want to denounce her. If you haven't heard, Trump is a racist and a sexist.
All reasonable conclusions. Nevertheless, I'm enjoying the fact that Suozzi won. Was he the perfect candidate? No. Was Pilip a novice and weak? Yes. Does this mean much in terms of either a "blue wave" in November or Trump's weakness in the suburbs? Probably not given it was a special election in February during a snowstorm. But it was a good day. Haven't had many of those lately. I'll take it.
Too much is being made out of the NY special election. I actually think the R Pilip actually did very well in getting 46% of the vote in that district. My observations:
First, nobody should be calling an 8% win a decisive win or even a landside. We're talking about 11,000 votes. 5,501 switch and the district would have elected a Republican. 70 to 30...that's a landslide.
Second, when a candidate runs following a scandal in his or her party, that candidate is carrying to a degree the baggage from that scandal. Santos' left Pilip with enormous baggage and she still got 46%. That's pretty impressive.
Third, Pilip was an unknown running against a well-known popular former incumbent who represented the district for multiple terms. It's surprising Suozzi didn't win by a bigger margin.
Fourth, I do think the bonehead move of the R House to refuse to consider any bill addressing the immigration issue hurt Pilip. I don't think the maneuver turned the immigration issue into a net negative for Pilip, but I think it limited her advantage on that issue.
Fifth, of course Trump is denouncing Pilip's candidacy as failing b/c she didn't fully embrace Trump and Trumpism. If Pilip had done that, Suozzi would have wrapped it around Pilip's neck and she would have lost by more than 20 points. Of course, the fact Pilip is a successful woman of color makes her Trump even more want to denounce her. If you haven't heard, Trump is a racist and a sexist.
All reasonable conclusions. Nevertheless, I'm enjoying the fact that Suozzi won. Was he the perfect candidate? No. Was Pilip a novice and weak? Yes. Does this mean much in terms of either a "blue wave" in November or Trump's weakness in the suburbs? Probably not given it was a special election in February during a snowstorm. But it was a good day. Haven't had many of those lately. I'll take it.