So yeah, deep blue New York City is indeed represented by one Republican in the House of Representatives. It is my intention to start early in the '12 election cycle to bring attention to NY-13, and to encourage NYC activists to target this district as a pick-up opportunity.
There is no declared Democratic candidate to endorse yet, so I'll just begin with some background on the district, and on the current incumbent, Palin-backed Republican Michael Grimm.
To entice you to join me in the body of this diary, I'll begin by noting that Mr. Grimm is enjoying his sweet, sweet government healthcare plan.
So first, the basics of the NY-13 district courtesy of wikipedia and The New York Times:
* The district is composed of all of Staten Island and the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights and Gravesend.
* The district was created in 1803 and has a history of being a swing district, leaning Republican.
* In recent history, we in NY-13 have had colorful representation by the likes of Republican Vito Fossella, who might have been re-electable after his DUI, were it not for his admission of an out-of-wedlock affair and his admission that said affair had produced a lovechild.
* So, w/ Fossella out, Democrat Michael McMahon rode the Obama wave in 2008 and turned the seat "blue" for the first time since 1997.
* McMahon carried the district with 61% of the vote, and NYC's delegation became 100% Democratic for the first time in 76 years.
* Simultaneously, NY-13 voted for McCain over Obama by a margin of 52-48% (after giving GWB a 56-43 margin in '04 and Gore a 52-45 margin in '00).
* Michael McMahon was one of 34 Democrats to vote against the health care bill (oops).
* 538 forecasted NY-13 as 90% likely to re-elect McMahon in the last cycle.
* McMahon outspent Republican challenger Michael Grimm $2,684,660 to $1,202,850
* Michael Grimm picked up the coveted endorsement of Mamaw Grisly.
* Michael Grimm, riding the "Take Our Country Back" wave of 2010, defeated McMahon by a margin of 51.3% to 48%.
* Get this: in 2008 (a Presidential cycle) McMahon received 114,219 votes. In the 2010 midterms, that vote tally dropped precipitously to only 60,773. By comparison, McMahon's challenger in 2008 was Republican Robert Straniere. Grimm's 65,024 votes in 2010 was relatively flat vs. Stratiere's total of 62,441 in '08. There may be a better example of "enthusiam gap" out there, but I think this district pretty much sums it up.
So, where are we now?
Following his election, I'm party of one, says lone New York GOP rep-elect Michael Grimm
Newly elected New York House member Michael Grimm has a message for the White House: I'm no party's man.
Grimm, a Republican who bested freshman incumbent Rep. Michael McMahon (D-S.I.) in last week's election, said his priority is creating jobs, not pushing out President Obama.
"I don't want our next two years to be a time where we just butt heads and get nothing done. It's no longer about Democrats or Republicans," said the former FBI agent.
And yet, he's already under fire for his vote to "repeal and replace" "Obamacare":
Without naming Grimm, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) went after him and other Republicans who campaigned on repeal but quickly signed up for the generous health plan they rated by getting elected.
Cohen noted that a newly elected member [Grimm] had justified taking the congressional plan by complaining, "I don't have health care and, God forbid I get into an accident and I can't afford the operation - that can happen to anyone."
Indeed.
Meanwhile, Judy L. Randall over at silive.com reports (January 19) that Staten Island ex-congressman McMahon presents himself as a strong Dem:
In a spirited defense of his tenure in Congress -- including his controversial vote against health care reform -- former Rep. Michael McMahon appeared to be laying the groundwork for a comeback last night with an appeal to a liberal political club to help return the coveted House seat to the Democratic column, "whoever" the candidate may be.
He also told some 100 members of the Staten Island Democratic Association, meeting in St. George, that Democrats need to have a "unified message" going forward, rather than "writing letters complaining" about isolated votes a Democratic elected official might take.
When his campaign called me, I was very vocal about my disappointment in his healthcare vote, to the point where the campaign volunteer finally admitted that he agreed with me. His complaint about complaints regarding an isolated vote, however, didn't fly:
While McMahon said he wanted an honest assessment of his performance, he seemed to bristle initially at criticism, talking over one person's remarks, but later dialing back his response when another person said, to applause, that he had abandoned his political base by opposing the health care bill and failing to be a "leader" on the issue.
So, will McMahon rebrand himself as a true progressive Democrat?
"I saw it a little differently at the time," said McMahon, "but I take what you say very seriously. I hear you loud and clear. ... Maybe I made some mistakes along the way."
Time will tell. He's got the advantage of name recognition in the district, but I hope that Dems are able to put up at least one solid primary challenger to keep the pressure on him to move his positions to the left.
More to follow in the months ahead as we see more of Grimm's voting record and as potential candidates start to emerge from the Democratic field.