Tag: David Paterson

On Election Night, I stood by while State Senator-elect Joe Addabbo gave his acceptance speech. I turned to a girl I met that night who worked on his campaign and was close to Malcolm Smith, the incoming majority leader.

“Looks like we control the State Senate” I said

“No, not really.” she explained, “Only Joe and Brian Foley won.”

“But that’s 32 seats, that’s a majority.” I said

She only rolled her eyes at me and walked away.

We didn’t really win the New York State Senate. We won it in name only. In votes, we may be able to get through progressive economic policies, but thanks to socially conservative Democrats. Unfortunately, and I said this as someone who supported, worked for and donated to LGBT causes in New York, the LGBT community is going to find itself under a bus…again…and there’s nothing we can do about until 2010.

I knew Diaz would threaten to bolt in February when I was working for PBS. Malcolm Smith told one of our producers in June that he needed four or more wins in the State Senate for marriage equality. On Monday, I spoke with a friend of mine in Albany who tells me Smith only has 28 votes for marriage equality; No Republicans are on our side. Four Democrats also opposed. I dind’t get their names (though three names are obvious) but I was told they’re all from the city. Ironic, huh?

If we go into these districts in the Bronx and argue that we need Democrats who will vote with us on gay rights, we WILL lose. Trust me on this, I’ve been there. In 2007, I canvassed the neighborhood as part of a local LGBT activist community. The response I got in these heavily Democratic neighborhood was disgusting and scary (more than one young Democrat used the “f” word and there were threats of violence)

Don’t think this is an ethnicity thing either. When marriage equality came up for a vote in 2007, we lost Democrats in Italian-American communities in Brooklyn, Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn and African-American communities in Brooklyn and Queens. Here too, constituencies do not tow the progressive line on gay rights.

Diaz and Esparada will probably vote with us on economic issues. They won’t survive in their districts if they don’t. That’s really more important right now.

They can be anti-gay and survive there.  

Malcolm Smith is a good man. I spoke with him thoroughly about marriage equality and he is a full-fledged supporter. I am willing to bet my bank account on it. If he knew he could get it through despite Diaz and Esparada, he would do it. Let’s face it, what would’ve been the response if Smith told Diaz and Esparada, “Nope, I’m bringing marriage equality to the floor” and they bolted for the GOP? Would we be hailing Smith as a hero? Or a moron for giving up our majority in the middle of an economic crisis for a bill that was never going to pass this session anyway?

How do we get around this? Well, for starters, we reach out to these Bronx communities and try to beat these thugs in primaries in 2010…but also, head upstate and out to Long Island and fight for progressives. We nearly picked up seats in Nassau County (Kristen McElroy) and another in Queens (Jim Gennaro) that would have made Diaz/Esparada’s bigotry moot. If we can elect a black man President of the United States, then by God we can elect a progressive Democrat to represent Rochester in the State Senate.

Marist College (11/18, registered voters, Oct. in parens):

David Paterson (D-inc): 51 (51)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 41 (42)

Undecided: 8 (7)

(MoE: ±4%)

So, a slightly wider margin than we saw in the Siena College poll the other day, but not too much difference. Unlike in the Siena survey, though, Paterson’s approvals have dropped somewhat, to 51-37 from 57-34. Still, not too shabby given the financial crisis.

Marist also tested Paterson against Bloomberg, but to me, that’s not even a question worth asking. Bloomsberry just spent a huge amount of political capital on his definition-of-self-serving move to extend term limits in NYC. He’s running for mayor in 2009. There is quite literally no way, no how he could do that then turn right around and run for governor. However, there is one interesting tidbit here: Paterson trailed His Bloominess by 11 in October, but leads by 4 now. Make of that what you will.

Anyhow, I also tend to doubt Rudy will even run – his “leaving the door open” statement the other day was so half-hearted. But it at least remains a possibility. And I’d love to see Paterson wipe the floor with him.

Some early reads from Siena College (PDF) (11/10-13, registered voters, Oct. in parens):

David Paterson (D-inc): 49 (51)

Rudy Giuliani: 43 (40)

Undecided: 8 (9)

(MoE: ±3.9%)

Siena has actually been testing this matchup since July, and the numbers have stayed fairly constant, though this is the smallest margin yet seen. I personally think Paterson would beat Rudy, and probably handily at that, but I’d actually be a bit surprised if Rudy ran in the first place. I think he’d have the exact same sort of “doesn’t play well with others” problem that Spitzer had with the legislature, only worse. (Though maybe he’s not smart enough to realize that.)

But he’s put in such crappy efforts in his last two campaigns (for president and for senate in 2000) that I don’t think he has the fire in the belly for this one. And if he does for some reason want to run for president again in 2012, then this seat just isn’t an option for him, win or lose.

Siena also tested AG Andrew Cuomo against Rudy (July in parens):

Andrew Cuomo (D): 44 (47)

Rudy Giuliani: 46 (42)

Undecided: 10 (11)

(MoE: ±3.9%)

The odds of this scenario coming to pass are very slim. I very much doubt Cuomo would challenge a sitting governor in a primary, and it’s even less likely that he’d win. And even if both of those events somehow came to pass, he’d have less than two months to run a general election campaign, thanks to NY’s notoriously late primary. Anyhow, his numbers aren’t very good against Paterson (July in parens):

Paterson: 53 (51)

Cuomo: 25 (21)

Undecided: 22 (28)

As it happens, Cuomo’s favorability rating has soared lately, to an impressive 61-19 (it was 48-29 when he first took office). It looks like he’s inheriting the good part of Spitzer’s mantle in his crusade against the chiselers and wastrels at AIG. Paterson, however, is also doing extremely well: He’s at 64-19. But with looming budget cuts, these gaudy numbers could be vulnerable.

I still think a primary challenge by Cuomo – or, in fact, anyone else, like Hillary Clinton – is not in the cards for a variety of reasons. But Paterson might be able to avoid even the hint of a threat if Clinton takes the Secretary of State job and he in turn appoints Cuomo to her seat. We’ll see soon enough!

(Hat-tip: Political Wire.)

Then who would Gov. David Paterson appoint in her stead? Paterson needs to think about, among other things, a) removing potential threats to his governorship and b) earning some serious favors and goodwill. Picking AG Andrew Cuomo ships a contender off to DC, and would also let Paterson earn a second chit with an appointment to the Attorney General post.

Alternately (as Trapper John suggested to me), he could pick someone like Rep. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12), which might burnish his support among Hispanics and women. TJ also tossed out Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown as a dark-horse choice: young, African American, and from upstate. I in turn proposed ultra-dark-horse candidate DavidNYC, but I admit the odds of a second Jewish guy from New York City getting tapped to represent this state in the Senate are fairly slim.

There’s still no shortage of names out there, of course. As always, who do you think Paterson would pick, and who should he pick?

Update (James): From the NY Daily News:

Rep. Nydia Velazquez is the front-runner – for now, at least – to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the next secretary of state, a source close to Gov. Paterson said yesterday.

There are two other top contenders: Rep. Brian Higgins of Buffalo and Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island. Each would help Paterson with key constituencies when he makes his first run in 2010 for the post he inherited from disgraced Gov. Eliot Spitzer – upstaters in Higgins’ case and suburbanites in Israel’s.

Late Update (David): Looks like Clinton might actually accept, to my surprise. If true, let the games begin!

I'm sure that, by now, everyone has heard the news about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's ties to a prostitution ring.  I must say, it comes as a major disappointment after Spitzer established himself as the ethical white knight who fought Wall Street corruption during his tenure as the state Attorney General.  During the run-up to the gubernatorial election, Spitzer was heralded as the next FDR.  It is, therefore, amazing to see how quickly his political capitol evaporated, as he clashed with State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (R-Rensselaer).  That was disappointing enough; this latest offense is nauseating.  Right when the public is just beginning to build enthusiasm about the political process and the Democratic party, something like this happens, reminding everyone of the Lewinsky scandal of ten years ago, and reinforcing the idea that all politicians are sleazy, self-serving, Huey Long-esque megalomaniacs. 

Meanwhile, if Spitzer steps down, Lt. Gov. David Paterson will become the Governor.  I'm very interested to see what effect he'll have on the state and congressional races in New York if he ascends.  Is his name too tied to Spitzer's, or will his presence provide a breath of fresh air for the party?  I cautiously await . . .