NY Conservative Party Ad: Remember Scozzafava's Tears!


As Governor Cuomo and NY Mayor Bloomberg try to convince Republicans to vote for SSM the Conservative Party is running this ad reminding politicians that there is a price to be paid for supporting the redefinition of marriage (click on the image for a larger version):

Past = prologue?


  1. Mark Lewis
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    At what point does NOM stop trying to hurt decent, loving families? At what point do you use your considerable resources to help those in need? When does the madness stop, NOM?

  2. Mike Tidmus
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

    >>>there is a price to be paid


  3. catholicdad
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Wow. When the Republican Party has the stones to start running ads like that I'll reregister.

    Until then, I'm an independent.

    If I lived in NY I would *definitely* register Conservative.

    Absolutely devastating ad.

    Now *that's* how you win the culture war.

  4. Gothelittle
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    I've heard that lately, catholicdad. People assume that independent voters are 'swing voters' who sit somewhere between Conservative and Liberal, but increasingly I'm hearing polls that suggest most independents are more conservative than the Republicans.

  5. TC Matthews
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    I am glad someone is holding these politicians accountable for their positions. Excellent ad.

  6. Little Man
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Having studied Statistics (mathematics), i understand how easy it is to bias a "poll" (statistical sampling of people's opinions, not a census).

    There are Statistical assumptions that must be met in terms of a random sampling of the Population, a Statistical term. Then, it is also important to word the question with no ambiguity - something difficult to do in English, because English uses many associations and shortcuts, for speed (and obviously, the sampled population must understand/speak the exact same kind of English, which is impossible, strictly speaking).

    It is impossible for even mathematically strict polls to take into consideration the erroneous information the sampled people have been given by other sources, which, once disputed, could massively change their opinion after the poll results are published.

    Then, its important to word the questions with no hints, no threats, no emotional triggers, in a neutral way, and finally, once the poll is made, it should be considered valid even if the Statistical result is not what was expected by the surveyors.

    The Standard Error - or margin of error - I don't know where they come up with this, since the questions are "yes" or "no" questions, and so there's no Standard Deviation. By margin of error, the poll surveyors could be taking into account the size of the statistical sampling for the poll, compared to the overall Population under study, like voters in the State of New York, for instance. Note that all polls are extrapolations from a limited sampling - the polls do not interview the entire Population the poll is to represent.

    Even after all these Statistical requirements for a valid poll are met, there's also the matter of how the survey was conducted - was it by computerized speech, meaning that a computer delivered the questions with he same clarity and inflection, or written questions, or whether it was a clerk or part-time employee who voiced the questions over the phone (the clerk could have his own opinion on the subject, slanting the questions to get the answers most favorable per his own opinion on the subject.)

    Then, there's the question of total honesty as to how random the statistical sampling was carried out - there could be prejudiced employees handling the survey, who can simply favor asking the questions to more people they know would favor their own opinion on the subject - like asking more Hispanics whether they like corn tortillas more over wheat bread, in the survey.

    Then, there's the double poll technique: To make a poll more believable, simply do two polls, and later argue that they verify each other. Of course, if the two polls results don't coincide, then obviously, the second poll doesn't get published, or chose the most favorable one.

    And there's always the factor that some people may not be thinking at their optimal level of alertness when the survey telephone call comes in (at what time of the day were the telephone calls made, if by telephone?); and finally there's the detrimental aspect of the "liar" - yes, someone who thinks its funny to provide (free of charge) disparate answers to polls, just to mess them up - i'm one of those. I don't think lying to a computer is lying. Plus i'm not getting paid for taking the survey according to my true opinion.

    Do you believe in polls now, without checking the Statistical requirements for a valid poll?

    Let's take a poll on that !!

    Polls are a modern way to "snow" you. They claim to know already, in theory, what is to be known for sure, later.

  7. ConservativeNY
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    "Just look at what happened to John Lynch! Oh that's right, he supported marriage equality and got reelected with 53% of the vote despite all the cash NOM poured into NH to beat him."

    And at the same time, the Democratic majority in the NH Senate and House turned upside down to a Republican majority.

  8. marriageequality=oneman+onewoman
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    We need politicians wise enough not to be snowed by self-victimizing identity politics, such as that which backs SSM.

  9. Little Man
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

    Hey, Ken
    We all believe in marriage equality - like the Roman Caligula, you can get married to whom you wish - even your horse. But the civil question at the State and Federal levels is: what do the legislators support, risking not getting re-elected, and what your particular State government and the Federal government have a PUBLIC interest in supporting - like for instance: special privileges for handicapped persons.

    You got to look overall what money John Lynch got. He only won by 53%? Let's see, next time. The point of this blog post is that a Congressional candidate thought polls truly reflected the constituents - and she found out when the votes came in, leaving her reputation negatively marked from then on, in a way she wouldn't have chosen.

  10. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    Great ad. Somehow the SSM-ers have made it seem as if the homosexual voters are the only ones in play in the SSM fight. This shows the other side: fight for the homosexual voters and risk losing the heterosexual voters. Bravo.

  11. Robbo
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    You guys realize that ended up winning that seat and that marriage equality. You know that, right?

  12. Gothelittle
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Little Man, I'd like to note that the only Roman Emperor to ever claim to be actually legally married to another man was assassinated by his own people and then quietly 'wiped from history' by the scribes, who destroyed every record they could concerning him.

    Ancient Rome, for all that it glorified same-sex relations, did not come even close to sanctioning such relations as being the same as marriage.

  13. Mike Brooks
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Robbo -

    Exactly. The message to Republicans is that if you support homosexual "marriage," you're going to lose your seat to a democrat. The message is, if we're getting SSM either way, that's your fault and you will be punished for it. Better think about how important your job is to you.

  14. Ken
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Just look at what happened to Gov. Lynch! Oh that's right, he supported marriage equality and got reelected with 53% of the vote despite all the cash NOM poured into NH to beat him.

  15. Lefty
    Posted May 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Robbo, the Dem who won NY23rd (Bill Owens) is on record *opposing* SSM. That was one of the differences between him and Scozzafava.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.