I reckon this is a topic of interest for DKos Electioneers, so I'm cross-posting from my occasional collaborative effort at kellyclausenproject.wordpress.com.
Thursday marks the third statewide day of polling in New York so far this year, thanks to our insane legislature’s bipartisan inability to agree on a consolidation plan. We’ll have a fourth come November, obviously. And in my home town of Red Hook and in a scattering of others across the state, we had an special election in March, too, to cover Assembly vacancies. On tap for tomorrow: primaries for the state senate and assembly. I’m going to cover the interesting ones, with a particular focus on the Hudson Valley, but I’ll separate them into two categories: this post will cover those inspired by the June 2011 passage of a marriage equality bill, while a later post will look at the rest.
Four Republican state senators cast votes in favor of marriage equality last year. The state Conservative Party promptly promised to find primary challengers to each. It hasn’t played out quite that cleanly, and the respective challengers vary widely in skill and funding. One, Jim Alesi from the Rochester area, chose not to run for re-election to his seat amidst other problems back home. We’ll take a look at the other pro-marriage equality Republicans and the challengers they face tomorrow. They are varying shades of delightful, with two of them offering plenty of drama. For more, follow me beyond the jump.
District 41 (parts of Dutchess and Putnam) - Steve Saland
Saland has held down this seat with ease since 1990. Redistricting removed Columbia County and gave him more of Dutchess (he now has the whole county save Beekman and Pawling) and three towns in western Putnam. This - well, this and the marriage vote - inspired Neil DiCarlo of Brewster to get into the race. No, DiCarlo still does not live in the new district. But he lives close enough to make a run and move into the district if he has to, post-election. DiCarlo's previous run for office was a primary challenge to presumed frontrunner Nan Hayworth for the 19th Congressional District seat in 2010. His campaign focused on abortion, rather quixotically for a district known for sending pro-choice Republicans to Congress. Hayworth outspent him significantly and beat him 69%-31%; I assume he blamed the gays for his defeat. Now he's back to challenge Saland for his marriage vote and his pro-choice views, while vaguely referencing taxes and Saland's lengthy tenure in Albany as another reason to ditch the incumbent. And this time he's packing an endorsement from Carl Paladino - never one to shy away from a challenge to the GOP establishment.
Anecdotally, I'm told Saland had a bit more trouble than usual in gathering petition signatures this summer, with the marriage vote regularly cited as the reason why. The question is whether DiCarlo can tap into that minority of Republicans and get them to the polls in significant numbers to topple the incumbent. I will answer that question for you: he cannot. DiCarlo has barely raised any money - $31K in total as of his 11-day pre-primary filing. Most of that seems to be spent on signs of various kinds. Normal-sized signs, which he or his supporters have been known to place in front of roadside memorials to victims of car accidents (I moved one last month in Hyde Park). Enormous signs, like the banner a supporter (or hostage) was awkwardly hoisting by the side of 9G in Hyde Park yesterday. Signs saying "RETIRE SALAND" with no accompanying information as to why one might be inclined to do so. Signs referencing DiCarlo's support of "Faith. Family. Country." - the third of which I'm sure was enlightening for anyone who thought he might be a hip-hop or electronica fan. Signs, to DiCarlo's chagrin, cannot vote, and in fact his signs are so plentiful that they may exceed the number of votes he receives tomorrow. That hasn't stopped him from focusing on them in the final days of the campaign, though: click here for some amusing local shenanigans and a Chuck Palahniuk reference while we're at it.
Seriously, though, the reality is that Saland is a giant in these parts. No high-profile Republicans have endorsed his challenger. Most Hudson Valley Republicans are motivated by fiscal issues, not social issues. DiCarlo has no real connection to the district and nothing to distinguish him besides a set of starkly conservative views on social policy that will net him, I suspect, no more than 30% of the vote tomorrow. There's also an Opportunity to Ballot election for the Conservative line in this race in which voters can write in either man's name (or technically anyone else's). One would think DiCarlo could do a little better with these folks, but I doubt he has the organization to actually beat Saland on this line, either.
District 43 (Columbia, parts of Rensselaer, Saratoga and Washington) - Roy McDonald
Joe Bruno's successor in the state senate saw his district stretched out a bit - it used to be more focused on the capital region, but now it reaches south all the way to the Columbia/Dutchess border, while taking in two towns in Washington County and fewer people in Saratoga than previously. His challenger is Saratoga County Clerk Kathy Marchione. She's an experienced candidate running a more professional campaign than DiCarlo; it helps that she has raised a great deal more money - about $175,000 as of her pre-primary filing. McDonald will comfortably outspend her, but that's certainly enough money for her to break through.
The issues page on Marchione's campaign website makes no explicit reference to marriage - but it's definitely her lead line of attack, as seen during the only debate between the candidates. McDonald notes, quite rightly, that it wasn't a matter of selling out, as Marchione says; after all, Democrats haven't come close to winning this seat in past years so by casting this vote, he was making his life more difficult by inviting a challenge from the right.
McDonald does seem to be scrambling a bit, offering an attack on license plate issuance that resulted in a smack-down from several of Marchione's fellow county clerks. More compelling is his attack on Marchione for potentially double-dipping if elected. This is because her pending retirement as county clerk will commence pension payments for this longtime public employee - and these would be on top of her state senate salary if she were to win in November.
Curiously, there is also a Conservative primary here, but it's not between Marchione and McDonald: it's between Marchione and Edward Gilbert, a first-time candidate who, according to Marchione, was placed on the ballot by McDonald operatives as a stalking horse.
A delightful race. I don't think the Gilbert Gambit will succeed, in which case Marchione will appear on the November ballot regardless of what happens in the GOP primary. And as for that...my gut tells me Marchione has the momentum, but admittedly, it's a damn hard thing to predict a state legislative primary (well, unless it's Steve Saland obliterating Neil DiCarlo).
District 60 (Part of Erie) - Mark Grisanti
I'm not sure it gets much tastier than eight candidates competing in primaries across four different ballot lines. Grisanti defeated a scandal-plagued Democratic incumbent in 2010 by an ultra-narrow margin. He was a Democrat running on the Republican line, but he re-registered with the GOP for 2011. His speech in favor of marriage equality was the most touching of the four Republicans, but that does him little good in the primary. Since that day, his district has been radically altered as the Senate GOP attempted to shore him up for November: no longer is the seat based in inner-city Buffalo and Niagara Falls; now it features only a sliver of Buffalo, Niagara Falls is gone, and it stretches south into the suburbs and exurbs along Lake Erie. It's not nearly the Democratic stronghold that Grisanti managed to conquer last time around. It's still not a lock for Reps to hold in November, but Grisanti has to navigate the primary first. There, he faces Kevin Stocker, a Tonawanda attorney who ran a competitive underdog race for state assembly in 2010.
On the surface, Stocker's campaign is not about marriage: he takes no specific position on the issue, other than saying it should be left to voters in a direct referendum, which New York does not actually have for matters other than constitutional amendments. He focuses instead on Grisanti's "broken promises" and reform issues like term limits and legislative pay cuts. But marriage has worked its way in the campaign in ways so ostentatious as to draw national attention. I'm primarily referring to this mailer. Yeah, pretty amazing stuff. Homophobes are a gruesome lot, but bizarrely, this might not be coming from a homophobe per se, but rather a bisexual man who simply hates Grisanti and wants to tap into other people's bigotry to get rid of the man. Then came news Wednesday of this letter, which condemns both Grisanti and Stocker on the marriage issue and appears to be an attempt to suppress primary turnout - a phenomenon which I assume would aid Grisanti as the incumbent and better-known, better-organized candidate.
It should be noted that Grisanti has faced other controversy, in the form of his involvement in a casino brawl; no charges were filed but Grisanti's image was tarnished. But all things considered, the ugly turn this race has taken, the murky battle lines surrounding it, and a significant money advantage make for a situation where I think Grisanti squeaks through.
On the Democratic side, there's no incumbent but marriage is still an issue. That's because Erie County legislator Chuck Swanick received the Conservative endorsement as a foe of marriage equality and is assured of appearing on the ballot in November. Can he also claim the Democratic line? He faces Michael Amodeo, who supports same-sex marriage and advertises himself as the endorsed Democratic candidate. He claims to have knocked on over 5,000 doors. I believe him, because he certainly didn't spent that time raising money - Swanick is outspendng him by a considerable margin. But that''s not all. The race also features perennial candidate Al Coppola. But this is a different sort of perennial candidate...because he actually once won this seat, or at least its precursor! He captured the seat in a 2000 special election, before losing the primary later that year for a full term. Coppola has gone on to lose many primaries since then, some against his cousin Marc, who also briefly held the seat. Sometimes he has run on the Republican line, and lost. His campaign didn't come back to life until recently, and he has only raised $19,000 this cycle. But he has some name recognition and presents an interesting wild card. My guess is that Swanick wins, after months spent using his money advantage to, remarkably enough, knock Amodeo's progressive credentials.
Grisanti also faces an Independence Party challenge from Marie Clark and Brian Siklinski. As near as I can tell neither of these are real contenders, so Grisanti should hold onto the IP line with ease.
And then there's a Working Families primary, where Gregory Davis appears on the ballot but the opportunity for write-ins is presented. He's our eighth candidate in this zoo of a race. I can't begin to guess whether the three or four WFP voters who show up tomorrow will vote for him or write someone in.