NY-Sen: A Look At The Gillibrand-Israel Primary For U.S. Senate

What's best for New York and the country as a whole... (4.00 / 1)

...is for there not to be a primary at all. Gillibrand will be an effective and progressive Senator.

A primary here will devote millions of dollars from Senate races like Ohio and Missouri, and will leave the party bitterly divided going into the general election.  

---

by: Rufus T. Firefly @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:10:36 AM CDT

We must have a choice! (4.00 / 2)

How could we just throw our hands up and simply say, "what's best for New York... is for there not to be a primary at all?"  Senator Gillibrand was appointed to this seat and now we, Dems, shouldn't be given a choice, again???

Like most Dems, Gillibrand and Rep Israel probably agree on many issues, but is that enough to say that there shouldn't be a primary?

I think we deserve a choice, we deserve to see a Gillibrand campaign and an Israel campaign, with debates & townhalls and then let New York Dems choose their Senator.  Once we vote and a Dem candidate is selected, we will reunite as a strong Democratic party and face whomever the Republicans put up.  

---

by: NYChange @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:55:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 2)

I support Gillibrand easily over Israel, but I think a primary just has to be a good idea in this case.  

(In general, I always support primaries of course - the reason they go so badly, I fear, is our lack of practice at them.)

---

by: simonstl @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 11:17:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have to disagree (4.00 / 1)

Primaries are good for democracy and good for the Democratic Party.

When primaries are about real disagreements on the issues and allow a public discussion of those issues then they are good for the party, good for the candidates and good for the people.

When primaries are nothing but ego trips or nothing but negative attack exercises then they provide no positive value.

The solution to the very real money problem you cite is campaign finance reform. That is another problem altogether and a very real one that needs solving.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 13:24:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where do more New Yorkers live (0.00 / 0)

upstate or in the city and its surrounding suburbs. A primary is not a distraction we have the oppurtunity to run primaries to find the better Senator as according to registered Democrats in the state of NY. If anyone thinks that the Republicans won't also be as distracted or more distracted by Crist v/ Rodeo in Florida then we will by a Gillibrand/Israel race here they have something to learn. Also Israel's district has not voted for a Republican since it elected Lazio in 1993.

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:36:52 AM CDT

Thanks for writing us off again (4.00 / 2)

The point isn't to find someone who focuses on upstate. Finding someone who merely acknowledges our existence and appropriates the requisite 2/3s of their time to the 2/3s of New Yorkers who don't live in "the city" New York City.

Didn't Lazio's district vote for him in 1994, 1996, and 1998 as well? Did he switch parties and not tell anyone?

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:49:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah he lost in 2001 (0.00 / 0)

and that district voted for the D for president in 1996 2000, 2004 and 2008. And it depends how you put it I consider downstate, the suburbs of NY and NY are one block, Upstate is another. I'm not writing off upstate but NY is a Blue State as a whole, even if Upstate is not.  

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:52:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up. Upstate IS blue. (4.00 / 2)

North of Rockland County, there are more Democrats than there are Republicans. And somehow, I doubt New York City is underrepresented by not having both Senators be natives.

---

by: Adama @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:01:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Steve Israel is from Long Island (0.00 / 0)

which according to your first comment is not part of NYC, and why do you have a problem with a primary if Steve Israel wins the Primary I'll vote for him against any Republican, if Gillibrand wins I'll vote for her against any Republican. My problem is that people seem horrified at the very idea of a primary, this is a bad thing. Primaries are healthy for the party, they should be orderly, polite, issue oriented and democratic. That's what I want from this race. NY is a blue state, I want the most progressive candidate possible, I would actually prefer the following congresspeople to Gillibrand and Israel: from downstate; Maloney, McCarthy, Ackerman, and Velazquez from upstate; I would prefer Louise Slaughter. But not having a primary on some sort of stategic grounds is dumb.

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:14:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

I didn't say anything about Long Island.

The reason people are worried is because, absent a clear need to replace an official, this is the sort of situation that can split the base and result in the kind of circular firing squad that our party is famous for. Tons of time, money, and volunteer effort is wasted fighting between people who are going to represent pretty much the same way, which could be better directed at Republicans.

---

by: Adama @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 14:15:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

From Now On (4.00 / 1)

Whenever someone uses the phrase "the city", I am going to take them to mean The City of Oneonta, and reply as such. This is the only warning I will give.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:56:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That only makes sense if we live in the (0.00 / 0)

state of Oneonta.

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:14:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Too bad. (4.00 / 1)

It's offensive.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:43:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No its not I live in the state of New york (4.00 / 1)

their is also a city of NY when anyone says I'm going to the City, I know they mean NYC and usually they mean Manhattan. Between me and NYC are the following cities that are bigger then Oneonta, which is by the way a wonderful small town, which I remember fondly from my days at the Hartwick Summer Music program, Huntington, Islip, Garden City etc. they still mean NY thats what the City means and refusing to acknowledge that is provincial, parochial and self centered, as is calling it offensive when someone else uses it that way, you obviously knew what i meant you just didn't like it that I made such a statemen.  

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:42:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ummmm.... (4.00 / 4)

The terminology is used differently in different parts of the state.  In the small, mostly rural county I live in, when people say they are going to "the city," they mean Ithaca.... unless they are Cornell or IC students from Long Island.  When THEY say they are going to "the city," they mean NYC.  It is often combined in the same sentence with derogatory comments about how there is nothing to do here, how they hate the stores, etc., etc.  

Both viewpoints are parochial.  Just depends which parish you are from.  If Israel wants to alienate a bunch of people and lose the primary, he should run around places like Syracuse, Buffalo and Binghamton (as well as Newfield and Bath) talking about "the city" and meaning NYC.  Schumer knows better.

---

by: robinia @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:52:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

When I say I'm going to the city (4.00 / 2)

People assume I mean Buffalo. People in Greece assume you mean Rochester. People in Broome County assume you mean Binghamton.

I chose Oneonta for two reasons: It's small, and I've been there.

I knew what you meant because I'm used to NYC-centric people off in their own world.

I'm choosing not to anymore.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:55:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No... it makes sense if (0.00 / 0)

when you think of "the city" Oneonta is what comes to mind. When I think of driving into "the city" to go to a store or some form of entertainment I think of Albany not NYC. NYC is NYC. Syracuse is Syracuse. Buffalo is Buffalo. etc.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 13:38:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I thought it was (0.00 / 0)

Albany or Troy.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 13:28:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Liberal v. Conservative (0.00 / 1)

If you are going to analyze the bonafides of each candidate (Liberal vs. Conservative), you should probably include their positions on Gun Control, Immigration, and Gay Marriage.  Especially being from a rural county, I want to know if one of these politicians will take my guns and prevent my neighbor (who is a farmer) from being able to pick his crops with those workers he gets from Jamacia.

---

by: Swing Vote @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:17:36 AM CDT

Fundraising will be key indicator (4.00 / 1)

It will be curious to see if Israel can keep up with Gillibrand's fundraising machine over the next few months.  Kirsten has always been in permanent fundraising mode - it's supposedly one of the reasons Paterson chose her.  Unless Israel can begin to close the cash gap, he'll be in tough shape next spring when the race trully begins.    

---

by: tomman77 @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:35:57 AM CDT

Constituent relations (4.00 / 2)

Please don't forget that while representing NY-20 Gillibrand really did an awesome job at constituent relations, accessibility, and openness. That earned her lots of votes from both sides of the aisle. She's already made  a good start on doing the same in the Senate. If she succeeds at building a reputation for good constituent relations, openness and accessibility, she'll be very hard for anyone to beat.

---

by: chezjake @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:49:41 AM CDT

re: Constituent relations (0.00 / 0)

While I do not dispute your point, Rep Israel certainly has earned plenty of recognition for his constituent services especially his work on behalf of veterans and his tireless work within the district.

---

by: NYChange @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 11:02:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Open Government (0.00 / 0)

She is leading the way in the entire country in terms of open and transparent government. Schumer is even following her path now that she has joined him as Senator.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 13:40:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand will win the primary (4.00 / 3)

Candidates who have announced their plans or desires to challenge Gillibrand: Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Congressman Steve Israel, and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer (Congresswoman McCarthy said she will only run if no one else runs). If all 3 of them decide to challenge Gillibrand, then she will win due to the incumbency advantage (ie: she will likely have better name recognition when the time comes). In a multiple candidate race, it is easy for the incumbent to win by at least a plurality.

With regards to whether or not she is liberal enough or too conservative, I think she has moved enough to the left to satisfy my need for liberal representatives. Anyone who has studied Congress knows that all members of both chambers take the positions that will allow them to win re-election. Many might claim that Gillibrand is only adopting liberal positions because she wants to win, but thats what all of the other 534 members of congress do. She is trying to represent the state, which is much more liberal than her old congressional district. Senators and House Members who do the best are the ones who represent their constituents ideas and interests in Congress, which is what Gillibrand is trying to do.

A primary election might be good for her too. If When she wins the primary, she will have proven her ability to win a state-wide race, plus the NY media will be focused on that, increasing her name recognition even further just in time for her run aganst possible contender George Pataki.

---

by: stevenman5000 @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:59:15 AM CDT

I agree with the sentiment (4.00 / 1)

that whoever wins will benefit from the media attention received in the primary election during the General election. My main gripe with Gillibrand is and has always been that Patterson's primary criteria in selecting her was to shore up his own re-election prospects upstate not for the good of the state as a whole.

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 11:13:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I disagree... (4.00 / 1)

While selecting her may have in fact helped him a little bit (although I doubt it did him any good in the long run), I think he chose her more for (in no particular order):  A) her incredible fundraising ability, B) the fact that she's young, and can build seniority in the Senate, C) the fact that she's ridiculously charismatic and incredibly popular among the constituents that she served in the 20th, D) a moderate

Help support the Halfmoon Democrats! Every little bit helps.

---

by: Jrathman @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 12:00:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some thoughts (4.00 / 3)

First, the ratings given out by most of these groups are ridiculous; they are based on a very few votes cast and/or cosponsorships of a few bills that never went anywhere.  Whenever you see one politician with an 80% rating and another with a 60% rating, it's a good bet that the "rating" was based on only five bills (ten at the outside).

Second, Steve Israel is a massive fundraiser.  He was set to take over the DCCC if Chris Van Hollen had moved on, primarily because of his fundraising ability.  On the other hand, Gillibrand is also a phenomenal fundraiser, and with the basic power of incumbency she has the advantage.

Third, both Gillibrand and Israel appear to be moderate Democrats, meaning there is an opening for Carolyn Maloney should she choose to enter the race.  Primary voters tend to be further from the center in both parties, and this would help Maloney in a three-way race.

Fourth, I believe that the "conventional wisdom" that a primary campaign weakens the party, either in the district by splitting the vote, or nationwide by diverting scarce resources away from competitive general elections, is incorrect.  A healthy primary race can stimulate discussion and excitement about the eventual primary winner, bring more money into the system, and weaken the power of the party machinery that seems permanently stuck in the last century -- or the century before that.

Do I think Gillibrand can be beaten?  No.  That assessment is not based on anything I've written above, but on the fact that she is going all over the state, making speeches, meeting people, and generally saying and doing what she needs to do in order to win.

But a three- or four-way primary would be fun to watch.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:19:36 AM CDT

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

On all thoughts and conclusions.    

---

by: Kluggy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 23:40:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Statements count (4.00 / 4)

This statement:

It should also be mentioned that in his 2004 Political Courage Test provided by Project Vote Smart, Congressman Israel said that he would "greatly decrease" the agriculture portion of the budget.

was made in 2004, so, perhaps we should be charitable and ask again in view of the current recession, but, that is a very, very awkward thing for somebody who wants to represent NYS to have said.  NOT just because the Agriculture portion of the budget is an important safety net for a lot of the State's rural, farm-economy-dependent sections, but, more importantly because our most vulnerable inner-city areas are very dependent upon the Agriculture budget for such programs as Food Stamps (now "SNAP"), school food programs, WIC, and other programs to feed the hungry.  Look at it some time-- the Agriculture budget is disproportionately (meaning, MOST of the money) feeding and nutrition programs.  Those dastardly farm subsidies (and I, as well as lots of NYS farmers I know, think it is a terrible system) make up a much smaller piece of the pie.

NOT that we aren't getting our share of that, too... but, you know, not necessarily farmers, there.  Turns out that Dairy farmers are often not selling "program crops" that get subsidies.... and fruit and vegetable growers ("specialty crops") get none.  Those are the areas in which NYS agriculture specializes, so, our share of the subsidy pie going to upstate farmers is relatively low.  But, maybe you have heard that much of the farm subsidy share of the ag budget doesn't go to family farmers who actually live on the land, anyway?  Yup.  According to a study of the location to which checks were sent done by somebody I used to work with, NYC has an enormous number of the actual farm subsidy checks being sent there, as far as locations go.  For land they own and have corporate farmed in the Midwest, no doubt.

Gillibrand has a really impressive understanding of farm and food policy.  We need that, and we need her sitting on the Ag Committee, too.  Israel will get an education from the primary, which will be good for him.

---

by: robinia @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:46:39 AM CDT

Primaries are not always a good thing (0.00 / 0)

They have the potential to create irreversible bad blood between the candidates and their supporters, and they have the tendency to drain large sums of money that would better serve the candidate in the general election.

We need to realize that a real knock em down, drag em out primary could play right into the hands of a Pataki or a Guliani, and make the senate race a real cliff-hanger.

---

by: pollbuster @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 12:00:34 PM CDT

The other side of that coin (4.00 / 2)

A primary that makes Republicans think they can win the seat, spend a boatload of money, and lose not only this seat but perhaps one in Ohio or Kentucky that they might have won had they not diverted resources to New York, would be a good thing.

One of the fun things about politics is that it is an art, not a science.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 12:03:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pollyanna was an interesting story too n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: pollbuster @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 09:01:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

you nailed it: (4.00 / 3)

how can you vote against Gillibrand who has proved her worth as a U.S. senator

The fact is, we don't have to guess what kind of Senator Kirsten will be because she has a record in the Senate and a strong, progressive one at that. She supports marriage equality, she supports a public option for healthcare, she supports cramdown legislation, she supports the credit card bill of rights and the list goes on and on. In fact, in her short time in the Senate, she's become the 2nd most progressive Senator according to Progressive Punch. What kind of Senator will Steve Israel be? Well, looking at his record, Progressive Punch lists him as the 127th most progressive member of the House and gives him a 2 rating = "Tolerable."

Disclosure: I'm doing netroots outreach for Kirsten. I look forward to engaging with TAP a lot over the next year and a half.

I am proud to be doing netroots outreach for Senator Gillibrand's 2010 campaign

---

by: Todd Beeton @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 12:03:05 PM CDT

Proved her worth? (0.00 / 0)

While she has been on the right side on a bunch of issues so far, I do not think you could say she has proved her worth yet.  It takes a lot more than a few months for an appointed senator to have earned the ability to be handed the seat again.

---

by: NYChange @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 12:19:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Glad to hear it, and welcome (4.00 / 1)

Appreciate your honesty about the connection.

So, you are probably the right one to ask: where is my response to my "Conversations with Kirsten" comment?  It's been over a week already.  Not a problem if it is her staff and not her personally answering, but.... you know, some in the netroots are saying it is just an email harvesting operation.... are real staffers going to read those comments and reply?

---

by: robinia @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 14:44:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

several video responses are up... (4.00 / 1)

...they just went up on Monday actually.

http://www.conversationswithki...

Because many people ask similar questions, not every one will get a video response (you'll notice that Kirsten's healthcare answer is in response to a question that came from the DailyKos thread) but yes, every question is read and culled through. This is a genuine opportunity for Kirsten to have a dialogue with folks online.

Thanks.

And just in case my new sig didn't take, let me reiterate that I'm proud to be doing netroots outreach for Kirsten Gillibrand's 2010 Senate campaign.

I am proud to be doing netroots outreach for Senator Gillibrand's 2010 campaign

---

by: Todd Beeton @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 15:18:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK.... (4.00 / 2)

So, then, if you comment on something that is NOT something that every other Jane, Dick and Harry is commenting on... ?
I'm not looking for her to record a video in response to every comment.  But, don't you think that if some of us want to know where she stands on an issue that is, say, of regional importance... or, important to those interested in a fairly narrow technical bill, like, say, the Transportation Bill.... that we might do well to get an email response from the staffer that reads the comment?

---

by: robinia @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 16:34:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ah, now I understand your question a bit better (4.00 / 1)

I was just referring to Kirsten's video responses up at the site. Can check for you.

I am proud to be doing netroots outreach for Senator Gillibrand's 2010 campaign

---

by: Todd Beeton @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:11:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

2 days on the job (4.00 / 1)

and already getting bruised by the friendlies! LOL

Welcome to the big leagues kid! < /chuckling >

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:58:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gee... (4.00 / 2)

I was trying to be nice! ;-)

---

by: robinia @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:18:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What does Steve Israel offer (4.00 / 2)

that we don't already have?

I am of the belief that primaries are good for democracy. I am against the idea of folks like Chuck Schumer or Ed Rendell trying to stop primaries from happening. Their intentions are good in that they are doing what they think is best for the party but it is an institutional viewpoint and not a people oriented viewpoint.

What I want to know though is what does Steve Israel have to offer that we don't already have in Kirsten Gillibrand?

I'm not as familiar with him as I am with her but I've quickly reviewed his record and vote ratings and don't see that he offers anything extra.

Kirsten Gillibrand is a fine, strong democrat. She is and will be an excellent Senator. If someone wants to convince me or any other voter that we should throw her out of office and put them in instead then they need to offer something really special above and beyond what we already have. What does Steve Israel offer?

For example, Joe Sestak is arguably more conservative then either Israel or Gillibrand. But he is a solid Democrat. If he primaries Arlen Specter then he will have my full support. Specter is not a Democrat regardless of his opportunistic party switch and so far has done absolutely nothing for the Democratic Party. Joe Sestak might be more conservative then I prefer but he will be an actual, full fledged Democratic Senator. That is a very different situation then Gillibrand, a far more progressive Democrat then Sestak, or Steve Israel.

Bringing it back to New York... I have understood the concerns and objections of my liberal friends about some of the Kirsten Gillibrand's votes in the House. I also understand the argument that a strong Democratic state like New York is a good opportunity for us to send the most liberal Democrat we can to the Senate. I see nothing in Israel's record that shows that he improves on Gillibrand in any way. If we, as progressive Democrats and other liberals, want to improve on Kirsten Gillibrand then she needs to be primaried by someone substantially better then her and so far, only one of named potential candidates might satisfy that criteria. Maloney, Israel and McCarthy do not. They may be marginally more liberal on this issue or that but are not on others.

Lastly, any primary candidate is going to have to show that they are as capable, intelligent, hard working, accessible and transparent as well as substantially better on the issues.

That is going to be a very tough bill to fill.

I for one, welcome the challenge. I hope all the rumored candidates jump in and work hard to oujt-do each other and Kirsten Gillibrand in liberal bona fides and in hard work and transparency, accessibility, etc.

Nothing but good can come from that.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 14:05:01 PM CDT

A possibility (4.00 / 1)

There are representatives at all levels of government who vote the way you want but don't actually accomplish anything.  If Rep. Israel can show that he has gotten things done in the House, while Gillibrand hasn't, then maybe he has something to campaign on.

Of course, Israel entered the House six years before Gillibrand, which could explain any difference.  Israel could claim that his longer years of experience in DC help his get more for NY that Gillibrand could -- at which point Carolyn Maloney chimes in, saying that she not only has the years of experience (8 more than Israel), but also has a recent major accomplishment to her credit (pun intended).

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 14:48:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Experience is one (0.00 / 0)

important qualification. But only one... and not an overwhelming one under the circumstances. It would have to be shown that Kirsten's inexperience is costing the state and that she is not up to the task. The odds of that happening are slim and none and slim is fading away with each day. Kirsten Gillibrand is a VERY capable woman as well as a quick and thorough study. So, in my opinion, the experience angle is not enough to throw her out of office.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:43:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand 2010! (4.00 / 2)

In January 2009, Israel promised Paterson he would support whoever is selected. A divisive primary, said Israel, would help Republicans seeking to win the U.S. Senate post and break Democrats' hold on all statewide offices. Steve Israel was a reliable Bush Democrat when it mattered most.

*  Israel has an anti-immigration record of voting to make local law enforcement officials federal agents to round up immigrants and supported building a wall along the border of Mexico.
*  Israel voted against repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
*  Israel voted for the Republican-sponsored bankruptcy bill that favored big banks over struggling consumers.
*  Israel supported the Bush-Cheney energy plan that gave tax breaks to big oil and led to sky-high gas prices for consumers.
*  Israel has a history of working with extreme House Republicans like Eric Canter in the "middle-isle caucus" he founded and has had strong associations with the DLC and Blue Dog Caucus.
*  Israel cast the tie-breaking vote for the Republican RX drug plan that favored the pharmaceutical companies over Seniors.
*  Israel was an enthusiastic supporter of George Bush's sham No Child Left Behind Act.

In contrast, despite the grossly distorted interpretation of Gillibrand's positions while representing the conservative 20th District, her voting record is solidly progressive. She opposed the war in Iraq, is a staunch advocate of women's rights, pay equity and choice; gay rights; stem cell research; increasing the minimum wage; and expanding affordable housing, Head Start and SCHIP.  She is also greatly respected for her experience in financial services and banking. She has been endorsed by numerous progressive democratic issue-groups, including the ACLU, the League of Conservation Voters, EMILY'S List, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and the AFL- CIO.

NY has a talented, dedicated, intelligent and hard-working Senator--we do not need a costly, divisive primary that will only fracture the Party and leave an opening for the GOP.

---

by: fran20 @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 15:05:48 PM CDT

ATTN: HUDSON (4.00 / 1)

THIS is why Gillibrand is the frontrunner. This person is clearly campaigning for her and what are they doing? Running to the left of her opponent.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 16:23:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some Context, Please (4.00 / 1)

It's easy to point to votes and say "See!" But when those votes are put into context, they often don't mean what a brief summary would lead one to believe.

Senator Kennedy was a sponsor of No Child Left Behind. I'd think that was pretty good company to be in. That it has not been implemented or funded appropriately may have something to do with its problems, not the initial enthusiasm that some had for the program.

As I recall, Obama voted for that same "Bush-Cheney energy plan." That doesn't mean that Obama is not a progressive on energy policy; it means that bills are filled with compromises, and sometimes people vote for bills that have things they don't like. Moreover, it's ridiculous to blame a bill for gas prices (and higher gas prices are, from a progressive's perspective, a good thing in the long run). I know that energy policy is an important issue for Israel, and his thoughts on the topic are sober and extensive. One can't tell what a candidate really thinks based on a vote on a large, complicated bill that has many issues mixed into it.

And Israel has always been interested in finding common ground with the opposition where possible. That doesn't mean abandoning principles when it's not. I saw him debating Eric Cantor on Hardball where Cantor basically said the president had unilateral authority to send troops wherever and whenever he wanted without congressional authorization. Israel took him to school.

Both Israel and Gillibrand would serve well as senators. I think the voters should have a chance to decide, assuming Israel wants to run. The idea that we will have "a costly, divisive primary that will only fracture the Party and leave an opening for the GOP" would seem to be belied by the 2008 presidential primary. If the reasoning that the presumptive nominee shouldn't face a primary contest had prevailed then, Obama would never have run in the first place.

---

by: dsimon @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 18:42:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

D'Amato Revisited? (4.00 / 2)

If you want evidence of primaries splitting the Party vote, look no further than how Al D'Amato got elected twice. Simply put, he was the beneficiary of vanity case liberals who split the liberal vote.

I am not against fair play, but it seems to me that the downstate Dems are exploiting Gillibrand's appointment for personal gain, not because they offer anything significantly different that benefits the state. They have been sniping at her, reinforcing distorted interpretations of her positions and voting record as often as possible. The tone of their comments (see today's Roll Call) reveals that this is petty and driven by personal ambition, not due to public service goals or a unique contribution to constituents. Gillibrand has reached out to collaborate with them on their chosen issues, and they have snubbed her, because they do not want her to succeed. How does that benefit NY and what does it say about them as representatives?

---

by: fran20 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:37:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But It's A Primary, So They Won't Split The Vote (0.00 / 0)

If you want evidence of primaries splitting the Party vote, look no further than how Al D'Amato got elected twice. Simply put, he was the beneficiary of vanity case liberals who split the liberal vote.

But that won't happen here. D'Amato got elected in 1980 when Javitz lost the Republican (note: Republican) primary and ran anyway on the Liberal Party line. (And I don't see how that happened "twice"; D'Amato beat Marc Green in 1986 by 58-41 and Robert Abrams 49-48. No vanity case liberals were in those contests.)

There's no way that whoever loses a NY primary for this seat would run on another party line in the general. It didn't happen with the highly contested presidential primary (which many said would cost the Democrats the election) and it won't happen here.

---

by: dsimon @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 16:14:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe the problem being noted... (4.00 / 1)

...is that supporters of the losing candidate are vastly more likely to not contribute, not volunteer, not vote, for the winner.

Moreover, there's a bigger issue. The primary is in September, just 8 weeks before the general election. What do you tell those of us who spend the summer out on the street looking for votes? Sell people on all of the available candidates? Their eyes will glaze over. You can NOT wait until September to start running a general election campaign. Period.

If you want to make people more friendly to primaries, move them back to April or something.  

---

by: Adama @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 17:01:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Doubt These Problems Will Surface (0.00 / 0)

supporters of the losing candidate are vastly more likely to not contribute, not volunteer, not vote, for the winner.

Moreover, there's a bigger issue. The primary is in September, just 8 weeks before the general election.

These issues were also raised concerning the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. The convention wasn't until the end of August (though admittedly the nomination was settled a month or two beforehand, but still relatively late in the process for a national campaign). People said some Clinton supporters wouldn't come out for Obama and cost Democrats the election. We know what the outcome was.

If Israel decides to run, I think he and Gillibrand are perfectly capable of having a relatively civilized primary that won't endanger the seat in the general election.

---

by: dsimon @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 12:15:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

1992 (4.00 / 1)

could be blame a little on the divisive primary between Abrams and Ferraro.

I remember living in the heart of Ferraro's former district at the time and my neighbors would say "Ferraro or D'Amato, but not the Jew." Then there was the Sharpton factor.

Abrams didn't do himself no favors either, but that primary was damaging for whoever ended up winning.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 19:45:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Flat out wrong (0.00 / 0)

Because of our idiotic fusion rules, the WFP will run whoever they damn well please from the pool of major Democratic candidates and that name isn't coming off of that line, ask Alice Kryzan.

I could very easily have the IP waiting until the WFP picks a candidate and then authorizing only the other to ensure that both Democrats will appear somewhere.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 22:03:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Parties Can't Draft Candidates (0.00 / 0)

I very much doubt a party can put a candidate on its ballot line without that candidate's consent. Powers was already on the WFP line before the Democratic primary and then couldn't withdraw his name from the ballot for legal reasons.

So again, I don't think splitting the vote in the general election is a concern unless one of the candidates is already on another ballot line, and there are no signs of anyone consenting to do so.

---

by: dsimon @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 12:19:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What???? (0.00 / 0)

The Powers case is EXACTLY what will happen! It's going to happen again!

The WFP is going to authorize exactly one person to run on their line. That HAS to happen before the primary. Its the law. If that person loses the primary, there is no way to take them off the WFP line, for, as you said, legal reasons.

The IP may authorize 1 person or may authorize more to run on their line. If they do one, its the same case as the WFP: that candidate is on the ballot for the general no matter what. If they do many, they'll have a primary and the winner will be known at the same time as the Democratic primary winner.

Either way, the minor parties HAVE to lock in first, and can't change afterwards.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 12:30:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're Making An Assumption (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps you know the law better than I do, but you assume that one Democratic candidate or the other will take the WFP or some other party line. I doubt that any of them will, precisely to avoid what happened in the Powers case. They can't be forced to participate in another party's nomination process. Surely there have been contested primaries before, and I never recall the loser unwillingly being forced to appear on a different ballot line, with the possible exception of the Powers case.

Powers probably accepted the WFP line when he looked like the presumptive Democratic nominee, before Davis jumped in late and messed everything up.

And by the way, the presence of Powers on the ballot did not affect the outcome of the election. Lee got 55% of the vote, so he almost certainly would have won anyway even if Powers had not been on the ballot.

---

by: dsimon @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 14:20:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OF COURSE they would accept the line (4.00 / 1)

That's a mega power-move towards clearing the field. Once the campaigns start everyone's in "Fuck you" mode - "If I don't win, fuck you, I'm taking you own with me" (Davis and Powers are a classic example: even TAP's own Robert Harding at first was hesitant to support Kryzan, who without a primary he would have loved)

I do know the election law better than you, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole, I'm saying that because I once worked at a BOE. You HAVE to accept a minor party line prior to the Democratic primary, otherwise the line is open. How many times have you seen a minor line open in a competitive race, ever? 5? 10? I guarantee every time it was because someone fucked up the petitions, not because they chose not to run anyone.

I think that your last paragraph further proves my point. My source in the Powers campaign told me last July that the Democrats were EACH polling at least 9 points ahead of Lee, even Davis. I heard that the Davis campaign was polling a "similar" result. But the bloody primary caused us to lose by something like 15-20 points.

Since you can't recall any instances, I'll give you three examples from just my county in the last three years: 2008, Powers withdrew and couldn't get off of WFP. 2007, County Executive race, Paul Clark lost primary, tried and couldn't get off of IP line.

A Famous Example: 2002, Andrew Cuomo lost Governor Primary, couldn't get off the Liberal Line

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 17:27:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On Those Examples... (0.00 / 0)

Just wondering: did any of those examples wind up tipping the election? As I wrote above, Powers's presence on the WFP line did not affect the outcome of that race. In the 2002 governor's race, Cuomo got .34% of the vote, so his presence on the Liberal line was a non-factor (except as to its damage to the Liberal party, since voters couldn't vote for the Democratic candidate on the Liberal line).

So it seems unlikely to me that an inability to get off of a minor party line affects the ultimate outcome. When a candidate effectively withdraws, it seems that most voters get the message.

---

by: dsimon @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:21:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I guess its time (4.00 / 1)

For me to stop knocking everyone else and put my own thoughts out there.

I like Steve Israel. A lot. More than I like Gillibrand so far.

That said, I think two things:
1) A primary hurts the Democrats. Period.
2) Gillibrand is the incumbent and I think you only fire back at an incumbent in your own party with a good reason. Doing it just to run is not a good enough reason.

I think Gillibrand is about 65-35 to win a primary, due mainly to the ease with which she will receive money and media coverage over the next 10 months, before the race heats up. Israel can overcome that with good fundraising.

I think Carolyn Maloney HURTS Gillibrand, because the fact remains that women vote for women and men vote for men when other things are relatively equal.

Who will I vote for? (assuming I make it back into the state by election day as I plan to do) To early to tell.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 16:30:49 PM CDT

Same question for Maloney (4.00 / 2)

what does she bring to the table that Kirsten doesn't already present in the office? Looking at her record in office I don't see a difference maker either. She's a perfectly good Congresswoman and I'm glad she is one of ours. My comments are not meant to knock either her or Steve Israel but I just don't see that they offer anything special enough to throw out a perfectly good Senator like Kirsten Gillibrand.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:54:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Gillibrand-Israel Primary? (0.00 / 0)

Keep in mind that Israel must be feeling mighty strong to even think of challenging Gillibrand.  Why? Because he has to give up his congressional seat to take on Kirsten.
Now all we have to do is wait for him to make up his mind...he will...soon...maybe....maybe not...maybe yes.

---

by: Teddie R7 @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 17:19:29 PM CDT

You know..... (0.00 / 0)

If one just happened to want to challenge Paterson to become Governor, running in a statewide primary the year before would be a really good strategy....

---

by: robinia @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 18:36:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The year before what? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:16:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do I have this wrong? (0.00 / 0)

Wouldn't the primary for Gillibrand's Senate seat be this September (2009) and for the Governor next year, (2010)?  Admit to not following all that closely...

---

by: robinia @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:38:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Both 2010 (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:47:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the correction.... (0.00 / 0)

and, in that case, this seems awfully early.  Over a year's worth of criticizing a sitting Dem Senator seems excessive.  Better understand people's concerns about damage now.

---

by: robinia @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:21:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is also the now or never factor (4.00 / 1)

Gillibrand's poll numbers show an opening. She's young and will be in the job forever. Schumer isn't going anywhere either. If Israel has ambitions to advance somewhere like the Senate then it is basically now or never. Knock off Kirsten while she is new and unknown or forever hold your peace because by 2012 she'll be unbeatable.

So... there is an opening... is Steve Israel the one to take advantage of it? That's where my question of... what does he have to offer?... comes from. Anyone that wants to take advantage of the opening has got to show the electorate something special. Just being another competent politician isn't enough. It's enough for consideration but it is not enough to cause an electorate to throw out another perfectly good and competent incumbent.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:52:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also win or lose Steve will get replaced (0.00 / 0)

By another D CD-2 is not going R for the rest of this presidential administration at least.

---

by: Brookhaven Dem @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:34:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It would be kind of nice (4.00 / 2)

to have someone in a statewide office from north of Van Cortlandt Park.

---

by: Cliff Hendroval @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 18:40:39 PM CDT