A while back I wrote:
So who to root for? A Blue Dog who would strengthen the Democrats' corporatist faction, or a Republican version of a Lieberdem, who will probably be muzzled, but could -- if she remained true to her record in Albany -- be more of a Susan Collins-type Republican, a moderate in an ideologically rigid party willing to give the Dems fake "bipartisan" cover with crossover votes every once in a while.
If Republicans lose the seat, it'll dent that sense of momentum they believe is headed their way. If they win the seat, it will have been with a liberal Republican, suggesting that their path to electoral relevance in the northeast is to ditch the Southern-fueled ultra conservatism. Both are good for us.
If the Democrat loses the race, we lose nothing -- it was previously held by a Republican. If he wins the seat, we gain another obnoxious Blue Dog, undermining our caucus from within while adding just a single vote to our already dominant House majorities. Furthermore, the typical DC wankers will take this as "proof" that you need to run Lieberdems in such districts to win them, while ignoring the fragmented conservative opposition. Not much of an advantage at all. More than likely, a net disadvantage.
So it's official, I'm rooting for the Republican to win. As a congresswoman, she could either move even more to the left to properly represent her progressive-trending district and be a pain in the side of the GOP caucus (they have nothing like our Blue Dogs), or Democrats can field a real Democrat to challenge her in 2010.
I have no love for the Democrat, Owens, and I clearly have no love for Scozzafava in that post, so only an idiot would construe that as an "endorsement". An endorsement implies love for the candidate being endorsed. I wish nothing but ill will for all candidates in this race. But the GOP is full of idiots, and they've run strong with it, making my "endorsement" part of their anti-Scozzafava narrative. And now we're in a situation in which the conservative candidate Doug Hoffman has a real chance of performing better than the Republican.
With the situation on the ground having changed, the calculus has also changed.
It's clear now that Scozzafava, were she victorious next week, would have to turn hard-right to survive the inevitable primary challenge next year. In fact, it's hard to see how she doesn't lose a 2010 primary to Hoffman. She's pretty much toast -- if not next week, then next year. So the chances of being a Collins/Snowe-type Republican are non-existent. Unlike what I wrote a month ago, there's no longer any upside to her winning.
I'll slightly disagree with Jerome on a Hoffman victory -- it would definitely fire up the teabagger Right and give them momentum. But I part with Jerome in thinking that's necessarily a bad thing. While back in 2002-2007 we were pushing the Democratic party to the mainstream on progressive issues (Iraq, health care, etc), the teabagger Right is running on an unpopular agenda. There is zero polling available to suggest that Hoffman-style politicians will perform any better at the ballot box than establishment Republicans. Yet a successful Hoffman effort would encourage more such challenges. Third-party efforts would be fantastic (and Beck is talking about going this route), splitting the Right the way that Nader and the Greens cost us seats in the early 2000s. But even successful primary efforts would help us gain unlikely seats against Republicans too conservative for their districts, like we did in House races in Idaho and Maryland in 2008 (among other places).
But if Hoffman loses, we get to mock the teabaggers. That may be worth more than all the stuff above, and if Hoffman loses to Owens, we'll get to thank the teabaggers for gifting us a seat while the media fixates on the "GOP civil war" that cost them a seat they've held since the 1800s.
And whether Owens is a good or bad Democrat (likely the latter), holding it in 2010 will be tough. Hoffman will likely be back next year, and should win a proper GOP primary (where the teabaggers will hold outsized influence). And without the benefits of a split Right, holding this seat gets a lot tougher.
So I'm no longer rooting for a Scozzafava victory. That gets us nothing. And I'm not rooting for a Hoffman victory, and I'm certainly not rooting for Owens because I'm over Lieberdems.
I'll leave it to others to try and squeeze out my "endorsement" from that steaming pile of dog shit.
But I'm rather pleased I've been used to attack Scozzafava by the likes of Club for Growth and Glenn Beck. Such mischief is almost Rovian! So in that vein, I'm ready to make some new endorsements. I endorse Mark Kirk in Illinois, Rob Simmons in Connecticut, and Charlie Crist in Florida. In fact, if you are the type of Republican than can actually win against Democratic opposition (in other words, not batshit insane), I "endorse" you. Oh, and I also "endorse" David Vitter, even though he is batshit insane, because he's hilarious.