is that serious or 6 am crazy talk?
McCarthy really isn't that liberal outside of a single issue and she has a pathetic fundraising record compared to Gillibrand. Gillibrand has more liberal in terms of government transparency and foreign policy, and has a fully liberal record on the environment and women's rights, and will have a liberal voting recording on everything else coming into 2010, so there will be less desire by liberal fundraising groups to spend big to replace her with someone else who will vote exactly the same. I think that makes sense. Why would people pay big money to switch personalities but not votes?
Maloney and Israel could both take down Gillibrand on a 1 on 1 primary, however. They have more establishment support than Kirsten. I'm not really familiar with Israel and Maloney's personalities, outside of the fact that they're bitter.
Gillibrand has more of a fundraising record than McCarthy, but well she has had to. Gillibrand is in a much more Republican district than McCarthy. The last time McCarthy faced any real challenge was her 1st re-election bid in 98, other than that she has had no real need to fundraise. With that being said Israel would likely be a stronger challenge than McCarthy.
