NY-Sen: If Gillibrand Should Be Primaried, Why Not Schumer?

Generically primaries are good (4.00 / 3)

for democracy.

The fact that a Senator was appointed to the position (approval ratings and personalities having nothing to do with it) only amplifies the right of the people to make the final decision. Various people have said "so and so deserves primarying because she was appointed" and that gives entirely the wrong impression of the situation. It isn't about the politicians involved. It is about the right of the people to make the final decision to approve or reject the Governors choice.

Moving on from appointed officials though...

Highlighting Schumer and Gillibrand highlights the BIG problem which is campaign finance reform.

Schumer and Gillibrand are huge fund raiser. It is frankly unrealistic for most folks to consider a primary campaign against either one of them.

This is wrong. This is detrimental to the health of our democracy.

As are gerrymandered districts and local committee structures that do their best to lock out potential challengers. Competition is good for democracy and good for the Democratic Party and good for the State of New York.

Take Carolyn Maloney for instance. She is a long time Congresswoman with a good reputation that hasn't had a serious challenge since... when?

The last few days and weeks have made it clear that she not ready for prime time. She is not up to the challenge of taking on battle tested Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She and her hired consultants have made a series of horrendous mistakes that have killed her challenge before she has even officially announced. Her campaign is dead because she doesn't know how to run one. Had she had to defend her seat these many years she would have either learned how to run a campaign and would be making a serious and prepared challenge to Senator Gillibrand or she would have been defeated and replaced by someone more up to the task. It makes me wonder how effective a Congresswoman she really is and whether her district has been all that well served despite her reputation as one of the good guys. Being a progressive is good but it does not necessarily equate to ability and effectiveness.

1. Primaries are good.

2. Publicly funded campaigns would be better.

3. Non-partisan districting or multi-member proportional district would be even better.

All this holds true for our State Senate and Assembly as well.

Even more so. Our electoral system is badly broken and in need of repair.

Peace,

Andrew

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 20:47:41 PM UTC

HAHAHAHAHA (0.00 / 0)

Ok I'm ok if anyone's dumb enough to do this.

It fits my criteria for races where a primary against an incumbent makes sense, because there's absolutely no chance that a primary could take him down in the General, he won 62 of 62 counties 6 years ago. (primaries are also acceptable in the incumbent is intolerable, like Roland Burris or that congressman from Louisiana with the cash in his freezer, or if you cant lose your majority [60 in US Senate], or if your trying to completely dismantle, say, the State Assembly.)

If you need a super duper lefty in there that bad, go for it. my bet is Schumer will in fact have a primary, will win 91-9, and then will win 100% of the vote in the general.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 00:22:41 AM UTC

And Robert (0.00 / 0)

the laughter's not directed at you, its directed at the thought that anyone wold think its worth taking on Chuck freaking Schumer, the best Senator in the country since the demise of Wellstone, hands down.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 00:24:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The best senator in the country? (4.00 / 2)

Wow. Based on what?

I don't even know who would be my choice for "best senator in the country" but I know that Schumer wouldn't be in that group (so long as the choice for "best senator" is also tied in with choosing the most progressive senator).

My point is that if people are using certain arguments when discussing the primary against Gillibrand, it is very easy to turn some of those arguments into a case for a primary against Schumer. Even Hillary Clinton faced a primary in 2006. That wasn't a very competitive primary and Tasini wasn't a serious option. But it was still a primary nonetheless.

---

by: robert.harding @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 00:40:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have to echo... best based on what? (4.00 / 1)

Schumer is not a bad Senator but his involvement with the Wall Street Disaster that has engulfed our economy is a serious black mark on his record.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:42:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Given the relative differences (4.00 / 2)

between Schumer and Gillibrand on name recognition, poll numbers, fund-raising, tenure in office, experience winning statewide, etc., it is no surprise that Gillibrand is attracting all the high-profile potential challengers.

Schumer's advocacy of disastrous Wall Street deregulation should be an Achilles' heel, but the corporate media do not report about that much, so most voters know nothing about it.  

---

by: devtob @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:56:18 AM UTC

Red herring diary (0.00 / 0)

The diarist is either playing dumb or is just plain dumb. I prefer to assume the former.

The reasons why Schumer is not discussed as a primary target, even by progressives who don't care much for some of his policies and politics, are patently obvious:

(1) Schumer, unlike Gillibrand, is not beatable in a primary, and sensible candidates and their supporters don't waste time on pointless gestures.

(2) Schumer, unlike Gilllibrand, has been repeatedly elected to statewide office, and therefore (again unlike Gillibrand, who trails even Pataki in polls) is not at any risk of being beaten by a GOP opponent.

The basic rationales for primarying Gillibrand therefore are both simple and have nothing in common with Schumer's situation:

(A) Gillibrand has a history of pandering to the right and a questionable lack of political principle, an opportunistic streak which is out of step with the mainstream of New York voters;

(B) Since she was appointed to the office (by an unpopular Governor, via a haphazard process), Democratic voters have not had the chance they deserve to examine a wide range of options for this office, especially as the winner of the September 2010 primary will likely hold this seat for a long time;

(C) Candidates entering a primary against Gillibrand have a reasonable chance of winning, and therefore are not wasting the time and money of their supporters;

(D) A primary against Gillibrand by opponents who are largely to her left will generate a nominee who is both better-tested and organized for a competitive November race, and also one who will either be more progressive or will have been pushed to move in a more progressive direction in order to get the nomination.

None of the points above apply to Schumer, even though his voting record is not everything that progressives might hoep for.

The point of this diary is to muddy the waters in Gillibrand's favor, not to make a logical or coherent point.

---

by: Hudson @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 15:20:27 PM UTC

Minor correction to above comment (0.00 / 0)

In 2004 Schumer won only (!) 61 of 62 counties in New York. He did not win over the voters of Hamilton County.

---

by: Historical Pessimist @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 17:05:06 PM UTC