Mr. Dickerson,

You and others have been propagating today the provably incorrect assertion that Democrat Bill Owens became the first of his party to hold that seat (NY-23) since the Civil War.

You can check the history of NY-23 right here: <link>

Such an assertion of historic import should be verified rather than merely regurgitated, don't you think?

Or was that precisely why you opted to trust the echo chamber: to portray Mr. Owens' win as an historic victory?

Democrats held NY-23 from '79 to '93 most recently, for Pete's sake!

You guys play so fast and loose with the truth!

AGENDA???

Hey dipwad, from your site:

1913–1919 Parts of Manhattan 1919–1969 Parts of The Bronx 1969–1971 Parts of The Bronx, Manhattan 1971–1973 Parts of The Bronx 1973–1983 Parts of The Bronx, Westchester 1983–1993 All of Albany, Schenectady Parts of Montgomery, Rensselaer 1993–2003 All of Chenango, Madison, Oneida, Otsego Parts of Broome, Delaware, Herkimer, Montgomery, Schoharie 2003–present All of Clinton, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oswego, St. Lawrence Parts of Essex, Fulton, Oneida

The current configuration of that district is since 2003, before that this area was under another number, so my guess there have been no dems elected from that area of the state, not necessarily from that district number, which has moved all over the state, even including parts of Manhattan at one point. Of course I should have guessed that you were not a rocket scientist in any case.

OldGaffer:

Hey dipwad, from your site:

1913–1919 Parts of Manhattan 1919–1969 Parts of The Bronx 1969–1971 Parts of The Bronx, Manhattan 1971–1973 Parts of The Bronx 1973–1983 Parts of The Bronx, Westchester 1983–1993 All of Albany, Schenectady Parts of Montgomery, Rensselaer 1993–2003 All of Chenango, Madison, Oneida, Otsego Parts of Broome, Delaware, Herkimer, Montgomery, Schoharie 2003–present All of Clinton, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oswego, St. Lawrence Parts of Essex, Fulton, Oneida

The current configuration of that district is since 2003, before that this area was under another number, so my guess there have been no dems elected from that area of the state, not necessarily from that district number, which has moved all over the state, even including parts of Manhattan at one point. Of course I should have guessed that you were not a rocket scientist in any case.

The funny thing is he's accusing the author of playing loose with the facts.

snowman73: Mr. Dickerson, You and others have been propagating today the provably incorrect assertion that Democrat Bill Owens became the first of his party to hold that seat (NY-23) since the Civil War.

Snow, in the author's defense he did not specify the US Civil War by name. Bill Owens could very well be the first Dem to hold NY-23 since the inception of "civil war" conflicts such as Jammu-Kashmir or perhaps the Burundi Rebels uprising.

Or, he could be the first dem elected in that northern tier of counties since 1850. But really, what fucking difference does it make? Your ilk got its nuts crushed in a solid republican district because you tried to go crazy right wing, it was pretty simple.

If you look at the numbers, compared with the turnouts of the previous four elections, what you see is an electorate that decided, in large part, to stay home. Owens won on a party-line vote (with less votes than the previous three Dem candidates had polled against the popular McHugh) and Hoffman didn't manage to poll better than past Conservative (party) candidates. The conclusion I'd take away is: the politics of purity and hatred is not going to build anything for the GOP. You can get people to vote against gay marriage, sure, but hardcore social conservatives need to work through the party and sell themselves as fiscal managers and unthreatening nice guys (like McDonnell) if they want to win. The tea parties are good for scaring people, but not good for building voting pluralities.