New York Governor- 2014- Astornio vs Cuomo

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Mayor de Blasio privately asks Working Families Party to back Gov. Cuomo for reelection.

Well, yeah, he can't really piss off Cuomo, unfortunately.

Luckily, there's this: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/05/8546043/dem-fund-raiser-leaning-toward-anti-cuomo-lg-run

Why not?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why is it so impossible to elect a Republican in NY under any circumstances now?  In 1994, Pataki really wasn't a top tier candidate.  He was a little known State Senator from Putnam County.  And he beat Mario Cuomo.

Why would they want to? Andrew Cuomo is governor.

Really what they should have done was cross-endorse him (They can do that in New York) ... which would eliminate him for contention for future office as a Democrat (because today's politics are that partisan).

Another reason to hope Hillary doesn't run, we'd get to watch Cuomo completely implode.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why is it so impossible to elect a Republican in NY under any circumstances now?  In 1994, Pataki really wasn't a top tier candidate.  He was a little known State Senator from Putnam County.  And he beat Mario Cuomo.

Why would they want to? Andrew Cuomo is governor.

Really what they should have done was cross-endorse him (They can do that in New York) ... which would eliminate him for contention for future office as a Democrat (because today's politics are that partisan).

Another reason to hope Hillary doesn't run, we'd get to watch Cuomo completely implode.

Unfortunately, to our new base, if two gays can get married (which the main consensus from the courts says they can), and they'll Keep Our Children Safe™, they're good Democrats, and Cuomo's done a great job at pretending to care about gun violence.

As I said before, we are the Party of Macklemore, and Andrew Cuomo is the key example of our transformation into it.

While there was some truth to certain parts of your "Party of Macklemore post," it was grossly exaggerated and I disagree with your ultimate conclusion.  I think that while the Democratic establishment has moved in that direction, many (probably most) rank-and-file Democrats still place a pretty high value on economic progressivism.  However, there is rarely an outlet for that at the national level and whenever there is a potential outlet at the national level, the party establishment goes into overdrive to discredit him/her (ex: all of the Fox News-style phony outrage about Schweitzer's gaydar comment, which normally would've been a minor gaffe and been forgotten in a week or two).  Furthermore, your thesis wrongly trivializes social issues.  Economic issues are extremely important, but the fact is that reducing gun violence, fighting state-sanctioned discrimination against the LGBT community, women's rights, etc are also really important.  It is easy for you or me to say gay marriage doesn't matter since we don't have to worry about the type of discrimination they are facing.  Whatever you may claim, we both know you'd be singing a very different tune if you were the one whose rights were under attack.  TBH, this idea that there is going to be some sort of mass exodus to the Democratic Party by poor whites if it becomes some sort of socially-conservative/center-right party while embracing extremely progressive or socialist economic policies is a bit of a pipedream.  I should also add that there is no reason social liberalism and economic progressivism should be treated as mutually exclusive, despite the insistence of your "Party of Macklemore" thesis, but I digress.

The reality is that, regardless of his views on social issues, no Democrats (outside of maybe the NY party establishment) want Cuomo to be the Democratic nominee if Hillary doesn't run.  Anecdotal evidence about this sort of thing is unreliable at best, but I do want to note that I have literally not met a single Democrat who has said they'd consider voting for Cuomo if Clinton doesn't run and the games he is trying to play with the State Senate, redistricting, the neutered ethics commission, etc will come back to bite him.  He done things to piss off a number of important Democratic constituencies and the ones he has been favorablish to won't support him because there will be other candidates who are good on both those issues and the ones on which Cuomo has been terrible.  Additionally, Cuomo comes across as far too ambitious, voters don't like when politicians *appear* over-ambitious (as opposed to being over-ambitious, but knowing how to not come across as such); he is also just not a very likable guy in general and that will be a real problem for him if he runs.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

While there was some truth to certain parts of your "Party of Macklemore post," it was grossly exaggerated and I disagree with your ultimate conclusion.  I think that while the Democratic establishment has moved in that direction, many (probably most) rank-and-file Democrats still place a pretty high value on economic progressivism.  However, there is rarely an outlet for that at the national level and whenever there is a potential outlet at the national level, the party establishment goes into overdrive to discredit him/her (ex: all of the Fox News-style phony outrage about Schweitzer's gaydar comment, which normally would've been a minor gaffe and been forgotten in a week or two).

Which further proves my point. Elizabeth Warren seems to be the only prominent economic progressive in the party (since Fredo de Blasio sold out to the Republicans) to mainstream voters. She seems to be the "token populist" in the party, while the establishment decided to stamp out the true candidate of the people (since unfortunately Sanders can't win).

Furthermore, your thesis wrongly trivializes social issues.  Economic issues are extremely important, but the fact is that reducing gun violence, fighting state-sanctioned discrimination against the LGBT community, women's rights, etc are also really important.  It is easy for you or me to say gay marriage doesn't matter since we don't have to worry about the type of discrimination they are facing.  Whatever you may claim, we both know you'd be singing a very different tune if you were the one whose rights were under attack.  TBH, this idea that there is going to be some sort of mass exodus to the Democratic Party by poor whites if it becomes some sort of socially-conservative/center-right party while embracing extremely progressive or socialist economic policies is a bit of a pipedream.

First of all, I never said anything about trivializing women's rights in my original post (and in fact, I commended their fight for equality). If you'll recall, I said that Democrats are focusing too much on gay marriage because the issue is already being settled by the courts, and with Utah appealing to the Supreme Court, it looks like we'll have federal equality by next year. The only state that doesn't have gay marriage and is in full Democratic control is (probably) the one state that's most against it in the Union, so we have no real "gay rights legislation" to pass besides ENDA.

About gun rights, I claimed that Andrew Cuomo pretended to care about gun violence, and if you actually read my Cuomo post, you'd actually realize that I was affected by gun violence recently. This crazy f**k was on the loose one mile away from my house, carrying an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine that, for all intents and purposes, he shouldn't have had because he had full intention to commit suicide-by-cop. That really helped me warm up to background checks, which I think is common-sense legislation.

All I said, in actuality, was that an assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazines ban were Democratic poutrage over "crime". The fact of the matter is, only 2% of shootings are done with an assault rifle, and about 12% of mass shootings use assault weapons or magazines, and most of the shootings with assault weapons are done in middle-class suburbia. What I'm trying to get at is that while a white kid in Long Island can go to school, free of harm, if people aren't allowed to own AR-15s anymore, a black teenager in Brownsville is in danger of getting shot while walking to school, and Cuomo killed de Blasio's preschool plan to keep inner-city kids safe and off our streets.

What I'm trying to get at, when talking about gun violence, is that Andrew Cuomo doesn't care about urban crime, and assault weapons bans/HCM bans are fake outraged attempts to get suburban voters to vote for the Democratic Party.

I should also add that there is no reason social liberalism and economic progressivism should be treated as mutually exclusive, despite the insistence of your "Party of Macklemore" thesis, but I digress.

Once again, you're putting words into my mouth. I'd love to have socially liberal people, overall (after all, my state is fairly conservative economically), but I'd like to see a new age of economic populism in America. We need more Brian Schweitzers in this world, not less, like the party establishment seems to think.

The reality is that, regardless of his views on social issues, no Democrats (outside of maybe the NY party establishment) want Cuomo to be the Democratic nominee if Hillary doesn't run.  Anecdotal evidence about this sort of thing is unreliable at best, but I do want to note that I have literally not met a single Democrat who has said they'd consider voting for Cuomo if Clinton doesn't run and the games he is trying to play with the State Senate, redistricting, the neutered ethics commission, etc will come back to bite him.  He done things to piss off a number of important Democratic constituencies and the ones he has been favorablish to won't support him because there will be other candidates who are good on both those issues and the ones on which Cuomo has been terrible.  Additionally, Cuomo comes across as far too ambitious, voters don't like when politicians *appear* over-ambitious (as opposed to being over-ambitious, but knowing how to not come across as such); he is also just not a very likable guy in general and that will be a real problem for him if he runs.

Unfortunately, Cuomo seems to have inherited his father's oration skills, and considering he's using them to be a powerful advocate for his "champion issues" and fooled even the WFP into thinking he's a liberal, I wouldn't call it out of the question to think that he'd pull the wool over the country's eyes again.

In that case, my apologies.  I seem to have misremembered the thesis of your "Party of Macklemore" post.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Christie rejected Astorino's play for more money.

Because, like I said, with Democrats like Cuomo, who needs Republicans?

I somehow think it has more to do with the fact Christie realizes Astorino doesn't have a shot in hell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does anyone really think he'd be there if Havenstein was running for Governor of Vermont and faced the same odds.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

"I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"

Is Cuomo even endorsing these guys?

He hasn't endorsed yet. Also worth noting that the "Working Families" Party has backed away from Liu/Koppell too.

As far as I'm concerned, de Blasio is a Republican now too. He can be Bernie f***ing Sanders for the rest of his term - if you support Jeff Klein or Tony Avella, you have no place in the Democratic Party.

I wouldn't worry too much about DeBlasio no longer being the great hope of liberals over this. He's clearly supporting them as part of a deal to make the state senate Democratic and help redistricting. Later he can tell them to pound salt when there's a solid majority in the senate.

Are Klein or Avella in any serious danger of a primary anyway?

Klein is looking in pretty good shape thanks to the WF party and some unions lacking any semblance of a backbone.  Avella could very well be toast though

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Isn't Liu corrupt?

No, but his campaign treasurer was.