Steve Israel is out

don't like this (4.00 / 1)

I wasn't a Steve Israel fan by any means, but having the President shut down primaries is not exactly a great way to encourage democracy, or Democracy.

---

by: simonstl @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 21:18:01 PM UTC

Shut down? (0.00 / 0)

I don't see any evidence that the president "shut down the primary." It is not unusual at all for a president, or other party leader, to influence elections and declare their preference in the interest of the administration's agenda.  

---

by: fran20 @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 02:04:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Politico now has confirmation in the form of an email from Israel. (4.00 / 1)

To be honest, I'm relieved--not particularly because Israel is out, but because it looks increasingly likely that we'll avoid a disasterous primary fight. I don't like to see our own people trying to gut each other with rusty steak knives.

I've met and spoken to both of the principals involved here. I like both of them, but Gillibrand is by far the easier sell in this area and better, long term, for upstate party-building. I'm also glad that we're still going to have Israel around as the head of DCCC recruiting for next year. We made a lot of advances last year when he was just doing the north-east.  

---

by: Adama @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 21:34:09 PM UTC

Adam the Wordsmith (0.00 / 0)

I don't like to see our own people trying to gut each other with rusty steak knives.

LOL! Very colorful (and truthful) imagery Adam. I agree. It would be a drain of vital resources during a crucial time. NY needs every talented rep we've got working in the same direction.

---

by: fran20 @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 02:07:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow! (0.00 / 0)

President Obama is getting involved in the NY primary?  What does that say about the D.C. view of the 2010 Senate map?  Were they really worried about losing the NY seat as a result of the primary?

---

by: BingChester @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:08:00 PM UTC

I was (0.00 / 0)

After Illinois and Connecticut, NY-b is clearly the third best offense prospect for the Republicans.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:28:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clearly? (4.00 / 1)

After Illinois and Connecticut, NY-b is clearly the third best offense prospect for the Republicans.

Well, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com begs to differ. He doesn't have NY-b in his top 15 Senate races, which includes (in order) CT, DE, CO, IL, NV, and PA for the Democrat-held seats.

---

by: dsimon @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 03:27:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

The Wall Street Journal today said that it is the race Republicans are targeting after IL and CT (they also mentioned DE)

I know the mans a genius but this far out we're all just guessing.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 05:47:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Room For People To Disagree (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, it's a long way to election time, so it's hard to predict what the most competitive races will be. Reasonable people can disagree. Even Nate Silver can be wrong (on occasion).

But still, I think NY would be a tough target for Republicans. It's been Democratic for a while and trending even more so; the winner of a Democratic primary would be (have been?) hard to beat even on neutral ground; and NY is an expensive race. I just didn't see any of the likely Republican candidates beating any of the likely Democratic candidates. But I can be just as wrong as the next person...

---

by: dsimon @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 16:09:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 17:16:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You could just as easily flip it the other way... (0.00 / 0)

...and assume that they were worried about the race sapping money that could be used to unseat Republicans elsewhere.

That said, I'll do my broken record act again: 8 weeks is far too little for a general election campaign. Yes, you can easily wreck an otherwise easily winnable race by letting a primary run until 8 weeks before the general.  

---

by: Adama @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:29:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 1)

and I think one of our priorities should be changing the primary back to June.

---

by: BingChester @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:53:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

D'Amato (0.00 / 0)

Don't forget what happened with D'Amato. As weakened as the GOP is, anything could happen with a splintered primary.

---

by: fran20 @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 02:09:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Political Cowardice (4.00 / 1)

Steve Israel just showed why he should NOT have been a Senator.

Would have been pretty easy to say, "You know, Mr. President, with all the respect in the world, I am sure there were a whole bunch of people who told you not to run for President, who perhaps suggested that you wait for the good of the party, or that you you were young and didn't have to run NOW, but all of those people were wrong, weren't they?"

But Steve - who probably wasn't going to run anyway - blinked.

---

by: Lead Dog @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 01:03:18 AM UTC

I worry that he was our best candidate (0.00 / 0)

Maloney and McCarthy don't exactly have me doing backflips as candidates. Gillibrand just seems so beatable. All three of them seem very, I don't know, flappable. Israel seems steady, moderate and smart to me. The man comes off like a Senator, and I feel like that's worth a lot.

I worry that - since the NYC Dems can't let us have one damn office and seem hell-bent on having a vicious primary - if the Republicans manage to find a few million they could just hammer the hell out of the Democrat for a month after the primary, take 65% of the vote upstate and 55% in LI/Burbs and 33% in NYC, and shock everyone with a narrow victory, especially if they find a Chris Lee type fresh face again. I feel that, if there has to be a Primary, Israel would be the best person to have as the survivor.

All that said, Best Case in my mind is still no primary, so Gillibrand has 8 months to define a broke Republican candidate and make it a contest between Her, Schumer and Cuomo to see who can carry the highest vote total (my money's on Chuck).

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 05:59:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah that's not going to happen (0.00 / 0)

NYC Dems are not happy about an upstater, but they aren't going to vote for a Republican, no way.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 17:29:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great call, Dog (4.00 / 1)

It makes one wonder what Israel got in exchange for dropping out.  We'll see what happens when the next round of committee chairs and party positions is given out.

Israel was going to be tapped to head the DCCC, until Chris Van Hollen decided to keep that spot.  Perhaps...

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:07:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

New York will be stronger in Congress (4.00 / 1)

with Gillibrand in the Senate and with Israel, Maloney and McCarthy retaining and gaining seniority in the House.

Obama understands that obvious political fact, as do many NY Dems.

---

by: devtob @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 02:36:17 AM UTC

Gillibrand beatable? (4.00 / 1)

Devtob said it perfectly!  And anyone who thinks Gillibrand is "so beatable" should speak to John Sweeney and Sandy Treadwell - both spent tens of millions against her in hard-hitting, negative congressional campaigns and she prevailed handily in a district with a big GOP registration advantage.  People have always underestimated her (which may be to  her advantage as well.)  She's a brilliant legislator, a brilliant campaigner, and a breath-taking fundraiser.  She is, by far, the strongest candidate NY Dems could have for re-election to the US Senate.  

---

by: pencequince @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:50:21 PM UTC