NY9

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

So, let's do a little post-election analysis. I don't know who here, if anyone, was following the NY9 election to replace Anthony Weiner. It was won by Bob Turner, a Republican who was backed by the TEA-party.

So NY9 is a heavily democrat registered district. But here's where I think the campaign of David Weprin (the Dem) went wrong:

He didn't get the support of the Jews.

In his district, they are a significant portion of the voting block. Weprin as a member of the NYS assembly, voted for gay-marriage. This goes against the Jewish religion, but Weprin wasn't voting on gay rights as a Rabbi, he was voting on it as a secular official. Officials may believe as they wish, but they swear an oath to the constitution--not their religion. If, as a legal scholar, Weprin couldn't find a reason to vote against gay marriage, then he is to vote for it and that's exactly what he did.

However: this is exactly why I, as an atheist, get pissed at religion. This stupid shit just cost a democrat an election.

Now, Weprin was nobodies dream candidate. Pretty dull and not charismatic or insipiring. But then again, take a look at Bob Turner. I definitely don't want him in office.

I actually grew up in NY9--I didn't know it at the time, and by the time I could vote I lived elsewhere. However, two of my friends from childhood still live round there, as do their parents. I have a question to ask of the community: do you think the following is a dasterdly campaign tactic and shouldn't be used:


aicPAC sent out a text message saying that Weprin abandoned israel and that you should call him and ask why

it's not true that Weprin abandoned israel (go ahead, do your research, it's a totally bogus claim) and the goal behind the aicPAC sending this text message was to clog the phone lines of the Weprin office, and to sway any Jews who didn't call up and get their facts straight to vote against Weprin.

Also, the way the text was sent, it appeared as if the message was sent from the office campaign number. Turns out that number was a landline that couldn't possibly send text messages.
Oh republican trickery, know you no bounds?

All that said, how do you view this special election? Is it merely the offset to the NY26 race where the dems got a seat that had been held by repubs for decades? Is it a referendum on Obama? Is it a referendum on the gay marriage vote? Is it just another election won over by dirty tricks?

Who would you have supported in this race?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, you claimed it when you said that lies about what he does or does not think about Israel is a sign he does not represent American Jews. So if representing Israel is representing American Jews, why is that so?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

You seriously have a reading comprehension issue. I said nothing of the sort. I said that if the voters feel that Weprin doesn't represent their interests, one of which the OP is claiming is regarding the U.S. relation to Israel, then they are correct not to vote for him, regardless of the OP thinking otherwise. I said nothing about lies or whether Weprin actually represents anyones interests or not, nor do I care.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I said that if the voters feel that Weprin doesn't represent their interests, one of which the OP is claiming is regarding the U.S. relation to Israel

^So I will repeat myself one more time, how do US interests end up served with regard to anything concerning Israel?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

And I said, I don't care. Ask someone who has that as a primary issue for themself.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You simply care enough to state something and never bother to explain it, a pattern quite typical of what libertarianism calls "debate."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It only needs explaining to you because you refuse to understand it. I didn't state anything that needed explaining because it's a fundamental concept. People define their own interests and vote in accordance with them, regardless of what other people want them to do. I did not agree or disagree with those stated interests, I only called out the OP on trying to claim that the voters shouldn't have them (or shouldn't have voted according to them). I have no idea what your issue is.