Kirsten Gillibrand should be toast in November, if only the Republicans could find someone with some decent name recognition and background to run against her. There simply is nothing remarkable about Gillibrand, and other than the support of Chuck Schumer, there is no reason Gillibrand should win reelection.
There is such a person, if only he would run:
There’s a possibility of at least one exciting race in the Empire State this fall. If former Governor George Pataki were to get in the Senate race against appointee Kirsten Gillibrand, New York-based pollster Siena tells us that he would currently lead her by a 45%-39% margin.
Normally we would see that as atrocious polling numbers for Gillibrand, but let’s remember that she is not your usual incumbent and Pataki is not your usual challenger. Her 32-29 fav/unfav number is tepid, but a full 39% of the electorate doesn’t have an opinion. Pataki, a three-term Governor, has a 56-33 fav/unfav spread, with only 10% without an opinion. Unlike most matchups, the incumbent here probably has more room for growth than
the challenger.The filing deadline isn’t until July, so Pataki has plenty of time to make up his mind.
George, please do not miss this opportunity to “make history” by restoring balance to the NY congressional delegation. We certainly need it (emphasis mine):
Sen. Chuck Schumer apologized today after word got out that he called a flight attendant a “bitch” for ordering him to follow the rules and turn off his cellphone before takeoff….
“Bitch!” Schumer remarked to Gillibrand after the attendant walked away.
Gillibrand’s office initially gave Schumer cover, telling Politico.com that the senior senator was “polite” and that “he turned off his phone when asked to.”
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Pataki's as liberal as the day is long! He shouldn't do this!
I can't imagine Pataki running for a two-year term, though. It costs a boatload of money to run a statewide race in NY. He'd be a strong bet, true, but I'd be surprised to see him run.
I had always thought Pataki was something of a nonentity. But he's looking much better these days, mainly by contrast to the two who followed him. Is there anyone in the state who says we are better served by Spitzer or Patterson than we were by Pataki?
Pataki needs to get into this race and give Republicans their 51st seat (assuming Boxer losses in California as well). Then, in 2012, Republicans will control the House, should get pretty close to 60 seats in the Senate (24 of 33 seats that are on the ballot in 2012 will be held by Democrats), and the Presidency.
However, the importance of this seat is that in liberal states, you need to take out vulnerable Democrats when you get a chance, otherwise they build a name for themselves and are then almost impossible to defeat. So, if Pataki does not enter this race, she will probably win, and it will be nearly impossible to retake that seat until she retires.
@James – fine, then enjoy Gillibrand as the next Senator for life.
The Republican party in NY is such a travesty. Never would I want to donate to them. Never have I seen such stupidity, ineptitude, and obvious deal-making in order to constantly lose. I'm sorry, they almost redeemed themselves with the chance to stop Dee Dee, but they blew that too, putting yet another idiot into power. They can't be trusted in NY. NY state is lost. Let it die.
You mean the NY GOP hasn't tried to drag Tom Galisano out of mothballs so he can blow more of his own millions on another inept and ultimately futile campaign? I figured he'd be a shoo-in for their nod.
I don't care for Pataki either, but you can't expect a New York Republican to be the same as say a North Dakota Republican. Take Scott Brown, for example. I'm sure most conservatives did not like that he voted for the last jobs bill that passed. But think about it, would you have preferred for his Democratic opponent to have won? Sometimes you just have to step back, take a deep breath, and accept reality.
Pataki did nothing for NY. Other than slow down the coming collapse by about 5 minutes total. He would be a disgrace to run. He's a RINO through and thorough. I would never ever EVER send him money. Who could doubt my earlier post about the NY Republican party when at THIS late hour and the Democrats polling like they are, that the NY Republicans have NO ONE worth a damn to run against an obviously vulnerable Democrat Senate seat.
Oh, and another thing – Where the hell is the National RNC to get a foot in the rear of the NY Republicans and run someone worth a damn? The whole Republican Party is a top-down mess. That's why I'm picking and choosing good Conservatives around the country to support. Benishek in MI looks rough around the edges but good, Lt. Col Allen West in Florida is a good bet.
BTW, Professor Jacobson, I can understand your frustration with the postings here – you're a NY resident and a resident in one of the most Liberal bastions of the state. But too many crap sandwiches ruins the appetite. I just can't defend RINOs any more. Bush, a Grade A RINO got us into the mess we're in today – opening the door for this raging Socialist administration. Voting for more RINOs just slows the problem down a little. The solution is to vote Conservative. If the Republicans are going to push lousy candidates, they can keep losing. Look at NY, it's one of the two or three WORST states in the country – largely in part to RINOs and Liberals.
I'm not arguing with you, just expressing how many of us feel – we're done being given the choice of bad or worse. That's been done to us for too long – and now we have worse.
Running no one insures that the Democrats win. Running no one in any race that the Democrats have a candidate running in is INSANE. We're already seen what letting them have complete control does. Stop them now.
I don't get some of the posters here and the generalizations of RINO at a time like this. Not a SINGLE Republican (conservatives, centrist, and even RINOs) voted for this Health Care Crime. Yet we want to dawdle with PURITY TESTs within our party when the Republic is burning? Has the enormity of last Sunday been lost on the some of you?
Are you saying if there are no purebred Conservatives, they would prefer to hand the another term to a woman who had just willfully sold the citizens and economy of New York into slavery and annihilation? That's like saying I refuse to put out a fire because I don't like the rusty leak of the only bucket lying around.
Pataki comes from my hometown in Peekskill. I don't know where people get the idea that Pataki is a RINO (of the Scozzafava variety).
He's on record as having stood up to the money-gouging MTA union.
If Gillibrand stays in office for another term because a Republican's chance of winning was diluted by the misplaced zeal of a 'conservative' third party then that would a Greek tragedy indeed. Killed by our own sword.
But I know my fellow NY'ers are smarter than that. We will put our money and vote behind a Republican candidate who has the best statistical advantage of winning.
With all respect, it is not a purity test not to run candidates who will probably not win – as in Lazio in NY who is polling about 30% against Cuomo and who will most likely 'reach across the aisle' to 'forge new alliances' and 'find common ground' with the Democrats. We are not served by ANY CANDIDATE who works with Democrats in any way, any more.
Pataki is a RINO. He's Democrat-lite. I refuse to vote for him.
If Democrat policies are going to kill what's left of NYS, then let a real Democrat go on record as doing it.
I don't think there's any Republican in New York that has a reasonable chance of beating Gillibrand, except for Pataki.
I think the problem is that many people who are not from New York simply do not realize that candidates that can win in places like Virginia have almost no chance of winning in New York.
I think it is fair to say that Bob McDonnell could not have won in any state in the Northeast. I think it's fair to say that Marco Rubio has very little chance of winning in any state in the Northeast. So, while it would be nice to have 217 conservatives in the House, and 60 in the Senate, that is nearly impossible based on the political composition of the country.
So, while RINOs are not ideal, they are necessary for Republicans to get a majority. And while Pataki might not be the purest Republican in the world, he is the only one that probably has a chance to win in New York (assuming Steve King and Rudy refuse to run), and those of us from New York would rather have him run, and win, than have a true conservative run, and get blown out. Because someone who is a RINO 30% of the time is still better than someone who is a liberal 100% of the time.
Two people are FIGHTING (kinda nasty even)for the chance to be the Republican nominee in Nancy Pelosi’s District. Both seem to be flawed, but I wish them both well. I'm in awe of the fact that the Republican Nomination in San Fran is worth FIGHTING over.
http://www.DanaWalshForCongress.com
http://www.JohnDennisExposed.com
Gene
No George, don't run.
If he's the best the Republicans can or will offer, then the nation is doomed and you're better off building yourself a bunker back in the hills somewhere than voting.
Try to remember that one of the reasons the democrats came to such power in the first place was because, when the republicans had power, they earned the contempt of everyone in America.
If you send worthless fools like Pataki to Washington, you will guarantee that the party will continue to be held in contempt by its own base. That's a losing strategy.
Forget Pataki. Find a candidate who is actually worth supporting and the support will be there.
A lot of you Pataki haters aren't looking at the big picture. I sympathize with many of your stated reasons for disliking Pataki and I feel the same way to a great extent. But here's the thing. If Gillibrand wins, she will caucus with the Democrats. If Pataki wins, of course he will caucus with the Republicans.
It's simple math. Whichever party holds the most seats, becomes the majority party, regardless of how each individual member might or might not vote on any given issue.
The important thing is getting that majority. Right now, it's the only thing that matters. We can deal with individual issues later.
Actually, I would add that there is another thing of importance, and that is in who controls the party, and what is in the party platform. That will be decided by the overall make-up of the party, and yes RINOs will have an impact, but as long as conservatives gain and hopefully keep control of the party, the RINOs aren't going to have that much impact at the party level. Nor are they going to go too far in bucking the party philosophy. They can't afford to.
At the same time, whether you like it or not, you need them if you are going to be a majority party again.
As Congressman Pough (another guy who could never ever hope in his wildest dreams to be elected in New York) says-
"That's just the way it is."