It’s remarkable that they got the Republican to drop out, but given that, it’s hardly remarkable that the loser in a two-person race got 45% of the vote. I thought he would win.

Besides, he was hardly “independent”, having been helicoptered in by the national Republican party.

Her voting record put her on the conservative side of her caucus in the state house.

By the standard of Sarah Palin/Dick Armey Republicans, and of Long Island Neanderthals, she was “liberal,” but she was well within the mainstream of the Upstate New York Republican party.

If independents do well in the 2010 mid-term elections, does that portent an independent candidate having a serious impact in the 2012 presidential race (a la Perot in 1992)? I think Perot got 19% of the popular vote, and any comparable situation in 2012 would make for interesting triangulation strategies by Obama and the Republican candidate to claw back those leaning towards an independent.

Or maybe this is all hooey because the dynamics of NY’s 23rd district were very unusual . . .

The message is to the incumbents of both parties. Hopefully the economic incumbents get thrown out next.

If this is true, then voters have no party that represents their views.

Or, to put it another way, Republicans discover that demonizing RINOs and sending in Sarah Palin to back a candidate who doesn’t know or care about local issues is a good way to antagonize Republican but independent-minded voters, lose themselves a safe seat, and continue their march toward irrelevance.

OK, who wants to tell this guy that Dems gained a House seat? And that the 2 new Rep governors are about as likely to give milk as they are to turn down stimulus money? Talk about seeing what you want to see…