February 13, 2024 - 7:30pm
The special election to replace Republican former Congressman George Santos is underway in New York with polls closing tonight, and it could serve as a bellwether for November’s presidential race.
Much like the race between Biden and Trump, the special election is extremely close and hinges on two issues of national importance: abortion and immigration. The candidates’ performance will give insight into the extent to which growing concerns about immigration will chip away at Democrats’ advantage in the post-Roe landscape.
New York is following the same trends as the nation as a whole: immigration is becoming a more important issue to voters, and voters are more concerned about illegal immigration. In the race to replace Santos, Democrat Tom Suozzi, who has held the seat three times, is running against Republican Mazi Pilip, a county legislator, with both tacking to the Right on immigration.
Pilip is a hardliner on immigration, and her attack ads have focused heavily on the issue. Suozzi, meanwhile, has endorsed immigration reforms that involve expedited deportations, but he’s still taking heat due to the perceived weakness of Democrats on the issue.
Abortion has historically ranked low among the issues American voters consider when choosing a candidate, but the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 has been credited with a sizeable advantage for Democrats, who have made legal abortion a centrepiece of their campaigns. Pilip, who supports legal abortion despite her personal opposition to the practice, is likely to be hurt on the issue due to her party affiliation. This much became clear during her first debate with Suozzi, who repeatedly asked Pilip whether she accepts the pro-choice label. She refused to directly answer, instead saying that she is “pro-life” but believes “every woman should have the choice to make that decision.”
Republicans, of course, want the race in New York and the presidential election to be a referendum on immigration, while Democrats want to focus on abortion. Across the country, the Biden campaign is betting on the abortion issue, including with major ad buys, which it hopes will energise the base and appeal to moderates. The success of a pro-abortion ballot measure in Ohio and the victories of pro-abortion Democratic candidates in Virginia and Kentucky lend some credibility to this strategy.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAbortion is effectively legal throughout pregnancy in New York. There are no criminal sanctions whatsoever, even if the abortion occurs far past the stage of viability. There is no chance of abortion being made illegal in New York, and no chance of a Federal ban. Abortion is completely irrelevant to this election, and deploying abortion related fearmongering to rally the base is distasteful and disingenuous.
Using this logic (I just LOL’d about conservatives trying to use logic!) then illegal immigration also has no impact on New Yorkers, unless you are panicking about the hordes of Canadians streaming across the northern border.
In reality, of course New Yorkers care about both issues and there will be a LOT of them voting against the restriction of women’s rights by a bunch of religious fruitcakes on the US Supreme Court.
Women do not have an inherent right to infanticide, though they do have that as a legal right in New York State. There are, in effect, no laws against abortions even during delivery. In New York City, close to 60% of all conceptions end in abortions.
Insofar as illegal entry is concerned, NYCs shelters – already heavily stressed with homeless drug addicts and the untreated mentally ill – are filling rapidly with Haitians, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and dozens of other countries’ refugees, in a city that has some of the most expensive real estate on earth, and local tax rates higher than those in France.
You seem to understand literally nothing you read on here, including articles, below the line comments and replies, and contribute nothing of any meaning or substance, while at the same time maintaining a presumption of haughty moral and intellectual superiority towards various people you don’t know, seemingly based on nothing more than a tribal political identity you are invested in
I’d say it’s a fairly handy illustration of how mindlessly tribal and toxic current ‘progressivism’ is — so thanks.
You’re welcome! And no doubt you will be able to show us a few examples of where I show that I “understand literally nothing”? I’ll wait.
As for ” haughty moral and intellectual superiority”, I think you’ll find that demonstrate very good humoured moral and intellectual superiority!!!
You’re the smartest guy in the room CS. Congrats.
Err, I don’t think we’ll have to look very far — could start with your first reply to the above post for example, which you have failed to engage with or understand.
Roe v Wade being overturned just means that decisions over abortion are delegated to the state level, so it might be likely that illegal immigration across the Canadian border and liberal NY laws on ‘sanctuary cities’ would make immigration a greater concern for voters?
In your post, you imply that you think the only possible immigrants into the state are Canadians.
Another miss, Benny!
I think you will find that people in New York care very much about women in Texas being forced to carry to term a fetus that has zero chance of survival or may already be dead, just to satisfy the religious zealots who seem to run that state.
You obviously don’t care about women’s health or their rights but lots of people do.
Is Trump going to build a wall on the northern border now? Will he get Canada to pay for it?!?!
One of these days your mind will suddenly explode into full technicolour, amazing and surprising all of your friends
That’s factually incorrect. The policies of Texas and Florida bussing migrants to, among other places, NYC have indeed had an observable effect on local political opinion regarding immigration and it hasn’t been good for Democrats. Whether that has had an effect on this particular district I don’t know.
It says very little about national politics either way. Local politics in the House is almost an exercise in probabilities. The influence of local issues and the candidate’s personality can be more important than the national party platforms. The Democrats gained one seat in an election year where very little is likely to get accomplished until the election anyway. It’s quite possible the Republicans will run someone else next year, because House members are up for reelection every two years regardless, and that person will win where this Republican just lost. Stuff like this happens more often than you’d think in the US.
That said, I have little doubt that the media will blow it out of all proportion just to have something to talk about, especially the winning side, which ended up being the Democrat.
Cry a bit more
Good. Anti abortionists needcstamping on, although pro immigration people also require that treatment