« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Can we start treating Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) as vulnerable NOW?

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  February 1st, 2010 at 06:25 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

(H/T: Instapundit) He’s dropped another four points in two weeks. 51% in mid-January; 47% now. That’s the lowest it’s been since 2001.

Admittedly, he’s currently up more or less two-to-one against a hypothetical Kudlow candidacy.  Currently.  As I noted last week, Schumer wasn’t exactly challenged in his last election, and his current relationship with Wall Street threatens to clash badly with the President’s unfolding plan to demonize that institution.  How well his supposed invulnerability will hold up under a real political assault has yet to be seen.  Aggressive, ambitious New York Republicans, please note…

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • paint_it_red

    I would love to see Schumer go down. Any chance Giuliani could be recruited for this race? I’m tired of seeing Schumer on TV every Sunday. The abortion industry loving, “nobody cares about the deficit” spending, flight attendant cursing jerk must go!

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    nt

  • AceInTX

    I think they both have presidential ambitions but they’ll never be nominated because they are pro choice…They’d be perfect for the Senate…and their Party needs them…

    Come on guy’s…man up and get in the game…NOW!!

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    G has chickened out of both, and I THINK Pataki won’t be going after the Senate either.

    So… yeah.

    It’s New Freakin’ York. I know we have some other names that would be good. But everyone who’s anyone wants to go after the easy target.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    Giuliani would be a decent Sen for New York, but I prefer him as Gov.

    I’m still not sold on Pataki, largely because I’m personally unfamiliar with his record on a deep level.

  • jeffreywturner

    Rudy said he wouldn’t challenge Gillibrand for her seat, but he didn’t say he wouldn’t challenge Schumer. Pataki hasn’t committed on either.

    How about the perfect storm of Rudy taking down Schumer and Pataki taking down Gillibrand in the same year. Can you imagine a net pickup of 2 Senate seats from New York for the GOP, in the same year no less? Talk about a red wave!

    Forgive my fantasizing (or perhaps fanaticizing).

  • AceInTX

    I think they’d both rather tilt at the Potus Windmill and whine about how intolerant SoCons are for not surrendering everything they believe in and vote for them.

    It makese no sense to me…I’d support both of them for the Senate…but not for POTUS….

    let’s see if I’m right…but I’m betting they’ll both be making visits to NH and IA after next November….to what ends no one knows…

  • aesthete

    Not to rehash 2008, but Ace, Rudy did nothing of the kind after losing the POTUS nomination. Say what you will about the man and his anemic candidacy, but he was nothing if not conciliatory to social conservatives. I believe you’re thinking of Huckabee and Paul, who both blamed the sun, the moon, and the stars, as well as “establishment Republicans”, for their respective defeats.

  • 10ksnooker

    Haven’t been following New York — When is Schumer up for election?

    We’ve been really busy tea partying for Rubio in Florida.

  • writeblock

    It’s time to get over this attitude toward blue state candidates. How the hell are we going to penetrate blue states in a national election if we keep nominating people from Texas and Kansas and Arizona. Rudy was far ahead in the national polls against Hillary and Obama. He polled well in places like NJ and CT and PA. He was a strict constructionist, despite his pro-choice personal view. He was a fiscal reformer with a record. He knew the terrorist issue backwards and forwards. He had a history of busting mafia dons, Democrat machine politicians, Wall Street billionaires. He was an executive genius who not only turned NYC around but behaved superbly under duress during 9/11. That STILL wasn’t pure enough for some of you purists. So we got the loser from Arizona instead, Mr. Hands-Across-the-Aisle himself. That led to the present mess–and to the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history.

    If Scott Brown isn’t a message, nobody is. The message is NOT that we need to be big-tent Republicans, but that we should realize conservatism means different things in different places. Rudy and Brown are not Rinos in the sense that McCain and Graham are Rinos. Pro-choice Republicans in NY and MA are not in the same situation as quasi-liberals from AZ or SC. They are not so much pro-abortionists as political survivors determined to win elections in states culturally pro-choice. What they lack in purity they gain in their ability to bring blue states to the GOP table. They are strategic pluses, not minuses like Graham and McCain. Think about it. Do you think we’d have lost the South or the Mountain West or Kansas if we had nominated Rudy instead of McCain? No way. Those regions STILL would have voted Republican. But we WOULD HAVE GAINED NJ and PA–and with that the 2008 election. It was a huge opportunity lost–as a result of our own short-sighted politics.

  • renny

    which he now could win hands down. I doubt he would go for fighting Schumer, if he won’t challenged Schumer’s weakling echo.

    I would love to see Giuliani back in Rep. politics. Maybe someone will start a draft movement.

    Go Rubio people.

  • renny

    Very likely NJ and PA and maybe even CT would have gone to Rudy in the full election.

    Giuilani is a true fiscal cons. He cut NYC welfare in 1/2, brought tourism back, opened shelters and moved the homeless off the streets, cut crime more than 1/2., and cut taxes.

    He’s not a fire-breathing cons. socially, but he would NEVER have let Holder get away with shoving terror trials down NYC’s throat, wouldn’t have a budget that severely cuts police and fire protection, and would constantly make fools out of Albany’s clowns very publicly.

  • Richard Mullins

    I must be losing it until reedited the comment, I was thinking that Chuckie had a little time to work a charm. I somehow thought that Senators were starting an 8yr Term instead of a 6yr Term. Can you imagine how much damage one could do it if they had 8yr Term instead of a 6yr Term? It would be really bad.

  • redtillimdead

    Giuliani denied a run against Gillibrand, whom he could beat without campaigning. He would need to fight hard for this one. He’s in Rio in 2016 helping with the Olympics though.
    Kudlow is the best we could do here. We need a self-funder with Schumer’s money

  • redtillimdead

    Supposedly he is waiting to see what Ford does. If he looks like a threat to Gilly, he will run,
    Personally, I’d like to see Rick Lazio drop out of the Gov race and run for Senate against Gillibrand and Kudlow against Schumer

  • CowboyUp4419

    Rudy’s probably about the only guy who’d be able to pull it off. I’m not going to let myself get too excited about this yet but even the hint of the prospect of knocking of the most aggravating person in the Senate and replacing him with, well, anybody is enough to put a smile on my face.

    And here I thought Barbara Boxer was the most irritating Democrat we had even an outside chance of knocking off this election cycle.

  • eldstenorge

    Well, conservatism means different things to different people? You are probably correct. There is a schism between social and moral conservatives. Scott Brown has charisma, Rudy and George Pataki do not. There is a big difference there. And, Brown stood up on the big issues facing us right now. I like him, I would have voted for him if I lived in Massachusetts. At least he is against Partial Birth Abortion, for parental notification and against federal funding for abortion. But, if he had run in my home state, I would have voted for someone who is prolife, as life is the first issue. Without life, noting else matters. I would not vote for Guiliani or Pataki for President, Scott Brown, I do not know yet. Let’s see what he does with what he has been given now. And, there is no way anyone can say America is still a moral nation if we support the murder of God’s children in abortion. Remember, John Adams, that great President from the great state of Massachusetts? “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I ask, why are things not working right now?

  • CowboyUp4419

    The thing about running against Gillibrand doing so wins you the rest of Hillary’s unexpired term. That term expires in 2012 so if Pataki or whomever wins this year they’ll have to face the voters against in two years when there will presumably be a more favorable Democrat electorate in New York State. Schumer’s just up this cycle so challenging him buys you a full six years if you win. I’d think that kind of calculation would play into it a little.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …but they’re having a special election for the remainder of the term. Schumer’s naturally expires this year.

  • Richard Mullins

    I was out of sorts. I remembered that he won in 1998, reelected in 2004 and for stupid reason(until I checked my self out of some parallel universe I was living for a few minutes) thought that his term expired in 2012. I came back to reality and remembered it was this year. Gillibrand seems to have the same potty mouth as Schumer, so I hope it work against her. If chuckie gets lower poll numbers, a ham sandwich can run against and win.

  • writeblock

    Conservatism is in a protracted cold civil war–and it has many fronts. What it needs more than anything else are warriors who can win victories–politicians like Brown and Giuliani. Both have enormous political strengths. Brown has charisma; Rudy has a huge following in blue states. Did you know, for instance, that Italian-Americans are roughly equal in number to African-Americans in key contested states? That is the conservative bedrock that gave us cultural heroes like Scalia and Alito. That cultural tilt would have been more than enough to win NJ and PA in the last national election, probably many more blue and purple states.

    What would have been the results for pro-lifers?

    1. Obama, the most pro-abortion president in history, would have been defeated.

    2. A strict constructionist would have been appointed to the SC instead of a liberal activist, giving the Court a 6-3 tilt.

    3. The Department of Justice would have been enforcing the ban on partial-birth abortions–which it is not now doing.

    4. Kathleen Sibelius, a fiercely pro-abortion advocate, would not now be at the helm of Health and Human Services.

    All this happened because you preferred losers like Huckabee or McCain or whoever.

  • writeblock

    I’ve got no doubt whatsoever that Schumer has drawn in his horns regarding Health Care. He’s not going to stir up the hornet’s nest with his polls at 47%. He’s got to be looking over his shoulder–not so much at Rudy as at any number of nobodies like Brown who might come out of nowhere to defeat him. The key is the Independent vote–and the Reagan Democrat vote–mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

  • crofiscon

    It should be part of the conservative voter’s guidebook for the GOP Primary.

    We need “fit for purpose” GOP candidates in 2012 (and 2010 too). The Perfect (for SoCon purists) might be the enemy of the Good (for GOP and country as a whole).

    I’d support a strong fiscal conservative who stands firm against islamic terror even if s/he is reluctant to immediately or completely repeal Roe v. Wade. The most critical pro-life need is to stop the murder of partial birth and 2nd trimester abortions for convenience. BHO would allow them, and many “pro-choice” Rs wouldn’t. In this scenario, BHO loses to a strong fiscal conservative who is firm against islamic terror.

  • proudgop

    As stated in previous post the NY GOP is in shambles

    Guiliani is not running he would of helped us tremendously and to be honest I am a bit ticked about it.

    Pataki I have a feeling won’t run ( many blame him for current state of GOP in this state)

    NY is now classic case of what happens when Dems control a state a raise taxes like they have. All rich people in this state now claim ( a lot did before) Florida as their official residence ( they only have to “live” their 6 months a year ( most people with money flea NYC in summer anyways).

    We need to find a candidate for Gillibrand first, the Open AG and Comptroller race in this state first before we get around to Schumer.

    I wish the NY GOP could find some energetic young female or even Hispanic to run for us it may help us get some new voters.

  • writeblock

    …before he became a somebody. I don’t think a big name needs to oppose Schumer. Just somebody with the right stuff.

  • smitch61

    Although I am not in NY and do not have a voice there, for me personally Schumer is probably the one senator that I literally cannot stand. To see him leave office would give me such a good feeling. I literally cannot stand that man. My number two worst senator? John Kerry.

  • writeblock

    …because he’s got a track record. But this may well be the year when the public has been so fed up with the shenanigans in Washington that it simply wants to kick the arrogant bums out. A man or woman need not have impressive credentials–just a convincing determination to send Washington a message.

  • writeblock

    In many ways he’s the ideal candidate, a man of action who’s also extremely articulate, who has the potential to bring blue and purple states into the fold. Sure he’s got a lousy marital record–but at a time when the country is facing a socialist menace, his messy divorce and personal life should be irrelevant. We should be looking for strong leaders, not saints; warriors, not well-mannered gentlemen. Besides, he proved on 9/11 he’s got courage and character to spare.

  • CowboyUp4419

    There’s a difference between taking down an utterly inept candidate in a special election for an open seat and taking down an entrenched incumbent with a multimillion dollar war chest. Brown was a great candidate who ran a terrific campaign but it’s fair to say Martha Coakley’s blunders helped a lot; Schumer won’t make those mistakes.

    If we’re really serious about taking down Chuck Schumer (and I loath him more than I do anyone else in Washington so, yes, I’d be interested in doing so) I think we need a marquee Rudy-type name to do it. We’d need a candidate with a lot of star power just to make anyone think they have a prayer of overcoming the $30 million Schumer’s already got in the bank. I just think a Brown-type candidate is starting in too deep a hole to get it done.

  • writeblock

    What will it buy him? Attack ads? A lot of good it did Coakley. The very fact that he’s so well known is what makes his low poll numbers so surprising. Voters already know what he’s all about–so he’s clearly got a lot of explaining to do–and that won’t be easy. He certainly can’t run against Bush. He’s stuck with defending Obama and the Democrat record in the Senate. All this with NY facing fiscal crisis–at the very time Obama has decided to punish Wall Street, a major source for tax revenues. Not a good situation for him.

  • CowboyUp4419

    Coakley’s attack ads might have done some good. Without her running ads to try to drive up Brown’s negatives it may have been a landslide. Obviously we’ve got no way of knowing for sure but the fact she ran attack ads and didn’t win doesn’t mean that translates to New York.

    The Democrats reaping what they’ve sewn is why Schumer’s numbers are in the tank and he’s got a lot of explaining to but that massive bank account is how he can try to do that. Or he can distance himself from it and tout his record on things New York likes like gun control and socialism.

    The financial disaster New York State will face with Obama’s new bank tax and Wall Street regulation is undoubtable and given the state’s dependence on that money the issue ought to be enough to send New Yorkers to the polls to elect any candidate who’ll pull out all the stops to put the brakes on Obama’s plans. The trouble is if Democrats were capable of that level of foresight they’d already be Republicans.

  • writeblock

    Some polls published after the election by the Globe showed her negatives went up with the attack ads while his remained constant and pretty darn low. In fact considering how far his numbers surged in the last few weeks, it was tantamount to a landslide–whereas the conventional wisdom was that the election would be close. It wasn’t.

    And what happened in MA is most certainly translatable to NY. Do you think MA happened in a vacuum? Before that there was VA and NJ. In all three cases Independents moved to the GOP 2-1. Look at the broader picture right now. Dorgan is retiring–his numbers have tanked. Nelson’s numbers have tanked. Feingold’s numbers have tanked. Bayh’s numbers have tanked. These are not weak Democrats. They had always been considered pretty safe bets.

    So it’s an ugly terrain for incumbent Democrats, no matter who runs against them.

  • Gandalf

    Definitely a possibility of developing into something big.

    I won’t consider it a genuine pick-up opportunity until one of two things happens:

    1) A big name (Pataki, Giuliani) declares a challenge

    2) We see a poll showing a non-big name (like Scott Brown) within 10 points of Schumer.

  • AceInTX

    You’re right, Rudy didn’t whine…but his supporters did…and still do.

    Rudy can’t win nationally but he could win State wide for a Senate Seat and I…(despite being a so called Purist), would support him!

  • AceInTX

    Think about it. Do you think we?d have lost the South or the Mountain West or Kansas if we had nominated Rudy instead of McCain?

    Look…this is becoming a thread jack….which I unintentionally started…but such is the knee jerk reaction of some to the political reality that Rudy or Patacki will never be the Party’s nominee for POTUS….you can call us purists…you can stomp and whine…and puff yourself up in high minded…big tent rhetoric all you want but that’s the political reality…they’ll never be the nominees for Potus…and if they do…the Republican Party will simply cease to exist in the south….which is my point….I’d support them in the Senate as I supporterd Brown….but they are simply unacceptable as our Party’s nominee for POTUS to to many people to be viable….so, What I’m saying is…they’re fools if they are abstaining from running for the Senate against two vulnerable Democrats out of ambition to be the Republican Nominees for POTUS…

    It’s just a cold…hard simple fact based on reality….

  • CowboyUp4419

    The terrain is ugly for anyone with a (D) next to their name and our nation is better for it.

    The issue is how much uglier it gets when they have to compete against star power. Dorgan hung it up, I’m inclined to believe, because he knew he’d get trounced by Hoeven. I doubt though that if it were a less popular Republican he’d be giving up the ship so quickly. Feingold and Bayh were safe bets but were safe bets in states where Republicans normally are at least competitive. New York’s a whole different animal.

    I put some stock in the 2009 governor’s races but not a huge deal. Those turn on local issues that are irrelevant when considering candidates for federal office; property taxes was one of the top issues for voters in New Jersey and if that’s what’s bringing people to the polls the fact the president is a stupid socialist has less to do with it.

    Massachusetts though does have some translation to New York. Both MA and NY rate as D+12 PVI. What did it take for a largely unknown candidate to win in that situation? Brown was a good candidate just on his own merits and he ran a fantasic campaign thanks in large part to Mitt Romney taking a lot of the staff that had swept Romney himself to a statewide victory there in 2002 and lending that apparatus to the Brown effort. On top of that the Democrat candidate was lazy and had jaw-dropping gaffes almost daily. Add to that a fantastic rhetorical flourish that got replayed at length (“the People’s seat”) and that all translated into a five point win.

    A number of the things that played into our favor in Massachusetts aren’t likely to be there in New York. That just means it’s that much harder for an unknown to come out of nowhere and unseat Schumer. I’m not saying it’s impossible but my thought is it with the perfect storm that’s brewing we may not ever have a better shot at unseating Chuckie than we do this election cycle and so if we’re serious about doing that we shouldn’t send in some fourth-stringer and say “If Scott Brown can then anybody else can, too.”

  • Mark Impomeni

    I admire your spunk, Moe, but I must once again throw cold water on the idea that Chuck Schumer could ever be beaten by a Republican in NY absent getting caught in bed with a live girl AND a dead boy.

    If some brave soul were to entertain challenging Schumer, it would have to be a self-made effort. There are two Senate seats up in NY this year, and I doubt that the voters would go for TWO Republicans in the same election.

    Plus, Schumer has very deep campaign pockets.

    Gillibrand should be the target in NY this year. She is very beatable, even with a second tier candidate. National Republicans should focus their energy, and their resources, on that race. If we get to late October, and Schumer is still below 50%, a pipe dream, then a late charge may be worth it.

  • red_oakster

    so you may get your wish.

    As for the notion that Giuliani is “unacceptable in the South”, the early polls in South Carolina and Texas in 07 suggest that’s nonsense. In 2008, there was room for only one of Giuliani and McCain. When one rose, the other fell. In 2012, there are lots of scenarios in which Giuliani could win in New Hampshire and go on to roll up lots of blue and purple states. He could win. So could Romney. So could Palin or Huckabee or Pawlenty. The name of the game is do well in Iowa or New Hampshire or go home. Rudy is one of a handful who could do well.

  • paint_it_red

    Pataki and Giuliani would both be great Senators, but they are not going to ever win a nomination for President. Not in a billion years. If McCain lost as large a chunk of the social conservative vote as he did, why would Giuliani do any better? He went for broke in FL and finished a very distant 3rd in a winner takes all state. That was when he was incredibly well financed. So POTUS is out for him.

    Giuliani could win a Senate race or a Governor’s race in NY though. And 2010 is the best chance he’ll ever get. If he does not run, his political future is likely over.