Tag: Peter King

Good news and not so good news for the Junior Senator from New York. In an email to supporters Kirsten Gillibrand has announced that her campaign raised $2.3m in just two months since she was appointed to the seat.

http://thehill.com/leading-the…

However, the latest numbers from Quinnipiac continue to show her trailing Rep. Carolyn McCarthy in a prospective Democratic Primary, 33-29. Though the margin is down from 34-24 in February.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x131…

I’d say funds like that will go a long way towards solving her name recognition problems and maybe even scaring off any challengers.

She leads GOP Rep. Peter King 40-28.

Paterson meanwhile now has the worst approval rating of any New York Governor, 28-60.

In comparison, Andrew Cuomo comes in at an impressive 75-14, but will he run?

Against Giuliani he leads 53-36 while Paterson trails Rudy by 53-32.

http://politicalwire.com/archi…

(Cross posted from 21st Century Democrats)

You can search this nation far and wide and still wind up with very few elected moderate Republicans. As I've discussed before, the Republican tent is shrinking: those who don't subscribe to a narrow set of backward ideas are pushed out. Some have reacted courageously, like the trio of Republican moderates who voted for the stimulus bill. Some however, take the convenient route. Case in point: New York congressman Peter King, who represents the moderate 3rd district, was an original co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act in 2003. This was back when President Bush was certain to veto the bill if it passed, so King hopped on board, appeased the unions in his home district, and kept everyone content. Now that we have a President who supports the measure, King has jumped off the wagon. From his official statement:

“I do not, however, intend to support EFCA in this Congress. Our country is facing its most severe economic crisis in 75 years. It is a crisis different from previous recessions in that it includes restricted credit, massive job loss, a plunging stock market and increased foreclosures and bankruptcies. Virtually every component of our economy is suffering. While I am confident we will recover, I believe the road ahead will be long and difficult. Under these conditions, I have concluded that the Employee Free Choice Act would be too severe a shock to our economy at this time and would be counterproductive.“

 He concludes the statement with a telling sentence: “I will continue, of course, to monitor the situation but that is my current thinking.” From that statement, you might actually think that Congressman King is going to monitor the economic situation. However, what he's really going to be watching are his chances to defeat Kirsten Gillibrand in the 2010 Senate race (Gillibrand is a 21st Century Democrats endorsee and a strong Employee Free Choice supporter). As we've heard, NRSC Chairman John Cornyn is reaching back in time for his 2010 candidates, and he seems to have his sights set on former-Governor George Pataki. If Peter King wants Party money for his Senate bid, he needs to look like the “better Republican.” It'll be Pataki vs. King in a beauty contest of conservatism. He can't be doing things like – gasp – protecting the rights of working people. It would be so un-Republican of him. And while we're at it, let's talk about the idea that the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would be a “shock” to our economy in these troubled times. Look, the economy is already shocked; working families are shocked by the $2,000 on average that disappeared from their income between 2001 and 2007. The bill does NOT get rid of the option for the NRLB secret ballot election, even though the current election system is rife with flaws. And despite popular belief, when management and labor bargain on equal terms, it helps the workers as well as the management. Just ask this group of 40 leading economists, including two Nobel laureates, who put a full page ad in the Washington Post last month supporting the bill.

Peter King isn't watching the economic situation. He's watching John Cornyn and George Pataki, and he's watching Senator Gillibrand's poll numbers to see if he has a shot at her seat.Meanwhile, Politico reports that numerous Freshman Democrats are voting for the bill despite their electoral vulnerability. There's something to be said for political courage: not everyone has it.

by Doug Foote

Marist (2/25-26, registered voters, 1/27 in parentheses):

David Paterson (D-inc): 26

Andrew Cuomo (D): 62

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 78

Rick Lazio (R): 17

(MoE: ±5.5%)

David Paterson (D-inc): 38 (46)

Rudy Giuliani (R): 53 (47)

David Paterson (D-inc): 47

Rick Lazio (R): 35

Andrew Cuomo (D): 56

Rudy Giuliani (R): 39

Andrew Cuomo (D): 71

Rick Lazio (R): 20

(MoE: ±3%)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 36

Carolyn McCarthy (D): 33

(MoE: ±4.5%)

Peter King (R): 32

George Pataki (R): 56

(MoE: ±5.5%)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 49 (49)

Peter King (R): 28 (24)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 45 (44)

George Pataki (R): 41 (42)

(MoE: ±3%)

Whew! That’s a lot of data for one poll. And none of it is good for Gov. David Paterson, who can’t muster even half the support of AG Andrew Cuomo in a primary matchup… and if he miraculously makes it through the primary, he’s poised to get creamed by Rudy Giuliani, of all people.

There’s also the wee matters of his approval rating (26% ‘excellent’ or ‘good,’ which is lower than George Pataki, Mario Cuomo, or Eliot Spitzer ever managed), disapproval over his handling of the budget (30/59, down from 42/41 in January, suggesting that most of his continued plunge is about the budget and not about senate seat blowback), and terrible ‘wrong track’ numbers for the state of New York (27/65). The only thing he has to be thankful about: that he’s not ex-Rep. Rick Lazio, the one man in the state who’s even less popular.

On the Senate front, Paterson’s appointee Kirsten Gillibrand is still in something of a holding pattern as her constituents get to know her. She’s getting only 18% ‘excellent’ or ‘good ratings, compared with 32% ‘fair’ or ‘poor,’ but 50% of the sample just says ‘don’t know.’ She fares well against Rep. Peter King, but ex-Gov. George Pataki (who hasn’t really expressed interest in the race, although John Cornyn has been privately buttering him up) makes the race competitive. Her toughest task may still be defending her left flank in the primary, although unlike Quinnipiac‘s February poll, which had Gillibrand down 34-24 to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Marist gives Gillibrand the narrow edge. (Discussion is underway in andgarden‘s aptly titled diary.)

Quinnipiac (2/10-15, registered voters):

David Paterson (D-inc): 23

Andrew Cuomo (D): 55

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 24

Carolyn McCarthy (D): 34

(MoE: ±4.6%)

David Paterson (D-inc): 43

Rudy Giuliani (R): 43

Andrew Cuomo (D): 51

Rudy Giuliani (R): 37

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 42

Peter King (R): 26

(MoE: ±3%)

In the political chess game, David Paterson may have felt he was thinking ten moves ahead by picking Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the vacant Senate seat, by picking a young, charismatic woman with monster fundraising capacities who may well be holding the seat 40 years from now. However, it’s starting to look like, in doing so, he wasn’t thinking two moves ahead… as Quinnipiac now shows both Paterson and Gillibrand highly vulnerable in the 2010 primary. Picking Andrew Cuomo to fill the Senate seat would have killed two birds with one stone in the short-term for Paterson (get a Senator who’s known statewide and ready to stand on his own, and give his electoral archrival something to do other than challenge him in the 2010 election). Instead, he gambled on long-term dividends, and it’s possible neither he nor Gillibrand will be around to enjoy them.

The Gillibrand/McCarthy numbers seem likely to evolve over time, as 39% remain undecided. And both candidates seem largely unknown outside their respective corners of the state; Gillibrand’s favorables are 24/9 with 65% “haven’t heard enough,” (and 81% “haven’t heard enough” in the NYC Suburbs) while McCarthy’s are also 24/9, with 66% “haven’t heard enough” (with 88% “haven’t heard enough” upstate). An uncontroversial two years for Gillibrand, combined with tacking left on guns and immigration issues, should bring her numbers up (although revelations like the one today that she keeps two guns under her bed can’t be helping matters). Gillibrand has little trouble disposing of Rep. Peter King in the general (there’s no polling of an all-LI slugfest between King and McCarthy).

Paterson, however, trails Cuomo by a 2-1 margin, and, unlike Gillibrand, everyone knows who he is. His favorables are a fairly grim 41/35, while Cuomo clocks in at 63/15. Cuomo also dominates a hypothetical matchup against Rudy Giuliani while Paterson only ties him. Much of this does, in fact, seem to be blowback from the senator selection process. Paterson gets a mark of 35/52 for approval/disapproval of how he handled the process, down from 44/42 from last month. We may be looking at a truly epic miscalculation from Paterson here, one for the history books.