This is the second part of two posts analyzing New York's recent Republican primary. It will focus upon Republican weakness in New York City, as revealed by the primary. The previous part can be found here.
New York City in the Republican Primary
One of the more interesting things about American politics is the rural-urban divide. The weakness of the modern Republican Party in urban areas is quite astounding. Much of this has to do with the history of the American city, especially the way in which many cities have become reservoirs of poor minorities.
The Republican gubernatorial primary constituted a particularly powerful demonstration of Republican weakness in American cities. To illustrate this, let's look at a map of turn-out in businessman Carl Paladino's victory over former representative Rick Lazio:
This is the first part of two posts analyzing New York's recent Republican primary. It will focus upon the upstate-downstate divide revealed by the primary. The next part can be found here.
The 2010 Republican Gubernatorial Primary
On September 14th 2010 the Republican Party held its primary in New York. In the gubernatorial primary, party favorite Rick Lazio was defeated by the Tea Party Candidate: businessman Carl Paladino. Mr. Paladino won a comprehensive victory, with 62% of the vote to Mr. Lazio's 38%.
In the long run, this primary does not matter much - if at all. By next month the primary will all but be forgotten by even the most politically intense folk. Most Americans probably weren't even aware that there was a primary in the first place.
Yet, whatever its long-term importance, the primary constitutes a valuable tool for exploring New York's electoral geography. Mr. Paladino's victory revealed two interesting facts of New York politics. This post will explore the first one.
A few threads back, there was a lively discussion about voting patterns in Brooklyn, and how that impacted the 2009 mayoral race.
Thanks to David who worked his lawyerly Freedom-of-Information magic, we got some precinct results to look at.
I compared Thompson's performance to Obama's performance, and the results are pretty stark as to where the areas of relative strength are for each candidate.
So the baselines first:
Obama beat McCain by 59.27%; he earned 79.34% to McCain's 20.07%. 2,613,944 total votes were cast.
Thompson lost to Bloomberg by 4.38%; he earned 46.33% to Bloombo's 50.71%. 1,154,505 votes were cast, meaning turnout was 44% of 2008 turnout.
Maps (what else do I post here?) and more over the flip.
The runoffs for New York City Comptroller and Public Advocate take place tomorrow. Up for election are John Liu and David Yassky for Comptroller and Bill de Blasio and Mark Green for Public Advocate. Who are you voting for and why?
I plan to vote for John Liu, despite some misgivings based on Yassky's campaign, which has accused Liu of lying about various things:
Yassky, who came in second with 30% of the vote in [the] four-way primary, cited Liu's disputed claim that he caught the MTA using two sets of books.
He also knocked Liu for saying he returned questionable campaign donations and toiled in a sweatshop as a child - which was contradicted by his own parents and others.
My main problem with Yassky relates to his campaign's behavior toward me. I have detailed two attempts to persuade me to vote for him, in the guise of supposed opinion polls. I haven't yet mentioned the constant barrage of emails (I mean just about every day and sometimes multiple emails a day) that I've gotten - unsolicited - from Mr. Yassky's campaign, with titles such as "[x] Days to Victory." I'm truly unsure of how his campaign got my email address but would strongly suggest to any politician or campaign worker who's reading that politicians not send emails to non-constituents who never contacted them. (Sending an email through an organization they belong to is fine, though, so that if, say, MoveOn.org wants to support a candidate and that candidate sends an email explicitly through MoveOn to MoveOn's members, they can take it or leave it but have little reason to be perturbed with the candidate.) Because of these personal experiences, I find it very difficult to get past the feeling that Yassky is overly power-hungry and given to sleazy and overly intrusive campaign practices, but I can understand why someone might consider such a highly-endorsed man a superior candidate.
Breaking away now from personal comments, here are some from Mr. Liu:
Liu then hurled some mud himself, bashing his opponent as "three-headed Yassky" for changing positions on key issues like term limits.
"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," Liu said.
Yassky originally opposed Mayor Bloomberg's bid to have the Council let him seek a third term, but then cast a crucial vote in favor of it.
For the record, I am opposed to all term limits as undemocratic, though the process by which the City Council annulled the results of two referenda is objectionable and certainly a legitimate issue. But if it's OK for Yassky to go back on his word in regard to term limits, is it really important whether the labor Mr. Liu did as a child was in a sweatshop or not? I'm not sure which of these things might be really important in predicting either candidate's performance and honesty as Comptroller.
As for Public Advocate, I believe my choice is simpler, in that Mark Green has already served in the role and I felt that he did a good job in it. I have nothing in particular against Bill de Blasio except that I'm not so sure a member of the City Council is generally best to serve in that job. Rather, it seems to me that whoever is good at using a bully pulpit for the benefit of the people - and not for the benefit of the Mayor or City Council, who can already advocate for themselves - is really the best candidate for Public Advocate. I don't mean to suggest that a member of the City Council couldn't be the best candidate for the job or do well in it, but neither do I see an important reason not to vote for Mr. Green, and Mr. de Blasio's City Council membership seems to me a weak additional argument against him, in a situation in which I think I'll probably approve of either man's performance if elected.
That said, I understand the argument that Green may be seeking the job of Public Advocate in order to try to win the Mayoralty through the back door, and my feeling is that the solution for this is to make the City Council President next in line for Mayor. It's a much more similar job, although not subject to city-wide election. I'm not even sure that Public Advocate is an important enough position not to abolish, but given its very circumscribed powers, it certainly is poor preparation for Mayor.
Here in New York City, we're being deluged with direct mail, not only for Mayor (why doesn't Bloomberg just save his money, since we all know him, and he's gonna win, anyway?) but for lower offices, such as Comptroller and DA. This diary will be about the candidates for DA.
There are three candidates in the Democratic primary for New York County DA: Cy Vance, Richard Aborn, and Leslie Crocker Snyder. Amazingly, no-one is running on the Republican line.
Cy Vance, the son of the former Secretary of State under Carter, is endorsed by the New York Times, apparently the Daily News ("Vance stands well above his rivals"), and an array of New York City politicos and activists, including Caroline Kennedy, former Mayor David Dinkins, Gloria Steinem, and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, but probably most importantly, the legendary outgoing DA, Robert Morgenthau, who calls him the "best qualified" for the job.
Richard Aborn, endorsed by Bill Bratton - the former brilliant NYPD Commissioner, hired early in Giuliani's administration and eventually forced out because his extremely successful crime-fighting ways made him too popular for Giuliani's liking - and my congressman, Jerry Nadler, among others, is making reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws (here's a critical look at them) his main campaign plank. In his direct mail, he calls for:
treat[ing] substance abuse as a public health problem, not just a criminal one[, providing] drug treatment for non-violent offenders who have a substance abuse problem[, and...]providing retroactive sentencing relief to non-violent offenders still incarcerated under obsolete laws[.]
He doesn't make clear in the mailing or in the relevant section of his website how he would be able to reform laws as New York County DA, but it seems clear that he would use his "judicial discretion to divert non-violent, low-level drug offenders into treatment programs rather than sentencing them to state prison."
Finally, there is Leslie Crocker Snyder, a former Judge of the New York City Criminal Court (appointed by Mayor Ed Koch and reappointed by David Dinkins) and New York Court of Claims (appointed by Republican Governor George Pataki) and longtime attorney.
Based on her direct mail, her campaign seems to be an attempt at frightening people into voting for her. In 2005, she tried to beat DA Morgenthau by arguing that he was too old and she should replace him almost just because she is younger. It seemed that everyone who knew and worked with him said that he was extremely sharp mentally and worked long hours tirelessly, so Snyder's strategy backfired, and she was heavily defeated. Now that the position is open, she appears to consider Cy Vance her main opponent, and seems to be once again trying to get in through sleazy methods. She is sending a 4-page direct mail brochure. On the first page, there is an ugly, mirror-image photograph of what is supposed to look like New York in the bad old days. The text on top of the page says as follows (in all caps):
WHEN TIMES WERE TOUGH IN MANHATTAN WHAT DID THE CANDIDATES FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY DO?
On the second page:
JUDGE LESLIE CROCKER SNYDER STAYED AND FOUGHT TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS
On the third page:
CY VANCE JR. MOVED TO SEATTLE TO MAKE MILLIONS DEFENDING MURDERERS, MOBSTERS AND WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINALS.
The brochure details two of the criminals he defended, as if their crimes reflect badly on him as a defense lawyer. This is demagogic in the extreme. As Vance said to Snyder in an excerpt from a debate that took place on New York 1 TV (I didn't hear the whole debate):
I believe that everybody in this country deserves the right to a fair trial, particularly those who are presupposed guilty like the individual in the Sudafed case. I took on that case in a court-appointed capacity. I believe that is the job of a defense lawyer to protect people and to make sure the government proves its case. Now if you believe otherwise, you shouldn't be running for this job.
My inclination is to vote for Aborn, based on his strong position on the drug laws, which have caused almost incalculable waste in money and human lives, but if I find out that this is really a two-person race between the other candidates, I will vote for Vance without hesitation in order to keep Crocker Snyder out.
I'd welcome your opinions about this race, and any polling data you may have come across.
Until 20 years ago the suburbs around New York City were strongly Republican. Now they are strongly Democratic. In the area I would consider the NYC metro area there are 30 Congressional Districts. These are NY-(01-19), NJ-(04-13), and CT-04. (I know, it's debatable what is and what isn't.) Only 5 of the 30 are represented by Republicans: NY-03, NJ-05, NJ-11, NJ-07, and NJ-04. Amazingly, there are 6 districts in this area that have a PVI of D+30 or better.
All across the country, suburbs are trending Democratic. Older suburbs are now reliably Democratic. However it looks like some of the suburban areas around New York City may have peaked in around 2000. Some of these "traditionally Republican" areas may be trending Republican again.
