In the last few days, two early polls on the potentially competitive 2010 NY-Sen primary have come out.
On Friday, Marist had Gillibrand up 43-24% with 33% undecided. Her approval rating was only at 31% statewide, which is troublesome. I'm certainly no polling expert, but the two things that stand out to me about this are (a) The sample was of registered voters, and only 370 voters. The margin of error was +/- 5%. A few folks with lots of experience told me in a state with 5.7 million registered Democrats it's hard to trust that, while others say it doesn't matter that much, you just get decreased precision. (b) It's startling to me that 52% of those polled have no opinion of Ford, and he's had a brutal roll-out week, but still manages to get 24% support. Again, no polling expert here, but it says to me that people aren't comfortable with Gillibrand.
Today, Siena has Gillibrand up 41-17%, with Tasini taking 5% and 37% don't know/no opinion. Gillibrand's favorability is about the same- 30%. Her re-elect/someone else numbers are 29%-45%. In this poll, Ford is unknown by almost 2/3 of voters.
Again, these are early polls, and not necessarily a big sign that Ford could win in a Democratic primary, but the Ford camp will spin it that Gillibrand is vulnerable, and I suspect it will help his candidacy rather than hurt it. With over 50% in both polls saying they have no favorability opinion on Ford, there is an opportunity to define him and keep hammering away at why this flip-flopping, carpetbagging Merrill Lynch corporate executive is wrong for New York State.
Meanwhile, via Adama at The Albany Project, Ford grants an interview with the New York Daily News:
The interview - granted under the condition that the questions be limited to his rationale for running, and not issues - comes at the end of a rocky first week of buzz surrounding his potential candidacy.
And then actually says:
"This race isn't about feet, it's about issues," he said of ribbing he has taken on the web and elsewhere of his regular pedicures.
Taegan Goddard posits whether Harold Ford, Jr.'s game plan is to run as an independent, like Joe Lieberman. It's an interesting notion. The theory, to me, goes:
Ballot lines. New York State has a "fusion ballot" system where one candidate can run on multiple lines. For example, I can vote for Rep. Slaughter on either the Democratic or Working Families Party line. Some candidates even secure three lines. Ford's gamble would be to secure the Independence Party line and run there in the general election, ideally on a second line, although I don't see him getting the Working Families Party line or the Conservative Party line, either. He would also have to secure some kind of Republican support.
Ford's appeal. Given Ford's past positions and his attempts of late to establish himself as an Liebermanesque "independent Democrat", conventional wisdom would say that he appeals to Republicans and Independents as well as, if not more so than, Democrats. Given his carpetbagger issues, unfamiliarity with the state and lower name ID, it would also be better if the election were in November, not the September Democratic primary.
Republicans have no viable candidate. Republican Bruce Blakeman, the former Presiding Supervisor of the Nassau County Legislature, and not a serious candidate, is set to announce on Sunday that he is running. Given that Giuliani, Peter King, Molinari are all out, and chances are very slim if any that Pataki will run, Blakeman would be the New York State version of Alan Schlesinger, the Connecticut Republican who took 9.6% of the vote in 2006.
In 2006, Lieberman took 54% of the Independent vote and 70% of the Republican vote. While Lieberman had much more of a record of "independence" that was familiar to Connecticut voters, the theory is that Ford could make the same kind of appeal and get the same results if Blakeman is the Republican. I am really, really doubtful of this though, as looking at history, the only example of a major candidate to run statewide on just the Independence line was Tom Golisano, who even in his best showing took just 14% of the vote in the 2002 gubernatorial general election. On the other hand he was running against Pataki, the incumbent governor who was on both the Republican and Conservative lines. There really is no example of the kind of race Ford may be setting up, where Republicans field a weak candidate and two Democrats run at each other on separate ballot lines.
It also depends on how much Republicans actually support their candidate. If it's a virtual alliance between Ford and the Republicans, that could be trouble, but if the Republicans work for Blakeman, or even just sit on their hands, Ford can't win on just the Independence line alone. And it's also hard to see how Ford has a virtual alliance with the Republicans after all the tacking to the left he's done.
Getting on the Independence line. My understanding is that the executive committee of the Independence Party essentially chooses who will and will not be on the ballot under that line. That's why Mike Bloomberg contributed $250,000 to the Party in 2005 and $400,000 last year to get on the line. Goddard points to Bradley Tusk, Bloomberg's campaign manager, currently advising Ford as one indicator that Ford will do this. Allying himself with Bloomberg, who hasn't been a huge fan of Gillibrand, would go a long way. Ford would also have to get what is called a Wilson-Pakula signed by the Independence Party chair, which is where Bloomberg, who is known to be close to Independence Party chair Frank MacKay, would help.
If he succeeds, Gillibrand could collect signatures from Independence Party members to force a September primary, which would be on the same date as the Democratic primary. She must, I believe, also obtain a Wilson-Pakula, as she is not an enrolled Independence Party member. The winner would be on that ballot line in the general.
2010 turnout. As Mike noted last week, when voters are in this foul a mood, anti-incumbent and anti-establishment candidates have advantages (the notion that Ford is anti-establishment is a joke, but he's certainly trying to paint himself as such). This would be targeted at Gillibrand. On top of this, if 2010 is like 2009 in New Jersey, where Democratic base turnout was way down while Republicans were fired up, turnout at the polls could be better for someone like Ford if the Republicans work to back him, or so the theory goes.
Ford pulling a Lieberman. If you are wondering whether Ford could pull a Lieberman and run as the Independence Party nominee if he loses the Democratic party nomination, the answer varies. If he secures the Independence line uncontested, he's on the ballot in November no matter what. If it's contested, then the primary occurs in September on the same date as the Democratic primary, so it would depend on if he wins or loses.
The question for me is that if he is doing this, he would have very little reason to do things like switch positions on marriage equality and try and proclaim his progressive bona fides on issues like choice, immigration and labor. So, it could either be part of a 32-dimensional chess plot, or another part of a bad roll-out. When asked about it on Morning Joe this morning, he said:
Scarborough: We've got to ask this first. I'm sorry to interrupt, but Chuck Todd just said Harold may run as an independent, that there's a rumor out there that you're considering running as an independent. True or False?
Ford: Well, the thinking hasn't progressed that far. But if I run, I'll run as a Democrat. I'm a proud Democrat, been one for 39 or so years, and I think I'm going to remain that.
Scarborough: You know, I switch parties like I switch T-shirts. I've been a Republican for pretty long.
Ford: As we've said throughout this the last 11 or 12 days, I think the Democrats are looking for an independent, standup Democrat to represent the state. So in that sense I would run as an independent.
He didn't exactly slam the door shut, so we'll see.
I spent some time last night dissecting the transcript of Ford's NYTimes interview. One thing that has really come across to me is his obsession with vote ratings and trying to use them as proof that he really is a liberal Democrat.
Q. Let's talk about gay marriage. You know your record very well, but to quickly remind you, you voted to ban same sex marriage, with the Federal Marriage Amendment, twice.
A. I can say up until 2003, most organizations and national organization that had an office in Washington dedicated to fighting for equality for Americans, I enjoyed broad support and big support from them. The marriage votes drove my ratings down considerably, and arguably rightly so.
On choice:
No. 2, the National Right to Life Committee - I may be off by one or two points, I don't think I ever received higher than a 25 percent voting record. No. 3, they never gave me a penny. No. 4, my voting record in the 10 years in the Congress, was three or four years, was 100 percent.
I know somebody somewhat cynically suggested that perhaps there were not votes on abortion those years. But if that were true, the entire Congress would have gotten 100 percent.
On guns:
A: I never got an A rating, like my opponent - would-be opponent - has enjoyed. I don't own them. I do shoot them, and I shoot them at things that can't shoot back. And will continue to do that. And by that, I want to be clear, I don't mean children. I have done a little bird hunting in my day.
[...]
One of the reasons I never scored above a B with the N.R.A. - my intent was never to - it speaks to my independent-minded approach - I am a member of the N.R.A.
On immigration:
Before 2003-2004, my votes in the Congress, at least the grading by anti-immigrant advocacy groups, they gave me - one of them, the group FAIR - gave me a zero percent rating. In 2003-2004, Americans for Better Immigration, which is a great name for a group that wants to restrict immigration, rated me at 8 percent.
Aside from the fact that these are all serious distortions of his record (for more on that, you can go here, here, here and here), what is interesting to me is, again, Ford's belief that New York Democrats are stupid. I have yet to see a candidate wow primary voters with a bunch of vote ratings and use it to get past pandering, carpetbagging, misleading or lying about contributions, and so forth.
What is also interesting to me is whether vote ratings are worth anything at all. Take marriage equality, for example. While Ford trumpets good ratings for a number of years, what LGBT activists have focused on, rightly, is that he voted twice for the Federal Marriage Amendment- a serious misdeed. Take guns. He trumpets that he never got above a B from the NRA but what activists have focused on is his speech to the National Rifle Association. As a related example, some friends of mine with whom I had drinks the other night rightly mocked this study by Congressional Quarterly, finding that Obama has a 96.7% success rate in winning congressional votes on which he took a position. Why? Because Obama only took a position on battles he knew he would win, and did not fight at all on key issues like the public option. So the rating is a false depiction that he is a strong arm-twister, able to bend Congress to his will.
What all of this says to me is that all of these aggregate vote ratings are a lesser standard of judging a candidate's record than individual examples of merit. It's not just Ford who doesn't get that, it's lots of politicians, but Ford is trying to pull a fast one over on progressives and New York Democrats by throwing a bunch of numbers- many distorted- at us. No one should be fooled.
Two updates on my piece this afternoon regarding Harold Ford, Jr. giving Sen. Gillibrand a $1,000 donation and then turning around and contemplating running against her in a primary.
1. It turns out Ford gave her a total of $6,000, not $1,000, as he also made a $5,000 PAC contribution to her 2006 congressional campaign from his PAC. It sure seems Ford has a long history of admiring Kirsten Gillibrand and what she stands for.
2. As Taniel pointed out in the comments, Ford said he gave her the $1,000 contribution two days after she was appointed in January as Senator. It turns out he actually did so on June 5th, so he had about six months to judge her record. Yet here's Ford on his recollection:
Q. But a donation suggests you approve of the way she's led, no?
A. She had only been a senator for two days, when I made my contribution.
Q. That's precise.
A. One of the things you will find as we talk is that I have a decent-size memory for dates and people.
Either Ford is lying and hoping not to get caught, or it turns out he does not have a good memory. Either way, he kind of sucks at life.
Also, here's Ford's justification for why he gave her a contribution:
I was asked by a friend to make a contribution. Kirsten was a Blue Dog member of the House. We never served together.
Oh, awesome! If being a Blue Dog is a plus in Ford's column, I guess we can tell what kind of Senators he'll campaign for and contribute to cough Joe Lieberman if elected.
On February 14, 2007, Harold Ford was hired as "Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor" at Merrill Lynch. The New York Times estimates his current salary at more than $1 million a year.
On September 15, 2008, Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America. Harold Ford, Jr. retained his position. In late 2008, Merrill Lynch was asked by New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to provide details on what bonus payments, if any, it planned to hand out. According to Cuomo, Merrill Lynch secretly moved up its planned date to hand out $3.6 billion in bonuses despite Merrill Lynch losing billions for the year- losses which prompted Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch. While names of bonus recipients are not released, it is almost assured that Harold Ford, Jr. was among them, given his position and that Bank of America kept him on. According to Cuomo, 696 individuals collected bonuses of at least $1 million or more, so we can assume Ford collected a bonus at least that large and most likely, given his position, larger.
Here's why this is all interesting to me. Last Thanksgiving, Bank of America fired over three dozen union security guards represented by SEIU 32BJ. In the process, by firing their contractor, Bank of America also stripped 130 security guards of their health care coverage, not to mention their families. And during the holiday season, too. Ho ho ho, said the Bank of America executives.
Now, Reuters reported last week that Bank of America is planning on paying bonuses "close to the levels of 2007", all while these workers are still laid off and more have no health care benefits.
So, let's summarize:
1. Merrill Lynch pays millions of dollars in bonuses to failed employees who wreck the company and the economy... including Harold Ford, Jr.
2. Bank of America buys Merrill Lynch and then fires several dozen union security guards and strips 130 total of their health care benefits, on Ford's watch.
3. Bank of America plans to pay another round of bonuses this year to its executives- at 2007 levels, and also on Ford's watch.
4. Harold Ford, Jr. contemplates running for Senate.
Now, Harold Ford, Jr. says he's a friend of labor. Here's what his pal Joe Trippi had to say about him yesterday:
Harold Ford Jr. has a strong record of working with working families and labor - fighting for jobs, and small businesses.
And here's what he said about voting to raise the minimum wage in 2006:
People who work hard everyday trying to create a better life for their families deserve better, especially when the heads of oil companies are enjoying record profits and astronomical pensions.
Pretty comparable situation to today. Record profits and astronomical bonuses, some of which were collected by Ford as the people who guard him were being laid off and stripped of their health care benefits.
So here's two questions for Mr. Ford:
1. If you are the Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor, what did you do, if anything, to prevent union, blue-collar workers from being fired, or kept 130 families from losing their health care in the middle of winter?
2. If you are the friend of labor you claim to be, what are you doing to ensure these employees get their benefits and jobs back?
It is incredible many of these security guards have been left out in the cold while your firm is set to pay out one of its biggest bonus pools ever. Last year Bank of America paid out $3.3 billion in bonuses for 2008 performance, and Merrill Lynch paid out $3.6 billion. Merrill Lynch executives, including you, received these bonuses even though the firm lost $3.8 billion.
[...]
As you contemplate a run for the Senate, it is time to show your commitment to improve the quality of life for all New Yorkers- not just the Wall Street elite. I hope that you will help correct this problem at Bank of America and ensure that the officers at your buildings are restored to their previous positions and have their full benefits restored.
Will Harold Ford, Jr. speak out on behalf of SEIU 32BJ members and their families, and work to correct this problem? Or will he toe the Wall Street corporate line- the same line that pays millions in bonuses to executives while thumbing noses at those who protect them?
To turn a phrase, put your mouth where your money is, Harold.
So Joe Trippi published a post, amazingly, defending Harold Ford's record, couching it in terms of "New Yorkers should have a right to choose."
After reading it, here's a few reactions:
1. First, Trippi doesn't come at this with clean hands and a unimpeachable good government interest. Don't forget he was chief strategist for Carolyn Maloney, who was in the primary until she dropped out shortly after. Let's not also forget he was caught astroturing for her without revealing who his client was, and sockpuppeting at DailyKos. So I don't trust his motives.
2. Normally I am a big supporter of primaries as instruments to move people to the left. Despite his pander on marriage equality, it is far from clear that Ford will run a campaign at Gillibrand from her left. What in the world would he have to say? He was one of the most conservative Democrats in the House and a member of the Blue Dogs. He ran against Pelosi from the right for Minority Leader in 2002. He ran a campaign for Senate that would make Creigh Deeds look like Donna Edwards. Then he became Chair of the DLC. Then he signed on as a Fox News contributor. Then he became Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch. Harold Ford embodies everything progressives fight against, so how in the world is this going to push Gillibrand to the left?
3. Gillibrand already has a challenger from the left- Jonathan Tasini. Sure, his campaign isn't very good, but notice nowhere in Trippi's piece did he mention Tasini or pushing Gillibrand to be more progressive. It depends on whether you actually want to push her to the left, or you think she should have a challenger just because you want her to have a challenger, in which case, like Trippi, it seems you pretty much support anyone who comes calling.
4. Trippi talks about democracy and the right to choose in an election. Here's what that ignores. Um, Ford might actually win! Harold Ford Jr. is a DLC, Joe Lieberman clone. I have no faith whatsoever he will be at all progressive while in the Senate. So I have no problem with keeping him from running.
So, it depends on what is more important to you- having a primary just so a Joe Lieberman clone can run, or keeping a Joe Lieberman clone out of the Senate. I know which I care more about.
So I just finished reading Harold Ford Jr.'s op-ed in the New York Post in which he panders like it's nobody's business goes down the checklist of what he thinks liberal New York Democrats want in a Senator and name-drops Schumer and Moynihan as role models. After vomiting a little in my mouth, I agree with Alan van Capelle- Ford is a snake oil salesman.
You know what the whole thing reminds me of? What my mom, a Clinton fan, wrote to me when McCain picked Sarah Palin as VP:
I take it as a slap to women everywhere, it's saying you want a woman on the tix, here's one. They're all interchangeable. Never mind her measly BA degree and her 1.5 years, she's female and that'll sell the tix, especially to Hillary fans. Bull, isn't it, it's warped white conservative male thinking I swear.
Harold Ford, Jr. thinks New York Democrats are stupid. Like, you want a Democrat who says he's liberal? Here's one on paper! That they'll just read a checklist of progressive issues in his stupid op-ed, read that he is suddenly in favor of marriage equality after flip-flopping on the Federal Marriage Amendment, voting twice for it, and then not announcing his newfound position in 2007, 2008, 2009 or early this year, and fall in love.
You know what I bet happens next? That he goes on a "listening tour" of upstate New York, just like Caroline Kennedy, where he spends 30 minutes each with a couple of mayors and leaves Buffalo with a cute little Buffalo pin on his jacket and pretends he knows anything at all about the state of New York. Oh, and just like her, hesitates on whether to take questions, worried he might be asked about something on which he has no clue.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
