Google Ads


Site Stats

NY-20: Who Will Run?

by: James L.

Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 7:55 PM EST


With David Paterson reportedly having selected Democratic Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate, Republicans are licking their chops over the looming special election to fill Gillibrand's seat. Roll Call takes a look at the contenders:

According to several political sources in upstate New York, state Sen. Betty Little (R) has begun talking to local GOP leaders about making the race.

But the Republicans could have an abundance of candidates, including Sandy Treadwell, a wealthy former New York GOP chairman who took 38 percent of the vote against Gillibrand in November. Treadwell spent almost $6 million of his own money on the race last year, and his personal wealth could give him an edge in a special election.

Former state Assembly Minority Leader John Faso (R), who was almost elected state comptroller in 2002 and was clobbered as the GOP nominee for governor in 2006, has been contemplating a political comeback and may see a race for Gillibrand's seat as a way back in the political game.

Also mentioned is state Sen. Steven Saland (R). State legislators like Saland and Little would not have to sacrifice their seats to run in a special election.

For the Democrats, the possibilities seem to be, well, much fewer:

The list of obvious potential Democratic contenders for the seat is shorter, though state Assemblyman Tim Gordon has been mentioned. Gordon, a member of the Independence Party, was elected to a GOP-leaning seat in 2006 with the support of Democrats. While he lives just outside of the 20th district, his legislative district overlaps with portions of the 20th.

It is also possible that some of the Democrats who were primary runners-up to now-Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) in the adjoining 21st district may try their luck in the 20th. Tracey Brooks, the ambitious former Clinton Senate aide who finished second to Tonko in the primary and is close to Gillibrand's political team, is certain to be mentioned.

Another name mentioned? Former New York Rangers goalie Mike Richter, who owns a home in the Adirondack Mountains. SSP fans will remember Richter's brief flirtation with a run against Chris Shays back in the early days of 2007. I would consider this one a longer than long shot, though.
James L. :: NY-20: Who Will Run?
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NY-20: Who Will Run? | 87 comments
wow, it looks like
the Democrats have no bench in this district. There only candidate live in adjoining districts or are technically independents. Wow. Well, Gillibrand herself burst out from nowhere to take on John Sweeney and beat him, with a little help from the revelation that he was arrested for beating his wife about a week before the election.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
I think a Republican will win easily
This was a disaster pick by Paterson.  An utter disaster.  Gillibrand will be primaried and probably beaten in a primary against someone in NY metro, and then that bloody primary puts the seat at risk against Peter King.

On top of it, we lose a House seat.  

no we don't
we have to run a campaign and from the outset havea 50/50 shot of losing a house seat.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
and peter king?
please that obnoxious blow hard couldn't win anything outside of Long Island and a few solidly Republican upstate counties.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
In normal circumstances no
after a bloody primary which empties the war chest of the Democrats, Peter King would have a decent shot.

Gillibrand was an awful pick politically.  The only way out of this now is for Gillibrand to convince McCarthy and other NYC metro people that she is progressive enough for them that no one primaries her from downstate.

[ Parent ]
There will be no primary
let it go.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Even if you are right
and I'm far from convinced of that, we just lost a House seat in NY-20.
[ Parent ]
yeah we did
and that sucks, but Gillibrand has this Senate seat as long as she wants it.

NY-20 will end up being the seat eliminated in redistricting if a Republicans wins it.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Repubs are happy
But otherwise, Dems would eliminate either Lee or McEwen, so we still lose a seat.  
[ Parent ]
shoulda picked Caroline


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
That I agree with

[ Parent ]
Maloney was the right call
I hope she primaries Gillibrand, if it's Gillibrand.
[ Parent ]
No one is going to primary Gillibrand
it would be ridiculous unless Gillibrand proves to be very unpopular.

I'm so glad the blogsphere wasn't around in the days of Daniel Patrick Moynihan...they would've destroyed him.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
In his first race
Pat Moynihan beat an ultra-liberal, Bella Abzug 37-36% in the primary, and needed the endorsement of the NY Times, which only endorsed Moynihan because Sulzberger ordered them to.

Moynihan was an original neo-con in his early days, but mellowed out in the years after.  He was kind of like Lieberman ideologically, so yeah, the blogs would have crushed him.

[ Parent ]
Meanwhile
he quickly became beloved by New Yorkers and NEVER faced a competitive primary.

and became one of our greatest Senators and even liberals around here still rave about him.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
And rightfully so
I've already got a check for a primary challenger burning a hole in my pocket.  
[ Parent ]
Boy thank God
six more years of Senator Buckley would've sucked.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
He never could have won
a two way election. Clearly.  
[ Parent ]
Dunno
Moynihan beat Buckley 54-44.  Bella Abzug might have beaten Buckley, Buckley questioned against federal aid to NYC for godsakes, but it would have been very close.
For that matter, many believe that the main reason why Carter had won NY in 1976 (he won 52-47) was the NY Times headline during the primary, "Ford to City: DROP DEAD.".  That, the dropping of Rockefeller and Eugene McCarthy's inability to get on the Liberal line.  If Ford had won NY, he would have won the election.
[ Parent ]
Jimmy Carter's performance in NY
is hardly the baseline by which to judge. He's an effing born again Christian.  
[ Parent ]
Oh he would've kicked Abzug's ass
if she was the nominee...everyone knew it. That's why Moynihan jumped in.

Abzug never would've won statewide.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Should have picked Cuomo or Higgins

[ Parent ]
Great
Looks like I'll probably get the privilege of being represented by a Republican at college as well as at home. Thanks Governor Paterson!

Oh well, might as well make the best of it. I'd like to add another potential Republican candidate to that list: Assemblyman Marc Molinaro. He's supposed to be Steve Saland's heir apparent, and apparently he's BFF with Sandy Treadwell, so he won't run if either or both of them do.

Unfortunately I can't think of a strong Democratic candidate. When people use the phrase "traditionally Republican", this is the area they're talking about.  

Olbermann says that all candidates have been invited to see Paterson
not just Gillibrand, so perhaps my panic is premature.
[ Parent ]
Molinaro. . .
is a smart politician. . .problem is, this is all he has ever done since High School. He won't run. Fear of defeat.  
[ Parent ]
True, he doesn't seem to be that much of a risk taker.

[ Parent ]
Nice job
Throw away a house seat for no reason.
To the hyperventilators
Gillibrand's seat will likely be dismantled in the 2010 redistricting, so losing the seat now will not make that much difference in the long run.
asdf
It will make a difference in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
[ Parent ]
Not only that
The upstate Republican seat to be eliminated would have been either Lee or McHugh.  Now the Repubs will have two upstate seats under any circumstances.  This was so unnecessary!  We could have had a strong reelectable Dem. senator (e.g., Cuomo, Higgins, McCarthy) AND retained all House seats.
[ Parent ]
Ya, Higgins would have been nice
He only won his seat in 2004 by a 51-49 margin, but it's moved well left since then.  I think the PVI for Higgins house seat is about D+7 now.  It would be a pretty easy hold if he was the pick.  He isn't the most exciting guy but would have been a nice fit.
[ Parent ]
I think the question is...
Will Peter King be willing to run against Gillibrand to negate our House seat loss?  Gillibrand has proven herself in two tough campaigns and this might quell the threat of a run from King... But that's what we wanted.  
Isn't Gillibrand a former Clinton aide?
That should work to Tracey Brooks' advantage. She can campaign on having the same resume as Gillibrand, and being able to pick up where Gillibrand left off.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12
Saratoga County
County officials who won election as Democrats in 2007

Ballston Supervisor Patti Southworth
Clifton Park Justice Robert Rybak (elected on the Dem, Independence, and Conservative lines)
Malta Councilman Peter Klotz Sr. (elected on the Dem and Rep lines)
Mechanicville Supervisor Thomas Richardson
Mechanicville Commissioner of Finance Salvatore Izzo
Moreau Supervisor Preston Jenkins Jr.
Moreau Justice Jeffrey McCabe (Rep, Dem, Conservative)
Moreau Councilwoman Gina Leclair (Dem, Indep, Conservative)
Saratoga Springs Supervisor Joanne Yepsen
Saratoga Springs Commissioner of Accounts John Franck
Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner Ronald Kim
Wilton Highway superintendent Kirklin Woodcock

I don't see how one could think we have a bench problem in the 20th District.

Oh yeah, the nominee should be from Saratoga County. Especially against Faso, who would be a bit of a gift opponent.

I wonder if any Moderate small-time Republicans want to flip in order to try moving up the ladder.

There Are Great Democratic Candidates in a Special Election
Marirose Blum Bump- former Town Supervisor of Red Hook (northern Dutchess County) comes to mind. She won against long-time incumbent Republican as a fiscally conservative Dem. There are others as well. Dust will settle over next couple of days. NY-20 is no longer a given for Republicans. . .These things often come down to turnout. . .
I'm officially depressed


Male, 23, DC-At Large
Two final thoughts:
1. You can bet Patterson isn't going to post another diary on DailyKos for awhile...

2. Patterson explained himself being against a placeholder because it would cut down on the seniority of whoever became senator.  Maybe he's picking Gillibrand for her lack of seniority in the US House, haha.  What a joke.  

I think this is hysterical
From day one it became clear that Paterson wanted an Upstater. Since the election, City Democrats control EVERYTHING and Upstate Democrats feel ignored, angry and slighted. They are being beaten senseless by the bad economy and feel Albany and Washington pays no attention to them.

Paterson made it clear it would be an Upstater or someone with the President's ear (Kennedy)

From Day One I pushed for Brian Higgins...I was ignored. I warned people if it's not Kennedy, it likely will be Gillibrand...no one seemed to have a problem then.

Now you got Gillibrand and what do Dems want to do? Primary her with some downstate Democrat over guns. Basically tell upstate Democrats "Fuck you, you're not liberal enough for us"

And let's be shocked when Darrell Aubertine, David Valesky and Bill Stachowski lose their State Senate seats.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
I don't really care so as everyone else, personally, I enjoy the outrage.
All I want is someone who will bait King into a senate race and someone who won't lose us a house seat.  It could be possible to get both of these, or get neither.  If we lose on both counts I'll be a little upset with Paterson, pulling a strategic blunder like this reminds me of Haley Barbour in 2008, although Barbour only lost a house seat.  Not really the way you want to be remembered by your peers.  
[ Parent ]
So
we're just supposed to roll over and accept someone just because they're from upstate?  No matter how objectionable they are?

I could have lived with Higgins, or Brown, or Slaughter.  It's not upstate that's the problem, it's Gillibrand.

And yes, I've been warning people about Gillibrand for a while.

[ Parent ]
No
but this was obvious for some time. I've been pushing Higgins

But it seems the only problem people have with her is on guns.

I love all the pimping of Carolyn McCarthy, who also doesn't support gay marriage and isn't very pro-immigrant and isn't anymore pro-choice than Gillibrand.

Progressive Punch gives her a lower score.

But at least she's anti-gun.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Progressive punch
A lower score than Gillibrand?  I don't think that's the case.

McCarthy would be far from my first choice, but at least she's not a member of the Blude Dog Coaltion.  That's the problem I have with Gillibrand.  I could live with the gun thing.

[ Parent ]
Actually she's a "BDINO"
Blue Dog In Name Only.  
[ Parent ]
there's nothing wrong with the blue dog
coalition. Within it our many of our most effective and respected Democratic congressmen. And she was not even one of the more conservative blue dog members. Being against someone because their in the blue dog coalition is even worse than being against some because of gun control, at least one is about an actual issue.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
vote ratings
According to Progressive Punch's lifetime scores, Gillibrand has a current lifetime score of 87.48.  Carolyn McCarthy is 83.44, Carolyn Maloney is at 89.90 and Steve Israel is 87.74.

http://www.progressivepunch.or...

I've always followed the ratings of Americans for Democratic Action, since they've been doing vote ratings since 1947 (good for comparing former members of Congress to current members).  For what it's worth, Gillibrand scored a 95 in 2007, and a 70 in 2008 (though she missed 4 of the 2008 House votes the ADA uses to come up with their ratings, and the ADA counts a missed vote against a member's score, so she might've been more like a 90).

Meanwhile, Maloney & McCarthy scored a 90 in 2007, and Israel scored an 85;  all three scored a 95 in 2008.

http://www.adaction.org/pages/...

[ Parent ]
In this instance
I wouldn't rely on lifetime Progressive Punch scores, because Gillibrand didn't enter Congress until 2006, and has been part of a Democratic majority the entire time. McCarthy has spent most of her career playing defense, and that tends to drag down the lifetime scores of representatives with longer tenures.

Unfortunately, the Progressive Punch scores from the 110th Congress (07-08) have disappeared from their website, but I posted a comment about them in December, so they can still live on here. I'm excerpting the scores for House members who seemed to be contenders (plus their ages):

Top decile (of whole House):
Velazquez 98.55 (55)
Nadler 97.49 (61)

3rd decile:
Maloney 96.34 (60)
Israel 95.81 (50)
McCarthy 95.80 (64)
Higgins 95.24 (49)

5th decile:
Gillibrand 87.38 (42)

[ Parent ]
Same with Gillibrand though
Look at the district she's been representing.  A lot of her votes were probably "throw away" votes which were cast against the party just to make her appear moderate.  Are there any major votes where she voted against the party when it needed her?  Didn't think so.

If anything she'll move well left in the Senate, being more afraid of a challenge from the left than the right in 2010.  My guess is she ends up being a bit left of Hillary in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
I just
went back and dug through the old PVI/Vote Index database and her composite voting record is actually quite on the mark for where she should be in an R+3, maybe a little ahead of the curve in fact but not remarkably so. She's definitely smart, and she seems very able to tailor her record as necessary to meet her constituency. (And I think we're already seeing that with her sudden decision today to support full gay marriage equality instead. Since she's moving left, let's just call it "seeing the light on the road to Damascus" instead of a "flip-flop.")

As for specific "bad" votes, well, there's continued surge funding, and the FISA amendments (telecom immunity) that come to mind. Those aren't really votes where she went against party leadership, though (leadership kind of collapsed on those ones)... and now that she's on the side of enacting, not opposing, a presidential agenda, hopefully she won't be boxed into making choices like that again.

[ Parent ]
Immigration is also a big concern
The language on her House website does not inspire confidence.

I hope that a conversion there is imminent too.  

[ Parent ]
It has to be
The 20th district is pretty homogenous, but the state as a whole is far from it.  She's a smart politician.  She knows her base of support of now heavily minority tilted and I have little doubt she will vote that way.  Gillibrand will do complete reversal on immigration.  She'd be insane not to.
[ Parent ]
Flawed Process
This is why we should have a special election in three months instead of letting the process play out in late 2010. If there's going to be a primary, better to do it now rather than later. It would be worth the cost, in my opinion, to let the voters decide. It would also have reduced the importance of the temporary appointment.

A caretaker appointment would have sufficed, but Paterson foreclosed that option when he said he wanted to save the state a possible seat or two of seniority--which I thought was a ridiculous justification.

[ Parent ]
The other problem with a special election
is that New York would be without a Senator for three months rather than three days...and being without a Senator is much more problematic than being without a House member.

There are 29 of them in New York, only two senators

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
NY Would Not Be Without A Senator
The process would--indeed, it is--for an appointment until the special election, whenever that is. The problem is that our "special" election for the senate seat isn't until the 2010 general election.

If we had the special election in 3 months, then Paterson's appointment would last 3 months and wouldn't give the appointee a such huge advantage. We'd get what would essentially be the 2010 primary out of the way ahead of time, and sitting house members wouldn't have to give up their seats to run in the primary.

Of course that means that Paterson wouldn't have as much say in the process, which is why it won't happen. Everyone is operating according to his or her own interests here.

[ Parent ]
RBH said what I was going to say
there would be no primary, parties would pick their nominees. Paterson, being titular head of the party, would probably still push Gillibrand and Schumer suggested her too

So there's a good chance our special election nominee would be Gillibrand anyway.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
You forget New York State law
a special election in April will involve the parties nominating candidates. There is no such thing as a primary for a special election in New York. Unless it's a special election held in November 2010.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps
I admit I'm not conversant in NY special elections law. But assuming what you say is the case, then the law should be changed. There's little reason why we shouldn't be able to have a special election in NY that is relatively soon.

By the way, the Constitution requires House vacancies to be filled by special elections. Of course they're easier to run because it's only one district, but the principle is the same.

[ Parent ]
Different reasons
The House was always directly elected...the Senate was not until 1912.

The clause allowing Governors to appoint existed to get a Constitutional amendment through that would take the power of appointment from the state legislatures/governors and give it to direct elections.

The reason Governors appoint Senators are because the Senate, by design, was never meant to be accountable to the people. The House was the people's direct body, the Senate was not.

Senators were never supposed to be swayed by popular opinion.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
The Constitution Has Changed
The reason Governors appoint Senators are because the Senate, by design, was never meant to be accountable to the people. The House was the people's direct body, the Senate was not.

But that was changed when the Constitution was amended to provide for the direct election of Senators. There is now no real distinction except that Senators can exercise some limited degree of independence due to longer terms. But both houses are now directly accountable to the people.

The 17th Amendment empowers the governor ONLY to call for a special election to fill the position. It allows the governor to fill the vacancy until that special election ONLY if the state legislature passes a law allowing the governor to do so; in the absence of such legislative action, the seat would remain vacant. There are many states that require special elections within a limited time for senate vacancies. To allow so much time to pass before a special election seems a perversion of that provision to me.

[ Parent ]
Because our founding fathers
never designed the Senate to be swayed by popular opinion, the 17th amendment left loopholes to get around it...like letting governors decide how to fill the seat and having them serve longer terms.

While the 17th changed the Senate, it didn not make it the House, thus there is expected to be a some undemocratic principles when it comes to that body.

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
Not The Right Reason
Because our founding fathers never designed the Senate to be swayed by popular opinion, the 17th amendment left loopholes to get around it...like letting governors decide how to fill the seat and having them serve longer terms.

I don't think the 17th Amendment allowed the possibility (not even the requirement) of appointment out of deference to the original Constitution. I think that short-term appointment makes sense as a practical matter so that a state will not be deprived of half its Senate representation until an election can be held to fill the seat.

And if those who framed the 17th Amendment really wanted to insulate senators, why not require that the appointment last until the end of that senator's regular term? And why not mandate appointment, instead of leaving it up to the state legislature to give the governor that power?

By the way, it's not true that the Constitution "never designed the Senate to be swayed by popular opinion." Senators could be held accountable indirectly through those who voted for them in their state legislatures, the members of whom were accountable to their constituents. The 17th Amendment called for more direct accountability by having them directly accountable to the voters.

[ Parent ]
City Democrats control everything for a reason
Upstate is about a third of NY, NYC and Long Island are the rest.

NYC is about 80% Democratic, Long Island probably about 50-55% and Upstate 45-55%.

There are a lot more NYC Democrats than Upstate Democrats, and whilst there's no reason to ignore Upstate, there's no reason to bend over backwards for them, especially when there's no clear sign that they really wanted that anyway. And it's not clear that it's the 20th that's hurting - if that was the issue, then you're right that Higgins should have been picked.

That's not to say a primary over guns is a good idea - and I say this as someone who feels physically ill when I listen to the reflexive bullshit defending the psychotically unfocused motherfuckers who are the NRA - but it is to say that Gillibrand doesn't get a free pass.

[ Parent ]
There is a reason
the reason is simply I'd rather an Upstate Democrat in a statewide position than an Upstate Republican, because that's what you can get if you let the city control everything.

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Gillibrand primary?
I heard that Gillibrand is pro-gun and against gay marriage. Is that true?  If it is, how could she NOT be primaried by someone in NY Metro?
Carolyn McCarthy
is talking about challenging her.
[ Parent ]
Why?
Just because her husband got shot to death in NYC, and because Gillibrand supports gun rights, doesn't mean that she deserves a primary challenger by some crazy Congresswoman that might deplete support needed down the road.
[ Parent ]
Seriously...
Is New York STILL that anti-gun?  This obcession with curbing gun rights is very self destructive to the party.
[ Parent ]
Not in New York, it isn't (self destructive)
The entire Washington to New York corridor HATES guns. There's a reason why even the Republicans from the NY metro area are for gun control.
[ Parent ]
New York is more than the metro area


Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Gun rights does not equal NRA support
Let that one go. The NRA are a bunch of fringe nutters who believe that cracking down on weapons smuggling and not selling guns to criminals are unconstitutional.

Granted, they're a particularly numerous and influential bunch of fringe nutters, but the idiocies you have to subscribe to to get NRA support go far beyond the nebulous concept of 'gun rights'.

[ Parent ]
I hope she does challenge her.
We'll prob. get rid of two lousy Congresscritters in one fell swoop (McCarthy in the primary, King in the general).

Frankly, I don't care about her or the fact that her husband was shot. McCarthy and that toad DiFi's rabid war on guns and outright disdain for anyone who chooses to own a firearm for any purpose is the main reason that many people in my state for so long voted Republican -- thus denying themselves economy security and so many other things the Dem party has to offer.

[ Parent ]
I agree with most of what you said
I'm pro-gun myself.  But the way you said it is a bit over the line.  What you say about her husband is very insensitive.  Though I do agree it happening doesn't give her a right to declare a war on guns  
[ Parent ]
She gets an 80 from the HRC
and was endorsed by the NRA in her 2008 re-election campaign (I don't know if they endorsed her, Sweeney, or both in 2006).

On the HRC score, it needs a little perspective. This score penalized some Dems, 6 of which were from New York, for voting against the final ENDA bill because it didn't include gender identity. Pam's House Blend says that it is literally the first scorecard they know of to punish progressives on GLBT issues.

But Gillibrand's 80 on the HRC scorecard belies a pretty terrible queer rights voting record. She's against gay marriage, against the repeal of DADT, against providing equal tax benefits to same-sex partners, and against granting immigration rights to same-sex partners of American citizens. Most terribly, IMO, she opposed changing Medicaid laws to cover HIV medication for low-income Americans.

[ Parent ]
CORRECTION
I jumped the gun a bit. Gillibrand didn't co-sponsor or openly support any of these pieces of legislation when they were brought the floor of the House, but most weren't brought to a floor vote.

She also does support civil unions.  

[ Parent ]
Correction part deux
Gillibrand has told Empire State Pride Agenda that she will support same-sex marriage, making her New York's first senator to do so:

ESPA Executive Director Alan Van Capelle and Gillibrand apparently chatted last night after it became clear she was Paterson's pick (although supposedly that wasn't a sure thing until sometime around 2 a.m. this morning).
"After talking to Kirsten Gillibrand, I am very happy to say that New York is poised to have its first U.S. Senator who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples," Van Capelle said.

"She also supports the full repeal of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law, repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) and passage of legislation outlawing discrimination against transgender people. While we had a productive discussion about a whole range of LGBT concerns, I was particularly happy to hear where she stands on these issues."


[ Parent ]
i don't know much about gillibrand
and i'm impressed by those who do.  but i do know, from observing races across the country, that a mainstream democrat in any state, who, say, votes 90% with president obama in the next 2 years, WILL NEVER BE PRIMARIED BY A SERIOUS CANDIDATE.

we can quibble about progressive punch scores, gun rights positions, and how vulnerable this house seat is, but for most New Yorkers (the state not the city - and i think that's who the senator is supposed to represent), she is going to be a smart, articulate, and politcally savvy senator, with a chance to become a real leader over her long tenure.

as a governor making this choice you have the dream job - a job that every single poster on this blog would probably sacrifice an appendage for.  you get to choose the best talent available.  there is a fair argument to be made that gillibrand IS the best talent.  she is extremely young but very attractive, raises a lot of money, can win in a reddish district.  maloney, mccarthy, higgins, slaughter might be great but they seem unremarkable from the little i've heard.

Any Repubs that might flip so they can be in the majority?
Otherwise Brooks may be the best bet. Encouraging that Obama won the district (particulary as McCain would seem a decent fit for it on paper) so not as bad a situation as some are suggesting. Tough but winnable.
The assumption that we will lose NY-20 is self-defeating
First, this is a district that Obama carried... like much of upstate, it has been trending away from a strong Republican history. There is a strong Democratic vote in the district to mobilize. The special election will take place while Obama is still highly popular and trying to pass his agenda through Congress --- the voters will have to choose between a conservative Republican who will be painted as an obstructionist, versus a Dem who will tie himself/herself to Obama and Gillibrand. I like the dynamics of a race under those circumstances.

Second, almost no one in the district or the blogosphere knew who Gillibrand was before she first ran in 2006. If we had been having a similar conversation back then, virtually no one would have been talking about her as part of the Democratic bench. With an open seat under these circumstances, a strong Democratic candidate will be found.

Third, with so many potential candidates there is certainly a chance for a contentious Republican primary that could leave their nominee bloodied -- if that happens, it could strengthen a Democratic candidate's chances.

Finally, the DCCC, the DNC, the unions, the advocacy groups, and the NY Democratic Party will go in with as much or  more money and resources as will their Republican counterparts-- they will do everything they can to keep this seat, and the checkbooks will be open across the country for the race. Even if Treadwell wants to spend his fortune to try to win this seat, our candidate will be able to compete dollar for dollar.

Obviously we need to find the strongest candidate possible, but right now I'd still put the odds at least around 50/50 --- the folks crying that the seat is lost are misjudging the race severely.  

I don't think even Gillibrand could compete with Treadwell dollar for dollar,
and she's probably one of the best fundraisers in the Democratic party.

But the strong candidate part is the real problem here. While on a federal level the district is turning blue, it is still is red on the local level. Someone who comes out of nowhere might be able to win a normal election, but probably not a special election where name recognition is very important.

[ Parent ]
Well, to me
that suggests running one of the NY-21 primary candidates; it's the same media market, so NY-20 voters probably saw a metric ton of Tracey Brooks and Phil Steck ads in September and remember those names. Anybody know where exactly Brooks lives? Are NY-20 voters the type who are going to scream 'carpetbagger' if she's outside the district boundaries by a few miles?
[ Parent ]
Is it?
In my part of NY-20, we seem to get NYC news. But I don't watch much TV, so I might be wrong about.

Didn't Sweeney attack Gillibrand as a carpetbagger?  

[ Parent ]
3 media markets
The largest chunk of the district's population is in the Albany market, some of the Hudson river territory to the south gets NYC media, and a few of the northern counties (the smallest population part of the district) are in the Plattsburgh/Burlington (VT) market.

A candidate who is known in the Albany market would have some advantage.

[ Parent ]
To answer my own question
Her bio page says she lives in Coeymans, which is at the very south end of Albany County along the Hudson, so she's in NY-21 but seems like she's within walking distance of NY-20 where it sweeps over into Greene County. Plus, it says she grew up in Clifton Park, which is up in Saratoga County in NY-20.
[ Parent ]
No they're not
Special elections tend to go against the party that has the white house.  That happened to Clinton in 93-94.

Obama may have carried the district, but turnout will be much, much lower for the special election.  That will favor the Republican.

It's a Republican district.  Had Sweeney not been caught up in scandal, Gillibrand never would have won.

[ Parent ]
Didnt happen to Bush
from 2001-2005

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens
[ Parent ]
Baloney
Of course we did aweful in special elections in 1993/94.  Those years were a prelude to the 1994 disaster.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the same thing will happen in NY-20 or any other special election in then near future.  Obama has several more months at minimum is his "honeymoon" period.  Candidates are not runnign away scared from Obama the way they did Clinton in 1993/94.  Any Obama campaign stop for our future NY-20 candidate would probably only help.
[ Parent ]
Not that simple
Once a President is in office for a while and becomes unpopular, then voters are more likely to turn against the President's party in special elections. But this isn't 1994 (or 2007 either).

The circumstances here will be much more favourable -- the election will be early in the spring, and the odds are that Obama's poll numbers (especially in the northeast) will still be sky-high.  He'll be taking actions on the economy, foreign affairs, etc that will be popular and the Democratic candidate can campaign that they will go to DC to get things done. Meanwhile the Republican is likely to be saddled with the Boehner obstructionist label.

As for turnout, I wouldn't be so sure about it favouring Republicans -- the GOP is beaten and dispirited, and it is going to be hard to excite their base. Our voters will hopefully still be excited about electing Obama and that will help with turnout. Beyond that, just coming off of a winning campaign, the Dems and allied organizations are far more likely to have better lists etc for a great GOTV effort -- Gillibrand ran an intense campaign (and destroyed Treadwell by 25%) and I'm sure she'll be making that available to her successor, and the county parties, unions, advocacy groups etc will still have their lists in place. Parties with excited bases do better in special elections -- and ours is much more excited than their's.

And the idea that this is a Republican district misses that it is very very much in transition. Across the northeast, traditionally Republican areas have been moving rapidly to the Democrats. (This district abuts New England, which no longer has a single house member from any of the 6 states.)

Before the Sweeney scandals hit in 2006, most political observers were rating this race a toss-up based on Gillibrand's strong campaign -- she was riding a Democratic wave, and the Sweeney personal embarrassments were only icing on the cake.

Finally, I'd argue that the fact that a Democratic Governor has appointed the first Senator from upstate in ages will further enhance the Democratic brand throughout upstate but particularly in this district. Upstate voters often feel alienated from a state politics that they think  is too focused on NYC and the burbs -- this appointment will resonate with potential voters.

I'm not arguing that this thing won't be competitive -- it will be -- but the idea that a Democrat can't win this thing is out of touch with the reality here.


[ Parent ]
It's Unnecessary
The point is, we shouldn't have to worry about this seat at all.  Even if we retain the seat, it will cost tons of money and huge amounts of volunteer time.  This is exactly the sort of crap that happens when a President starts raiding Congress and the Governorships for his appointments.  We have already lost the Governorship of Arizona and now this.  Don't you think that somewhere in the State of New York there was someone well qualified to be a Senator whose appointment would not have put a House seat at risk?
[ Parent ]
NY-20: Who Will Run? | 87 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox