GET::REAL with Jay DeDapper » Caroline Kennedy

Gilli-who? Another Poll Points to Possibilities

Jay — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:32:01 +0000

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY

Another poll — this one from Marist — proves an earlier point we’ve made here. New York’s new Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand is in an enviable position for a newbie.

Marist asked New York voters if they thought she was the right choice — remember this is after voters were led to believe top-shelf names like Caroline Kennedy or maybe Andrew Cuomo would get the nod. Marist says 46% say ‘yes’ to 24% who say ‘no.’ Note that 30% are ‘unsure.’

Next the poll asked about her favorability — 41% like her, 11% don’t, and 48% are either unsure or didn’t know who she was. Then there’s the hypothetical match-ups — she easily beats another relative unknown, Long Island Republican Congressman Peter King but ties former Governor George Pataki.

What all this shows is that Gillibrand is effectively a new product the public isn’t very familiar with. Any new politician would love these numbers provided they have the time and money to turn those “unsure/unfamiliars” into “I like Kirstens” and that is something she has.

Gillibrand raised more than $4 million bucks for her House race in November (and beat a Republican who spent $7 million in the most Republican district in NYS) and will hold the seat for a full year before any campaign really begins. Plus she’s got Chuck “King of All Fundraising” Schumer on her side.

Some Democrats have been going on and on about Gillibrand’s big problems with the liberal base of primary voters she would have to win if some Dem chose to challenge her. While that’s incredibly unlikely ( “Keep Your Skeptical Eye on the Ball”), the Marist Poll provides a pretty strong reason to believe she’s better set with the base than ambitious/jealous Dems like to admit.

Her supposed Achilles Heal is her Poster Girl status with the National Rifle Association. Bad news to largely urban downstate liberal anti-gun voters, no? No, says Marist. They asked if Gillibrand’s support from the NRA would dissuade them from voting for her. Statewide 51% of Dems said it wouldn’t make a difference while 35% said it would make them “less likely” to support her. What really stands out though is how New York City Dems answered — 52% said it would make no difference while just 32% said they would be less likely to vote for her.

Gillibrand’s main problem is not with urban liberal Dems but with suburban voters who are the most negative about her. When suburbanites were asked if she was the right choice they split 36% yes, 35% no, and 29% undecided. To be sure suburban voters — especially women — could be the key in 2010 as they were in Hillary Clinton’s first Senate race.

Clinton didn’t cement their support until Rick Lazio reached across the lectern in their infamous Buffalo debate and yelled “sign this, sign this!” at her as he shoved a piece of paper into her face. Gillibrand is unlikely to get that kind of gift but if she wants to know where to start her “listening tour” she could do worse than someplace out in Nassau County.

Keep Your Skeptical Eye on the Ball

Jay — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:26:30 +0000

Sen. Chuck Schumer and his pick for Hillary's replacement, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand

All the huffing and puffing about New York’s newest (almost) Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is as amusing as it is beside the point.

Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy threatens to run against Gillibrand in a Democratic primary because the new Senator has perfect record with the National Rifle Association. Assemblyman Peter Rivera lashed out, “I find no compelling reason for the Governor to select a conservative Democrat to carry on the progressive work of now Secretary of State Clinton.”

And then there is Caroline Kennedy supporter Lawrence O’Donnell who is quoted in Monday’s New Yoker as saying this about Gillibrand and Paterson’s decision to pick her: “Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people. What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”

Umm, yeah. Let’s not lose sight of what’s really happened here and what will almost certainly happen in 2010 when Gillibrand, Paterson, and New York’s other Senator Chuck Schumer will all be on the ballot. Historically there has been a battle between the Governor and either the Senator or Mayor of New York for control of his party. Remember Pataki-Giuliani-D’Amato? Remember Koch-Cuomo?

Lately David Paterson’s friends had been saying he was hoping this would be the year he would become more than the titular leader of the Dems in NY. But Chuck Schumer snatched that away in one fell swoop as Fred Siegal pointed out Friday. Schumer promoted Gillibrand very early on and was actually bouncing with joy on stage in Albany during Friday’s announcement. And why not?

With the appointment of Gillibrand Paterson has yielded the party leadership to Schumer. That’s why all the hullabaloo in the world from second-tier Democrats ain’t gonna amount to sh*t in 2010. A primary? Yeah right. Chuck Schumer — the guy who almost single-handedly brought the Democrats into the majority in the Senate in 2006 and got them thisclose to gaining a filibuster-proof majority in November — he’s going to allow his favored candidate to be primaried? I think not.

Kirsten Gillibrand will have a safe run in 2010 and may even scare off any real Republican challenge since she’s so moderate and has a proven ability to attract upstate Republican and independent voters. Kennedy would have been a far easier mark.

Lest you doubt Schumer’s influence remember that because of his campaign work in the Senate many in Washington think he is the most powerful member of that body — especially with his colleague/rival Hillary Clinton out of the way. His ability to make or break state politicians with well-placed or well-withheld largesse should not be underestimated.

Schumer is King of New York and Gillibrand is his Princess. She will not be dethroned on his watch.

Are You Serious, Dave?

Jay — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:27:16 +0000

Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand in Albany

While it’s a relief that the month-long drama over who New York Governor David Paterson would pick to fill Hillary Clinton’s US Senate seat, at lease one of his claims at a news conference in Albany Friday was absurd and impossible on it’s face.

In his lengthy explanation of how he arrived at upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand as “the best choice”, Paterson said, “This was not based on gender, on geographic location, on race, religion or sexual orientation. This decision was made on who the best candidate would actually be.”

Not based on gender or geographic location? If neither of those factors entered in Governor Paterson’s thinking he should be indicted for “political malpractice” to borrow a phrase from Bloomberg political guru Kevin Sheekey (who said Paterson would commit such a crime if he did NOT choose Caroline Kennedy but that’s another story).

Remember the only truly critical thing to Paterson is who would best help the ticket in 2010 when he will be running for Governor for the first time (Spitzer is why he’s Governor now). So keeping that in mind was he really going to replace Hillary Clinton with a man?

Consider this: The swing demographic that elected Hillary Clinton in 2000 — the demographic that was NOT on her side at the beginning of her listening tour — was suburban and upstate women. In 2006 Clinton won that group by a huge margin. If Republicans convince Rudy Giuliani to run against Paterson in 2010 then that same demographic will again, according to several pollsters I’ve spoken with, almost certainly be the deciding swing factor.

So who did he pick? A young working upstate mom who has obvious appeal to suburban and upstate women.

Indeed moments later Senator Chuck Schumer laid bare the facts: “Governor, the bottom line is this: With this choice, you hit the nail on the head. Congratulations. Furthermore, it’s very important to have someone from upstate. Upstate New York, until now, has had no representation statewide and it has no representation in the Senate since 1970.”

Later, when asked by the New York Post’s Fred Dicker if it wasn’t gender or geography or race then what exactly was it that made Gillibrand, who began her second term two weeks ago, the “best choice”? Good question Fred.

Paterson’s answer was hardly convincing as he noted her expertise on financial issues (she had just given a stemwinder answer explaining why she voted against the stimulus twice — it boiled down to she didn’t think it would work — she seems to have been more right than wrong but I digress) and that she twice won in the most Republican district in the state. Taken at face value that would seem to suggest that understanding money and appealing to Republicans were Paterson’s litmus test. But while he often mentioned wanting someone with some understanding of finance — and there were plenty of candidates offering just that — he never mentioned appealing to Republican voters as a concern.

So Governor, get real. What’s so wrong about admitting you picked Gillibrand because you think she’s qualified AND because you think New Yorkers deserve to be represented by a woman and an upstater? Saying otherwise makes you look like a typical dissembling politico and we’ve got enough of them.