Has Paterson sealed his fate?

[Kevin]

From what I've read it's looking likely that Caroline Kennedy will get Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, combined with the fact of Patterson's less then wonderful choices in regards to NY's budget issues, is his fate sealed to defeat at the hands of Cuomo in a primary in 2010?

Keep in mind this is just from what I've heard.

[Eraserhead]

I really, really don't see how Cuomo could primary him. It's a popular theory with talking heads and such but I don't get it. Paterson is still pretty popular and Kennedy is too. I don't care for Paterson myself but Cuomo is not really an acceptable alternative.

[Daniel Z]

I really, really don't see how Cuomo could primary him. It's a popular theory with talking heads and such but I don't get it. Paterson is still pretty popular and Kennedy is too. I don't care for Paterson myself but Cuomo is not really an acceptable alternative.

This is pretty much correct. Paterson is in a reasonable position to at very least winning the Democratic nomination for Governor. The talking heads always put too much emphasis on on various politicians attempting to primary incumbents, because they feel slighted.

[Lunar]

Has Paterson sealed his fate?

No.

[as one of the more well-read people on this forum on New York politics]

[Jeff from NC]

Has Paterson sealed his fate?

No.

[as one of the more well-read people on this forum on New York politics]

Please explain.

[Lunar]

Has Paterson sealed his fate?

No.

[as one of the more well-read people on this forum on New York politics]

Please explain.

Just joshin' with the arrogant []'s, but Paterson surely hasn't "sealed his fate."  That's way presumptuous.  Cuomo could engage in a primary challenge, but it would be anything but a sure thing and Cuomo is young enough that he can wait until after Paterson's next turn to run for the seat.

Also, Caroline is anything but a sure thing for Hillary's seat.  You can see that Paterson is still conducting interviews.  More detailed analysis is present in my thread in the Congressional forum

[Aizen]

Whether or not Paterson has sealed his fate remains to be seen (Except by Paterson)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It takes a lot more than this to topple a sitting governor.

People may not like the Kennedy appointment, but it's not something to drive angry voters to the polls.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Why is everyone so certain Cuomo will primary him?  After all, if Paterson picks Caroline, expect Obama and Bloomberg to support him.  Caroline too of course.

[© tweed]

Why is everyone so certain Cuomo will primary him?  After all, if Paterson picks Caroline, expect Obama and Bloomberg to support him.  Caroline too of course.

I doubt either of them lifts a finger to help Paterson in a Dem primary fight.

[Lunar]

Why is everyone so certain Cuomo will primary him?  After all, if Paterson picks Caroline, expect Obama and Bloomberg to support him.  Caroline too of course.

I doubt either of them lifts a finger to help Paterson in a Dem primary fight.

If Obama would help Lieberman agains Lamont, I see no reason why he wouldn't help Paterson.

[Sam Spade]

It takes a lot more than this to topple a sitting governor.

Probably something like having a totally screwed economy.

Oh wait...

[Mr.Phips]

It takes a lot more than this to topple a sitting governor.

Probably something like having a totally screwed economy.

Oh wait...

This is New York we are talking about.  The economy was bad in 2002 and Pataki was reelected in a landslide.  Do you think Perry would be defeated because of the bad economy in Texas?  I think not.  Same for New York. 

[Verily]

It takes a lot more than this to topple a sitting governor.

Probably something like having a totally screwed economy.

Oh wait...

This is New York we are talking about.  The economy was bad in 2002 and Pataki was reelected in a landslide.  Do you think Perry would be defeated because of the bad economy in Texas?  I think not.  Same for New York. 

Well, Perry will lose his primary to Kay Bailey Hutchison, so he may not be the best example. But that's because he's Governor Goodhair and not much else.

But Paterson wouldn't lose to Cuomo (or a Republican) because of the economy, either. Unless that Republican were Bloomberg.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It takes a lot more than this to topple a sitting governor.

Probably something like having a totally screwed economy.

Oh wait...

This is New York we are talking about.  The economy was bad in 2002 and Pataki was reelected in a landslide.  Do you think Perry would be defeated because of the bad economy in Texas?  I think not.  Same for New York. 

Well, Perry will lose his primary to Kay Bailey Hutchison, so he may not be the best example. But that's because he's Governor Goodhair and not much else.

But Paterson wouldn't lose to Cuomo (or a Republican) because of the economy, either. Unless that Republican were Bloomberg.

And Bloomberg isn't even really a Republican anyway.

[© tweed]

Why is everyone so certain Cuomo will primary him?  After all, if Paterson picks Caroline, expect Obama and Bloomberg to support him.  Caroline too of course.

I doubt either of them lifts a finger to help Paterson in a Dem primary fight.

If Obama would help Lieberman agains Lamont, I see no reason why he wouldn't help Paterson.

he wasn't president in 2006

[Sam Spade]

It takes a lot more than this to topple a sitting governor.

Probably something like having a totally screwed economy.

Oh wait...

This is New York we are talking about.  The economy was bad in 2002 and Pataki was reelected in a landslide.  Do you think Perry would be defeated because of the bad economy in Texas?  I think not.  Same for New York. 

A few things:

1) The economy wasn't actually bad in Texas (it was being propped up by housing/consumer spending, I know).   I lived there.  I can't speak to NY, except that upstate NY is always in the sh!tter economically.
2) That election cycle always struck me as an odd one because it wasn't fought along economic lines - i.e. it appeared voters weren't willing to blame Republicans for the bad economy, probably because of 9/11.  So the focus switched to the Patriot Act and Iraq.  This was probably especially important in NY.  Of course, even then Pataki didn't get 50% (3rd party and all, but it says something)
3) The economy is going to be in much worse shape come November 2010 than it ever was in 2002 (or probably has been since at least 1973-74, if we're lucky 1981-82).  There is decent chance in my mind that a TSHTF moment occurs before the 2010 elections, if it does, we're in quite uncharted waters for those of us alive.  Of course, the voters may not blame Obama for this, and therefore it wouldn't trickle down, but if a TSHTF moment occurs after his first 6 months, I put those chances as quite low.  It occurs early - voters will have more patience.

I believe a TSHTF moment constitutes "a really screwed economy".  Heck, probably 1973-74 or 1981-82 redux moment may well count too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

As far as the economy in November 2010 goes, recessions don't last three years.

[Sam Spade]

As far as the economy in November 2010 goes, recessions don't last three years.

Who said this was going to be a recession? (or for that matter - a normal recession, or for that matter - anything like you've experienced before). 

Maybe I'll be wrong and I certainly hope that I am, but I'm not betting on the rosy scenario.

[© tweed]

As far as the economy in November 2010 goes, recessions don't last three years.

Who said this was going to be a recession? (or for that matter - a normal recession, or for that matter - anything like you've experienced before). 

Maybe I'll be wrong and I certainly hope that I am, but I'm not betting on the rosy scenario.

you are 28.  BRTD is 25.

think of the implications there.

[Sam Spade]

As far as the economy in November 2010 goes, recessions don't last three years.

Who said this was going to be a recession? (or for that matter - a normal recession, or for that matter - anything like you've experienced before). 

Maybe I'll be wrong and I certainly hope that I am, but I'm not betting on the rosy scenario.

you are 28.  BRTD is 25.

think of the implications there.

I'm sorry, Tweed.  Should I have used the term "we've" there instead of "you've"?  Certainly, in no way do I think I'm exempt from the observation.

[Mr.Phips]

It takes a lot more than this to topple a sitting governor.

Probably something like having a totally screwed economy.

Oh wait...

This is New York we are talking about.  The economy was bad in 2002 and Pataki was reelected in a landslide.  Do you think Perry would be defeated because of the bad economy in Texas?  I think not.  Same for New York. 

A few things:

1) The economy wasn't actually bad in Texas (it was being propped up by housing/consumer spending, I know).   I lived there.  I can't speak to NY, except that upstate NY is always in the sh!tter economically.
2) That election cycle always struck me as an odd one because it wasn't fought along economic lines - i.e. it appeared voters weren't willing to blame Republicans for the bad economy, probably because of 9/11.  So the focus switched to the Patriot Act and Iraq.  This was probably especially important in NY.  Of course, even then Pataki didn't get 50% (3rd party and all, but it says something)
3) The economy is going to be in much worse shape come November 2010 than it ever was in 2002 (or probably has been since at least 1973-74, if we're lucky 1981-82).  There is decent chance in my mind that a TSHTF moment occurs before the 2010 elections, if it does, we're in quite uncharted waters for those of us alive.  Of course, the voters may not blame Obama for this, and therefore it wouldn't trickle down, but if a TSHTF moment occurs after his first 6 months, I put those chances as quite low.  It occurs early - voters will have more patience.

I believe a TSHTF moment constitutes "a really screwed economy".  Heck, probably 1973-74 or 1981-82 redux moment may well count too.

I dont really see how voters in New York would simply vote Republican because of this.  For a Republican to win these days, they need a significant amount of Democrats and liberals to cross over.