Sunday, November 25, 2007

Reynolds' Reality Check


Sometimes it's hard to believe that Hugh Reynolds is paid by the Daily Freeman as their political editor, the guy is either stubborn or just completely out of touch with local politics. First, I really like Hugh Reynolds, I think he's bright and for the most part I enjoy reading his column. For some reason the guy hates Jonathan Sennett and refuses to give him his due.


Now the race is over and I have moved on, but yesterday in Reynolds' column he made a comment that was simply untrue, the piece was about Ben Shore calling for John Parete's resignation from the Democratic committee, and it went on to talk about the d.a.'s race, and how there should of been a primary. At this point I'll even concede that a primary would of probably been a good thing. However, Reynolds went on to say that Sennett didn't want a primary because the reality was that he had a slim to none chance of winning it. This is where I really question Reynolds' competence as a political insider.... the unfortunate reality is that the general election turned into the September primary and Bradley lost terribly.


In a Democratic primary the main people that come out and vote are from the towns of Woodstock, Saugerties, Rosendale, Marbletown and Kingston. Let's look at the numbers:


Woodstock Sennett: 1250 Bradley : 209


Saugerties Sennett : 1160 Bradley: 800


Rosendale Sennett: 652 Bradley : 286


Marbletown Sennett: 698 Bradley : 306


Kingston Sennett: 1710 Bradley : 2265


New Paltz Sennett : 1565 Bradley: 289


TOTAL : Sennett : 7035 Bradley : 4155
Cut both the totals in half because the primary would of been much lower than the general and you have Sennett with 3517 and Bradley at 2077. We'll add on about 300 to Bradley for people that supported Sennett because he was the party's nominee... the total in the key areas of a Democratic primary would be Sennett at 3117 and Bradley at about 2377...the other towns would be about even with Sennett having the edge as the nominee....bottom line Sennett wins in a landslide.

You can't go by this entirely, because we're leaving a lot of towns out and there is the fact that anyone can vote in a general election and you don't know what the exact numbers would be in a primary vs. the general election. However, you can get an idea of what the primary would have been by voter trends and making an educated guess. There is absolutely no way that Bradley would have walked out of the primary as the winner and the numbers are very clear of that. Bradley only beat Sennett in Kingston (his hometown) by a few hundred votes. In comparison Sennett trampled Bradley in New Paltz by about 5-1. The problem was that for Sennett there was no guarantee that Bradley would have dropped out if he lost the primary. Sennett would have entered the general election with a lot less money and in the exact same situation. But, what do I know.


20 comments:

Anonymous said...

You will have to run this 3 times a week. He never gets it straight.

PimpleJuice said...

Jeremy,

Can you list the results from Denning and Hardenberg?

Anonymous said...

Reynolds has forgotten more about local politics than you've learned. You've got a long ways to go before you'll be experienced enough to carry his notepad.

Anonymous said...

Blaber wrote: "but what do I know"

Too much for your own good.

Anonymous said...

Why in the world would you say a primary would be a good thing. Bradley was not a candidate in the Democratic party. He was rejected by committees for a reason...he stunk as a candidate.

To create a precedent of "do overs" would be disasterous for the party.

Anonymous said...

Okay, now we need to know what motivated Maurice to back a Conservative candidate in a move that cost the democrats the election.

Anonymous said...

7:44 PM:

Because we have Holley Carnright as our fucking DA!

Jeremy Blaber said...

Denning: Carnright 72, Sennett 60 Bradley 23

Hardenburg : Sennett 42 Carnright 29 Bradley 13

Anonymous said...

Blaber does not need to carry Reynold's notebook. Skew Reynolds doesn't write anything down. He makes it up as he goes.

Besides, reporters aren't using notebooks anymore. They are using electronic tools. What does Hugh know about Blogs? Nothing. If he did, he would have his own.

Anonymous said...

I can't beleive those are Bradley's number's he is such a snake! He told me that he was leading Sennett in every town in the polling he had done. What a liar.

Anonymous said...

Your just jealous of Reynolds, Blabber!!!! Besides, he's much sexier than you.

Tom-Tom

Anonymous said...

Ira Fusbucket, Hugh Reynolds, and that little giggling weasel Paul Kerby are all we have here in Freeman land and apparently all we deserve.

Anonymous said...

Both Sennett and Bradley were unlikeable candidates.

Julian would probably have been the best Dem choice.

In the end, Carnright was the best of the three that ran.

Anonymous said...

Did you ask yourself how many of those Dems pulled the dem lever not even knowing or caring who was running? How was that a dem primary with only one name under the dem. party line. Put it to rest. The results prove nothing except that Sennett and Bradley both lost and badly. We are all tired of hearing about your speculation on who would of won a primary should of, but with the help of you and your friends wonderful advice did not occur. Bottom line is we are with a Republican DA because Sennett and his supporters, you included, were too stupid to do what was the smart thing for HIM, which was stand up and say if I can't beat this guy in a primary, I can't win the election. Bradley told me, a committeeman, and every other committeeman he talked to before the vote that if he lost the primary he would drop out of the race. He offered to put it in writing. So stop the bull. End of story. You can talk all you want about what would of, should of, and could of happened but it is doing no good. Sennett was dumb and whoever was advising him, which apparently must have been you, was even dumber.

Anonymous said...

to 12:19 - Bradley "offered to put it in writing"? Well then why didn't he? Why would it have taken a primary for him to withdraw from the race? Had he cared about the party, he would have withdrawn June 5th. And you calling anyone dumb is the pot calling the kettle black - it's not "would of, could of..." - it's "would HAVE, could HAVE..." You and Jeremy both were out that day in the 4th Grade when they taught the contraction "would've, could've". There's no doubt that Sennett would've won the primary - but not only would his campaign have been broke, but then you have the two candidates sniping at each other thereby making it more difficult for the winner to prevail in the General Election. Kevin Cahill discouraged both Julian and Jon from primarying back in April - he told them both that primaries are not good for the party. That was well before Bradley got his ass kicked, of course; it was inconceivable to the party bosses that Bradley would lose. So, if primaries are bad for the party, why should Bradley have insisted on one?

Anonymous said...

"You was even dumber..."

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Even though this is a blog, how about sticking to English.

Anonymous said...

Hinchey??? In the only move you will ever see he backed "a conservative".

Those who want might want to primary Hinchey will be waiting to find the right moment to rub that endorsement in his face.

Of course Hinchey has the radical left to deal with soon. He has backed off the impeachment of Bush notion that many in the most liberal wing of the Dem party has.

Mo?? you better watch out the wolves are drooling for the right moment to strike you down!!

Anonymous said...

Jeremy I could not agree more.I'm disgusted with the Freeman and it's conservative bent. As for Hugh Reynolds, I think someone should check his earnings for the year because he almost certainly was on Bradley's pay roll it would seem.

Anonymous said...

Hugh Reynolds is on Cliff Miller's whoring payroll.

Jack St. John

Anonymous said...

I don't even bother reading Hugh Reynolds columns anymore. He doesn't know what he is talking about half the time.