Daniel Squadron, Loser

The SAFE Act has claimed its first political casualty: Daniel Squadron.

Letitia James trounced Daniel Squadron in the Democratic primary runoff for public advocate Tuesday night — a victory that essentially guarantees she will become the first African-American woman to hold citywide office … In unofficial results, James, a City Councilwoman from Brooklyn, had 59.4% of the vote with 99% of precincts reporting, while Squadron had 40.6% …”

This is important because Squadron’s campaign literature focused on his gun ban agenda and how he did more for gun control than any other local candidate.  That didn’t move city Democrats.

  • Share on Tumblr

16 thoughts on “Daniel Squadron, Loser

  1. I saw his anti gun ads with chunky Shummer on TV and was praying he would lose. Squadron made his anti gun stance a central point in his campaign !! I am thrilled he lost !!!

  2. Lets not go rallying around the flag now-the “winner” L. James is also an anti 2nd amendment freak, she just didn’t make it a central part of her candidacy

  3. So, since 83% of the demoncommies could not hurt service members by voting to withhold their pay, they turned to their muslim sympathizing terrorist in chief to hurt those that serve by executive fiat. When are Americans going to see the demoncommies’ totalitarian political and socialist economic schemes for what they are: pure evil !!!?

  4. The government is notorious for focusing on the wrong solution. They should see the movie Silver Lining Playbook, about mental illness that’s so pervasive throughout the country, and when these individual get their hands on guns bad things happen!!!
    Then again, there’s a lot of mental illness in Washington DC.

  5. Ray,

    It’s a win. Was there a “pro-2nd” candidate realistically in the race? If not then the guy who came out vocally -for- a particular gun control bill lost to someone who just went along with it. That shows being overtly anti at best doesn’t -help-.

    In such cases we win if the anti who gets in is passive. Sure they’ll vote anti-gun if a bill comes up, but if they don’t actively push or sponsor new legislation, or try to show off by adding even more severe amendments to those that come up, we don’t have to worry about spending resources and time countering their moves. They are a known “quiet no” and we can focus on turning the “maybe’s” and countering the “hell yea’s.”

    Realistically, in some places all we can hope for shorter-term is to see passively anti politicians. Those are a plus for us as, if they don’t invest their personal political capital or “brand” on overtly supporting gun control to get elected, they will be more likely to go into the “vote present” or even “reluctantly bow to the will of their constituents by voting yes” column if we get popular pro-gun legislation up for vote, as they can’t be accused of being hypocrites by the anti’s.

  6. Oh and what makes it even sweeter is he’s a Chuck the Schmuck hack! It amazes me that most of these douchebags from the city that are in the Legislature never really held a real job yet they make the laws. Interesting, ain’t it?

Comments are closed.