Cuomo v. Teachout

[Linus Van Pelt]

The geographical relationship between the Cuomo/Teachout map and the fracking issue is complex. Below are two maps, one of municipal fracking bans (note that yellow just indicates a "movement" which may not have much support), and the other of municipal resolutions of support for fracking. The Utica Shale extends farther north and east than the Marcellus Shale but is also deeper and harder to access.

We can roughly distinguish three rural regions. First, in the southern tier, which has close ties to Pennsylvania, fracking appears to have local support. This region was fairly pro-Cuomo, though less strongly than the Buffalo area. Second, there is a region extending from the Finger Lakes along the Erie Canal and down into the Catskills that also has natural gas supplies but where anti-fracking sentiment is strong. This region was somewhat mixed but has some of Teachout's strongest counties. Third, the North Country and the eastern side of the Hudson Valley actually does not have natural gas reserves and would not be a fracking area. These were generally strong Teachout areas. How much fracking issues are locally relevant here, I'm not sure.

[Badger]

I'm kind of surprised everyone thinks that NYC Dems are all progressives rather than minorities and the working class.

Who says minorities can't be progressives?

Or working class voters.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'm kind of surprised everyone thinks that NYC Dems are all progressives rather than minorities and the working class.

The fact that Cuomo of all people is the down-to-earth working class, non-white rich progressive candidate speaks volumes about the Democratic Party.

[njwes]

Watching white liberal reformists realise they're not the base of the Democratic Party is always a fun time.

One of the reasons I really, truly hope there's a progressive/left wing Tea Party movement in the Democratic Party in the next few years.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/cuomos-embarrassment

*sigh* I had been so happy when de Blasio won; I'd been hoping he won way back when Anthony Weiner and Christine Quinn were supposed to be locks to win  What a disappointment!  Sadly, he'll probably be New York's next Senator or Governor  His kind always seem to win; things like this really make it hard not to just sink into apathy.  Just more proof that you never know with these guys until they inevitably let you down

I agree with you, De Blasio has higher aspirations so he's selling out to get ahead, it's disappointing because I was a huge BDB guy like you.

Yes, the fact that he wouldn't back a protest candidate that never ever EVER had a chance to win, even with his theoretical enthusiastic backing, and didn't even back a severe underdog for a do-nothing office, means he's obviously an ideological Judas.

And liberals say Republicans are ideological purists.

[Eraserhead]

I don't really blame de Blasio for this one, he did what he to do for himself.

I do think she could have probably cracked 40% with a strong endorsement from him though. That would have been really fun to watch.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/cuomos-embarrassment

*sigh* I had been so happy when de Blasio won; I'd been hoping he won way back when Anthony Weiner and Christine Quinn were supposed to be locks to win  What a disappointment!  Sadly, he'll probably be New York's next Senator or Governor  His kind always seem to win; things like this really make it hard not to just sink into apathy.  Just more proof that you never know with these guys until they inevitably let you down

I agree with you, De Blasio has higher aspirations so he's selling out to get ahead, it's disappointing because I was a huge BDB guy like you.

Yes, the fact that he wouldn't back a protest candidate that never ever EVER had a chance to win, even with his theoretical enthusiastic backing, and didn't even back a severe underdog for a do-nothing office, means he's obviously an ideological Judas.

And liberals say Republicans are ideological purists.

I'm talking about De Blasio backing Kathy Hochul, Jeff Klein, and Tony Avella.  If it were just him not backing Teachout, I could forgive him, but the f[inks]ing IDC? Seriously?

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/cuomos-embarrassment

*sigh* I had been so happy when de Blasio won; I'd been hoping he won way back when Anthony Weiner and Christine Quinn were supposed to be locks to win  What a disappointment!  Sadly, he'll probably be New York's next Senator or Governor  His kind always seem to win; things like this really make it hard not to just sink into apathy.  Just more proof that you never know with these guys until they inevitably let you down

I agree with you, De Blasio has higher aspirations so he's selling out to get ahead, it's disappointing because I was a huge BDB guy like you.

Yes, the fact that he wouldn't back a protest candidate that never ever EVER had a chance to win, even with his theoretical enthusiastic backing, and didn't even back a severe underdog for a do-nothing office, means he's obviously an ideological Judas.

And liberals say Republicans are ideological purists.

I'm talking about De Blasio backing Kathy Hochul, Jeff Klein, and Tony Avella.  If it were just him not backing Teachout, I could forgive him, but the f[inks]ing IDC? Seriously?

So since Hillary didn't back the IDC, I guess that makes her a better Democrat than De Blasio. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/cuomos-embarrassment

*sigh* I had been so happy when de Blasio won; I'd been hoping he won way back when Anthony Weiner and Christine Quinn were supposed to be locks to win  What a disappointment!  Sadly, he'll probably be New York's next Senator or Governor  His kind always seem to win; things like this really make it hard not to just sink into apathy.  Just more proof that you never know with these guys until they inevitably let you down

I agree with you, De Blasio has higher aspirations so he's selling out to get ahead, it's disappointing because I was a huge BDB guy like you.

Yes, the fact that he wouldn't back a protest candidate that never ever EVER had a chance to win, even with his theoretical enthusiastic backing, and didn't even back a severe underdog for a do-nothing office, means he's obviously an ideological Judas.

And liberals say Republicans are ideological purists.

I'm talking about De Blasio backing Kathy Hochul, Jeff Klein, and Tony Avella.  If it were just him not backing Teachout, I could forgive him, but the f[inks]ing IDC? Seriously?

So since Hillary didn't back the IDC, I guess that makes her a better Democrat than De Blasio. 

Has she actively campaigned against Klein and/or Avella?  I highly doubt it, but if so then she definitely is.  My guess is that she hasn't really commented on them one way or another, but would campaign for them (certainly for Klein) if Cuomo asked her too.

[xavier110]

And yup, to follow up what I said before - Teachout won Long Island's bougie, educated areas, lost minority communities. That's the pattern you see across the state, largely

 http://www.newsday.com/long-island/cuomo-stronger-on-south-shore-teachout-on-east-end-1.9281287

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/cuomos-embarrassment

*sigh* I had been so happy when de Blasio won; I'd been hoping he won way back when Anthony Weiner and Christine Quinn were supposed to be locks to win  What a disappointment!  Sadly, he'll probably be New York's next Senator or Governor  His kind always seem to win; things like this really make it hard not to just sink into apathy.  Just more proof that you never know with these guys until they inevitably let you down

I agree with you, De Blasio has higher aspirations so he's selling out to get ahead, it's disappointing because I was a huge BDB guy like you.

Yes, the fact that he wouldn't back a protest candidate that never ever EVER had a chance to win, even with his theoretical enthusiastic backing, and didn't even back a severe underdog for a do-nothing office, means he's obviously an ideological Judas.

And liberals say Republicans are ideological purists.

I'm talking about De Blasio backing Kathy Hochul, Jeff Klein, and Tony Avella.  If it were just him not backing Teachout, I could forgive him, but the f[inks]ing IDC? Seriously?

My bad about Teachout; that wasn't my read (though I stick to my comments about not supporting Wu over Hochul being a no big whoop that would've been utterly foolish to do otherwise).

Re: the IDC candidates, yeah, i'd be teed about that if I were still a Democrat. though wasn't there a deal where the IDC where they are (at least provisionally) ending their alliance with the GOP and giving control back to the Dems?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/cuomos-embarrassment

*sigh* I had been so happy when de Blasio won; I'd been hoping he won way back when Anthony Weiner and Christine Quinn were supposed to be locks to win  What a disappointment!  Sadly, he'll probably be New York's next Senator or Governor  His kind always seem to win; things like this really make it hard not to just sink into apathy.  Just more proof that you never know with these guys until they inevitably let you down

I agree with you, De Blasio has higher aspirations so he's selling out to get ahead, it's disappointing because I was a huge BDB guy like you.

Yes, the fact that he wouldn't back a protest candidate that never ever EVER had a chance to win, even with his theoretical enthusiastic backing, and didn't even back a severe underdog for a do-nothing office, means he's obviously an ideological Judas.

And liberals say Republicans are ideological purists.

I'm talking about De Blasio backing Kathy Hochul, Jeff Klein, and Tony Avella.  If it were just him not backing Teachout, I could forgive him, but the f[inks]ing IDC? Seriously?

My bad about Teachout; that wasn't my read (though I stick to my comments about not supporting Wu over Hochul being a no big whoop that would've been utterly foolish to do otherwise).

Re: the IDC candidates, yeah, i'd be teed about that if I were still a Democrat. though wasn't there a deal where the IDC where they are (at least provisionally) ending their alliance with the GOP and giving control back to the Dems?

No, there was a "deal" to consider making a deal, whatever that means.  One of them already all but went back on it publicly as soon as Koppel and Liu's endorsements by the WFP were withdrawn.

[Mister Mets]

I'm kind of surprised everyone thinks that NYC Dems are all progressives rather than minorities and the working class.

also well-to-do white Bloomberg-Giuliani voters who pat themselves on the back for supporting gay marriage and legal abortion.

I read an interesting piece on different cultures in the US. One argument was that New York City and New England are open-minded for different reasons.

New England was tolerant because they thought it was the right thing to do.

New York City was tolerant because there's money to made. So while New Yorkers are tolerant of gay marriage now, they were also tolerant of slavery pre-Civil War.

[Lief 🗽]

Can we make this the all purpose NY-Gov discussion thread?

Two congressional polls, of NY-19 and NY-21, show Hawkins polling at twelve percent (!!) in upstate New York.

NY-19
Cuomo: 39%
Astorino: 36%
Hawkins: 12%

NY-21
Cuomo: 44%
Astorino: 35%
Hawkins: 12%

[jaichind]

Just a personal note me and Teachout.  She and I were actually attending Yale around the same time with a three year overlap (she was a year ahead of me.)  I do remember her as the Editor‐in‐Chief of The Yale Daily News Magazine.  It would not surprise me if she and I attended some political science class at the same time.  Anyway none of this would get me to vote for her as if given a chance I would for sure vote Cuomo. 

[Panda Express]

Just a personal note me and Teachout.  She and I were actually attending Yale around the same time with a three year overlap (she was a year ahead of me.)  I do remember her as the Editor‐in‐Chief of The Yale Daily News Magazine.  It would not surprise me if she and I attended some political science class at the same time.  Anyway none of this would get me to vote for her as if given a chance I would for sure vote Cuomo. 

WTF? Why didn't you ask her out?

[Linus Van Pelt]

I realize there's something about this whole affair I don't understand, in terms of New York law: given that the primary is run by the state for multiple parties, why didn't the Working Families Party have a primary on the same day, rather than determining its ballot line earlier at some sort of convention, as it did?

[jaichind]

Just a personal note me and Teachout.  She and I were actually attending Yale around the same time with a three year overlap (she was a year ahead of me.)  I do remember her as the Editor‐in‐Chief of The Yale Daily News Magazine.  It would not surprise me if she and I attended some political science class at the same time.  Anyway none of this would get me to vote for her as if given a chance I would for sure vote Cuomo.  

WTF? Why didn't you ask her out?

This is impossible for a couple of reasons

1) Let me clarify what I said.  Back in college I knew of Teachout but I did not know her.  I knew a bunch of people on the Yale Daily News Magazine so it is very possible if not likely I have meet her in some social gatherings but that is not the same as having known her.

2) As a personal matter to be applied to myself, I am not for miscegenation.  Ergo I would not consider dating someone that is not Chinese.  My current DW is indeed of Chinese origin just like myself.

[jaichind]

I realize there's something about this whole affair I don't understand, in terms of New York law: given that the primary is run by the state for multiple parties, why didn't the Working Families Party have a primary on the same day, rather than determining its ballot line earlier at some sort of convention, as it did?

I believe Working Families Party selects its candidates by convention.  In fact I think that is how Teachout even got to run for governor.  What took place was that  the Working Families Party considered nominating Teachout for governor but eventually at the convention decided to back Cuomo.  But it seems the process got Teachout interested in running in the Dem primary.

[Linus Van Pelt]

So the party can choose whether to select its candidate in a state-run primary or not?

[Badger]

2) As a personal matter to be applied to myself, I am not for miscegenation.  Ergo I would not consider dating someone that is not Chinese.  My current DW is indeed of Chinese origin just like myself.

The fact you apply it only too yourself doesn't make it any less horribly racist.

A personal lifestyle choice, true, but a theroughly racist one just the same.

[jaichind]

2) As a personal matter to be applied to myself, I am not for miscegenation.  Ergo I would not consider dating someone that is not Chinese.  My current DW is indeed of Chinese origin just like myself.

The fact you apply it only too yourself doesn't make it any less horribly racist.

A personal lifestyle choice, true, but a theroughly racist one just the same.

Sorry for getting off topic and sounding like a smart aleck.  I guess upon further reflection I think both the miscegenation and racism terminology are not appropriate here in the sense that my views on this is much more narrow-minded than those two terms would imply when it comes how my views on how I would approach love and marriage for myself.   Both the word racism and miscegenation really places boundaries at the racial level.  If that were the case then I would be fine with a spouse that is of the Mongoloid race (like Japanese or Koreans.)  That is for sure not the case.  A better term would be nationalist in terms on how I would select a mate since I would only accept a Chinese.  In fact even that is too open-minded as I would insist that she is fluent in Chinese  Mandarin and a Chinese-American that does not speak Chinese well would not be acceptable either.  So there is a culturalist angle to that as well.  So the best way to label my view on love and marriage for myself would be a nationalist-culturalist and racist most likely is too open minded of a term. My fault for using the term miscegenation as that gives a falsely open minded view of my algorithm for selecting a mate for myself.

[Flake]

^ You're a racist. Really no other term can fit it. It's like a white person saying they'll never date a non-white person.

[Donerail]

^ You're a racist. Really no other term can fit it. It's like a white person saying they'll never date a non-white person.

Eh, pretty sure his position is more like a Swede saying they'd never date a non-Swede (or a Swede that doesn't speak Swedish), or an Italian saying they'd never date a non-Italian, etc. That doesn't make it less objectionable, but it's not strictly race-based either.

[Badger]

^ You're a racist. Really no other term can fit it. It's like a white person saying they'll never date a non-white person.

Eh, pretty sure his position is more like a Swede saying they'd never date a non-Swede (or a Swede that doesn't speak Swedish), or an Italian saying they'd never date a non-Italian, etc. That doesn't make it less objectionable, but it's not strictly race-based either.

Well, let's see:

Jaichind: would you ever date/marry a half Chinese/half-Korean or Japanese woman who was fully fluent in Chinese language AND culture (from extensive time spent there or whatever)? How about a half-chinese/half caucasian woman with the same cultural fluency? If yes, how about a woman who is only one quarter Chinese?

Would you even go as far as dating a full-blood non-Chinese Asian woman under such circumstances?