| The big story in New York today is one that Simon posted late last night. The New York Times report saying that President Barack Obama has asked New York Governor David Paterson to not run in 2010 will certainly be a huge news story entering Monday.
The reaction here at TAP and in New York has been mixed. The views range from agreeing with the President to concerns about the President's involvement in New York politics.
In order to understand why the President would do this, we need to look at the big picture. In 2006, we took back the Governor's mansion and that gave Democrats the upper hand in legislative manners: The governor was a Democrat, the Assembly was still ruled by Democrats and the State Senate wasn't too far off. In 2008, Democrats took over the New York State Senate, only to have that disrupted in a matter of months by Republicans and Pedro Espada Jr. looking for more power. Espada eventually came back, giving Democrats the Senate again.
The reality is that, in 2010, we could go back to what we had before the gubernatorial and state senate wins. We could go back to having a Republican governor and a Republican state senate all because of who is at the top of the ticket in New York State.
The poll numbers show that Governor Paterson is not in a strong position to run for re-election in 2010. His approval rating at the end of August was 32 percent. That is a quick decline from where he was at in late January, when his poll numbers stood at 54 percent and an even more dramatic drop from the 60 percent favorable ratings he had in late 2008 and early 2009. We are a year out from the Democratic primary (if one does take place) and we are less than 14 months away from the general election. Unless Paterson makes a huge turnaround (which, at this point, is unlikely) he is not in a position to be a strong candidate for governor.
President Obama is a smart man. He is also a political genius. He sees New York as an important piece to the Democratic Party. His involvement in the U.S. Senate race is well documented. He has tried to clear the field for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand so that she can run a strictly general election campaign instead of having to run a possibly damaging primary election that would leave her vulnerable for the general.
In the case of Paterson, he sees the opposite.
He sees a candidate who is weak and would not serve the party well in a general election. He sees a candidate that is not well received in this state and is not someone New Yorkers support. Trying to support him for governor would be tough, not only for Obama and national Democratic leaders, but also for leaders in New York at the local and state levels.
On Paterson's end, he has made some missteps in forging a good relationship with the Obama administration.
From the New York Times:
In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor's selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official.
The White House and Democratic House leaders were concerned that her sudden departure from the House would give Republicans a prime opportunity to reclaim the seat. Aides to the president conveyed those concerns to the governor, according to Democrats who have discussed the matter with Mr. Obama's aides.
In the end, Mr. Paterson selected Ms. Gillibrand anyway, infuriating White House officials and Democratic leaders in Washington. Making matters worse, the governor also publicly snubbed Caroline Kennedy, a close personal friend and ally of Mr. Obama's, who announced in December her wish to be chosen as Mrs. Clinton's replacement, but then withdrew her name from consideration in January, citing personal reasons.
The concerns of Obama aides deepened last month, when the governor, speaking on a radio talk show in New York, suggested that criticism of him was racially motivated and that Mr. Obama would soon suffer similar attacks. Mr. Obama's advisers, who have long sought to defuse the issue of race, found the comments inflammatory and expressed their displeasure directly to the Paterson camp.
As it stands right now, Paterson doesn't give New York Democrats the best chance to win in 2010. While I don't think he will drag down the whole ticket, including congressional candidates in upstate districts that will be running for re-election next year, I do think he will have a negative impact on state senate candidates specifically. In order to turn that around, we will need a different candidate at the top of the ticket. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would be a great option. But Paterson, at this moment, is not our guy. |
