I was wrong.

by: Adama

Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 15:06:42 PM EDT

I was thinking back on that recently, and putting it in the context of everything that's happened in the intervening six months. And now, I'm going to say something that you rarely hear from people who are even peripherally involved in politics: I was wrong.

Don't mistake me, I'm not saying Caroline Kennedy would have been a bad Senator, because I still think she would have done well. But in 20/20 hindsight, I feel pretty confident that the Governor (whatever his other errors and missteps) picked us out the best available mix of traits, including everything that I had hoped for out of Kennedy, and something more that I was always uncertain about in her: an in-depth understanding of upstate and rural issues.

I was cautiously optimistic when Gillibrand was first appointed--"Blue Dog" labels and personal jibes from others aside, her votes and positions read about as good to me as anyone in the New York delegation. The reality has been even better than I'd hoped. For all the ink that's been spilled about Gillibrand's supposedly conservative record, you'd never know it from her tenure in the Senate: public health insurance, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and unflinching support of Justice Sotomayor share time on her calendar with helping out distressed dairy farmers, helping veterans, and introducing new levels of transparency by publishing her daily schedule.

I'm not saying that Gillibrand is perfect--I don't expect perfection out of anything in life, including my representatives, and I don't expect to always agree with her. But all things considered, I'm happy, and I wouldn't choose anybody else. (I might be tempted to trade Chuck Schumer for Claire McCaskill, but nobody in Missouri has gotten back to me about this yet.) So a tip of my hat and thanks to the Governor, whose best decision may end up outlasting his tenure, and my thanks to Senator Gillibrand for her work on behalf of New Yorkers everywhere.  

Eric Massa needs you!

by: Adama

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 17:34:33 PM EDT

I say this mostly to give you the up close and personal view of how hard Eric Massa works, whether that's hauling across the state in his no-frills ride, holding town hall meetings every weekend all across his district, or his roughly three year personal campaign to win the district in the first place. He's helped lead the fight for single-payer healthcare and better support for veterans. The residents of the New York 29th are lucky to have him.

As some people reading this may be aware, Massa won last year by a razor-thin margin--just 2%, or 5,330 votes, against a Republican who was best known for having threatened to kill his wife with a shotgun during a dinner party.

No, that's not a joke.

Now, because of the narrow margin last year Massa is one of the Republicans' top targets for 2010. That's why the Congressman is looking to the same core group of rural Democrats and netroots activists that helped him to victory before. If Congressman Massa can put in a good fundraising quarter, it will help back down the Republicans who want to target him next year, and secure this seat for strong Democrat who's not afraid to call out the party of Bush and Limbaugh. Can you help him keep doing his work with a contribution of $10 or $20?  

Senator Gillibrand takes questions.

by: Adama

Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 14:06:17 PM EDT

Aubertine (or Valesky) Should NOT Run in NY-23

by: Roatti

Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 18:32:47 PM EDT

Last year we finally managed, through the sweat, hard work, and money of grassroots volunteers and donors to wrest the Senate from Republican control after 40 years.  40 years!  Furthermore, with Andrew Cuomo's announcement that he will not challenge Paterson in the Gubernatorial primary, it appears that Paterson will have the nomination for Governor in 2010.  

Let's just say that I am not optimistic about Paterson's chances, or his coattails.  A political comeback is always possible, but short of finding bin Laden and slaying him in televised hand-to-hand combat, I don't see what Paterson could do to win.  If Paterson gets drubbed by the GOP in the 2010 election, I could easily see the GOP picking up 1 or 2 Senate seats.  We just cannot afford to lose even a single seat before 2010.  Both Aubertine's and Valesky's districts are trending blue, but they are still red districts and while a non-incumbent Democrat could retain one of them, it's not a chance I think the Senate Majority is worth betting on.

For this race, we should take the long view.  If we hold the Senate in 2010, we control redistricting for both the Legislature and the House after the next census.  While I personally oppose partisan redistricting, I have resigned myself to it's continued presence in New York and if the Dems control the Legislature after 2010, we would redraw the lines to make the Senate majority much stronger and NY-23 much bluer.  Aubertine or Valesky would then be able to run in a much more purple NY-23 and we wouldn't have to worry so much if a Republican recaptures one of their old Senate seats.  

So with all due respect to Sens. Aubertine and Valesky, the Dems should nominate one of the area Assemblymembers or Mike Richter.

NY-Sen: NARAL Pro-Choice New York To Endorse Gillibrand

by: robert.harding

Fri May 15, 2009 at 08:14:39 AM EDT

Last night, the New York Daily News reported that the group would endorse New York's junior senator, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand for the 2010 elections.

Gillibrand, who was appointed by Gov. David Paterson in January to fill Hillary Clinton's old U.S. Senate seat, doesn't have to run for re-election until next year.

But a number of Democrats - among them Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Steve Israel, and Carolyn McCarthy and Manhattan Borough president Scott Stringer - have all signaled they are mulling a primary against the upstate Gillibrand, whose congressional record has often leaned to the right (although not, it should be noted, when it comes to abortion rights).

Enter NARAL, who, like Sen. Chuck Schumer, is hoping that an early announcement of support Gillibrand - coupled with her prodigious fundraising - will scare the other Democrats away.

"Is this somewhat motivated by our desire to not see a bloodbath of a primary in advance of a general election?" Conlin said. "Absolutely. But it is backed up by solid record."

Conlin said this endorsement is the earliest NARAL has ever chosen sides in a race.

"Quite frankly, although there will be other friends who will look at this seat, Kirsten is the person who we think is best suited to walk in Hillary Clinton's footsteps and be that champion on reproductive health and rights," Conlin said.

Although Gillibrand has faced criticism for her conservative voting record on issues like guns and immigration while a congresswoman from the GOP-dominated 20th CD - positions she is now rushing to moderate as senator - Conlin said Gillibrand has been a model of consistency on abortion rights.

Avoiding a primary would be ideal. I know that some like primaries, but I only like primaries when they are necessary. If a candidate deserves a primary challenge, they should be challenged. Especially as progressives, we know that there are elected officials out there who deserve primaries. I don't see Gillibrand as one of them, but this race was surely going to draw at least one or two primary challengers for a prized seat in the U.S. Senate.

There will be more on this endorsement later after NARAL Pro-Choice New York makes their official announcement.

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

by: robert.harding

Wed May 13, 2009 at 07:45:01 AM EDT

I doubt that this race will be between only Gillibrand and Israel. I suspect that at least one more person, possibly Rep. Carolyn Maloney, will be a candidate in this race. I don't see either candidate being able to have an ideal primary, which would be more of a one-on-one contest.

A lot has been said about both candidates. Supporters of Gillibrand say that while she represented the 20th congressional district, a very red district in New York, she had to move to the middle on a lot of issues to put herself in line with most of the district. Now that she is able to represent the whole state, she has been given some wiggle room and can now display her progressive credentials.

Opponents of Gillibrand don't believe such an argument. They question her views on issues, including a few social issues, and wonder if she is truly moving to the left.

This is an interesting primary because it features two former Blue Dog Democrats. Gillibrand was a Blue Dog while in the House and Israel also was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition until he left some time last year. That move could be seen as posturing by Israel, who knows that being a Blue Dog doesn't sit well with many progressives.

So how do the two fare against one another? After reviewing their respective interest group ratings from Project Vote Smart (Senator Gillibrand's interest group ratings and Congressman Israel's interest group ratings), here is what can be said:

- Both candidates are pro-choice. Both received 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood.

- Gillibrand is better when it comes to agricultural issues, which is an important issue in upstate New York. Gillibrand received a 100 percent rating from the National Farmers Union, a 93 percent rating from the National Association of Wheat Growers and a 100 percent rating from the United Fresh Produce Association. While Israel also got a 100 percent rating from the United Fresh Produce Association, he only received an 87 percent score from the National Farmers Union and an 80 percent rating from the National Association of Wheat Growers.

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.

- Israel did better in the civil rights and liberties category, receiving perfect scores from the ACLU and Human Rights Campaign. Gillibrand did receive a perfect score in the past from the ACLU, but received a 90 percent in 2007-08 and also received a 80 percent grade from the Human Rights Campaign.

- Which candidate is more conservative? Their American Conservative Union scores might be a strong indicator.

In 2008, Gillibrand received a 23 percent rating from the American Conservative Union, while Israel received a 0 percent rating. In addition, the John Birch Society gave Gillibrand a 30 percent score while awarding Israel with a 13 percent score.

- Gillibrand and Israel are fairly equal in terms of labor support. Both have received high scores from unions like the AFL-CIO throughout their careers.

- How liberal are the candidates? There are two scores that are worth noting. Americans for Democratic Action gave Gillibrand a 95 percent score while giving Israel a 85 percent rating. Progressive Patriots, however, gave Israel an 80 percent score while giving Gillibrand a 60 percent rating.

There are many issues that we could compare and contrast. There are a lot of similarities between Gillibrand and Israel, which makes for a tough decision. If there are only small differences, how can you vote against Gillibrand who has proved her worth as a U.S. senator? Gillibrand's profile is in increasing and the people I know who have encountered her come away with a positive impression. The same can be said for Israel, who has been making the rounds in upstate New York for some time now.

We can debate which one is more conservative or who is more liberal, but really the question should be who is better for New York? Is it Gillibrand? Or is it Israel? Or is it someone else who is waiting to announce their candidacy?

This is going to be an interesting primary to watch. It will be one of the most watched races throughout the country because whoever wins this primary will more than likely be the U.S. senator from New York.

Siena Poll: Gov Continues Slide, Marriage Equality Gaining Steam

by: phillip anderson

Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:45:56 AM EDT

The numbers for Paterson are pretty much universally bad, but the one that really sticks out is this one. Only 12 percent of New Yorkers are prepared to vote for Paterson next year. A whopping 71 percent are looking to vote for an unnamed "someone else." The Governor even loses out to his immediate predecessors as New Yorkers would prefer to see Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, or even Eliot Spitzer back in office over Paterson.

"Voters are pining for the days of Mario Cuomo (39 percent) and George Pataki (33 percent) as Governor," Greenberg said. "A plurality of Democrats and independent voters would choose Mario and a majority of Republicans chose George. While 14 percent of all voters want to see Spitzer back in the Capitol, only eight percent would opt to have Paterson as Governor if choosing among the last four to hold that office."

That's gotta hurt.

In other news, a majority of the state now supports Marriage Equality for all New Yorkers, support that is strongest in New York City, but is strong in all regions of the state.

Interesting times, these.

Q-poll: McCarthy ahead of Gillibrand

by: Hudson

Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 13:48:34 PM EDT

"In a Democratic primary matchup, [U.S. Sen. Kirsten] Gillibrand trails U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy 33 - 29 percent, with 33 percent undecided.

Q-Poll: 53% Of New Yorkers Say Paterson Shouldn't Run

by: phillip anderson

Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:51:38 AM EDT

Voters Say 3-1 Paterson Does Not Deserve Election, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Most Say He Should Announce Now He Won't Run

New York State voters disapprove 60 - 28 percent of the job Gov. David Paterson is doing, the lowest approval ever for a New York Governor, and say 63 - 22 percent that he does not deserve to be elected to a full four-year term, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Gov. Paterson's approval is so low that he should announce now that he won't run for election to a four-year term next year, 53 percent of voters tell the independent Quinnipiac University poll, while 39 percent say he can restore his reputation and should run next year. Even Democrats say 49 - 45 percent that he should drop out of the race now.

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, with a near-record high 75 - 14 percent approval rating, tops Paterson in a Democratic primary 61 - 18 percent.

In a general election, Republican Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, tops Paterson 53 - 32 percent.

Cuomo tops Giuliani 53 - 36 percent in a head-to-head matchup.

Voters disapprove 70 - 19 percent of the way Paterson is handling the New York State budget. Democrats disapprove 63 - 25 percent.

"So long, David, voters tell Gov. Paterson. His job approval tanks at 28 percent. The slide started with the Caroline Kennedy flap and deepened with the humongous state budget passed last week. The budget was an opportunity for Paterson to reverse his slide, but voters disapprove almost 4-1 of the way he handled it," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"Don't wait for 2010, Governor, New Yorkers say. Announce now that you won't run. Voters say almost 3-1 Paterson doesn't deserve a full 4-year term."

Voters aren't the only ones sending Paterson a message either. Liz reports that top Dem donors are telling the Governor privately that he'd better turn his numbers around quick, November at the latest, or he should forget about a 2010 run for a full term.

Top New York Democrats have privately set a deadline of early November for Gov. Paterson to turn his poll numbers around or they'll urge him not to run next year.

"The idea is to let him get through the budget and get through the summer," said a prominent Democratic donor who sees the fall elections as the cutoff for Paterson's improvement.

"Nobody really wants to go to a sitting Democratic governor who's African-American and say, 'Hey. You're a disgrace. Get out.'"

Paterson allies hold out hope he'll be able to mount a timely comeback, but admit his historically low job approval rating - a March Siena poll pegged it at 19% - presents a significant challenge.

"Even if he went up 100%, it wouldn't be much," the donor said. "The goal is to be close to 50, but I think if he could climb over 40%, he can begin to show real momentum."

I'm sure that Rudy Giuliani hopes that the Governor is able to make something of a comeback, at least enough of one to make a credible run and scare off any potential Dem primary challengers. Smelling blood in the water, Giuliani is once again hitting the GOP fundraising circuit and making noises about a run for Governor. (He could use a new gig as his firm, Giuliani Partners, is tanking) Giuliani would be crushed in a general election against Cuomo, but could most likely beat soundly a mortally wounded Paterson. Rudy's only real shot at the Governor's mansion is keeping Paterson on the ballot.

Given this, it shouldn't surprise anyone that a majority of New Yorkers seem to want Paterson to hang it up.

Report: Pataki considers a run for the Senate in '10

by: cliffweathers

Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 14:28:46 PM EST

The head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee approached former Gov. George Pataki this week about running for the U.S. Senate in 2010, according to a person who spoke to Pataki about the private meeting.

The person confirmed Tuesday's meeting in New York City between Pataki and Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who heads the party's national senate campaign committee. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because he isn't authorized to comment.

It's obvious that the GOP doesn't have much faith in Rep. Peter King, but I don't think we have much to worry about, anyway. Remember, Pataki left office with a 30 percent approval rating. I think that the Democrats can run a corpse against George Milqetoast Pataki and win.

Cross-posted at Left of the Hudson.

Blue shift

by: Exile on Ericsson St.

Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 10:28:53 AM EST

Year  NYS     US      NYS - US
1980 - 2.67% - 9.7%  7.03%
1984 - 8.01% - 18.2%  10.19%
1988 4.10% - 7.8%  11.90%
1992 14.85% 5.30%  9.55%
1996 28.86% 8.50%  20.36%
2000 25.00% 0.50%  24.50%
2004 18.29% - 2.5%  20.79%
2008 25.50% 7.2%  18.30%

As you can see, New York State tended to vote about 10% more Democratic than the country as a whole in 1980-1992 and about 20% more Democratic than the nation as a whole in 1996-2008.  That's a big jump.  And it's probably no coincidence that the shift happened when southerners essentially took over the Republican party in 1994.  

The last Republican Senator from New York State was Al D'Amato.  You may recall that he first got in in 1980 by defeating liberal Republican Jacob Javits in the primary and then edging out Liz Holtzman by 1 point in the general with the help of Javits (who ran on the Liberal Party line and drew union and other progressive support which otherwise would likely have gone to Holtzman).  D'Amato won a resounding reelection victory in 1986 and then won a squeaker in 1992 over Robert Abrams after a famously nasty Democratic primary which left Abrams badly wounded politically.  D'Amato was then soundly defeated by Chuck Schumer in 1998.  Here's a chart summarizing that:

Year D'Amato Dem Javits
1980 45.00% 44.00% 11.00%
1986 57.70% 40.90% *
1992 49.00% 47.80% *
1998 45.00% 55.00% *

It's been awfully tough for Republicans at the federal level in NYS since 1996 and their situation wasn't that great before 1996 either.

The bottom line here is that any good Democratic candidate will likely cruise to victory in 2010.  There's no need for Kennedy "star power" but neither is there a need to pick an upstater to make inroads in the upstate vote (though personally I would like to see an upstater chosen).  A solid Democratic Senator -- regardless of his or her last name, gender, or zip code will win a solid victory in 2010.  

And obviously all of that's doubly true if Peter King is the Republican nominee.  

What this means is that if you think Brian Higgins would be a great Senator, there's really no need to argue about whether or not he'd be stronger politically than Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo.  And if you think Caroline Kennedy would be a great Senator, there's really no need to argue about whethe or not you think she'd be stronger than Brian Higgins or Andrew Cuomo.  And so on.  There's every reason to believe that New York State Democrats can vote with their beliefs, rather than with their political calculations.  

Bawhahahahahaha!

by: Roatti

Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 18:04:00 PM EST

Please, please God, please let Peter King run for the Senate!

The Peter King who predicted the GOP would make gains in this year's State Senate elections?

The Peter King who compared Vito Fossella to JFK, LBJ, and Thomas Jefferson?

The Peter King who said Baghdad was just like Manhattan?

Please, please Rep. King- please run for the Senate... I couldn't think of a better Christmas present.

Would Schumer Be Ripe for a Primary Challenge?

by: BingChester

Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:37:35 AM EDT

Oh, to be an Incumbent Legislator

by: Roatti

Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:05:56 AM EDT

Lack of Competition

As of now, only 23 out of 65 Assembly seats and 11 of 35 State Senate seats in New York City are set to have a primary on Sept 9. This is the number of districts where more than one candidate has filed petitions seeking his or her party's nomination. The number will almost certainly shrink as candidates challenge one another's petitions.

(snip)

With years of practice, New York's party organizations have mastered the art of using of rules and laws to help incumbents and party favorites to win.

(snip)

Experts have offered a multitude of policy recommendations to make New York's primaries and elections more open. These include drawing districts to make them more competitive in the general election, campaign finance reform and allowing voters to register on Election Day or to vote in either party primary. But for this year, with few primaries, and many seemingly already decided, voters will have to stand by as New York politicians enjoy the power of incumbency.

It's a great article- you should all go read the whole thing.  A while back I wrote a diary supporting term limits in the legislature.  However, I never expect legislative term limits to become law in New York, absent a constitutional convention that allows statewide referenda by voters (citywide referendum was the only way term limits were imposed on NYC offices).  

But I do expect the 2010 legislative elections to be more competitive, when a slew of term-limited NYC-council members will at least create several competitive primaries to legislators who represent NYC.  Also, hopefully that time we will have had a Democratic Senate for two years and the local progressive movement can put all of our efforts into primaries without having to worry too much about the general election.

DiNapoli 2010 Filing: Over $103,000 Cash On Hand, Two $10,000 Checks From NYSUT

by: robert.harding

Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 17:04:47 PM EDT

CONTRIBUTIONS: $60,929.40
MISC. RECEIPTS: $10,766.20
TOTAL RECEIPTS: $71,695.60
TOTAL EXPENSES: $123,524.29
CASH ON HAND: $103,171.31

DiNapoli instituted a self-imposed $10,000 limit on contributions. However, there are two $10,000 contributions from the New York State United Teachers union. Depending on how you look at it, it could be a violation of that self-imposed limit. If you say $10,000 per contribution, then NYSUT giving two $10,000 contributions abides by DiNapoli's self-imposed limit. However, if you say $10,000 per contributor, that is a different story.

2010: Bloomberg Is Out

by: phillip anderson

Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 15:26:12 PM EDT

"I am not and will not be a candidate for governor of the state of New York. I think it's very flattering and I suspect that Gov. Paterson is not particularly worried, and I don't think if Rudy Giuliani wants to run that he would be worried. I am not a candidate for any other office. Period."

That looks to be pretty cut and dry to me. He's out.

Hillary For... Governor?

by: robert.harding

Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:33:55 AM EDT

At least some New York Democrats have reportedly been pitching the Executive Mansion as a kind of consolation prize for Mrs. Clinton - a face-saving exit to the presidential primary that they believe she cannot win and that, they fear, is tearing the party apart.

The notion of a Clinton run for governor, floated in Newsweek last month and recycled on blogs and talk shows since, is flatly rejected by Mrs. Clinton's aides and closest supporters, and many others in New York politics.

Even hypothetically, she would face any number of obstacles, starting with the practical and political unpalatability of running against the incumbent, David A. Paterson, who despite early stumbles remains a well-liked fellow Democrat and is New York's first black governor.

First, it remains to be seen whether or not Paterson will run in 2010. I'm sure it is a strong possibility that he will, but you never know. He might decide to opt out.

But Hillary would make a formidable gubernatorial candidate. She has had success in winning voters upstate and she has a strong base downstate. There is no doubt she could win. The only question is does she want it?

Her focus remains on one race for now. We'll see what happens down the road.  

Bloomberg For Governor? Bruno Thinks So

by: phillip anderson

Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 14:13:29 PM EST

You can tell the Governor he does not have to worry about me running. It is totally fictitious. I have absolutely no idea where it comes from. I've got the greatest job in the world, I'm going to finish it, and I've been telling everybody that and I categorically will not run for Governor, although I want to support our Governor, Eliot Spitzer. He's doing a good job, he's got a tough row to hoe, this is a tough state, and I'll do everything I can to help him make this state better. But I'll do it from New York City, not from the Governor's Mansion.

I have my doubts about the sincerity of that statement, though, unlike his many denials of presidential ambitions, this one seems to be rather definite.

That said, Uncle Joe has a somewhat different take.

And Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno predicted this morning on an Albany radio station that Bloomberg will run for the governor's mansion. His term as mayor expires at the end of 2009.

"I believe in my God that when it's all said and done, he's going to be there," Bruno said on WROW-AM (590). "He's term limited. The timing is perfect that's he'll be out there, he'll be running. And he'll be elected for governor I believe. People will welcome him."

Maybe it's wishful thinking on Bruno's part.

Maybe not.