Friday, December 01, 2006
Who "Lost" the State Senate?
Stay in contact with Albert Baldeo email: abforstatesenate@aol.com
If there's a blame game to be played, even this year, Democrats will be playing it, and the local obsession is who to blame for the pickup of "merely" a single seat in the New York State Senate in an election that saw apparently safe Congressional Republicans lose and saw the top of the ticket pull nearly three quarters of the vote.
So writers from Jerome Armstrong (who blames Spitzer} to Wayne Barrett (who blames compromised county Democratic leaders) have been trying to figure out what went wrong. Here are five versions. Feel free to pick the combination you think is right, or add your own.
1) Stop complaining. This was a great, historic year, the first year of consecutive Democratic wins in the State Senate in living memory. They've picked up four seats in two cycles. Now they're poised to take the body over, with Spitzer's help, in 2008. And this while Senate Democrats face unusually long odds: big labor backs the GOP, as does huge special interest money. So do many liberal advocacy groups. Mike Bloomberg wrote a huge check in the final days. Meanwhile, other institutional Democrats consider the State Senate a stepchild.
2)Blame the county leaders: In Queens, Brooklyn, and elsewhere in the state, potentially vulnerable Republicans ran unopposed or faced weak opposition. A little-known Queens Democrat, Al Baldeo, with the help of maverick consultant Gary Tilzer, nearly beat Serphin Maltese, the county Republican leader. Two potentially vulnerable Republicans, Marty Golden and Frank Padavan*, ran unopposed. The Democrats ran a real, if second-tier candidate for an open seat on Staten Island, but didn't focus on it. But, returning to Queens, this is really all about Queens, where the Democratic Party has long been a profit-making, courthouse based institution, and has long cooperated with Republicans for mutual gain. Wayne Barrett lays this one out in detail.
3)Blame David Paterson: Paterson led an unprecedented 3 pickups in 2004, but he quickly lost the staff -- people close to his ally and sometime rival Eric Schneiderman -- who led that effort. He didn't recruit strong candidates for many seats, or any candidates at all for some of them -- whether or not county leaders objected. He didn't raise money early, though once he became Spitzer's running mate, and Spitzer got interested in the Senate, the money came in. And his decision to focus on only two seats -- while Democrats mounted strong congressional campaigns in a half dozen, mostly longer-shot districts -- is being questioned in retrospect. Almost a year ago, I was told by surprised potential donors that Paterson had told them candidly that Democrats wouldn't retake the Senate, which didn't really encourage giving.
4)Blame internal politics: Paterson's selection early this year as Lieutenant Governor brought Eliot Spitzer on board, but also proved distracting. The dynamic of the race to replace Paterson didn't help, as the DSCC chair, Liz Krueger, lined up behind Schneiderman and Paterson tacitly backed Malcolm Smith.
5)Blame Eliot Spitzer. That's what MyDD's Jerome Armstrong did. As MIk Moore explained, it makes little sense. He arrived late to the game and, once he got there, raised more money for Senate Dems than anyone else.
The central question, no matter who you blame, is recruitment. Two years ago, Rahm Emmanuel recruited some very good candidates for apparently unwinnable seats. Some of those seats became winnable, and Democrats were there to take advantage of the trend. That didn't happen in the State Senate.
On the other hand, as Eric Schneiderman argued to me today, four years of Paterson's leadership have the Democrats within striking distance. That's new and big. They've conquered the notion that their situation is permanently hopeless, and the heightened expectations are, in a way, of their own making.
And stay tuned. Says one consultant: "Three seats left in 2008 is totally within striking distance. And if Eliot is popular and decides to expend capital to build a majority, he can close the deal by overwhelming the traditional money imbalances and muscling county leaders. If Eliot decides it makes sense, he'll do it - regardless of the Senate Democratic Conference circular firing squad."
CORRECTION: The "deal" between Queens Republicans and Democrats doesn't apply to the wing of the GOP Padavan leads, and he did get a challenge, though not the strongest one imaginable.
Posted by Ben Smith at November 15, 2006 03:25 PM
Comments
Blame the elected Democrats in the State Senate as they could have better funded and supported the very good candidates that were out there or even the poor candidates who were running versus weak Republicans or for open seats.
After all how much money went into the race in Queens or the race in Staten Island? How many electeds pushed unions to endorse the Democrat in these races? How many of these incumbents who ran unopposed worked hard for these candidates?
The one lesson that Democrats learned nationally that state Democrats have not is if the person who has the party's nomination outright or through a primary was not YOUR personal first-choice you support them to the fullest extent possible regardless. This is how Tester and Webb won their Senate seats and how many people won congressional seats even in NY.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2006 03:40 PM
Why not blame the horrifically gerrymandered districts? Democratic Senate candidates look to have gotten twice as many votes as Republican ones, but due to beauties like the 51st SD are still a few seats out.
Posted by: BBill at November 15, 2006 03:48 PM
There were a whole lot of uncontested incumbent Democrats this year from the NYC area. What help did some of these Senate Democrats give to the challengers? Everywhere I went it seemed to be the same 3-4 people carrying the entire work load.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2006 03:53 PM
Frank Padavan did have a Democratic opponent.
Posted by: Jerry Skurnik at November 15, 2006 04:24 PM
Don't you understand what happened here? Spitzer and the Dems neglected the state senate on purpose! It was a tactical decision. Spitzer is going to ride in on a white horse and try to be the good guy and make lots of changes right away. A good guy needs bad guys. Spitzer needed the GOP to maintain control of the Senate so he can have Joe Bruno as his foil for the next two years. Otherwise who would Eliot blame if he can't do all the things he's promised to do?
Also in two years will be a presidential election, and the prevailing wisdom is that democrats challenging incumbent republicans will have their best chance when they have the higher turnout for a presidential election, and the coattails of a democratic presidential candidate at the top of the ticket.
It was all strategy. There is noone to blame. They didn't want the Senate. Yet.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2006 04:32 PM
You know, you got to hand it to Tilzer. Beneath all that mess is a truly political genius. He was the brains behind the Judge Lopez-Torres win.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2006 04:44 PM
(The central question, no matter who you blame, is recruitment.)
Since when to the political parties recruit candidates against incumbents? The just want the incumbents (of either party) to stay and keep the seat safe from the public, until it is vacant and their relatives or staff member can take over. Such careerists do not run races they are likely to lose. Only people who believe in something do, and such people are trouble.
Posted by: Cranky Independent at November 15, 2006 05:06 PM
Hi 4:32 pm
Interesting analysis and theory, but it is just not correct, unless you are in the Democratic Inner Circle and know something we plebes do not. I was with a leading Democratic State elected official on election night, and that pol was not pleased at the result.
As for the subsequent post and nonsensical statement at 5:06:
"Since when to the political parties recruit candidates against incumbents? ...."
WHO IS THIS NUT & HOW DO PEOPLE GET SO TWISTED?
Posted by: Dem Boy at November 15, 2006 05:27 PM
Maltese may not run in 2008, opening the door to City Councilman Gallagher to run with Rep and Cons endorsements.
Posted by: Nassau Nell at November 15, 2006 06:38 PM
Maltese may not run in 2009, opening the door to City Councilman Gallagher to run with Rep and Cons endorsements.
Posted by: Nassau Nell at November 15, 2006 06:38 PM
Maltese may not run in 2008, opening the door to City Councilman Gallagher to run with Rep and Cons endorsements.
Posted by: Nassau Nell at November 15, 2006 06:38 PM
As I've stated before (see,http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/missed_opportunity.htmlon 11/8/06), there is enough blame for everyone to take a piece. I think I've been quite vocal about this earlier and more often than most.
I outlined theory number #3 in all its gory details on MAY 10, 2006. See: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/settling_for_the_steak_knives.html.
#4 is just a subset of #3; if Paterson had done what Spitzer had asked, and stepped down as leader early on, internal politics would have been resolved well before the election.
I outlined #2 in my pre-general election Voters Guide (http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/gatemouths_general_election_voter_s_guide.html, 11/6/06), but in a way, its just a subset of the Albany malaise outlined here: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/albany_primer_why_does_nyc_get_screwed_at_budget_time.html(4/29/06). For its own reasons, the Assembly has little interest in a Democratic Senate; many County leaders are Assembly members, others depend upon the Assembly Democrats to provide them essential support. In Brooklyn, local Dems are bragging about how their decision to prevent an opponent for Marty Golden allowed the Democrats to pick up one more Assembly seat, bringing Shelly Silver's veto proof majority up to a superfluous 108 out of 150.
The ability of the entire Senate Democratic Conference(with a few exceptions) to repeat theory #1 over and over again as a mantra before the election is proof positive that Paterson is not solely to blame for his conference's lame performance. They knew they'd fucked up, and they had their excuse in place. The near victory of Baldeo is their worst nightmare. The use of their lame mantra cost them big. In 2000, the Senate Dems might have bitten off more than they could chew, but they put their money where their mouth was. Every conference member signed as personal guarantuer for a large pre-election loan. The lack of a similar commitment this year surely sent a message to others that commitment was lacking, so why bother helping. 2006 was a once every thirty years landslide not seen since 1974, which, as I outlined (http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/settling_for_the_steak_knives.html.) was also blown by the Senate Dems while their leadership was in flux. The excuse that they are waiting for 2008 is just that; presidential years have not always been such unequivocal successes for Senate Dems. The iron was hot this year, but no one struck. the opportunity may not recur.
As to reason #5, it is mostly unfair but not entirely so. The decision by Spitzer (and Hilary and Hevesi)to accept the Independence line, which was endorsing every Senate Republican candidate who either had a semblance of a chance or had a semblance of a challenge, was near unforgiveable. This IP's survial was on the line; they needed Spitzer as their candidate in order to survive. He had real leverage, he failed to use it, and he thusly contributed to Republican Senate margins. He could also have exerted some pressure on WFP to toe the line (though WFP deserves a numbered paragraph all its own).
But Spitzer also showed real balls. Despite threats from Joe Bruno he campaigned with threatened Democratic incumbent Valesky, and Democratic challengers like Stewart-Cousins and Ellison. Contrast Spitzer to Mario Cuomo who practically endorsed Senate Republicans. It is rumored that Spitzer may have helped, or offered help, in other ways as well. Could he have done more? Sure. Has anyone else in a comparable position ever done even half as much. No way!
In this sorry tale, Eliot Spitzer stands as a hero, albeit an imperfect one, yet practically the only imperfect hero we had.
Posted by: Gatemouth at November 15, 2006 06:44 PM
Another good read on Queens politics, or try this, a slightly shorter version of the same article, published in the New York Press.
Note the explanation give by State Senator and County GOP Chair Serphin Maltese in the first (longer) version of the article as one of the reasons they did not do more to back Stu Mirsky's candidacy against a local Democratic incumbent: “. . . the main club backing Mirsky had been very antagonistic toward the county leadership, but I think we have it worked out and have absolute unity now.”
As President and one of the founders of the Rockaway Republicans, I can say definitively that we were NOT "antagonistic" towards the County leadership when we began and only ended up at odds with them because of the way they reacted to our efforts to revive a Republican presence in our area. In fact, we reached out to the County organization repeatedly for help in getting started though they ignored us for nearly a year before we finally managed to get their attention. When we did, they played "hard to get." Instead of welcoming us into the fold, they threw up hurdles.
Apparently the fact that the Rockaway Republicans organized and chose to hold two parties for Bush in 2004, at which a combined 250 people turned out, made us, in County Chair Maltese's mind, "antagonistic." That a newly forming Republican club should have found itself caught up in an internal squabble between a County Chair and two district leaders who were feuding at the time (and still are), with neither having a clue as to whose side the Rockaway Republicans were on (actually we weren't on anyone's side but the President's) is incredible.
Our only goal in forming the Rockaway Republicans was to bring a Republican presence to our peninsula where none had existed before and which the County organization had all but ceded to the Democrats. The difficulties we faced and which continued to plague us for close to three years were hard to understand, considering we were a group of folks who, within their second year, ran thirty-one members for county committee seats (twenty-eight were elected) and held a Republican summit to unify and revitalize the party, in which some 120 leaders and activists from all over the city participated.
The relentless local newspaper articles detailing our plight, and our outreach to other clubs, probably forced County to ultimately give us a state charter, something we had been begging for since we started. If our desire to share our Republican principles with our neighbors made us "antagonistic," then that says much about the current Republican leadership.
Tom Lynch, President of the Rockaway Republicans
From Crain's New York Business
Paterson defends Dems’ Senate showing
State Senate Democratic Leader David Paterson argues that given Republican fund-raising advantages, it was a “great victory” for Democrats to gain one chamber seat, even in the context of Democratic landslides in statewide races and takeovers of statehouses across the country. He says Senate Democrats were outspent 4 to 1 by an entrenched Republican majority, yet ousted the third-most-powerful GOP senator, Nick Spano in Westchester, and came within 1,000 votes of defeating Serf Maltese in Queens.
But some say Mr. Paterson is to blame for not defeating Mr. Maltese. He provided no help to Mr. Maltese’s Democratic opponent, Albert Baldeo, who raised much of his $104,000 from family members and the South Asian community. Mr. Maltese raised $283,000, and state Senate Republicans paid for his literature mailings, says Mr. Baldeo’s campaign manager, Gary Tilzer.
Close race, new chase
With recent surprise in State Senate contest, Dems now eye 2008 in an effort to unseat 18-year incumbent
Close race, new chase
With recent surprise in State Senate contest, Dems now eye 2008 in an effort to unseat 18-year incumbent - Newsday, November 29, 2006
Three weeks after a veteran figure in Queens politics nearly lost a Senate seat, the surprise close call is still reverberating in the borough - and possibly re-shaping the local electoral agenda for 2008.
According to the tentative tallies, state Sen. Serphin Maltese, an 18-year Republican incumbent and longtime conservative activist, held his 15th district seat by a mere 783 votes against Democratic challenger Albert Baldeo.
Baldeo, 46, an attorney, nearly pulled off the upset against Maltese - the Queens Republican chairman - without party support, defying insiders' expectations.
"There is no one in the world who can say to me that we should have known there was a vulnerability here," said Rep. Joseph Crowley, the new Queens Democratic chairman. "There was nothing to indicate that - absolutely nothing," Crowley said.
After the vote, Maltese, 73, who is of Italian ancestry, made an unusual claim - that Baldeo, a Guyanese immigrant of Indian ancestry, may have benefited from leading voters to believe that he too is of Italian background.
Maltese said he wasn't certain for a while because Baldeo was often not seen around the district, which stretches from Middle Village to Howard Beach, and has a sizeable Italian-American population. Maltese didn't deny he pointed out his Italian ancestry to potential voters.
"After we saw his Web site, we realized he was Guyanese," Maltese said of Baldeo during a telephone interview from Florida, where he's on vacation. "There's no doubt he's not Italian but the fact is, with his name, the average voter could very well say he was Italian."
Maltese did not say precisely how he thought Baldeo was misleading voters about his ethnicity - a charge Maltese earlier made in a Village Voice story and which Baldeo vehemently denied.
"He's so racially motivated to make these remarks, he shouldn't even be a state senator," Baldeo said. He accused Maltese of ignoring the needs of immigrants in the district, which he called a motive for his challenge and a reason he came so close.
Maltese got 17,122 votes, or 51.2 percent, to Baldeo's 16,339 votes, or 48.8 percent, according to still-unofficial tallies to be certified by the state Board of Elections.
While Baldeo's race was ignored by Democratic leaders before the election, he was given legal help and other assistance during the vote-certification process by Democratic leaders - who are already talking about 2008, when the seat is up again. Who will get the more-valued nomination next time is in question.
As a candidate, Baldeo had his share of problems. Last year, he spent a night in jail after he was accused of pulling a gun on the wife of an opponent when he ran for City Council. The charges have been dropped, but some Democrats have kept their distance.
And at least one other Democrat, City Councilman Joseph Addabbo of Far Rockaway, who'd been rumored for a possible candidacy this year, is leaning toward running in two years.
For the moment, some observers see the Democrats as having already blown a big chance.
"They were so focused on the statewide races and they built up these huge margins, they squandered this huge opportunity for a Democrat to unseat a dinosaur," said Doug Muzzio, a political science professor at Brooklyn College.
If there's a blame game to be played, even this year, Democrats will be playing it, and the local obsession is who to blame for the pickup of "merely" a single seat in the New York State Senate in an election that saw apparently safe Congressional Republicans lose and saw the top of the ticket pull nearly three quarters of the vote.
So writers from Jerome Armstrong (who blames Spitzer} to Wayne Barrett (who blames compromised county Democratic leaders) have been trying to figure out what went wrong. Here are five versions. Feel free to pick the combination you think is right, or add your own.
1) Stop complaining. This was a great, historic year, the first year of consecutive Democratic wins in the State Senate in living memory. They've picked up four seats in two cycles. Now they're poised to take the body over, with Spitzer's help, in 2008. And this while Senate Democrats face unusually long odds: big labor backs the GOP, as does huge special interest money. So do many liberal advocacy groups. Mike Bloomberg wrote a huge check in the final days. Meanwhile, other institutional Democrats consider the State Senate a stepchild.
2)Blame the county leaders: In Queens, Brooklyn, and elsewhere in the state, potentially vulnerable Republicans ran unopposed or faced weak opposition. A little-known Queens Democrat, Al Baldeo, with the help of maverick consultant Gary Tilzer, nearly beat Serphin Maltese, the county Republican leader. Two potentially vulnerable Republicans, Marty Golden and Frank Padavan*, ran unopposed. The Democrats ran a real, if second-tier candidate for an open seat on Staten Island, but didn't focus on it. But, returning to Queens, this is really all about Queens, where the Democratic Party has long been a profit-making, courthouse based institution, and has long cooperated with Republicans for mutual gain. Wayne Barrett lays this one out in detail.
3)Blame David Paterson: Paterson led an unprecedented 3 pickups in 2004, but he quickly lost the staff -- people close to his ally and sometime rival Eric Schneiderman -- who led that effort. He didn't recruit strong candidates for many seats, or any candidates at all for some of them -- whether or not county leaders objected. He didn't raise money early, though once he became Spitzer's running mate, and Spitzer got interested in the Senate, the money came in. And his decision to focus on only two seats -- while Democrats mounted strong congressional campaigns in a half dozen, mostly longer-shot districts -- is being questioned in retrospect. Almost a year ago, I was told by surprised potential donors that Paterson had told them candidly that Democrats wouldn't retake the Senate, which didn't really encourage giving.
4)Blame internal politics: Paterson's selection early this year as Lieutenant Governor brought Eliot Spitzer on board, but also proved distracting. The dynamic of the race to replace Paterson didn't help, as the DSCC chair, Liz Krueger, lined up behind Schneiderman and Paterson tacitly backed Malcolm Smith.
5)Blame Eliot Spitzer. That's what MyDD's Jerome Armstrong did. As MIk Moore explained, it makes little sense. He arrived late to the game and, once he got there, raised more money for Senate Dems than anyone else.
The central question, no matter who you blame, is recruitment. Two years ago, Rahm Emmanuel recruited some very good candidates for apparently unwinnable seats. Some of those seats became winnable, and Democrats were there to take advantage of the trend. That didn't happen in the State Senate.
On the other hand, as Eric Schneiderman argued to me today, four years of Paterson's leadership have the Democrats within striking distance. That's new and big. They've conquered the notion that their situation is permanently hopeless, and the heightened expectations are, in a way, of their own making.
And stay tuned. Says one consultant: "Three seats left in 2008 is totally within striking distance. And if Eliot is popular and decides to expend capital to build a majority, he can close the deal by overwhelming the traditional money imbalances and muscling county leaders. If Eliot decides it makes sense, he'll do it - regardless of the Senate Democratic Conference circular firing squad."
CORRECTION: The "deal" between Queens Republicans and Democrats doesn't apply to the wing of the GOP Padavan leads, and he did get a challenge, though not the strongest one imaginable.
Posted by Ben Smith at November 15, 2006 03:25 PM
Comments
Blame the elected Democrats in the State Senate as they could have better funded and supported the very good candidates that were out there or even the poor candidates who were running versus weak Republicans or for open seats.
After all how much money went into the race in Queens or the race in Staten Island? How many electeds pushed unions to endorse the Democrat in these races? How many of these incumbents who ran unopposed worked hard for these candidates?
The one lesson that Democrats learned nationally that state Democrats have not is if the person who has the party's nomination outright or through a primary was not YOUR personal first-choice you support them to the fullest extent possible regardless. This is how Tester and Webb won their Senate seats and how many people won congressional seats even in NY.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2006 03:40 PM
Why not blame the horrifically gerrymandered districts? Democratic Senate candidates look to have gotten twice as many votes as Republican ones, but due to beauties like the 51st SD are still a few seats out.
Posted by: BBill at November 15, 2006 03:48 PM
There were a whole lot of uncontested incumbent Democrats this year from the NYC area. What help did some of these Senate Democrats give to the challengers? Everywhere I went it seemed to be the same 3-4 people carrying the entire work load.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2006 03:53 PM
Frank Padavan did have a Democratic opponent.
Posted by: Jerry Skurnik at November 15, 2006 04:24 PM
Don't you understand what happened here? Spitzer and the Dems neglected the state senate on purpose! It was a tactical decision. Spitzer is going to ride in on a white horse and try to be the good guy and make lots of changes right away. A good guy needs bad guys. Spitzer needed the GOP to maintain control of the Senate so he can have Joe Bruno as his foil for the next two years. Otherwise who would Eliot blame if he can't do all the things he's promised to do?
Also in two years will be a presidential election, and the prevailing wisdom is that democrats challenging incumbent republicans will have their best chance when they have the higher turnout for a presidential election, and the coattails of a democratic presidential candidate at the top of the ticket.
It was all strategy. There is noone to blame. They didn't want the Senate. Yet.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2006 04:32 PM
You know, you got to hand it to Tilzer. Beneath all that mess is a truly political genius. He was the brains behind the Judge Lopez-Torres win.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 15, 2006 04:44 PM
(The central question, no matter who you blame, is recruitment.)
Since when to the political parties recruit candidates against incumbents? The just want the incumbents (of either party) to stay and keep the seat safe from the public, until it is vacant and their relatives or staff member can take over. Such careerists do not run races they are likely to lose. Only people who believe in something do, and such people are trouble.
Posted by: Cranky Independent at November 15, 2006 05:06 PM
Hi 4:32 pm
Interesting analysis and theory, but it is just not correct, unless you are in the Democratic Inner Circle and know something we plebes do not. I was with a leading Democratic State elected official on election night, and that pol was not pleased at the result.
As for the subsequent post and nonsensical statement at 5:06:
"Since when to the political parties recruit candidates against incumbents? ...."
WHO IS THIS NUT & HOW DO PEOPLE GET SO TWISTED?
Posted by: Dem Boy at November 15, 2006 05:27 PM
Maltese may not run in 2008, opening the door to City Councilman Gallagher to run with Rep and Cons endorsements.
Posted by: Nassau Nell at November 15, 2006 06:38 PM
Maltese may not run in 2009, opening the door to City Councilman Gallagher to run with Rep and Cons endorsements.
Posted by: Nassau Nell at November 15, 2006 06:38 PM
Maltese may not run in 2008, opening the door to City Councilman Gallagher to run with Rep and Cons endorsements.
Posted by: Nassau Nell at November 15, 2006 06:38 PM
As I've stated before (see,http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/missed_opportunity.htmlon 11/8/06), there is enough blame for everyone to take a piece. I think I've been quite vocal about this earlier and more often than most.
I outlined theory number #3 in all its gory details on MAY 10, 2006. See: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/settling_for_the_steak_knives.html.
#4 is just a subset of #3; if Paterson had done what Spitzer had asked, and stepped down as leader early on, internal politics would have been resolved well before the election.
I outlined #2 in my pre-general election Voters Guide (http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/gatemouths_general_election_voter_s_guide.html, 11/6/06), but in a way, its just a subset of the Albany malaise outlined here: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/albany_primer_why_does_nyc_get_screwed_at_budget_time.html(4/29/06). For its own reasons, the Assembly has little interest in a Democratic Senate; many County leaders are Assembly members, others depend upon the Assembly Democrats to provide them essential support. In Brooklyn, local Dems are bragging about how their decision to prevent an opponent for Marty Golden allowed the Democrats to pick up one more Assembly seat, bringing Shelly Silver's veto proof majority up to a superfluous 108 out of 150.
The ability of the entire Senate Democratic Conference(with a few exceptions) to repeat theory #1 over and over again as a mantra before the election is proof positive that Paterson is not solely to blame for his conference's lame performance. They knew they'd fucked up, and they had their excuse in place. The near victory of Baldeo is their worst nightmare. The use of their lame mantra cost them big. In 2000, the Senate Dems might have bitten off more than they could chew, but they put their money where their mouth was. Every conference member signed as personal guarantuer for a large pre-election loan. The lack of a similar commitment this year surely sent a message to others that commitment was lacking, so why bother helping. 2006 was a once every thirty years landslide not seen since 1974, which, as I outlined (http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/settling_for_the_steak_knives.html.) was also blown by the Senate Dems while their leadership was in flux. The excuse that they are waiting for 2008 is just that; presidential years have not always been such unequivocal successes for Senate Dems. The iron was hot this year, but no one struck. the opportunity may not recur.
As to reason #5, it is mostly unfair but not entirely so. The decision by Spitzer (and Hilary and Hevesi)to accept the Independence line, which was endorsing every Senate Republican candidate who either had a semblance of a chance or had a semblance of a challenge, was near unforgiveable. This IP's survial was on the line; they needed Spitzer as their candidate in order to survive. He had real leverage, he failed to use it, and he thusly contributed to Republican Senate margins. He could also have exerted some pressure on WFP to toe the line (though WFP deserves a numbered paragraph all its own).
But Spitzer also showed real balls. Despite threats from Joe Bruno he campaigned with threatened Democratic incumbent Valesky, and Democratic challengers like Stewart-Cousins and Ellison. Contrast Spitzer to Mario Cuomo who practically endorsed Senate Republicans. It is rumored that Spitzer may have helped, or offered help, in other ways as well. Could he have done more? Sure. Has anyone else in a comparable position ever done even half as much. No way!
In this sorry tale, Eliot Spitzer stands as a hero, albeit an imperfect one, yet practically the only imperfect hero we had.
Posted by: Gatemouth at November 15, 2006 06:44 PM
Another good read on Queens politics, or try this, a slightly shorter version of the same article, published in the New York Press.
Note the explanation give by State Senator and County GOP Chair Serphin Maltese in the first (longer) version of the article as one of the reasons they did not do more to back Stu Mirsky's candidacy against a local Democratic incumbent: “. . . the main club backing Mirsky had been very antagonistic toward the county leadership, but I think we have it worked out and have absolute unity now.”
As President and one of the founders of the Rockaway Republicans, I can say definitively that we were NOT "antagonistic" towards the County leadership when we began and only ended up at odds with them because of the way they reacted to our efforts to revive a Republican presence in our area. In fact, we reached out to the County organization repeatedly for help in getting started though they ignored us for nearly a year before we finally managed to get their attention. When we did, they played "hard to get." Instead of welcoming us into the fold, they threw up hurdles.
Apparently the fact that the Rockaway Republicans organized and chose to hold two parties for Bush in 2004, at which a combined 250 people turned out, made us, in County Chair Maltese's mind, "antagonistic." That a newly forming Republican club should have found itself caught up in an internal squabble between a County Chair and two district leaders who were feuding at the time (and still are), with neither having a clue as to whose side the Rockaway Republicans were on (actually we weren't on anyone's side but the President's) is incredible.
Our only goal in forming the Rockaway Republicans was to bring a Republican presence to our peninsula where none had existed before and which the County organization had all but ceded to the Democrats. The difficulties we faced and which continued to plague us for close to three years were hard to understand, considering we were a group of folks who, within their second year, ran thirty-one members for county committee seats (twenty-eight were elected) and held a Republican summit to unify and revitalize the party, in which some 120 leaders and activists from all over the city participated.
The relentless local newspaper articles detailing our plight, and our outreach to other clubs, probably forced County to ultimately give us a state charter, something we had been begging for since we started. If our desire to share our Republican principles with our neighbors made us "antagonistic," then that says much about the current Republican leadership.
Tom Lynch, President of the Rockaway Republicans
From Crain's New York Business
Paterson defends Dems’ Senate showing
State Senate Democratic Leader David Paterson argues that given Republican fund-raising advantages, it was a “great victory” for Democrats to gain one chamber seat, even in the context of Democratic landslides in statewide races and takeovers of statehouses across the country. He says Senate Democrats were outspent 4 to 1 by an entrenched Republican majority, yet ousted the third-most-powerful GOP senator, Nick Spano in Westchester, and came within 1,000 votes of defeating Serf Maltese in Queens.
But some say Mr. Paterson is to blame for not defeating Mr. Maltese. He provided no help to Mr. Maltese’s Democratic opponent, Albert Baldeo, who raised much of his $104,000 from family members and the South Asian community. Mr. Maltese raised $283,000, and state Senate Republicans paid for his literature mailings, says Mr. Baldeo’s campaign manager, Gary Tilzer.
Close race, new chase
With recent surprise in State Senate contest, Dems now eye 2008 in an effort to unseat 18-year incumbent
Close race, new chase
With recent surprise in State Senate contest, Dems now eye 2008 in an effort to unseat 18-year incumbent - Newsday, November 29, 2006
Three weeks after a veteran figure in Queens politics nearly lost a Senate seat, the surprise close call is still reverberating in the borough - and possibly re-shaping the local electoral agenda for 2008.
According to the tentative tallies, state Sen. Serphin Maltese, an 18-year Republican incumbent and longtime conservative activist, held his 15th district seat by a mere 783 votes against Democratic challenger Albert Baldeo.
Baldeo, 46, an attorney, nearly pulled off the upset against Maltese - the Queens Republican chairman - without party support, defying insiders' expectations.
"There is no one in the world who can say to me that we should have known there was a vulnerability here," said Rep. Joseph Crowley, the new Queens Democratic chairman. "There was nothing to indicate that - absolutely nothing," Crowley said.
After the vote, Maltese, 73, who is of Italian ancestry, made an unusual claim - that Baldeo, a Guyanese immigrant of Indian ancestry, may have benefited from leading voters to believe that he too is of Italian background.
Maltese said he wasn't certain for a while because Baldeo was often not seen around the district, which stretches from Middle Village to Howard Beach, and has a sizeable Italian-American population. Maltese didn't deny he pointed out his Italian ancestry to potential voters.
"After we saw his Web site, we realized he was Guyanese," Maltese said of Baldeo during a telephone interview from Florida, where he's on vacation. "There's no doubt he's not Italian but the fact is, with his name, the average voter could very well say he was Italian."
Maltese did not say precisely how he thought Baldeo was misleading voters about his ethnicity - a charge Maltese earlier made in a Village Voice story and which Baldeo vehemently denied.
"He's so racially motivated to make these remarks, he shouldn't even be a state senator," Baldeo said. He accused Maltese of ignoring the needs of immigrants in the district, which he called a motive for his challenge and a reason he came so close.
Maltese got 17,122 votes, or 51.2 percent, to Baldeo's 16,339 votes, or 48.8 percent, according to still-unofficial tallies to be certified by the state Board of Elections.
While Baldeo's race was ignored by Democratic leaders before the election, he was given legal help and other assistance during the vote-certification process by Democratic leaders - who are already talking about 2008, when the seat is up again. Who will get the more-valued nomination next time is in question.
As a candidate, Baldeo had his share of problems. Last year, he spent a night in jail after he was accused of pulling a gun on the wife of an opponent when he ran for City Council. The charges have been dropped, but some Democrats have kept their distance.
And at least one other Democrat, City Councilman Joseph Addabbo of Far Rockaway, who'd been rumored for a possible candidacy this year, is leaning toward running in two years.
For the moment, some observers see the Democrats as having already blown a big chance.
"They were so focused on the statewide races and they built up these huge margins, they squandered this huge opportunity for a Democrat to unseat a dinosaur," said Doug Muzzio, a political science professor at Brooklyn College.
# posted by Albert Baldeo @ 5:04 AM 
