Democrats inch closer to control of the NY Senate

[Verily]

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20080226/NEWS11/833355973

The Democrats picked up a very Republican-heavy district in far upstate in a special election. The Democrats are now one seat short of controlling the chamber (split 32-30).

[MasterJedi]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

[Sam Spade]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

[Verily]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

Maybe. Spitzer won the district in 2006, so it isn't impossible for Democrats to win it with higher turnout. Republicans have a registration advantage of something like 50-25-25, though.

[Sam Spade]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

I should add - it's not like NY will be any different if Democrats gain control of things - except that Spitzer's extraordinarily stupid maneuvers will likely get through.  The State Senate Republicans already support his stupid manuevers.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

I should add - it's not like NY will be any different if Democrats gain control of things - except that Spitzer's extraordinarily stupid maneuvers will likely get through.  The State Senate Republicans already support his stupid manuevers.

Won't New York get civil unions or gay marriage?

[Sam Spade]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

I should add - it's not like NY will be any different if Democrats gain control of things - except that Spitzer's extraordinarily stupid maneuvers will likely get through.  The State Senate Republicans already support his stupid manuevers.

Won't New York get civil unions or gay marriage?

Spitzer will push for gay marriage, but I suspect civil unions will be the answer.  And I suspect it won't be pushed through this year.  Though I could be wrong.  The minority representatives from the city are the real question marks (here and there).

That's not what I'm talking about however.  If only his economic plans were as sensible as that.

[Verily]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

I should add - it's not like NY will be any different if Democrats gain control of things - except that Spitzer's extraordinarily stupid maneuvers will likely get through.  The State Senate Republicans already support his stupid manuevers.

The one significant point is House redistricting. New York currently has an incumbent-protection gerrymander (albeit one that was badly upset by the Democrats in 2006). If the Democrats control the NY Senate in 2010, they'll draw a gerrymander favorable to themselves instead of comprising. That probably doesn't mean the Democrats gaining seats since NY will lose two CDs, but it does mean two fewer Republican congressmen.

[Sam Spade]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

I should add - it's not like NY will be any different if Democrats gain control of things - except that Spitzer's extraordinarily stupid maneuvers will likely get through.  The State Senate Republicans already support his stupid manuevers.

The one significant point is House redistricting. New York currently has an incumbent-protection gerrymander (albeit one that was badly upset by the Democrats in 2006). If the Democrats control the NY Senate in 2010, they'll draw a gerrymander favorable to themselves instead of comprising. That probably doesn't mean the Democrats gaining seats since NY will lose two CDs, but it does mean two fewer Republican congressmen.

Upstate yes.  The whole point should (but may not be) protecting the Dem congresscritters up there, at which point I think you can narrow it down to two Republican safe seats and fairly well-protected Dem incumbents.  If they're smart, they won't try a PA solution to win everything because times do change...

It's tough to try and eliminate the King seat without placing the other seats around it in greater danger, should a bad Dem year arise.  They would probably still try.  The Fossella seat is curious - mainly b/c Staten Island is growing at the national average rate population-wise.  I think you could play around with that at the margins and create a more marginal district, though, of course.  In fact, I'm sure it would be done.

Anyway, others have done more with this than I have.  Let them make their maps!

[bullmoose88]

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=63c80c90-1b9d-45ce-81f1-25f141f80825

Absentee ballots have yet to be counted, but here are the unofficial results:
Darrell Aubertine (D).........27,901 (52%)
Will Barclay (R)..................25,345 (48%)


Seems to be a bit of an upset...and from the Ads I saw, Barclay did his damnedest to link Aubertine to Spitzer, the Illegal Alien Drivers Licenses, and some seemingly corrupt (from what the ad presented) windmill deal
 

[Sam Spade]

I seem to have remembered reading that one of the big issues in this race had to do with a fishing hole..

[bullmoose88]

I seem to have remembered reading that one of the big issues in this race had to do with a fishing hole..

Don't remember that on an ad...I'm not a local up here, but i've seen a few ads...mainly Barclays...

[Smash255]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

I should add - it's not like NY will be any different if Democrats gain control of things - except that Spitzer's extraordinarily stupid maneuvers will likely get through.  The State Senate Republicans already support his stupid manuevers.

The one significant point is House redistricting. New York currently has an incumbent-protection gerrymander (albeit one that was badly upset by the Democrats in 2006). If the Democrats control the NY Senate in 2010, they'll draw a gerrymander favorable to themselves instead of comprising. That probably doesn't mean the Democrats gaining seats since NY will lose two CDs, but it does mean two fewer Republican congressmen.

Upstate yes.  The whole point should (but may not be) protecting the Dem congresscritters up there, at which point I think you can narrow it down to two Republican safe seats and fairly well-protected Dem incumbents.  If they're smart, they won't try a PA solution to win everything because times do change...

It's tough to try and eliminate the King seat without placing the other seats around it in greater danger, should a bad Dem year arise.  They would probably still try.  The Fossella seat is curious - mainly b/c Staten Island is growing at the national average rate population-wise.  I think you could play around with that at the margins and create a more marginal district, though, of course.  In fact, I'm sure it would be done.

Anyway, others have done more with this than I have.  Let them make their maps!

I think they will really target King.  First off its not yet known if he will still be there (paging Tom  Suozzi), but even if you assume he is still there they can easily make his district more Democratic and do so without hurting their chances in the other districts.  Both Israel (NY-2) and McCarthy (NY-4) are VERY safe and don't appear to be going anywhere.  Both the 2nd & 4th now have Democratic enrollment advantages (which grow everyday).  And the real advantages are stronger than they actually appear as Republicans are more apt to cross Party lines than Dems are and Independents break Democratic (basically the inverse of the south). 

The first thing they could do is reverse some of the 2000 changes which made both districts safer for the Incumbents.  Due to population King's district which prior to 2000 was all in Nassau delved into the south shore of Suffolk, into Israel's district.  The area that went into King's district was along the immediate south shore in Suffolk in a generally Republican area.  It was carved out in a way to keep out some of the heavier minority and Democratic areas in southwest Suffolk from going into King's district.  As a result the district went further east into Suffolk than it ottherwise would have if they didn't make it along the very immediate south shore in some places.  On top of that it was actually pushed further east into Suffolk than population really required as parts of east-central Nassau County was switched from King's district to Israel's.  Generally upper middle class heavily Jewish and heavily Democratic areas.  Israel won 72-28 in 2006, he won the Nassau portion of his district which use to be in King's district by 55 points with close to 80% of the vote.  Making some changes here and putting some areas back into their old districts (such as the Nassau portion of the 2nd back into the 3rd) would make King's district more Democratic without harming the ultra safe Israel.  They could also push the portion of the 3rd which remains in Suffolk a little further to the north to include some of the heavier minority areas which were carved around last time around and it would not hurt Israel.

Due to NY losing districts and the population it will be likely that the 3rd district will need to be pushed slightly further towards the west than it is now so its something which is bound to happen no matter who controls the Senate by 2010.  The Democrats can push some of the south shore areas in central Nassau such as Freeport and Baldwin into king's district.  Both of these areas have are quite diverse and Democratic.  It also wouldn't look too far out there, areas further south (such as Long Beach, Lido Beach) are already in King's district.  Portions of Freeport and Baldwin were also previously in King's district in the past.

  This would also make King's district more competitive and wouldn't hurt McCarthy either.  It would take Democratic areas away from her district, but she is safe enough so it wouldn't matter.  Not to mention while she loses some Democratic areas, whatever areas she gains would likely be Democratic as well.  Now they could shuffle portions of her district further east to take some GOP areas such as Levittown (which was previously in the 4th) away from King as well.  However, for the most part any areas that she gains will likely be towards the west or north.  Keep in mind most of LI is already pretty much as built as it can get.  The only areas really growing are Central and Eastern Suffolk (Bishop's district) an area pretty much growing at the national rate.  So with re-districting their will be little changes out there while the rest of the districts on LI will cover more geographic area than previously.  Anyway McCarthy's district could really only expand further west, which would be into Queens and obviously cover heavily Democratic areas.  The other option and what I believe is most likely is pushing her district further north, which would be into portions of Ackerman's district in heavily Democratic NW Nassau county. 

So the Dems can make King's district much tougher without really hurting them elsewhere.

[Meeker]

Apparently the Dems haven't won this seat since 1880. We'll see if we can keep this come November, but at this rate the post-census redistricting is going to be quite juicy.

[bullmoose88]

Apparently the Dems haven't won this seat since 1880. We'll see if we can keep this come November, but at this rate the post-census redistricting is going to be quite juicy.

Its weird, and maybe because I'm a philly suburban (and unorthodox) Republican...and because I live in a city up here...but this whole area doesn't feel too Republican...even the "suburban" areas outside the city...Outside of the university (liberal areas and the minority areas on the other side of the city), the areas that supposedly are Republican seem very Reagan Democrat...not really Republican so much.

Which is why I'm always so surprised when the GOP wins up here, or is upset...I seem to feel the Dems would be favored...outside of the very rural areas.

[AndrewTX]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

 Ahh yes, good ol' Connecticut A grand state where a Republican Governor can get elected with over 60% of the vote, yet STILL lose more seats in the General Assembly. Jeez, it's like friggin Taxachussettes without the Kennedys!

[StateBoiler]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

 Ahh yes, good ol' Connecticut A grand state where a Republican Governor can get elected with over 60% of the vote, yet STILL lose more seats in the General Assembly.

Eisenhower did it on a national scale in '56.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Where in the state is this district?

[Alcon]

Where in the state is this district?

Watertown area, Fort Drum...

Or as the New York Times exclusively (and hilariously) puts it, "over six hours from New York City."

[minionofmidas]

Jefferson, Oswego.
Alcon beat me.

[AndrewTX]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

 Ahh yes, good ol' Connecticut A grand state where a Republican Governor can get elected with over 60% of the vote, yet STILL lose more seats in the General Assembly.

Eisenhower did it on a national scale in '56.

 I think it's just a little bit different here. The Democrats didn't further secure a veto proof majority in both the House and Senate.

[Sam Spade]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

 Ahh yes, good ol' Connecticut A grand state where a Republican Governor can get elected with over 60% of the vote, yet STILL lose more seats in the General Assembly. Jeez, it's like friggin Taxachussettes without the Kennedys!

I think you may be making an inference from my comments that was not intended, though I can see where you would make it.

P.S.  Isn't it interesting that merely a comment about NY-03 can get a page-long-statement with the usual theories/presumptions from the usual sources.

[AndrewTX]

Ohh no, I was just making fun of Connecticut.

[Mr.Phips]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

I should add - it's not like NY will be any different if Democrats gain control of things - except that Spitzer's extraordinarily stupid maneuvers will likely get through.  The State Senate Republicans already support his stupid manuevers.

The one significant point is House redistricting. New York currently has an incumbent-protection gerrymander (albeit one that was badly upset by the Democrats in 2006). If the Democrats control the NY Senate in 2010, they'll draw a gerrymander favorable to themselves instead of comprising. That probably doesn't mean the Democrats gaining seats since NY will lose two CDs, but it does mean two fewer Republican congressmen.

Upstate yes.  The whole point should (but may not be) protecting the Dem congresscritters up there, at which point I think you can narrow it down to two Republican safe seats and fairly well-protected Dem incumbents.  If they're smart, they won't try a PA solution to win everything because times do change...

It's tough to try and eliminate the King seat without placing the other seats around it in greater danger, should a bad Dem year arise.  They would probably still try.  The Fossella seat is curious - mainly b/c Staten Island is growing at the national average rate population-wise.  I think you could play around with that at the margins and create a more marginal district, though, of course.  In fact, I'm sure it would be done.

Anyway, others have done more with this than I have.  Let them make their maps!

Yeah, they would actually be smart to simply protect NY-19 and NY-20, while conceeding NY-23 to the Republicans.  They could do this by extending NY-19 down south to pick up heavily Democratic precincts in the Bronx while giving some of the more Republican precincts in Orange county to Elliott Engel whose district is so Democratic that it wont matter.  With NY-20 they could exclude most of heavily Republican Washington, Warren and Saratoga Counties(but leave in the increasily Democratic city of Saratoga Springs).  and add in Democratic leaning counties on the Canadian border(Clinton, Franklin and most of St. Lawrence).  They would then place all of the removed Republican areas in NY-23 to conceed that district to John McHugh. 

[Mr.Phips]

If it's Republican-heavy won't they lose it again next time it's up for a vote that isn't a special election?

NY doesn't vote out its incumbents, ever.   

You'll simply have to wait for Spitzer to screw up even more than he already is doing - for a number of years.  I'll probably have moved to Connecticut by then.

 Ahh yes, good ol' Connecticut A grand state where a Republican Governor can get elected with over 60% of the vote, yet STILL lose more seats in the General Assembly.

Eisenhower did it on a national scale in '56.

Republicans actually held even in the Senate in 1956 and only lost two in the House.