Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York)

From the moment she was appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been discounted. The papers — especially the New York Post but others as well — have consistently called into question her election prospects in 2010. But this morning’s New York Times has a piece that inadvertently makes the case that Gillibrand is on her way to winning in 2010 as the next Chuck Schumer.

The Times notes that many of Hillary Clinton’s inner and not-so-inner circle of advisers, fundraisers, and hangers-on have gone to work for Senator Gillibrand. The paper also takes the conventional wisdom route on her prospects:

Ms. Gillibrand, who was twice elected to Congress from a mostly white and rural district stretching from Hudson to the Adirondacks, still faces significant obstacles as she seeks to be elected in her own right. She is not well known downstate, where Democratic primaries are lost and won. In a recent Marist College poll, only 18 percent of Democrats rated Ms. Gillibrand as doing an excellent or good job, while more than half were unsure. And she must quell suspicions among some black and Latino leaders over positions she has taken on gun rights, immigration and other issues.

All true but also historically nonsensical. Hillary, like Gillibrand, had some major obstacles when she began her quest for the Senate in 1999 (or was it her quest for the White House…). Her poll numbers were pretty lousy considering she was the First Lady (43%-43% in the Marist Poll of April 1999 against Rudy Giuliani after her “listening tour”) and she was doing poorly with the very constituency she would need to win (suburban voters, especially women, favored Giuliani by double digits in a June 1999 Quinnipiac Poll). Note that both of those polls were closer to election day than Kirsten Gillibrand is right now and her poll numbers are arguably much better.

The latest Marist Poll on Gillibrand (March 3) shows her beating two hypothetical opponents Peter King and George Pataki (Really?!? Pataki? That seems pretty unlikely). And that’s with only 18% of voters giving her an excellent or good rating (the equation often called an “approval rating”). The key is to look a little father right on the chart to the “unsure” category where 50% of voters reside. Gillibrand is basically unknown and for a candidate with strong fundraising and a strong bench of political operatives that’s more of an opportunity than a problem.

Clinton had the uphill battle of convincing New Yorkers who had an opinion about her to change it. Political operatives will tell you that’s one of the trickier things to do in campaigns especially when your opponent is well-funded. Remember Giuliani and his replacement on the Republican line Rick Lazio raised and spent twice as much money as Hillary did by election day.

In contrast Gillibrand has the much easier task of selling herself to undecided, uninformed voters. Mike Bloomberg will tell you that’s a winnable position with the right message and enough money to sell it. So will Chuck Schumer.

In June 1998 — just three months before the Democratic primary between Geraldine Ferraro, Mark Green, and Chuck Schumer, Schumer who was running in third place with 59% of voters having “No Opinion” on him according to a poll at the time. Three months — and a lot of advertising later — Schumer beat the other two on his way to famously unseating Republican incumbent Al D’Amato (the putzhead election).

Which brings us to the other speed bump Gillibrand faces according to the local pundits is a primary. Democrats, we are told, don’t like her positions on guns and Latinos in particular don’t like her immigration record. That’s true at this moment but primary election day (if there is one) is almost 18 months away. The Carolyns (McCarthy and Maloney) have no track records of running big-time campaigns and have shown relatively little ability to raise the tens of millions that will be needed to win in 2010 and then run again in 2012. Neither is another Ferraro.

So while Gillibrand may be seen as Governor Paterson’s choice and be predicted to suffer for it, she was actually Senator Chuck Schumer’s choice and as we have argued repeatedly here, that makes her the odds-on favorite to have a free and clear run in 2010. Schumer is clearly now the leader of the state party and one of the two or three most powerful members of the Senate. If he wants Gillibrand to be the Democratic candidate for New York’s other Senate seat she will have all the help Schumer’s imprimatur can deliver. And if anybody knows what it takes to win a Senate seat in New York, it’s Chuck.