The Latest From The NY-20 Special Election
The media has quickly coalesced around a consensus that this Tuesday's special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's old House seat is the first real electoral test for President Obama.
Indeed, there are many important issues here, like the stimulus bill and the Republican case that the AIG bonuses can be blamed on the Dems. But the White House's own clout is now in the mix, thanks to the recent endorsement by President Obama of Democratic candidate Scott Murphy, and the radio ad from a few days ago starring Vice President Biden.
So here are some recent updates:
• The Murphy campaign announced that Kirsten Gillibrand is campaigning with him today.
• Chuck Schumer is helping out, too, appearing with him at a diner.
• The National Republican Trust PAC, a right-wing group running independent attack ads, threw in another $283,648.25 this past Thursday and $13,976.00 yesterday, bringing their total spending in the race to $779,306.10. Here's their most recent TV attack ad, accusing Murphy of not only being for the AIG bonuses, but praising the law allowing it:
There is also a radio version.
• SEIU just put in $75,000 -- the first expenditure at all by the national union, as the Dems and their associated interest groups play catch-up with the GOP in the final hours.
• The Albany Times Union has a round-up of the total spending from the national parties and interest groups over the course of the whole race, showing how much more the GOP has spent here. Republicans total over $1.6 million, while Dems are at under $1 million.
• As for the candidates themselves, Murphy has raised $1,567,961.73, while Tedisco has raised $1,083,974.09 as of the most recent filings from each campaign. So Murphy himself has outspent Tedisco, while the national GOP groups have made up the difference for their guy.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Why is this a test for Obama? We already know that this election is for Tedisco to lose. So please don't buy into the rightwing frame.
March 29, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. It's a ruby red district and tedisco should be a shoe in. If the dem wins, it's a huge and unexpected victory. Just because a hard right blue dog won before, doesn't mean either that it is a given that a dem should win, or that it is even winnable for a dem.
March 29, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article is from the AP. It's interesting how they fail to mention that this is a ruby red district.
March 29, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is NOT a ruby red district.
I agree that we shouldn't buy into the "this is Dems to lose" frame, which is an absurd one, but let's stick to facts: Obama WON the district, 51% to 48%. There are more registered Republicans than registered Democrats, but it's now essentially a tied district (just as there are WAY more registered Dems in NC but it doesn't make it a staunchly blue state).
NY-20 has a slight Republican lean, but to call it ruby red flies in the face of the fact that Obama won the district.
March 29, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure but looking at Gillibrand's votes I would say it's a conservative district.
March 29, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, . . . , I'm not going to research it, but the fact that obama won in the last election 51 to 48 doesn't mean that the district isn't ruby red. What did it do in 04 and 00, and before. Upstate NY is pretty ruby red. NYC and the southern part outweighs the red tilt up state. I would guess that it's probably 60/40 gerrymandered. The district looks absurdly gerrymandered.
March 29, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a difference between a "Republican-leaning district" (which NY-20 is) and a "ruby red district."
NY-20 voted for Bush by 7% in 2000 and by 8% in 2004. Once again, red-leaning, but certainly not ruby red. I can assure you that there are dozens of Democrats who represent more Republican districts.
March 30, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was born in and grew up in and went to college in the district (lived in Saratoga Springs 1976 to 2001, and am back there at least once a month). It certainly felt ruby red my whole life. It's only recently that it's felt like people are getting more socially liberal, and hence got these surprisingly even presidential results in the last 5 or so elections (Clinton on). Even relative to my current district (Dist. 24, Arcuri, 3 hrs west of Dist 20), which also flipped red --> blue for the first time in 2006, Dist 20 feels more solidly red to me. The republican party infrastructure is much more developed, feels much more linked w/the local business communities, and generally views Dems as upstarts and views themselves as the presumptive winners.
March 30, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And my point was.... that obviously things are changing, but to those of us that live there (Dems and Reps alike), it's still extremely surprising when we see Dems win on election day.
March 30, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, your link under "total spending" is borked.
Second, yes this is the first involvement on SEIU national in the campaign, but SEIU 1199, the local chapter, has been involved all along -- to the tune of almost $245K. Interestingly, I've received 5 different direct mail pieces from SEIU 1199, all of which are strictly anti-Tedisco, not even mentioning Murphy's name. All of them are based on the tag line "Tedisco: Not what we need now"
March 29, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
...First real electoral test for OBAMA? How about first real electoral test for MICHAEL STEELE? All I've been hearing is how Michael Steele is OUT if Tedisco loses. He was up 12 points at the end of February. The latest Siena poll shows Murphy ahead by 4 points. Now whether Murphy is, in fact, ahead, what we CAN say is that Murphy has the momentum here.
I go to school right in NY-20, and I've even done phone banking for Murphy. He visited my college as well. This is not an easy district for a Democrat to win in. There's a lot of rural areas, and I would guess that Republican voter registration actually overtakes Democratic registration in the district. True, New York Republicans are (to an extent) more like Blue Dog Dems (especially compared to say, Oklahoma Republicans), but Tedisco started out leading this by a wide margin. He had the name recognition going into the race. He had the upper hand from day one. If Tedisco loses, this is a giant loss for the Republicans, and especially for Michael Steele. If Tedisco wins, then the expected happens and not much really changes.
I've paid pretty close attention to this, and frankly, I must agree with Micheline above that this is Tedisco's to lose.
March 29, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Obama help Democrats take back the seat that was held by the House Republican Minority Leader or something like that? I mean what else do you need to prove that he has electoral clout?
March 29, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably referring to the special election in IL-14 last spring (Haster's former seat). I don't remember Obama getting too involved there (right in the midst of primaries, so it's understandable). BUT Obama's name was invoked heavily last May in the special election in MS-01, and the Dem still won.
March 30, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did cut a TV ad and radio ads for Bill Foster in the IL-14 special election last spring -- considering that he was in the middle of the primary contests, that is pretty involved. (Of course one could argue that because it was in his home state, it wasn't a good measurement of coattails -and, of course, it was well before he was elected President.)
In the Mississippi special election, the Republican tried to damage the Democratic candidate by tying him to Obama in a conservative Republican district -- but it backfired because it sparked a large African-American turnout for the Democrat in a district that is nearly 30% black. (The black population of NY-20 is quite small, so it that dynamic won't be operating here.)
March 30, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink