Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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