Talking heads everywhere are telling you what yesterday’s election results mean.  Clearly you need one more source.

In some sense they mean little more than the obvious: that the states of New Jersey and Virginia sided with Republicans based on the issues in their respective states.  Certainly the corruption from top to bottom of the New Jersey Democratic Party and the tax raising ways of Corzine, along with fears that Creigh Deeds would raise taxes in Virginia, played an important part in the defeat of both.  But was there also an anti-Obama sentiment?

It’s hard to say the extent to which there was anti-Obama sentiment, if at all.  Most voters didn’t admit to casting a vote influenced by Obama in either direction, but that doesn’t mean that those who disapprove of the President weren’t more motivated than his supporters.  It’s quite likely that they were, and it’s hard not to consider that opposition to ever expanding government in Washington could have driven extra turnout from conservatives and small government independents, who went heavily for Republicans.

The economy was a key issue in every race, and the takeaway lesson for Democrats going into 2010 is that they are in trouble if it doesn’t improve.

But enough of the two party battles, what about the intra-Republican dispute in NY-23?  While RINO’s and their self-serving cheerleaders on the left will be emboldened by Hoffman’s loss, the race is hardly an indictment of conservative candidates.  Hoffman not only got 45% of the vote in a district carried by Obama in 2008, but he did it while battling both major parties with limited resources for most of the race.  Moreover, the fact that Scozzafava was still on the ballot with the Republican label may well have been the deciding factor. She received more votes than make up the gap between Hoffman and Owens, and that’s before counting the absentee ballots, many of which were mailed while she was still a viable candidate.

For the national Republican establishment, this is no vindication of their strategy.  In the end they spent almost $1 million on a candidate that endorsed the Democrat.  That is an inexcusable embarrassment.  The best lesson they can take away is: there’s a reason you hold primaries.  If there had been a Republican primary, Hoffman would have defeated the union loving, stimulus supporting, health care nationalizing Scozzafava and then had the Republican party behind him, rather than against him, in his race against Doug Owens.  The outcome likely would have been in his favor.

For conservatives, the lesson here is that third parties are not viable.  Yes, this was a rare case and it could have worked in NY-23.  But elsewhere, particularly at the national level, it’s simply a bad idea no matter what.  Conservatives have to continue working to restore the Republican Party as the home of small government voters.  For those who would stand in our way and think the “big tent” moderate Republican Party we have now is the way to go, I’ll leave you with this election night statistic:  In Virginia, 36% of voters identified themselves as Republican, while 39% said there are conservative.

Further reading: Matt Latimer on The Right and Wrong Lessons from Tuesday’s elections, and Michelle Malkin on The GOP elite’s $1 million object lesson — and the message of NY-23

Comments  Print This Post

---

Here’s the latest on tomorrow’s elections:

McDonnell continues to lead by double-digits.

Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat, no doubt to the embarrassment of the national party boobs who spent almost $1 million on her campaign. Hoffman leads in recent polls.

Nate Silver asks (and answers) 15 questions to help illuminate the tight New Jersey race. He gives a slight edge to Christie, whose supporters are more enthusiastic. Corzine’s saving grace may be the Democrats state machine apparatus.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Black governor told not to run:

National Democratic Party leaders have asked Gov. David Paterson to consider withdrawing from the 2010 governor’s race, according to two senior New York Democratic advisers.

Both advisers, who are close to the governor, spoke to The Associated Press on Saturday on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for Paterson. The sources said it was unclear what Paterson would do in response.

The New York Times, which originally reported the request on its Web site, said that it was President Barack Obama who asked Paterson to withdraw.

Racists!

Comments  Print This Post

---

Dumb laws have consequences.

Vince Nastri III, third-generation proprietor of the palace of puff, said his problems started in June when Health Department inspectors came to check up on complaints that cigar odors were wafting to the upper floors of the building at 75 Broad Street, according tot he paper.

That complaint was unfounded, but an inspector noticed the coffee machine, which customers used to make free espressos and cappuccinos, and said it was illegal.

Nastri was issued a citation, which can lead to fines between $200 and $2000, and now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. Even to give coffee away for free he needs a permit to operate as a food-service establishment, but then smoking would be banned in his shop.

How much stronger would the economy be without so many dumb government restrictions such as licenses and nanny-state anti-smoking rules, and without a need to waste human resources on “inspectors” to catch people giving away free coffee?  Government’s of all levels continue to be a shackle that holds back economic growth while eroding our basic rights.

Comments  Print This Post

---

I guess miracles do happen:

This month the Democratic legislature and Governor John Baldacci broke with Obamanomics and enacted a sweeping tax reform that is almost, but not quite, a flat tax. The new law junks the state’s graduated income tax structure with a top rate of 8.5% and replaces it with a simple 6.5% flat rate tax on almost everyone. Those with earnings above $250,000 will pay a surtax rate of 0.35%, for a 6.85% rate. Maine’s tax rate will fall to 20th from seventh highest among the states. To offset the lower rates and a larger family deduction, the plan cuts the state budget by some $300 million to $5.8 billion, closes tax loopholes and expands the 5% state sales tax to services that have been exempt, such as ski lift tickets.

This is a big income tax cut, especially given that so many other states in the Northeast and East — Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — have been increasing rates. “We’re definitely going against the grain here,” Mr. Baldacci tells us. “We hope these lower tax rates will encourage and reward work, and that the lower capital gains tax [of 6.85%] brings more investment into the state.”

While liberals in New York do everything they can to drive wealth out of the state, Maine seems to have this crazy idea that attracting wealth and investment might be a wiser strategy.  Which state do you think will get the best of it?

Comments  Print This Post

---

Tom Galisano, billionaire owner of the Sabres, is fed up and ready to leave New York.  He tells us why:

I love New York. But how much should it cost to call New York home? Decades of out of control budgets, spending increases and relentless borrowing have made New York simply too expensive.

Politicians like to talk about incentives: incentives for businesses to relocate, incentives to buy local and incentives to make smart decisions. After reviewing the 2009 budget I have identified the most compelling incentive of all: a major tax break immediately available to all New Yorkers. To be eligible, you need only do one thing: move out of New York State.

Modern economic thought provides with a very simple explanation: incentives matter. Russel Roberts on incentives:

…Incentives matter. The most famous example in economics is the idea of the demand curve—when something gets more expensive, people buy less of it. When it gets less expensive, people buy more of it.

Some find this bedrock principle of economics hard to accept, based on introspection. “When the price of gas goes up, I still buy gasoline,” says the skeptic. Or in its more extreme form: “You need gasoline, so people will keep buying it even when it gets more expensive.”

You may still buy gasoline when it gets more expensive. But you will try and find ways to buy less. Not necessarily zero, less.

For the wealthy, the price of living in New York has just gone up.  The predictable consequence is that there will be less wealthy people choosing to “purchase” the privilege to live there.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.