Governors did a bad job picking Senate replacements?

Great Debates
1

This article outlines the governors’ picks to replace Senators selected to be members of the Obama government. Overall, the picks seem quixotic, but I don’t know enough about the local politics of these states except NY to comment.

New York: David Paterson, after much dicking around with Caroline Kennedy, picks Kirsten Gillibrand, a Congressman from the 20th district, which is in the Albany area. She’s a pretty conservative Democrat, with an A+ rating from the NRA. However, she is pro-abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, and middle class tax cuts. The selection of Gillibrand seems to ignore the fact that the majority of Democrats are in NYC, and are more liberal than the relatively unknown Gillibrand. Already, Carolyn McCarthy has said she’ll challenge Gillibrand in the primaries in 2010 because of her gun control stance.

Illinois: We all know what a clusterfuck this was, with anyone Blagojevich picked being under the shadow of scandal. 72 year old Roland Burris was the Attorney General of Illinois, and Democrats finally relented and seated him. However, will he be able to hold the seat in 2010?

Delaware: Governor Minner picked Biden aide Ted Kaufmann, who is seemingly a place holder for Attorney General Beau Biden, currently serving in Iraq. John Carney, a popular Lt. Gov., was overlooked, making it seem like the Bidens own that Senate seat. Will that fly in 2010?

Colorado: Gov. Ritter picked Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet to take the place of Ken Salazar. Bennet is not a well-known name, and Colorado is notorious for vacillating between red and blue. By picking Bennet, does that Senate seat become vulnerable to Republican victory in 2010?

What do you guys think? Have the governors screwed things up for the Democratic control of the Senate in 2010?

2

The Dems would have to loose 10 seats to loose control in 2010, and there are several Repubs planning to retire. They’re not going to loose control, even if all the Senators mentioned in the OP are replaced by Republicans.

Burris wasn’t really a bad pick, he was just picked by the wrong guy. I’d say Beau Biden has a good chance in 2010 (course it matters how people feel about his father in two years), and while keeping the senate seat open for him is fairly transparent nepotism, the fact that he could’ve just quit his military job and let himself be appointed rather then running like all the other hopefuls in 2010 ought to deflect some of that criticism.

Gillibrand might get taken out by a primary challenge (though I don’t think so), but she won’t loose the seat to a Republican. The last incumbant Dem to loose a senate seat in NY was…no one. Ever.

3

Paterson probably should have picked Andrew Cuomo.

4

In the case of filling the seat for Clinton and Obama, it was considered important to pick a woman and a black. The Senate is filled with old white dudes, and since two of the rare non-olf-white-dudes left, it is kind of improtant to pick a corresponding minority. Not critical, no, but it needs to be considered.

5

Gillibrand sound like my kind of Democrat. It’s too bad I don’t live in NY, so I can’t vote for her when she comes up for reelection.

6

On NPR, they said that Paterson specifically asked Cuomo not do go for the Senate seat because that would have caused another round of musical chairs in the Democratic government of NYS, and he didn’t want that. He wants Cuomo to remain as Attorney General, maybe setting him up for a run at the governorship when Paterson’s term is up.

7

I don’t think Gillibrand is a bad choice. She’s smart, she’s popular, and there’s finally somebody from Upstate in the senate.

8

If more Democrats like Gillibrand ran for office, it would seal the eventual death of the Republican party. Not sure what it would do the the Dems, but it would be interesting to watch. I and many others that I know would love to vote for a candidate that supported our gun rights to the tune of an A+ rating by the NRA AND still stood strong for the social concerns that she does.

9

Yeah, I thought of that. I trust Paterson’s judgment a lot because there really is no one in New York as uniquely qualified as he is. He really knows the ins and outs of New York politics in a way that few in the state do. So his choice is very clearly not ‘phoned in’.

I like David Paterson a lot more than any New York politician. I met him briefly a few years ago when my friend worked for him as Senate Minority leader.

10

It’s true. There are a few issues that if a candidate of the party just completely dropped or supported against the party line, they’d be incredibly formidable.

11

A pro-women’s rights Republican is right up there, as well.

Gillibrand seems to have a rep as a hard worker, a great money-maker, and was boosted by some of the people who saw Obama early as something to watch. Seems like a good call.

12

Since none of the new Senators have done anything, this might be a bit premature. :wink: The bottom line is that any Democrat in New York or Illinois is likely to be in pretty good shape, although a lot of things can happen in two years.

Paterson’s struggling with Clinton’s replacement probably hurts him more than it hurts Gillibrand because it made him look so indecisive. In 2000, Clinton won in part because she campaigned very well upstate. Gillibrand looks like she should be able to do the same. I don’t know who her likely competition in the general election would be, but Gillibrand is likely to get a primary challenge from Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. She’s a former Republican who became a Democrat years ago and campaigned on a pro-gun control campaign. Her husband was killed and son wounded in the Colin Ferguson LIRR shooting spree. Despite her former GOP membership she appears more liberal than Gillibrand from what I can tell. That could get interesting.

You can’t really say Blagojevich did a bad job. It was more like he pulled off a ridiculous stunt by picking a candidate who wouldn’t turn him down. Burris is probably not a strong candidate and I’m sure he’ll have primary challengers. Whichever Democrat wins probably keeps the Senate seat.

13

I’d register Dem if there were more like her.

The Colorado choice was a real puzzler for many of us. There were several big names that would have been shoe ins (shoo? What’s that mean, anyway?) for reelection. The goofy mayor of Denver, for example. Everyone likes him if for no other reason then because it’s fun saying “Hickenlooper”. Or if you have to go with a total unknown like DPS superintendent, promote the other Salazar to the Senate and put the newbie in the House.

Some speculate that Ritter wants the job for himself, but the more generous believe Ritter knows this guy and thinks he’s the best for the job.

14

Marley23 How do you figure Paterson looked indecisive? He withheld his nomination until after Hillary’s confirmation, and then he nominated someone within a couple of days. What’s indecisive about that?

15

It was said that Paterson had decided on Kennedy, but then she abruptly withdrew. He openly praised all the top candidates in the past weeks (Cuomo, Kennedy, Steve Israel, Gillibrand), leading people to think he hadn’t made up his mind, even after he supposedly privated had decided on Kennedy. Then, surprise surprise, he picks Gillibrand and says he needs Cuomo to stay put. It was all rather confusing. Maybe he actually wasn’t indecisive and knew what he was going to do all along, but that’s not how it looked.

16

So maybe it was the media that was confused, not Paterson who was indecisive. I read after he claimed that Kennedy had withdrawn that Kennedy said she was still in it. Maybe the reality is he just never had chosen Kennedy, but the media had.

17

Kennedy’s people appeared to be pushing him around for the entire month, that was the big problem.

18

Yeah, from my perspective I saw him resisting that pretty handily.

19

I don’t have a link handy, but I caught a NPR interview with McCarthy yesterday (it was on All Things Considered.) She did not come off well. Every sentence was about guns, it was very clear she was a one issue person. Even worse it did not even sound like she was able to think clearly on that issue, claiming she represented the entire country in the House. Gillibrand comes off as far more savvy and practical. As a outsider, it seemed as though Patterson let Kennedy hang out there, and made his decision without regard to what else was going on in the media.

20

Paterson is the ultimate New York insider and is well respected on all sides. He was smart to pick the person who would owe her career to him as well as someone who had to work for the people of New York in order to prove herself. I’m very happy Caroline Kennedy didn’t get the job. Almost ecstatic actually. After a few years of an useless celebrity in the position, I am glad we didn’t get another.