Skip to main content

View Diary: Really endangered Republicans (and danger zone Democrats) (68 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Good analysis overall (3+ / 0-)

    but the devil's in the details. Just to take up the two districts I'm most familiar with, NY-02 and NY-11, King is confoundingly difficult to dislodge. The district has a long, deep GOP history. Also, you can't beat someone with no one, and we've always had trouble finding challengers for him. I haven't heard a peep about who might run against him in '14.

    And in 11, while Grimm is weak, his declared challenger has two big strikes against him: one, he profoundly unpopular with the local activist base - you know, the people who'd be doing phone banking and GOTV for him? He's closely tied to the corrupt Kings County leadership. And two, this district's power base is not in Kings County, his home, but in Richmond County (Staten Island), where they see it as their seat exclusively. They haven't elected a rep from the Brooklyn side of the water within living memory, and while we were able to get a very conservative Dem elected in the sweep of 2008, he also benefited from the incumbent (Vito "Vino" Fossella) being caught in a lurid scandal, and even so he was easily ousted the very next time around. If Grimm does get indicted, it's  more likely that the local GOP  will pressure him to bow out in time for them to nominate a replacement, than for the current Democratic candidate to win.

    "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

    by sidnora on Sun May 05, 2013 at 02:59:45 PM PDT

    •  Maybe not Brooklyn but we did elect... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, sidnora

      ....Michael from Queens as a congressman.  Not that anyone really noticed or cared.  But at the very least Grimm did have the common courtesy to carpet bag and pretend.  Actually acknowledging you're from Brooklyn and staying there isn't the best idea.

      Democrats have nominated candidates from Brooklyn a number of times before.  Steve Harrison in 2006 and Frank Barbaro in 2004 for instance.  They both did better than Arne Mattsson in 2002 who was from Staten Island.  Given poor Arne got only 28.3% of the vote better is a relative term.  Though to be fair they were the first to break 40% since Congressman Leo Zeferetti (also from Brooklyn) was redistricted in with Guy Molinari.

      The story behind the story is that Bay Ridge was a Republican friendly area that has recently changed rapidly into Democratic friendly territory.  

      Any established Democrat would have an advantage over Recchia.  But here is the rub.  Campaigns are expensive and building organizations take time.  And rather than sitting around Recchia is raising money and visibility now.

      Traditionally McMahon and Cussick wait until the very least minute to decide condemning bitterly anyone who does wait for them.  Even though the answer is almost always no.  Thus leaving whoever runs at a distinct disadvantage in the general since they are starting way too late.  Recchia by not waiting and raising real money is changing the game.

      They of course would be favored against Recchia.  But unless they or any other notable Staten Island Democrat starts getting their act together they are going to find out sooner than they think that it's too late.

      I'd prefer someone from Staten Island over Recchia.  But I give him credit for getting in there and putting everyone else on notice that they better get in or get lost.

      The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

      by Taget on Tue May 07, 2013 at 03:40:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I worked for both Harrison and Barbaro. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Taget, MichaelNY

        nominating candidates from Brooklyn doesn't seem to work very well for the Democrats. I think both were too liberal for the S.I. portion of the district, as well as being regarded as interlopers. Even McMahon was too liberal for them (while voting against the ACA), but too conservative to attract donations and volunteers from outside S.I.

        My feeling is that until the demographics of S. I. change sufficiently, and until the S.I. Democratic organization gets its act together, that seat will stay Republican.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:00:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They won't get their act together. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, sidnora

          But the demographics have changed and are continuing to change.  For instance once upon a time a pro-choice candidate would have had no shot in Staten Island.  That's no longer the case.  And last election it was shocking the number of lawns with Matt Titone / Michael Grimm signs.  And that was seen in the election results as well.  Matt Titone who both of us would have said was far too liberal for Staten Island would have probably beaten Grimm.

          In the end the question is what does swing the swing voters and is it even ideological considerations?  Is the less charismatic pro-life Michael Cusick more electable than the pro-choice but far more personal and mavericky Michael McMahon?  I don't think it was a matter of McMahon being too "liberal" but a national environment and a south shore heavy turnout that would have brought down any Democrat in office regardless.

          As for the party getting it's act together.  In other boroughs the party controls the elected officials and the candidates.  In Staten Island the elected officials control the party.  Their interest is whatever is in each of their best personal interest.

          I want someone besides Recchia and someone from Staten Island even just for parochial reasons.  But if we wait for say Michael Cusick to decide we'll miss the filing deadline to field a candidate.  Someone with the ability to raise money needs to step up.    Steve Harrison was not a lousy candidate because he was too liberal or even because he was from Brooklyn.  But because he couldn't raise two quarters to rub together.

          So far it's just Recchia.  And given the FBI seems to be having a grand time knocking NYC public officials down he has a shot.

          I did hear one insane offhand suggestion that will never happen and of course should never happen.  But my evil desire to see an utterly insane political circus makes me secretly wish for.  Anthony Weiner carpet bagging in.  Get Vito Fosella to try a political comeback and a Grimm indictment.... tabloid nirvana!

          The lady was enchanted and said they ought to see. So they charged her with subversion and made her watch TV -Spirogyra

          by Taget on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:51:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, that is an insane suggestion. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY

            but very funny. And you're right about Steve, his biggest liability was financial.

            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

            by sidnora on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:31:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site