There is a link to the report in the WaPo in my original post:

http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2011/05/looking-wrong-way.html

“Democrat Kathy Hochul held a six point lead over Republican Jane Corwin. ”

Yes…..

“Special Election held in a usually Republican leaning area,”

True, but the previous Rep Congressman had resigned over a sex scandal. Might have an influence you think?

“It’s possible that a Tea Party candidate split the GOP vote”

Ya think? With the polls giving the TeaParty guy anything from 12-27 % of the vote, you think this might have had an influence on the Dem getting a 6 point margin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_26th_congressional_district_special_election,_2011

@2, let’s consider the facts.

The GOP were leading in all the opinion polls up to the end of April. So the circumstances that led to the Special Election being called didn’t have the influence you infer.

Also, the Tea Party candidate polled around 9%, rather outside your 12 to 27 per cent range.

You could just admit that the GOP lost an election where they got 73.6% of the vote in 2010, and even scored 55% in 2008.

As Sean Hannity might have said, “doesn’t look pretty”.

You’re still saying that the TeaP guy got more than the Dems winning margin.

“It’s possible that a Tea Party candidate split the GOP vote”

Possible?

Sadly, it is too soon to claim that the Democrats’ Medicare legislation will prove a success in practice.

A combination of the American tradition for litigation over negligence claims and Medicare mandatory insurance cover for personal/family healthcare costs may simply drive up treatment and diagnostic costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

I used to receive daily streams of unsolicited and unwelcome spam from Canadian online pharmacies offering prescription drugs at discounts against prices in America.

“One of the most important differences between the two countries is the much higher cost of drugs in the United States. In the U.S., $728 per capita is spent each year on drugs, while in Canada it is $509. At the same time, consumption is higher in Canada, with about 12 prescriptions being filled per person each year in Canada and 10.6 in the United States.The main difference is that patented drug prices in Canada average between 35% and 45% lower than in the United States, though generic prices are higher. The price differential for brand-name drugs between the two countries has led Americans to purchase upward of $1 billion US in drugs per year from Canadian pharmacies.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Drugs

Try this: Cost control not coverage is the key to health reform
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4049dac4-8d05-11de-a540-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1NMrUEbSV

Tim F,

I am not convinced – one election does not a trend make.

Medicare may well win votes for the Democrats in some normally Republican areas, but it will probably equally lose others – that’s the fun thing with American politics, things can change far more than here (if often far less dramatically). And with the Tea Party thrown in, what this proves is that in this area a choice between a pro-state Republican (we can tell this was the case because the Tea Party will not stand against small-state candidates of either party) and a Democrat produces a Democratic winner. It does not tell us who would win a straight fight between a small-state Republican (or Democrat) and a pro-state Democrat (or Republican).

Incidentally, worth noting that the Tea Party candidate was originally a Democrat – things are not as straightforwardly transferable to right and left in the US as you seem to be implying.

@4, oh dear, the spin machine’s stuck.

You can’t assume that all of the third candidate’s vote (which, just to remind you, was well short of the number you tried to slip under the radar) would have accrued to the GOP, had that candidate been absent.

And even if this assumption were true, that means the GOP has dropped four points on its 2008 level. You remember, when the Dems had control of both Houses of Congress.

All this and no credible Republican candidate for President (hell, even the Rudy Giuliani rumours are starting up now. Sales of Sylvester replicas set to rocket).

“(which, just to remind you, was well short of the number you tried to slip under the radar)”

Eh? I looked up the polling numbers at Wikipedia. Hide what?

You are the one who used “possibly” when the third party vote is larger than hte winning margin.

Tim F,

I think Tim W has a point there – if one candidate did not get 50% of the vote, then we can happily say that there is a definite possibility a third party did split their opposition vote.

Also, this traditional Republican area was Democrat from 1993-2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_26th_congressional_district#1833.E2.80.93present:_One_seat) and has been subject to repeated rezoning (as happens to keep districts the same size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_26th_congressional_district#Components:_past_and_present)) so this is hardly the best measure.

Given that polling suggested the ‘Tea Party’ candidate (actually an eccentric local millionaire who had run for both parties before and probably had a substantial personal vote) was drawing from Democrats and Republicans relatively equally (one poll had him taking 13% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats, another 16% of Republicans and 8% of Democrats) the idea that all his vote would have gone Republican is not especially credible.

Even if it had, that would only have given the Republicans a narrow victory, in a district that’s about 6% more Republican than the nation as a whole.

Watchman, your idea that the area was previously Democrat doesn’t stand up when you concede that it’s been subject to re-zoning.

The 2006 and 2008 elections are a reasonable comparison, as they are AFAIK on the same boundaries.

Tim W., I didn’t suggest anyone tried to “hide” anything.

Both of you are trying to cloud the issue and spin the result. What you don’t seem to want to take on board is that the GOP lost badly in a district they held comfortably when the Dems had control of both Houses.

Moreover, the Medicare issue will be used again and again in the run-up to 2012 – along with the rest of the Ryan agenda.

The British Left hardly needs to take lessons from American Democrats in the mendacious misrepresentation of centre-right Health policies to gain cheap, short-term political advantage.

It happens here on LC, week-in, week-out.

In the long run, however, lies are hard to sustain.

The republicans have been encouraging the bat shit insane into their party for 25 years. The fact that the repigs are now openly telling the American people they want to kill Medicare, and still give tax cuts to the richest 1% has got nothing to do with the Democrats.

The American people are hopefully beginning to wake up to realise the repigs are nuts, and don’t give a shit about the ordinary Joe.

“In the long run, however, lies are hard to sustain”

Well the republicans would know more about that than anyone else. They ran the last election in the mid terms on the lie that “The Dems are going to destroy health care.” Then they get in to power and start trying to destroy…. er peoples health care. They are getting booed at town hall meetings all over the country as people work out that the repigs want to destroy medicare.

Paul Ryan has let the cat out of the bag.

@ 14

Inconvenient truth is that Ryan’s “premium support” wheeze was first developed as a policy option by the Clinton administration. Did they want to destry Medicare?

There are problems with Ryan’s plan…. but frankly, I don’t see how the State subsidizing seniors’ health insurance so they plans pretty much in line with those working people get through their workplace insurance plans is so *NASTY*

@ 12 Flowerpower

“The British Left hardly needs to take lessons from American Democrats in the mendacious misrepresentation of centre-right Health policies to gain cheap, short-term political advantage.”

You could claim they had little choice, what with the anti-UHC lobby going around talking about “death panels” and claiming that Obama was going to outlaw private health insurance. I remember seeing a lot more bullshit from the right when UHC was being debated; then again, confirmation bias.