Gov. David Paterson

And you thought the stock market was having a rough year…. This morning’s Marist Poll piles on to the downward trend Governor Paterson has seen in two recent surveys from other polling organizations and shows his position to be getting worse by the week. Here’s the most damning line from the folks up in Poughkeepsie:

Governor Paterson’s approval rating is the lowest approval rating a New York State governor has received in the Marist Poll’s nearly thirty year history of statewide surveys.

Ouch. Paterson’s approval rating is down to 26% — five weeks ago Marist showed it at 46%. By way of c0mparison Spitzer’s and Pataki’s low-water marks were both 30%.

The problems for Paterson are total: Democrats give him only a 30% approval and would much prefer Andrew Cuomo to run for Governor in 2010 (62%-26%). Independents are even tougher on him than Republicans — just 20% of non-affiliated voters think Paterson’s doing a good job versus 26% of Republicans who think he is.

Dig in a little deeper and you find voters basically like David Paterson the man (77% say he’s working hard, 50% says he cares about people) but don’t much care for David Paterson the Governor (53% don’t think he’s a very good leader, 59% think he’s not doing a good job on the budget).

The election is still a long way off and the economy will clearly dictate much of what voters are feeling by then but as Get Real has pointed out over the last two months, Paterson’s only hope is that prominent African-American politicians stick with him, thereby making a Cuomo run difficult (here’s a previous post about that).

If Paterson’s polling problems don’t begin to go away, it’s going to be very hard for the Rangels and Sharptons of the world to stand by and NOT make a move.

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch

As much as we love to reward those who own up to their mistakes it’s a little hard to take Rupert Murdoch’s mea culpa over the NY Post Chimp-Obama cartoon at face value. Here’s what he wrote in an item place in a small box at the bottom of Page 2 in Tuesday’s Post.

“As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me. Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted. Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you – without a doubt – that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such. We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.”

Why it took six days for someone in charge at the Post to apologize is a valid question and one the paper’s PR folks have not answered for Get Real yet. But it’s probably a fairly simple case of following the money.

Al Sharpton is meeting with the FCC in Washington tomorrow to discuss the waiver the agency granted Murdoch that allows him to own two TV stations (Channels 5 and 9) and a newspaper (Post) in a single market in violation of Federal law. In the wake of the cartoon Sharpton said he wanted to go not after the newspaper but after the corporate parent and the license waiver was a major benefit to News Corp.

So Rupe’s mea culpa is likely tinged with more than a bit of practicality. Still, at least he said it.

The other mea culpa comes from me. Back at the end of January on the heals of several polls testing what New Yorkers thought of Governor Paterson I wrote: “Pundits be damned, the public is NOT blaming Paterson for the Caroline Kennedy fiasco (and) Paterson is still widely popular, and all things being equal, he is not in a particularly tough position for a campaign that will begin a year from now.”

I continued after noting that one poll showed Paterson to be essentially tied with Andrew Cuomo in a hypothetical primary: “Oooo delicious, right? Not so fast. Andrew Cuomo has clawed his way back to respectability after primarying Carl McCall in 2002 thus earning what looked to be the everlasting enmity of African-American (and plenty of other) Dems who thought it mighty uncool for the brash young scion to try and keep New York from possibly electing it’s first black Governor. So what’s he gonna do now that he’s in (almost) everyone’s good graces? Take on New York’s actual first black Governor? Not on your life unless top African American politicos like Rangel, Sharpton, and some guy named Obama throw Dave over the transom. If that happens there won’t be a primary because Paterson will resign or find himself Ambassador of [insert obscure country here].”

Well, fast-forward one month and Jay doesn’t look so smart any more. A new Siena Poll shows just how badly things have gone from not-so-bad to meltdown. In this survey Paterson’s favorables are now down to 40% with his unfavorables at 47%. The damage is in the suburbs (34%-55%), among women (35%-48%), and worst for him, among Democrats (44%-41%).

Put another way only one quarter of registered Democrats say they would vote for him in 2010 and in that hypothetical primary Cuomo now would beat Paterson 53% – 27%. When Siena then ran hypothetical general election matchups with Rudy Giuliani as the Republican candidate (which some very smart observers believe is a very unlikely prospect for the now wealthy jet-setting former Mayor and failed Presidential candidate) against Paterson or Cuomo, Giuliani handily beats Paterson but Cuomo handily beats Rudy.

So…I was wrong, or at least premature in January to say Paterson was not in a tough position for 2010. He has spent the last month mired in ineffectiveness making his Caroline-Gillibrand kerfuffle look like a stroke of managerial genius. As I noted in January Democrats — especially prominent African American Democrats — will need to make the first move but if Paterson’s performance in the polls is not better by the fall watch the Rangels and Sharptons of this world very closely.

If they move an “irresistible” offer of an ambassadorship to East Wintogia won’t be far behind.

N.Y. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

Oh he’s so coy, that Andrew Cuomo. He speaks to the Conservative Party (a Cuomo!?!?). He starts to make the rounds of the civic group breakfasts (Citizens Budget Commission Wednesday, Crain’s soon, can ABNY be far behind?). He takes on the greedy Wall Street bums and the Medicaid cheats and the Health Insurance crooks. But he’s not running for Governor. No no no.

As Liz Benjamin gets very right, Cuomo is following the well-worn path of his predecessor Eliot Spitzer who ran for and won the Governor’s race with a very similar technique.

In his speech to the Conservative Party — irony alert! Remember Conservative votes were the margin of victory for George Pataki in his surprise ousting of Andy’s legendary dad Mario — Cuomo talked about consolidating local governments across the state and got a nice write-up from the Albany Times-Union editorial page for his trouble.

For CBC he rolled out more of the same with some added populism. Azi Paybarah at the Observer headlines the big quote from Cu, New York “should have a taxpayers revolt!” To the barricades!

But the clincher was this: “There’s a second concept called competence, called performance, and I want to introduce the topic of operational reform. Yes, the system shouldn’t be corrupt. The system should also be competent.”

Oooo snap! Who could that possibly be aimed at?

Cuomo insists he’s not running for Governor and has said repeatedly in recent weeks he thinks over the course of the rest of his term David Paterson will “do fine” as Governor. But Cuomo certainly noticed he was the public’s favorite for Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat (not Caroline Kennedy) and more recent polls testing a hypothetical Cuomo-Paterson Democratic primary have shown such a race thisclose.

Indeed there’s no reason for Cuomo not to start down this path based on Paterson’s uneven performance and the difficult times the state is facing. But before we get too far down this path remember this: It would be very hard for Andrew Cuomo to win a Democratic primary against Paterson if African-Americans didn’t split their support. And that could be a tough sell.

Cuomo’s primary challenge to Carl McCall in 2002 made him no friends in the African-American community where the feeling was McCall, who was then Comptroller, had earned the right to be the first black candidate for Governor of New York. Cuomo poured salt into the wound by dropping out of the race a week before the primary — having already forced McCall to spend money he could have used elsewhere and having spent months beating up on McCall so Republican incumbent George Pataki didn’t have to. Pataki won in a rout.

So would Cuomo really go after New York’s first black Governor? Not a chance unless party leaders believe Paterson is so weakened that Democrats would face a real risk of losing in 2010. That’s a decision they can wait on. In the meantime Cuomo can go about positioning himself to step in should the opportunity arise.

The key thing to watch for is any significant African-American leader (Rangel, Sharpton, Smith, Meeks) breaking ranks and suggesting Paterson might not be the right man for reelection. If that happens Andrew Cuomo is on deck, ready, willing, and eager to step up to the plate.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY

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.