I started seeing this meme hit Twitter and Facebook last night: NY-23 was a referendum on conservatism, and maybe now the Republican Party will learn to run moderates in northern races because we can't win otherwise.

All due respect to the gentlemen (and ladies) who believe that, honestly. But I must disagree.

NY-23 was a referendum on nothing except poorly executed strategy and Republican establishment arrogance. This is a race that wasn't really a race until the NRCC began spending money (over $1 million, according to some estimates) slamming - you guessed it - Doug Hoffman instead of the Democratic candidate Bill Owens. The liberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava (and all indications are that she is, in fact, to the left of even Owens!), did not drop out of the race until late last week - absentee ballots had already begun arriving in election offices.

A great combination of factors ensured, ultimately, that Hoffman was going to lose.

Consider this: Hoffman is no one's idea of a politician, except the scrappy grassroots who are determined to grow citizen candidates. He didn't have a lot of money, and he was rejected by the Republican party insiders locally who thought only a liberal-leaning "career" politician could pull off a special election. Given the tremendous force going against him early on, he still got 45% of the vote. Owens only won with 49%. Scozzafava, not surprisingly, managed to scrape 6% of the vote because her name was still on the election day ballot, and up until Friday of last week, she was still running for the office.

Scozzafava did what an unknown third party candidate tends to do in hotly contested races. She made up the margin of victory and swung the race to the Democrat. She was responsible for what we in Travis County Texas might call the "Libertarian" effect on the final vote tally.

Let's face one other hard truth. Scozzafava may have been responsible for what was, in effect, third party shenanigans in the vote tally, but she was a candidate from one of the two major parties. Doug Hoffman was the true third party candidate. There is every chance that there were party-line voters who could not stomach voting for someone perceived as outside the mainstream - there is a reason third parties are more successful in polling than in elections. Despite the occasional wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain grassroots movements about the need for a third party in this country, none has ever been truly successful in doing anything other than taking votes away from a major party.

I know a lot of people won't want to hear that, but take a look at Virginia, where Republican Bob McDonnell ruled the day among independent voters. Despite all the rhetoric about the evil Republican Party, McDonnell won handily as a Republican.

I think there was a lot playing in NY-23 that those of us who weren't there for most of it haven't taken into account. Hoffman's loss is not about conservative versus moderate versus liberal. It is about Republican branding, and to whom Republican leadership lends aid. Had the Republicans backed the conservative from the get-go, like they did in Virginia, victory might have been Hoffman's. History bears this out - when a Republican at least talks like a conservative, he/she wins. Go liberal, and the base will revolt. They did in NY-23. They've done it elsewhere.

Last night's elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York were referenda on three things: Barack Obama's leadership, Congressional folly, and the Republican Party's embrace of individuals who do not represent the majority of Republican values.