Dems and Indies Only, Pick 1 Of The NY Dems

[Wonkish1]

No offense, but I don't find many Dem Governors or Senators interesting. I.E. they aren't too much of their "own person".

But 2 people that I think are unique, but quite different from each other reside in the same state. So I'm curious to see what Dems on here think of the 2 distinguished gentlemen from New York.

[Wonkish1]

So is it just a personality thing? Or what is it?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Cuomo.  I think the fact that he signed historic legislation legalizing gay marriage in New York makes him one of this country's finest governors.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Cuomo, because Schumer's record is highly troubling in many areas relating to the police power and he seems to have a terrible personality. If Gillibrand had been an option I would have voted for her.

[Wonkish1]

Even with his willingness to make public employees pay more for their benefits and echo many of things Gov. Christie and Gov. Walker have been saying? Oh and it isn't like Cuomo is for a "balanced approach" he thinks New York is overtaxed as well so he wont offset public employee benefit cuts with any tax increases.

I've got to assume that when the chips are down its the social issues that win out for most progressives. Alright, I'm intrigued.

[Paul Kemp]

Like better for what? President? Otherwise this is the completely wrong area.

[Wonkish1]

Like better for what? President? Otherwise this is the completely wrong area.

Well, both are individuals I would say are on the short list of people that could make a serious play at it in 2016.

The guy that signed historic gay marriage legislation, but also the guy that wants to get government spending under control as a Dem, and

The middle class crusader who is a probably one of the most talented politicians on the left.

But that said the question is asked in a way to determine who do you like first, before we ever talk about who you would want to be president.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even with his willingness to make public employees pay more for their benefits and echo many of things Gov. Christie and Gov. Walker have been saying? Oh and it isn't like Cuomo is for a "balanced approach" he thinks New York is overtaxed as well so he wont offset public employee benefit cuts with any tax increases.

I've got to assume that when the chips are down its the social issues that win out for most progressives. Alright, I'm intrigued.

Cuomo does make me uncomfortable on economic issues (which I do care about a lot), but he's sufficiently technocratic as opposed to an ideological neoliberal that I'd support him over Schumer. My discomfort with a lot of his actions on economic and labour policy is exactly why I prefer Gillibrand over him.

Social liberal and economic leftist with a good personality>Social liberal and economic centrist/technocrat/pragmatist with a good personality>Social liberal-but-also-kind-of-police-statist and economic leftist with a terrible personality.

[Wonkish1]

Even with his willingness to make public employees pay more for their benefits and echo many of things Gov. Christie and Gov. Walker have been saying? Oh and it isn't like Cuomo is for a "balanced approach" he thinks New York is overtaxed as well so he wont offset public employee benefit cuts with any tax increases.

I've got to assume that when the chips are down its the social issues that win out for most progressives. Alright, I'm intrigued.

Cuomo does make me uncomfortable on economic issues (which I do care about a lot), but he's sufficiently technocratic as opposed to an ideological neoliberal that I'd support him over Schumer. My discomfort with a lot of his actions on economic and labour policy is exactly why I prefer Gillibrand over him.

Social liberal and economic leftist with a good personality>Social liberal and economic centrist/technocrat/pragmatist with a good personality>Social liberal-but-also-kind-of-police-statist and economic leftist with a terrible personality.

Since Christie is more technocratic than an ideologue and has taken similar actions on the economic front as Cuomo, does that mean he doesn't bother you that much?

[RI]

I like Cuomo's style, but he is in the wrong wing of the Democratic Party for me to like/support him beyond that. Schumer just seems like a generic congressional Democrat, honestly, but I'm not really an expert on New York politics. I'd rather not pick either one, but I guess Cuomo gets a slight edge...maybe.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Even with his willingness to make public employees pay more for their benefits and echo many of things Gov. Christie and Gov. Walker have been saying? Oh and it isn't like Cuomo is for a "balanced approach" he thinks New York is overtaxed as well so he wont offset public employee benefit cuts with any tax increases.

I've got to assume that when the chips are down its the social issues that win out for most progressives. Alright, I'm intrigued.

Cuomo does make me uncomfortable on economic issues (which I do care about a lot), but he's sufficiently technocratic as opposed to an ideological neoliberal that I'd support him over Schumer. My discomfort with a lot of his actions on economic and labour policy is exactly why I prefer Gillibrand over him.

Social liberal and economic leftist with a good personality>Social liberal and economic centrist/technocrat/pragmatist with a good personality>Social liberal-but-also-kind-of-police-statist and economic leftist with a terrible personality.

Since Christie is more technocratic than an ideologue and has taken similar actions on the economic front as Cuomo, does that mean he doesn't bother you that much?

Christie's actions have gone a few steps further in some areas and he seems a lot less interested in negotiation or explaining his actions to people who don't already agree with him. That said, yes, he's still much less offensive to my sensibilities than someone like Walker or Kasich.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Unlike the Republican governors, Cuomo told the legislators to examine the effects the spending cuts will have on the people in his state.  Christie and Walker didn't give a damn about how people in their states would be affected.  I generally approve of what Cuomo's trying to do, except for his refusal to consider any tax increases on the wealthy.

[Wonkish1]

Even with his willingness to make public employees pay more for their benefits and echo many of things Gov. Christie and Gov. Walker have been saying? Oh and it isn't like Cuomo is for a "balanced approach" he thinks New York is overtaxed as well so he wont offset public employee benefit cuts with any tax increases.

I've got to assume that when the chips are down its the social issues that win out for most progressives. Alright, I'm intrigued.

Cuomo does make me uncomfortable on economic issues (which I do care about a lot), but he's sufficiently technocratic as opposed to an ideological neoliberal that I'd support him over Schumer. My discomfort with a lot of his actions on economic and labour policy is exactly why I prefer Gillibrand over him.

Social liberal and economic leftist with a good personality>Social liberal and economic centrist/technocrat/pragmatist with a good personality>Social liberal-but-also-kind-of-police-statist and economic leftist with a terrible personality.

Since Christie is more technocratic than an ideologue and has taken similar actions on the economic front as Cuomo, does that mean he doesn't bother you that much?

Christie's actions have gone a few steps further in some areas and he seems a lot less interested in negotiation or explaining his actions to people who don't already agree with him. That said, yes, he's still much less offensive to my sensibilities than someone like Walker or Kasich.

Christie has held about 40 townhall events in his state in the last 2 years, plus a bunch of events that were generally considered an hostile environment.

Have you heard about his speech to the firefighters where they almost booed him off stage when he arrived, but gave him a standing ovation when he finished. His support increase in New Jersey lately isn't just from marginally Dem voters. Its from those very people that now believe him when he tells them,
"I understand your angry, I understand your upset, and I understand you have been cheated, but I don't get why you are angry at the first guy that got up in front of you to tell you the truth. The truth is that governor after governor got in front of you and promised you more benefits and better benefits when they knew they couldn't be paid for. And the truth is that if we didn't act those very pensions and benefits you count on today would no longer exist like they do today in 10 years from now. The fact is that they are 120 billion dollars under funded. Now I could have gotten up here in front of you and told you everything is going to be fine. There's no problem with those pensions and I'm sure my reelection would be a lot easier. But I couldn't look at myself in the mirror, knowing that when I had the chance to save those very benefits that your counting on that I decided to take the easy way out. That I would just duck and kick the can down the road for the next administration. But then one of you would come up to me and ask me, "Why when you had a chance to do something, you didn't." And I wouldn't an answer for them. So me and the Dem speaker in the house and the Dem majority leader in the senate decided to take action to make sure that these benefits that you count on will not cease to exist. And if that means I don't win reelection, so be it."
--Standing Ovation from a group of Public Employees(who were booing him only 15 minutes earlier)

If that isn't explaining your actions to people that don't already agree with you, then I don't what is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Point taken, though the form that that messaging of his takes still bothers me. He's nevertheless probably the best of the Republican governors first elected in the 2009 and 2010 cycles. He's not a moron like Deal or Bentley, a criminal like Scott, or a would-be dictator like most of the crop in the Midwest. So, to answer your original question, he bothers me, but yes, I do have a lot less of a problem with him than I do with those people.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Who I'd rather have as a Senator: Schumer
Who fits more closely with my politics: Schumer
Who I like better personality-wise: Schumer (I like his style)
Who would be a better Presidential Candidate: Cuomo by miles
Who would be a better Governor: Cuomo, especially working with a Republican state senate. Schumer would try to steamroll them, Cuomo is more subtle and more effective.

Also, Schumer is not going to run in 2016. He's a Senate lifer.

[I Am Feeblepizza.]

Cuomo

[Debs Dewey]

Who I'd rather have as a Senator: Schumer
Who fits more closely with my politics: Schumer
Who I like better personality-wise: Schumer (I like his style)
Who would be a better Presidential Candidate: Cuomo by miles
Who would be a better Governor: Cuomo, especially working with a Republican state senate. Schumer would try to steamroll them, Cuomo is more subtle and more effective.

Also, Schumer is not going to run in 2016. He's a Senate lifer.

I 100% agree, but I maybe leaning toward Cuomo on some issues like teacher unions.

[Ember]

Cuomo is exactly the kind of Democrat I would love to vote for. Schumer just comes across as a hawkish totalitarian.

[Lief 🗽]

Schumer is actually supports Democratic Party policies, so I pick him.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Schumer, although having to chose between them in a primary would make me projectile vomit.

Cuomo is one of the few Democrats who would make me vote for a third party candidate. I hate him and his pandering conservative ways with a passion.

[Holmes]

Can I vote for Gillibrand?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Can I vote for Gillibrand?