Gillibrand vs. Pataki!?

Gillibrand will beat (0.00 / 0)

whomever in the primary and in the general.

---

by: devtob @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 02:42:31 AM UTC

I think its early (4.00 / 1)

And things are always fluid.

Lets see what she does in the next twelve months, how well the press covers it, and how the Republicans (and her potential Democratic opponents) respond.

I tend to think that if she avoids a primary, she's golden. But its too early to tell and WAY too early to get comfortable.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:49:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course, it's early (0.00 / 0)

But the primary campaign has already started, in a sotto voce way downstate.

As a Gillibrand supporter, I welcome any primary challenge, which I am confident she will win with ease.

And that will propel her to a general election win against whomever, in 2010 and again in 2012.

---

by: devtob @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 04:21:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How did this attitude work for Clinton v. Obama? (0.00 / 0)

Dev, I know you feel as passionately pro-Gillibrand as I am convinced New York can and should do better.

We can disagree about her, but the one thing that I think is safe to say is this:

Merely saying "I'm confident my candidate will win with ease" is neither a substantive nor a persuasive form of argumentation. It's not even an argument.

Such claims are devoid of content, relying instead on the notion that opponents will be demoralized or intimidated by one's confidence. It's precisely the sort of overconfidence and bluser that sunk Clinton's presidential hopes.

If you really believe that Gillibrand will win the primary, then why not put your energy into trying to get other Democrats behind her, rather than deploying bravado which turns people off to her?

---

by: Hudson @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:09:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't really understand (4.00 / 3)

what the big deal is...A three-term popular former Governor can't get any higher than 46% against someone half the state doesn't even know? And we're supposed to be scared...because? Especially considering Pataki hasn't made any hint that he would run. And THEN Cuomo and Schumer, both popular and likely to win in landslides, on the ballot...coattails.

A lot of this has a lot of personal issues all over it on the blogsphere...some people didn't like that Paterson appointed Gillibrand...whether it was because Gillibrand isn't a rabid left winger or because she's from upstate (which I find to be a bigger issue than you'd think. It's like downstaters feel entitled to both Senate seats) that they're willing to throw their support behind anyone including McCarthy, who isn't even all that liberal compared to Gillibrand, or Maloney.

Speaking as someone who has met both Maloney and Gillibrand, if you want my personal opinion? Gillibrand without a though. If the two were running in a primary for an open seat, I think I'd still pick Gillibrand.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 02:54:42 AM UTC

Agreed totally (0.00 / 0)

Pataki won't run, because he's too lazy -- for the campaign or the job.

Unlike Gillibrand, who is a phenomonally hard worker in D.C. and throughout the state.

Someone from downstate will challenge Gillibrand in the primary.

Unsuccessfully.

---

by: devtob @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 03:45:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which will actually be really helpful (4.00 / 1)

Hate to say it because this audience won't like it, but a downstate challenger, as left-leaning as possible, will give Gillibrand precisely the foil that she needs to position herself to win big upstate.  Help her to look resonable and practical and in touch with the regular folk. Downstate Dems will vote for her anyway in the general.  All good.

---

by: robinia @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:30:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ehhhh... (0.00 / 0)

I think that depends how strong the Republican is. A strong win in the primary will give her an extra 6-7 points against a weak underfunded republican, but if He (presumably) has cash, she might come out of the primary already beaten due to the inparty damage. It seems unlikely, but a good Republican candidate IMO still has a chance.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 22:27:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keep in mind (0.00 / 0)

I am pretty sure that an upstate moderate has not beaten a downstate liberal in a Democratic statewide primary in memory.  For that matter the more liberal candidate, if both are from downstate, wins.  

---

by: jmcbride @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 14:27:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What upstate bluing means.... (0.00 / 0)

That math changes as upstate gets bluer.  See comments below.  I actually think that is part of what the NY Times saw and started to get so miffed about.

---

by: robinia @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 15:30:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well two thinks (4.00 / 2)

when was the last time an upstate moderate was the incumbent?

and also, the moderate vs. liberal thing is pretty much a face...I don't really see how Maloney or McCarthy really are more "liberal" than Gillibrand.

A lot of this has to do with fear about what Gillibrand will become once she's entrenched. There was an exchange on DailyKos where someone suggested kicking people like Gillibrand out to get a public option in healthcare, to which someone else responded "but both Gillibrand and Schumer support the public option and were 2 of the 16 Senators coming out explicitly in favor it" the response by the previous poster was "Well she's just doing that to win. If we don't beat her, she'll become a Blue Dog again if we don't beat her."

I keep thinking of when I worked for a Queens Assemblyman and every Friday afternoon at 2pm, I would sit down with him and go through constituent letters and my first week I brought to his attention a letter by a constituent who was upset with him over a vote he took on some school bus law. He smiled at me and showed me a file of letters from the same constituent who regularly wrote "I am done with you, Assemblyman. I am disappointed..." In one case she asked him to change his mind on legislation...and when he did, she criticized him for changing his mind. He told me to just stick the letter in the file and forget about it; "There's nothing I can do to make her happy, I've been trying for years."

That's what happens when you become the type of person who instantly decides "Senator X is just going to sell me out." everytime Senator X tries to reach out to you. Senator X will just stop trying to reach out to you. Look what the response was when Senator Gillibrand wrote on Dkos. If I was advising Gillibrand, I'd tell her "Forget Dailykos, you'll never please most of them, talk to New Yorkers"

Besides, it's not like we always win with politicians the netroots support anyway. Look at people like Jon Tester...heavily supported by netroots activists like David Sirota...he voted against cramdown (which Gillibrand supported) and Sirota expressed regret. Similar situations with Eric Massa, Larry Kissell, Jeff Merkley...a netroots favorites who have already disappointed people on the blogs...so it's not like the netroots have an excellent reputation with regards to picking candidates who follow their agenda.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 17:14:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An important point I agree with... (4.00 / 1)

As far as "moderate" vs. "liberal" goes, Maloney is behind Gillibrand on gay marriage, and the advantage Maloney had on immigration is going away. Add to that, McCarthy is decidedly more conservative than both of the others.

---

by: Adama @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 19:49:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is somewhat unique, (0.00 / 0)

since Gillibrand is the incumbent, and even though appointed will have many incumbent advantages.

I'm not aware of any primary where a downstate liberal beat an upstate moderate incumbent.

And even if there were such an example decades ago, it would hardly be relevant today, given Gillibrand's undeniable political skills.  

---

by: devtob @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 01:16:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hope Gillibrand is getting the message (4.00 / 1)

She really needs to get around and let the voters get to know her.  This reminds me so much of the response to Hillary Clinton.  People hated her until they met her personally and found out that she wasn't fire breathing baby eater that the right wing media had been portraying her as.

---

by: AnswerLady @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:33:28 PM UTC

Reasons why Pataki may be polling well v. Gillibrand (0.00 / 0)

Normally I'd be inclined to disbelieve that any Republican could beat any Democrat for U.S. Senate in deep-blue New York. After all, this is a state which re-elected Hevesi with 58% even after his scandalous behavior as Comptroller was exposed.

(That dynamic is precisely why I think that New York can and should elect a more progressive Senator in 2010.)

But due to the peculiar circumstances in New York right now, I can think of some non-outlandish reasons why Pataki might stand a chance against Gillibrand in this particular cycle, though I don't think he'd have much of a chance against a different Democrat. To wit:

(1) Governor Paterson is extraordinarily unpopular, with a record-low 19% approval rating;

(2) One of the few things voters know about Gillibrand is that she was appointed by Paterson, and indeed according to recent polls her approval rating is identical to his (19%);

(3) Moreover, the circumstances of Gillibrand's appointment left an unusually sour taste in people's mouth, due to the amazingly clumsy way Paterson handled it, and also the appearance of D'Amato at Gillibrand's side at the announcement;

(4) The downstate press is now uniformly hostile to Gillibrand, from the Post to Newsday to the Daily News to the Times, which gives Pataki an unusual leg up against Gillibrand in the region where Republicans normally fare poorly (n.b.: The Times was quite pro-KG until the Caroline Kennedy debacle);

(5) Bloomberg is quite popular in NYC, and despite some history of friction with Pataki would likely help him there;

(6) And finally, there is the Spitzer factor. People were tired of Pataki after he stayed in Albany for too many terms, and he left unpopular -- just as the once-adored Mario Cuomo did. Pataki seemed like a preposterous candidate when he first ran for Governor, but Cuomo fatigue helped him slip in. Now, with the "reformer" Spitzer having badly disappointed the 70% of New Yorkers who elected him, and Paterson having flubbed his big chance, Pataki's outgoing negatives may be forgiven by some New Yorkers, who may look back now to the drab Pataki days with some odd form of nostalgia.

Per my initial statement, I don't think most of these factors would affect most Democratic candidates the way they afflict Gillibrand, due to her strong affiliation with Paterson.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:26:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are Gillibrands primary numbers (0.00 / 0)

and other candidates numbers against the tacky, what about giuliani any news about him.  

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 13:16:26 PM UTC

The latest Gillibrand v. Maloney poll.... (0.00 / 0)

....had Gillibrand up by a few points, with a large number still undecided.

---

by: Rufus T. Firefly @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 14:35:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's funny how polls are always absurd... (0.00 / 0)

... when they report a result that's bad for one's candidate, but they're reason to celebrate when they show one's side ahead.

That's human nature, I suppose.

---

by: Hudson @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 01:10:29 AM UTC

Pataki seems to (0.00 / 0)

still exert control over the NYS Republicans, which is almost insane when you think of it.

They have not yet built a bench, which may be good given the current popularity of the Gov and Sen. G.

---

by: John Minehan @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 15:55:39 PM UTC