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.

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.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg

It’s nice to be Mike. Bloomberg that is. And not only because he’s (still) worth multiple billions of dollars.

The new Marist Poll out Friday shows why it’s virtually impossible to see how Mike Bloomberg is stopped from winning a third term as Mayor later this year.

Despite the “Blues for Bloomberg?” headline a quick peak into the numbers shows that Bloomberg is broadly popular among New Yorkers and actually in a better position than he was at this time in 2005. And he’s ready to spend even more than the $80 million in blew through then on his way to a 18-point win.

The headline-inducing number — 55% of NYC voters say it’s time to elect “someone else” — is undercut by what voters told pollsters to other questions.

Sure, the mayor’s approval numbers have dropped pretty substantially in the last few months (from 68% in October to 52% now) but it’s still higher than his approval number in March of 2005 when it was just 43%.

Marist Polls on Bloomberg's Popularity

Far more telling though is what voters said when asked more specific questions: “If the election were held today would you vote for Bloomberg or (Democrat) Anthony Weiner?” Voters pick Bloomie 53%-37%. Same question but switch Bill Thompson for Weiner and it’s the same story: Bloomie wins 53%-36%.

Then there are the questions that get to the root of how people are really feeling as opposed to what they may tell pollsters about how they might vote eight months from now: Is Bloomberg working hard as Mayor? 80% say he is. Does he understand the problems facing the city? 68% say he does. And the clincher, is he a good leader? 67% think he is.

If you’re Thompson or Weiner or dark horse Dem Tony Avella there are some numbers that could give you hope and a line of attack:  “Does Bloomberg care about people like you?” 47% agree but 50% disagree. “Was changing term limits a good thing? 25% say it was, 46% say it was not, 29% don’t care. But honestly, it’s a pretty faint glimmer when you remember you will be outspent four or five to one.

In much the same way that many New Yorkers thought Rudy Giuliani was an a**hole but voted for him because he was our a**hole, voters think Bloomberg is something of an imperious autocrat but at least he’s our imperious autocrat. Plus la change….