Soon-to-be Army Secretary John McHugh

It’s damn tough to be a Republican in New York these days. 

First the party lost a slew of Congressional seats in 2006. Then they surrendered control of the State Senate for the first time in two generations. This past winter they failed to regain the “most Republican” House seat in the state. And now this: President Obama has picked one of New York’s last three Republican Congressmen to be Secretary of the Army.

John McHugh has represented much of the northern third of the state since 1992 but has accepted Obama’s offer — and why not? Even with his seniority McHugh can’t be having any fun being in the impotent Republican minority. So Obama gets a twofer, right? Another Republican in his “bi-partisan” administration and another shot at adding to the Democratic majority in Congress.

Not so fast.

For all those thinking Democrats should have an easier time picking up McHugh’s district than they did the hotly-contested 20th when Kirsten Gillibrand was elevated to the Senate and Scott Murphy squeaked into her seat might want to parse the numbers.

The 23rd is not the 20th.

As Get Real repeatedly explained during both the campaign for the 20th special election and the lengthy post-election drama, the district had been changing fairly rapidly (in electoral terms) since 2001 with a heavy influx of city liberals in Columbia and Dutchess Counties and a similarly big increase in tech professionals in Albany’s eastern and northern suburbs. Everyone focused on the large registration advantage the GOP had in the 20th without paying much attention to the fact that there were more independent voters (combining unaffiliated and Independence Party registrants who often believe they are choosing to be “independent” as opposed to “Independents”) as Dems and that combined, they easily overtook Republicans.

The 23rd has a smaller GOP advantage among registered voters but also a much smaller pool of independents (43% Rep, 31% Dem, 24% ind in the 23rd versus 42% Rep, 27% Dem, 34% ind in the 20th). Certainly it is still true that Dem + ind is a greater sum than the Republican number in the 23rd but the composition of that independent vote is clearly different from that in the 20th. The 23rd has none of the urban second-home population that seems to have made a difference in the 20th (based on how hard the GOP fought to throw out ballots from them) and very little in the way of upscale tech voters.

The 23rd runs across some of the prettiest but poorest areas of rural upstate New York and is more solidly Republican than the 20th in a pretty important way: Elected officials. Although Democratic State Senator Darrel Aubertine stunned the GOP with his special election victory in 2008 only 2 of the 9 state Assembly members from the 23rd are Dems.

And remember Gillibrand won two elections in a row for the 20th before the special election this winter proving that Democrats stood a chance in the district. John McHugh has held the seat in the 23rd with barely a challenge from Democrats since 1992.

That being said, this isn’t a lock for Republicans if for no other reason than nothing in the northeast is a lock for the GOP these days. As TPM points out, Obama carried the 23rd by a bigger margin than he did in the 20th. And Aubertine’s special election win was followed by a solid regular election victory in November. But it will obviously come down to the candidates. The 20th stayed Democratic at least in part because the party ran a rich guy willing to self-fund his short campaign. There are all sorts of wild cards in specials but party discipline and organization can have a way of mitigating them.

Which brings us to the final point: Both parties are pretty screwed up in New York. Liz Benjamin does a great job digging through the early possibilities but it seems likely Republicans will choose a known vote-getter in the district (of which there are a few) while Democrats will be hard-pressed to put up their best known vote-getter, the previously mentioned Senator Aubertine. He’d be a pretty good choice save one tiny problem. Democrats hold onto control of the State Senate by one vote. If Aubertine’s seat goes to a special election Dems will be very hard-pressed to keep it and keep their majority (as Liz accurately notes). And what’s more important? Adding another Democrat to Congress where the party has a big, safe majority or keeping control of the State Senate — which they only just won for the first time since 1936?

Look for an easy GOP save here and plenty of chest-thumping from the RNC when they win it. After all it will be the first thing they’ve won since the November wipeout.

Absentee Ballots: Which Count?

The daily dribble of news upstate in the 20th district recount “drama” brings two interesting posts. Nate Silver at 538 does one of his masterful number-crunching jobs to predict that Democrat Scott Murphy will eventually prevail by about 540 votes over Republican Jim Tedisco. What’s really interesting there though is Nate’s take on the Republican’s jaw-dropping challenge of Kirsten Gillibrand’s absentee ballot. He thinks it will make it harder for Tedisco to mount a rematch if Murphy wins. Maybe but Nate may be getting ahead of himself on this one.

You’ll recall that Republicans have been challenging nearly every Democratic absentee ballot throughout the district, notably focusing on second-home owners in Columbia County who had their ballots mailed to New York City addresses. As we showed Tuesday, the only problem with that argument is New York’s courts have ruled repeatedly that second home owners have a right to vote in the locations of their second homes.

Then came Tedisco’s challenge to Gillibrand’s ballot. Remember Gillibrand held this very House seat until twelve weeks ago when she was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s vacated Senate seat. Tedisco says the ballot isn’t valid because she showed up in the district Election Night at Murphy’s “not-yet-a-victory” party and therefore should have voted in person.

Unfortunately for Republicans the law is pretty straightforward — one must have a “good-faith” belief that one won’t be able to cast one’s vote in person — since Gillibrand is a Senator and the Senate calendar can change that seems like a pretty “good-faith” reason for voting absentee.

So Nate thinks Tedisco’s challenge could backfire should Murphy win and Tedisco want a rematch in 2010. While that’s certainly possible it’s worth remembering that New York voters are used to this kind of thing. The nation may think what happened in Florida in 2000 or Minnesota in 2008-09 is rare, these bloody battles are commonplace here. A State Senate seat in Queens voted on in November wasn’t finally decided until early February. Another seat in Westchester took three months to sort out in 2004. So New Yorkers are pretty jaded when it comes to long drawn-out ballot counting fiascos. If Tedisco loses and wants a rematch his biggest problem won’t be the way he fought absentee ballots but rather the changing nature of the district.

The other interesting post comes from Jimmy Vielkind at Politicker who gets a quote from the guy who eventually won that seat in Westchester back in 2004 by 18 votes, former State Senator Nick Spano. Spano notes that it’s always better to be up in the count before you appear before the judge who will be deciding which ballots to count and which to set aside. That puts the burden on the judge to open him or herself up to criticism that he or she “overturned the will of the people.” Gotta love NY politics.

Of course there’s also some conspiracy theory action going around — in this case over Supreme Court Justice James Brands who a local blogger writes up as a pretty questionable character when it comes to election decisions involving his fellow Republicans. Brands is the one who will decide which ballots get counted and which don’t. If he ends up discarding enough ballots to give Tedisco the win this case will end up in the state’s appellate courts which are — believe it or not — highly regarded for being fair.

So Murphy gets seated in June? Maybe he and Franken can have a victory lunch together since they’ll both be arriving about the same time at this rate.

Ahoy There!

There a few things more certain in life than this: Hyper-partisans (left and right) will twist everything and anything to fit their worldview. Today’s case in point comes courtesy of Red State and a contributor who speculates that the Somali pirates who have attacked and apparently captured an American-flagged cargo vessel did so because they know Barack Obama is a wuss.

While the author is correct no U.S. flagged vessel has been successfully attacked by pirates to this point it’s worth noting how few American-flagged vessels there are any more. The number of major cargo ships flagged (registered) in the U.S. is fewer than 200 because it is so much more expensive for shipping companies to register in the U.S. than in countries like Panama and Liberia which have low costs (and large fleets as a result — check page 36 of this report if you’re really really interested).

It’s also worth noting American-flagged and owned vessels have been attacked since piracy took off in 2005 during the time when the presumably frighteningly-tough-as-nails President George W. Bush was in the White House including two U.S. Navy ships, two large passenger cruise liners, and two large bulk cargo ships. Perhaps the best reason to question the author’s premise was Saturday’s attack on an Israeli cargo ship.

If these guys will attack an Israeli ship they’ve either never heard of the Raid on Entebbe or they’ll go after any ship they see. I’d bet on the latter.

The Magic 30 Percent

Speaking of that wuss of a President, the evidence is now awfully solid that the Republican game plan (the Party of No) has accomplished one thing: It has built and maintained Obama’s disapproval ratings…at 30%.

A new Marist Poll out right now (check out their new website too) gives Obama an approval rating of 56% with 30% saying they disapprove of the job he’s doing. Those numbers are in line with a series of other polls in the last month even if the approval number is on the lower end of the range. And while some might argue the bloom is off the rose, a quick look at Real Clear Politics’s or the Polling Report’s running averages of all polls proves the point.

Both averages put Obama’s approval rating at a steady 60%+ since January while his disapproval rate has gone from the teens to around 30% where it plateaued in mid-February. That should concern the GOP since Obama only got 53% of the vote in November to John McCain’s 46%. That means 16 percentage points worth of McCain voters still don’t buy the GOP’s opposing message (and most don’t buy Obama either).

The worst news for Republicans is in these numbers from the Gallup Poll:

Since his Inauguration Obama’s support among Democrats and independents has stayed roughly the same. Only Republicans have become more dissatisfied. With self-identifying Republicans dropping to levels rivalling post-Watergate, the GOP clearly needs a new plan. Unless they really enjoy being in the minority.

Number Crunchers Rejoice!

Bucolic Columbia County

If you can’t wait for the actual votes to get counted in the special election upstate to replace Kirsten Gillibrand in the House, Nate over at 538 has some analysis that indicates Democrat Scott Murphy could end up winning this most-Republican-district-in-New-York. What’s interesting is where the most absentee ballots are coming from: Columbia County, which we explained several times could prove pivotal because of all the second-home NYC residents who vote up there (where their votes obviously count far more because there are actually two parties in Columbia County).

Republican Jim Tedisco has been making the rounds to conservative radio shows and columnists making noises about Democratic intimidation of local election boards but as a weekend resident in the district (who does NOT vote there) I can tell you that any intimidation would probably be by the election board members. These are hardy peeps in the 20th who are unlikely to take any crap or suggestions from anybody. Further the notion that the state Board of Elections would be denying military ballots in order to favor a Democrat is equally absurd.

Remember this: Tedisco is being represented in any court action by former Republican Congressman James Walsh. Walsh is one of the four members of the State Board of Elections. So give it rest guys.

We should know who gets the distinct privilege of representing me (on weekends) in a week — or sooner.

Columbia County

What happens this coming Tuesday in towns like Claverack and Surprise and Truthville is going to set insider Washington abuzz. That’s when voters in those and a few hundred other towns and villages in the 20th Congressional district of New York decide whether a Republican or Democrat replaces Kirsten Gillibrand as their Congressperson.

Special elections always give Beltway insiders something to talk about outside the proper campaign season and this one is especially rich, coming just 10 weeks (really!) after Barack Obama took office with sky-high public approval ratings. Everybody is prepared to spin this as something large and significant — something that speaks to a larger national truth. But will it? As someone who has a house in the district I would caution against jumping to any conclusions.

The 20th has an odd recent history — despite being the most Republican House district in the state (here’s the list if you’re into that kind of thing) with 67,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats, Gillibrand was able to win the seat in 2006 as part of the nationwide Democrats-winning-Republican-seats midterm elections that threw control of the House to Dems.

Gillibrand was aided by an incumbent who to some degree took his reelection for granted and ran into last minute legal problems with claims that he had fought with his wife and that the State Police had helped cover it up. Still, Gillibrand was no shoe-in and only won by raising substantial funds and outworking John Sweeney throughout the campaign.

In November national Republicans targeted Gillibrand as a “must-remove” incumbent but ran a little-known (to voters) former state party chairman with an unfortunately patrician name (Sandy Treadwell) who outraised and outspent Gillibrand but was incapable of outshining her. It didn’t hurt that Obamamania was sweeping the country.

But that was then and this is now. Obamamania has diminished, especially among Republicans who actually voted for him. So the GOP has gone all-in on this race (new GOP chair Michael Steele has promised a victory) hoping to use a win here to make the case that the tide has turned and the bottom of the Republican market has been reached.

Democrats, on the other hand, are playing to win, sort of (Murphy has his own money but support from Obama as been limited to a mailing), but if they don’t they will argue that a loss means nothing. Nothing other than some very Republican-leaning districts are bound to be won back by Republicans eventually.

Should Democrat Scott Murphy win, of course, the roles will be reversed and Democrats will say this special election proves voters approve of all the party has done in Washington in these last 10 weeks. Republicans will simply have to lick their wounds. There is much greater downside risk here for the GOP.

None of these arguments are really as clean-cut as that though. As the Times front-paged Saturday, Murphy the successful businessman, may face anti-business backlash from voters incensed by the AIG bonus mess among other things. And Republican Jim Tedisco, who pitifully refused to support or oppose the stimulus plan (which is very popular in the 20th), might still be punished for being a career politician who spent the last 27 years in the loathed New York State legislature.

While national concerns may drive voters in this district it’s worth looking a bit deeper than the Rep/Dem split shown in the registration numbers. While there are about 181,000 registered Republicans and only 113,000 Democrats there are 127,000 independent or Independence Party voters (many people register for the Independence Party thinking they are registering as independents which are actually called “blank” voters in New York). Those independents hold the key to why the 20th is not such a simple nut to crack.

Looking over the results from 2006 and 2008 Gillibrand only lost one of the district’s 10 counties in 2006 and none in 2008. Murphy is not likely to repeat that performance but where Gillibrand won the most votes is telling. A district once dominated by Saratoga County (Tedisco’s home stomping grounds) is now more evenly split between Saratoga and a group of counties in the southern end of the sprawling district. Columbia, Dutchess, and Greene Counties total roughly the same vote produced in Saratoga and these counties have changed markedly in a decade.

Following 9/11 the exodus of New York City residents eager to find a simpler life led thousands to relocate to these counties. In Columbia County more than half my neighbors are transplants. Many weekenders even register to vote in these counties figuring their votes count more here than in the city. Then there are the new legion of highly-educated workers associated with Sematech who have moved to Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Warren Counties and brought their independent to liberal political beliefs with them. The 20th is not what it was and registration figures lag in accurately describing it.

If Murphy wins it probably does NOT mean the nation as a whole supports what Democrats are doing in Washington (they may but this race won’t prove it) any more than if Tedisco wins it means Americans have lost faith in the President and the Democrats.

The story here is more parochial and more basic. In a changing district, will the old guard maintain it’s mojo by turning out in big numbers? Or will the newcomers show their muscle as they become the new majority in a “new 20th”?

The fact that this is what this race is really about won’t stop the DC gang from drawing every other possible conclusion from the results but at least you are now forearmed and forewarned.

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.

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.

Gov. David Paterson

Oh how quickly the news has moved on from Kirsten Gillibrand the “accidental Senator” to David Paterson the “doomed Governor.” Newspapers across the state from Buffalo to Gotham wrote up Paterson’s big problems this morning after the botched selection process to replace Hillary Clinton.

Now two new polls, one from Quinnipiac and the other from Siena, make several things abundantly clear:

1. Pundits be damned, the public is NOT blaming Paterson for the Caroline Kennedy fiasco (despite Liz Benjamin’s excellent report this morning indicating the public might want to think again).

2. Paterson is still widely popular, and all things being equal (which they are not but chill — I’m getting there), he is not in a particularly tough position for a campaign that will begin a year from now.

3. Kirsten Gillibrand will be elected Senator in 2010.

First, the Q poll shows voters are giving Paterson a pass on the Caroline mess blaming Kennedy and her people by huge margin (49% say it was Caroline’s fault, 15% say it was Dave’s). Furthermore his approval rating is down pretty significantly from it’s high last August (64% then, 50% now) but considering all the bad news about the budget, his State of the State, and Caroline he can’t be too unhappy that only 30% disapprove of the way he’s doing (that’s roughly the percentage of Republicans in the state so whaddya expect?) Finally there’s great news for Gillibrand here.

Voters who say they have an opinion like her 25% to 10%. Nice, but focus on the 63% who don’t have an opinion. For an aggressive campaigner and fundraiser who’s taken classes at the Chuck Schumer School of Politics, 63% undecided is pure gold. Gillibrand skillfully went to work moments after she was announced last Friday and hasn’t stopped. The poll shows she has great appeal upstate and among Republicans — even among NYC Dems who critics say will abandon her over her support for gun rights she has positive ratings and a vast pool of undecideds. Combine that with the support of her mentor and macher Senator Schumer and Gillibrand is the closest thing to a sure bet you’re gonna get in politics.

So back to Paterson’s polls and his problems. While his approval rating is still pretty good the Siena poll put him into a head to head match-up with Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and found it to be thisclose in a hypothetical primary (35% Paterson to 33% Cuomo). 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].

Finally remember who now rules the Democratic Party of the State of New York. King Charles. Schumer no more wants Andrew Cuomo in the Governor’s Office than he wanted the ambitious competitor in the Senate. If Paterson can muddle through this budget year (and I’m betting he can with the help of some big $$ help from Schumer and Obama) Schumer will do whatever it takes to make sure he stays in office and the politial pecking order stays the same. With Schumer firmly on top.

UPDATE 1/27/09

A third poll from Marist may give Paterson more pause. Marist has his “How am I doin’?” numbers at 46% Excellent/Good versus 48% Fair/Poor and shows him losing to either Rudy Giuliani or Bloomberg (who almost certainly would never run) albeit by narrow margins.

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.

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.