Comments on: New York liberals intensify criticism of Gillibrand (and Paterson)

By: Ogre Mage

Ogre Mage — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:33:21 +0000

The tension between New York’s regional, cultural and ethnic factions makes for interesting politics. In Gillibrand’s case, it is a test of her political skills in how she negotiates the liberal, downstate opposition to her.

I can see why the first thing she did move to the left on gay rights. It is an issue where she already had a mixed record, so a shift to a pro-gay position isn’t too jarring.

She has taken a harder line against gun control and immigration, which makes readjusting her position more difficult. She may have found a decent “triangulation” approach on guns, however, by remaining a strong supporter of hunting rights while also supporting urban handgun control measures. I think this could work.

As others have suggested, the immigration issue is politically explosive and doesn’t lend itself to an easy split-the-difference solution. And because it is an economic and security issue, people will get riled up about it on all sides. Gillibrand will likely have a difficult time embracing a more pro-immigrant position without losing significant support upstate and being accused of selling out. However, she can hardly ignore the importance of Hispanic and Asian voters in the context of a Democratic Primary. This will be a tough test.

It is highly likely Gillibrand will have a Democratic Primary challenger in 2010. Whether she gets a true challenge or only token opposition will depend on her performance and ability to reach out to the oppositional factions.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:11:41 +0000

I agree with Panos - Schumer will not spend capital to support Gillibrand. She will face a challenger, I just hope the other candidates unite behind one challenger. I hear so much about her having support in upstate NY. So what! most of the Democratic vote needed to be elected will come from NYC and its suburbs. It is like saying Heath Shuler in North Carolina is the best candidate for senate in 2010 because he represents a Republican leaning district - complete crap because again the urban centers (Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham etc) are where the Dems reside and they are the ones needed.

By: Panos

Panos — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:09:59 +0000

Some points I’d like to adress:

1)I understand that gun control is a pretty big issue in NYC. But I think that her immigration stance will be the biggest problem in a primary. Obama and the Democrats in general have gone at great lenghts to court Hispanics, and they have seen how much damage has been inflicted to the Republican party by people like Tom Tancredo. I doubt that they will risk this strategy by embracing someone like Gillibrand.

2)Schumer might support her, but don’t forget that he also supported Kennedy. That is until she damaged herself with the disastrous media rollout.
Chuck Schumer cares first and foremost for Chuck Schumer. If the criticism continues and Gillibrand tanks like Kennedy, then I don’t expect from the Senior Senator to stick his neck out for her.

3)McCarthy wasn’t viewed seriously as a primary contender because, as you mentioned, she isn’t very good at raising money. But, if Hispanics, gun control groups, and perhaps Bloomberg, rally behind her and provide the necessary funds, then noone can tell what the outcome might be. The same goes for any other possible candidate who might consolidate the anti-Gillibrand vote.