« Election 2006 | Main | Election Aftermath »

November 5, 2006

Tuesday Voting

I will make a general prediction that on Tuesday, the number one choice of the voters will be apathy, whether by plurality or majority. I am currently residing in Jefferson County, Ohio, where they are expecting a voter turnout rate of 46% on Tuesday. If accurate, that means 54% will be pulling the lever on "don't care," which will be more than those who opt for anyone with a D or an R following their name.

In New York, even though you may hear gaudy numbers like 70% for Eliot Spitzer or 60% for Hillary Clinton, my bet is the apathetic crowd will still prove to be larger than the number that voted for either one.

I will be voting by absentee ballot for my home district in New York, which admittedly is not likely to have much of an impact. It is somewhat amusing reading the endorsement of the local paper, the Buffalo News. There is only one statewide race in which the paper has endorsed a Republican - the office of State Comptroller - and I strongly suspect the only reason they did so is that the Democratic incumbent is caught in a scandal so toxic that even Eliot Spitzer, who should cruise to victory Tuesday easily, withdrew his endorsement and called for him to resign.

In the 4 local Congressional races, with 2 Republican and 2 Democratic incumbents, the paper endorsed 3 Democrats and declined to endorse anybody in the other. The Republican incumbent's sin in CD-29 seems to be marching "in lock step with the White House." The paper has very little of substance to say about his opponent, citing only military service, ties to Wesley Clark, beating cancer, and being a former Republican. Despite claims that the Democrat brings "a full range of forcefully articulated positions on issues, a passion to reform health care, concern for his district's tax-linked dairy problems and valuable perspective on Iraq," the paper gives absolutely zero details on these claims.

CD-26, held by Tom Reynolds, is the race the paper declined to make an endorsement. Here, the paper at least recognizes that Davis is largely running on an issue that will find no traction anywhere, although the citation of the Mark Foley mess as reason not to endorse Reynolds is particularly questionable, since even they admit they don't know the details of Reynolds' involvement.

In the state legislature, despite the paper's claimed disdain for the lack of genuine 2-party politics there (the Assembly has been Dem for a generation, while the Senate has been Republican for about as long), only once did they opt to endorse a Republican challenger over a Democrat in the Assembly, while they endorsed 2 Democrat challengers over a Republican incumbent. My math might be a bit rusty, but your endorsements would seem to yield a net +1 for the Dems in a chamber you wish were more competitive between the parties.

Locally, the paper has also opted to endorse one Republican over a Democrat for the City Council, but in this case, it's for a 1-year replacement term on a Council that has no elected Republicans.

Summary:

State Office - Dem 2, Rep 1
Congress - Dem 3, Rep 0
Senate - No endorsement noted
State Assembly - Dem +1
State Senate - No change
Locally - 1 Republican non-incumbent

This isn't to say that some endorsements aren't pretty much expected, it just seems that the only time the paper opts to support a Republican pickup is when it feels that the usual partisan makeup isn't shifted too unfavorably to the Dems (i.e. the Republican would be a token win), the Dem is impossible to endorse for some reason, or the Republican is expected to cruise to victory.

- Posted by in Politics at 7:47 PM