Now, the Senate Democrats could have the same opportunity to control their own destiny. Look for the following to happen if they continue in control of the upper house in 2010:
Queens: The Padavan/Gennaro seat will become more favorable to a democrat candidate.
Nassau: Minor tweaks in SD7, to make Craig Johnson safer and a draw a new SD6 which puts more democrats into Kemp Hannon's district.
Suffolk: Lots of possibilities here. Probably, a new SD4 that ties Babylon in with Brentwood and Central Islip to either force Owen Johnson into retirement, or, ready it for a strong democrat challenger to him. SD3 will most likely move further into Brookhaven to assist Brian Foley. Add Stony Brook and North Central Brookhaven into SD1 to make it competitive for the day when Ken LaValle gives up this seat.
With ever increasing democrat enrollment on Long Island and throughout New York State, it will be easier to re-align senate districts to make them more favorable for democrat candidates. This is the big prize of Election 2008.
Cohalan over Klein (1979)
Trunzo over Foley (1982)
Jones over Nolan (1989)
Trunzo over Levy (1990)
Gaffney over Halpin (1991)
Lazio over Downey (1992)
Forbes over Hochbruckner (1994)
Pataki over Cuomo (1994)
Gaffney over Bullock (1995)
Alden over Nolan (1997)
Gaffney over Mahoney (1999)
Grucci over Seltzer (2000)
Flanagan over Crecca (2002)
Most dissapointing losses:
O'Doherty losing to Harenberg (1974)
Forbes defecting to the Democrats (1999)
Grucci losing to Bishop (2002)
Today, it will be so different for me. Because of early voting in Florida, I don't have to go to my polling place to cast my votes. I might play a round of golf, but it will be without the dozen or so cell phone calls I'd get from my office during an election day round. Tonight, just a quiet dinner at home and then watching the results and analysis on television. Of course, at the same time I'm watching the tube, my laptop will be by my side to help me survey the results of the races on Long Island and throughout NYS that we have been talking about on this blog.
Good luck to all the candidates and to the people who ran their campaigns! You did your best. The die is cast!
]]>Let me repeat that: if the election were held today, the New York State Senate would be controlled by the Democrats.
Now, before anyone accuses me of having a partisan agenda for saying this, let me pre-empt you by saying that you’re right. I’m certainly a Democratic partisan, and I’ve been heavily involved in campaigns to win the State Senate for years.
But don’t take my word for it. Look at the latest round of polling by Siena College. The Siena Research Institute has found that every Democratic incumbent should be re-elected, while veteran Republican State Senators Caesar Trunzo and Serf Maltese will be defeated.
The Republicans enter Tuesday’s election with the bare minimum of 32 seats necessary to control the Senate. So the loss of even a single seat will cost the Republicans their majority. In a tumultuous year for New York State politics, the seismic shift that will arise out of the Democrats taking the Senate will have less tabloid appeal than the travails of Eliot Spitzer or Vito Fossella, but a greater lasting impact on the state.
The last time the Democrats controlled the Senate was 1965—three years before I was born—and the year my father was first elected to the State Assembly. Beyond that one year blip of Democratic control in the ‘60s, it’s hard for most people to comprehend how long it has been since the State Senate was Democratic. So, let me put it in perspective.
The last time the Democrats won and held control of the NYS State Senate was the Franklin Roosevelt landslide of 1932. When, in a time of economic crisis and turmoil abroad, a brilliant and charismatic Democratic nominee for President galvanized the nation. Sound familiar?
]]> You could also look at it this way: it’s been so long that the last time prior to 1965 that the Democrats controlled the New York State Senate, John McCain was just two years old.The prospect of Democratic control of the State Senate reminds me of a discussion that one of my business partners and I had a few years ago with the political reporter and editor of a New York City newspaper. We were discussing emerging political trends, and we said off-handedly that by the next redistricting, the Democrats would control the State Senate. At the time, the Republicans had a 38-24 majority, and the journalists in the room thought that we had become unhinged.
We pointed out that the State was clearly turning even more solidly Democratic, while the Republican farm system in the Assembly and local governments was evaporating. Therefore, as the Senate Republican conference was aging, an increasing number of majority Senators were representing Democratic districts that the Republicans couldn’t hold.
Well, it’s six years later. And, much to the chagrin of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, which squandered millions of dollars and countless hours this year in futile, irrationally negative challenges to popular Democratic Senators such as Craig Johnson, Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Suzi Oppenheimer, if the election were held today the Democrats would take the State Senate.
If you’re Caesar Trunzo or Serf Maltese, the final 48 hours of this election will be the longest of your political careers. And, if you’re one of the Senate Republicans representing a predominately Democratic district (and you manage to hold on this Tuesday), the next two years will be even longer.
]]>I just don’t buy that argument. I don’t see why you would want to continue a status-quo, do-nothing situation. We need to have real change. If we continue politics as unusual in New York State, we will get even further into fiscal crisis while not providing quality services. The party bickering and power plays that happen regularly are just killing us.
These elected officials use their power to help their party rather than doing what is right. I am so tired of good policy options being called “politically impossible” because the conservative Senate would not pass it. Let’s try real change and see real cooperation with legislators sharing the common goal of supporting New Yorkers and ensuring every resident has a good quality of life.
The funny thing about this discussion of the control of the Senate is that voters generally do not care about this and are not thinking about it as they go into the voting booth. They are worried about how they will pay for their mortgage and property taxes, how they will get decent health care coverage, and how their children will be able to afford college. The candidate who addresses these real issues will win.
]]>Hannon has always been a worry for the Senate GOP. To date, he has always survived. This year could be different. Democrat enrollment in the district has just surpassed Republican enrollment for teh first time. There is a significant african-american voting block here, in a year where minority voting will be at an all-time high. Add to this, the larger than usual turnout of young voters and female voters pre-disposed to vote for Obama and you might find trouble for the likeable incumbent. Obviously, the GOP senses a tightening of this race as they are now going negative on McElory.
Hannon may well survive, but this race could be the Senate sleeper!
]]>What gives? The natioaal race has not really moved sharply in the last week. What has changed is that many polls are shifting to a likely voter screen that tracks an electorate where younger and minority voters substantially undervote their registration weight ,despite many empirical indicators that a new template will drive the turnout in the 2008 election.
Then tomorrow Siena begins releasing their polling of key individual Senate districts. As I have said before Siena is providing a great public service, for their polls are the only independent polls of key Senate races, which in turn will determine which party controls the Senate's majority in January of 2009. So how do we correctly read Siena's results given this disparity in the national polling data?
I have a yardstick to suggest: any Senate race where an incumbent,especially a long tenured incumbent, is not at 50% or more in one of these Siena polls, will not be safe even if their margin is within 10 points, if the minority and under 25 years of age registration base is 25% or more of that district. So I would urge that in interpreting these polls you focus as much on the incumbent's level of support, as you do on the spread, if the incumbent is under 50%. Nationally, the key is do the closing polls of registered voters show Obama at 52% or more. If there are swing Red state polls where Obama is ahead by 4% or even 6% ,but he is under 50%, do not count John McCain out on winning that previously Red state.
Jump below if you want to read more on the hazards of superficially reading the polling data that will be coming out over the next few days.
]]> The best example of the confusion emerging from all these seemingly contradictory polling data, at the national level, comes from examining the Gallup daily tracking poll. Gallup is deservedly one of the most respected names in the polling business. Since at least October 10th, their polls of registered voters have shown Obama's lead to be aprroximately 9 points (51-42%). Obama has never gone above 52% or below 49%. Similarly, McCain has never gone above 43% or below 41% in this same time frame. Gallup's polling data has fit comfortably within the average, with the outliers' showing an Obama lead of 13-14% at the high or 4-6% at the low, with one exception where an AP poll showed a scant 2% lead last week.Then last week, Gallup started doing what pollsters always do, as the election draws close, they put out samples of likely voters. In a poll of likely voters, pollsters screen registered voters , based upon past voting history and interest in the upcoming election, and report the results only of those deemed likely to vote. When this traditional screen for likely voters was used, Obama's lead shrunk, using the same exact sample showing an overall lead amongst all registered voters of 7-11%, to a mere 2-5% lead. But Gallup's folks saw the explosion in registration and primary voting amongst younger and minority voters for Obama and Mrs. Clinton , not to mention early voting, that may well amount to 30% of total presidential vote, and came up with a new likely voter screen. They called it an "expanded" likely voter screen. It measured the level of interest of registered voters in voting in this election rather than past elections when younger and minority voters did not vote their registration weight. In this expanded likely voter screen Obama enjoyed leads of 5-9 % and consistently crossed 50%, usually hitting 52%. To repeat same data using same exact sample.
Let me provide just two examples of how misleading the traditional likely voter screen can be this year. The first example comes from early voting in Georgia. Blacks make up 29% of registered voters in Georgia. In past elections the Black turnout fell significantly short of that registration share. But in early voting this year, the Black share is up to 36% of the total early vote in Georgia. Similar results are coming in from North Carolina and Florida. These are empirical facts not conjecture or opinion. If you only looked at the traditional likely voter screen this trend on Black voting would be completely missed. Since polls show Blacks are voting at over 9-to-1 for Obama, an orthodox likely-voter poll would undercut Obama's strength.
The second example comes due to the conjunction of technology and recent telecommunications law. Cell phones can not be reached by traditional random digit dialing methodology. Young people tend to have cell phones only, not land lines and the percentage of Americans has grown, so that 15% are cell phone only households. Now in past when young people voted in comparativley low percentages and their vote did not break sharply for or against any one presidential candidate, it was not a problem. For example if cell phone households were 8% of total and they voted 53-47% in a race, missing them in polls had a neglible impact. But in 2008, when the cell phone only share has risen to a full 15% and it is dominated by young people, who are planning to vote for Obama by 60-40% or more, that can make a difference between a tight race and a confortable lead.
So when you distill this down ,were I a pollster THIS YEAR, I would not push likely voter screens, instead I would poll registered voters and put that out. Moreover, I would go to trouble of the latest, albeit more expensive methodology and integrate cell phone only households in to my sample of registered voters.
In the end, given the empirical data we have which shows much heavier voting by minority and younger voters (under 30) here is how I would read the Siena likely voter polls of individual districts. If a long term incumbent is at under 50% (taking into consideration margin of earro percentage, even if they have a lead of 4-8% and the combined minority and young vote is 25% or more of the district's registration base, I would not presume a victory. If the combined minority and youth registration base were over 30% of the district, the lead would have to be between 15% to be safe.
All of which says to me, the battle for control of the Senate is still to be won and neither party has the majority even close to being locked up. Until we know if Obama drives a TO explosion in NYS and whether those voters stay on the line to vote in the State Senate races, we are not sure of outcome.
Also nestled in the crosstabs of Siena's statewide poll released this past monday were a couple of interesting statistics. In the generic ballot test, asking voters do they want a Republican or a Democratically controlled Senate here is what it found: Black voters preferred a Democratic Senate 71-26%, Hispanics a Democratic Senate by 72-23%, and under-34-years-of age a Democratic Senate by 57-37%. That tells me put on your seatbelts--we may be in for a wild ride when the results trickle in Tuesday night.
]]>However, from a law and order point of view, having the state being controlled by one party would not be in the publics best interest. Over the years, there have been many 'city' Initiatives that would have not only reduced police morale but made policing more difficult to perform.
From a police perspective, it is in the best interest of the police community to have the senate republican and the assembly remain democratic. On balance a system of checks and balances is needed in order to keep all of the players honest.
To my mind, Caesar Trunzo’s mail seems to be carrying every message but the right one. And that message is, “If the New York City Democrats control the Governor, the Senate and the Assembly then Long Island is screwed.” According to Suffolk County Comptroller, Joe Sawicki, Long Island sends $8.1 billion to Albany in taxes and gets back $5.2 billion. Add to that the City Democrats already tried to shaft Long Island on the school aid formula last year. Does anybody think this situation will get any better if the Democrats take control of the senate?
The Albany attitude has always been that New York City is first in line, upstate is economically challenged and Long Island is rich. Guess who gets screwed with that kind of thinking? And it’s not going to get any better if the City Democrats control all branches of state government. In the end, its not just the fact the Democrats can take control (Democrats aren’t bad people no matter what the talk show hosts say) but that Long Island will no longer be geographically proportionally represented or protected in Albany. Can Long Islanders stand a 10 to 20-percent increase in their property taxes? I find the fact that the Trunzo blitz hasn’t made his case by carrying this compelling message astounding, as Dean Skelos has eloquently made the case in his stump speeches and I’ve even heard Long Island Democrats make this case! If the Republicans do lose this seat maybe they should look at the message or lack thereof as the reason.
]]>By retaining the State Senate, the Republican Party can be in position to save our fair share of school aid. If we had a significant loss as the Democrats in the Assembly propered, taxes would skyrocket.
]]>This year, I am sure many are surprised that the liberal Newsday Editorial Board saw fit to endorse conservative Senator Caesar Trunzo over Brian Foley. The endorsement of Trunzo, though tepid, will allow the incumbent senator to trumpet this success during the closing week of the campaign. It gives Trunzo a flicker of hope when most everything else is moving against him. More importantly, it gives Trunzo the opportunity to hammer home the only point which could keep him in office. Namely, and I quote Newsday, "on balance, we think a GOP-controlled Senate will probably be better able to protect Long Island interests in this current fiscal crisis."
The question is, will it be enough?
]]>The margin at the top of ticket does not automatically translate into coattails (see my last blog which tracks when and how coattails really work). But if Marist is anywhere close to correct and Obama"s margin is at or above 25% ,it will make Senator Dean Skelos's task of directing a campaign that holds the State Senate for the Republicans a much tougher prospect. Especially if underneath this top of the ticket landslide for NYS, predicted in the polls, Obama drives a turnout explosion amongst younger and minority voters (new voters).
]]> Younger and minority voters are predisposed to support Democrats in 2008 and by large margins.We have two questions which collectively become the $64 question. Will these new voters come to polls all pumped up and stay on the line and vote in the State Senate contests or just vote in Presidential race and go home? Second, if these polls for convince Republican voters that Obama has NYS in the bag, will they get depressed at the edges and stay home. I have just functionally described what happened the last time the Senate went Democratic in 1964, underneath the Johnson landslide in NYS (an explosion of Dem TO and a relative deflation of GOP turnout). A subsidiary question becomes ,can McCain tighten the race nationally, as it closes? That way even in NYS, the Dem margin shrinks and Rep voters still flock to polls.In short, we will have a lot of factors to keep an eye on this last 10 days.If the GOP can hold the Senate here in NYS in the face of a landslide, it will merit a book. The fact that the GOP is still in the race speaks highly of the political skill and tenacity of Skelos and his Deputy Senator Tom Libous. Keep an eye out for Siena and other late polls of NYS.
The release of the Siena poll will help to explain whether Marist's poll is an outlier or a harbinger of a tsunami about to wash across New York's political shores next Tuesday.
]]>When pressed on whether Gennaro had changed his mind about Padavan' being a senator with such an enviable record who should not be replaced, Gennaro first appeared speechless, but then finally offered "You certainly have done some good things… but the Senate would be better under Democratic control."
Before Gennaro's halting response, Padavan, who has been endorsed by Mayor Bloomberg, the Sierra Club, the Independence Party, the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) and a host of other groups actually seemed poised to take Gennaro’s endorsement. But ultimately Gennaro stated, "If you are waiting for me to endorse you during this debate, I'm not going to do it, Frank."
Gennaro and Padavan have been in a number of candidate’s nights, at least one of which was described as having devolved into a debate. Gennaro apparently reneged on an appearance before the East Bayside Homeowners Association candidate's night last night citing something like family obligations. This writer is unaware of the actual excuse given at the time of the writing. It may very well have been a valid excuse.
]]> Notwithstanding same the president of the Association Frank Skala is well known for asking pointed and even acerbic questions that elected officials would just as soon avoid. Despite his opponent’s absence Senator Padavan stood before the Association's leadership last night and touted his numerous achievements in the district, including preserving the areas quality of life and ensuring effective delivery of services.Skala posed a question to the Senator aimed at the extraordinary differential between a Majority Senator’s budget allocation and Minority Senator’s allocations, apparently taking issue with this as a systemic inequity. Senator Padavan spoke about his efforts to ensure transparency in lawmaker’s budgets, but did not immediately cite his seniority, committee assignments, and role as President Pro Temporary as part of why his able to return more taxpayer funds to taxpayers within the 11th district.
Other candidate for Congress and Assembly were also put through Skala’s tender mercies including Assembly Member Ann Margaret Carrozza, who attempted to deftly sidestep whether she supported traditional marriage by suggesting she supported traditional marriage in a religious setting and same-sex unions in a civil setting. Skala made her answer the question more pointedly so she is now on record supporting gay marriage, which may not hurt her in hur quasi-suburban district. Congress Member Gary Ackerman was put to the test on why he supported the federal bailout.
In similar fashion, Skala uncovered each candidate's Achilles heel, whether they were Republicans or Democrats putting their feet to the fire. Maybe staying out of the kitchen was a smart move for Gennaro. By all accounts, Gennaro performed badly in the cable television debate and was out classed by the more experienced Padavan who came across as knowledgeable statesman. Political junkies will be watching closely to see what evolves from next week’s debates and whether Gennaro skips out on any of these or comes up with new material to bang Padavan with.
Oddsmakers would place bets on Padavan prevailing in these debates and in the general election despite the considerable war chest Gennaro has amassed from lobbiest and developers. If Term Limits are indeed overturned this Thursday expect Gennaro to seek re-election to the New York City Council where perhaps more seasoning will prepare him for a another run at the Senate in 2012.
]]>There were bands performing, including Bruce Hornsby, David Crosby & Graham Nash. There were many Democratic elected officials from across Long Island with Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi and Suffolk County Majority Leader Jon Cooper serving as masters of ceremony with John Durso, president of RWDSU. The union movement turned out in full force with John Sweeney President of the National AFL-CIO attending, as well as, many other important political, grassroots and union leaders. The event was sponsored by Yes We Can Long Island a grassroots group.
At this event, I met young people who have recently found politics. I met older people who have been so disgusted for years from the political process that they have not voted for many years. These people are engaged in this campaign due to Obama’s message of change. They are not only voting they are getting on buses to swing states and phone banks. This year will probably be the highest turnout in a presidential election year.
The effect of the Presidential election on local elections will be significant. State Senators Caesar Trunzo and Kemp Hannon have major obstacles ahead of them. They have a motivated electorate for Obama which means support for the democratic challenger’s town of Brookhaven Supervisor Brian Foley (challenger for 3rd Senate District) and Kristen McElroy (challenger for 6th Senate District). Foley is running a strong campaign with an excellent staff and strong support from the Brookhaven area due to his role as Supervisor. In addition, Trunzo is in the middle of a local party battle which is going to effect the turnout and grassroots support significantly. McElroy is new to politics but is working hard meeting voters. That district has a high democratic enrollment and has Hempstead, Uniondale and Lakeview which are minority communities that will be turning out strong numbers for Barack Obama.