Nate Smith handed the race to Bloomberg.

Next time, Thompson, hire a real professional, not a hack who treats campaign workers like crap. 

Working Families Party record on labor rights for those who work for them is lousy. Did Nate Smith even pay a hourly rate? nope. 

but remember, He's the man who reports to no one. 

McMahon is a Blue Dog and will not be abandoned by the Brooklyn/Staten Island leaders.  75% of CD-13 is from Staten Island and had the Staten Island Republican Party put up a viable candidate in 2008 McMahon wouldn't be the Congressman.  If you look at the alternate like Vito Fossella returning or another one of his cronies from the SI Republican Party being in office, McMahon is the only alternate.  Then the only way to get rid of the Republican Congressman would then be when bounderies are changed after the 2010 Census. 

I'm in CD-13 (on the Brooklyn side) and am not crazy about McMahon (Harrison would have been MUCH better), he's evasive (still claims he doesn't know how he's voting on the Health Care Bill) and is a typical politician who speaks out of both sides of his mouth but he still needs more time having only been in office since January 2009.  Let me tell you, if he doesn't support Health Care and gives in to the Staten Island teabaggers, it will be like him putting a noose on his own neck. 

You brought out al lot about McMahon and his family but hey, he can raise money and that along with his Blue Dog all the DCCC cared about when they vetted him.  Like I said, Harrison would have been better but the DCCC only selects candidates based on how much they can raise for the DCCC (that's why I don't donate to the DCCC).  

If we nominate someone other than McMahon or someone like him, we will lose the seat. He's a thousand times better than Fosella and pretty close to as good as we are going to get.

If I was going to target someone, I'd pick someone from a safe Democratic seat. That would probably mean Gary Ackerman.  He happens to be one of my favorite members of Congress, but going after him to set an example would make far more sense

Before we speculate about any congressional district, we have to ask two questions, first how many seats will New York lose after the 2010 census, and will the Democrats gain control of the State Senate and the redistricting process.

As of now, its more likely that the Republicans will gain/ keep control of the State Senate.  As for how many seats New York will lose, its hard to tell since at actually appears, contrary to what the NY Post prints, that New York is starting to gain population somewhere near the national average.  There is now net outmigration from Flordia now, which was particularly hard hit by the collapse of the real estate bubble.  Early in the decade, New York was projected to lose three seats, but now it is starting to look more like one.

The point is that if the Democrats hold control of redistricting, they can use the Brooklyn portion of the 13th to bring the existing Brooklyn districts up to the required population level, and attach Staten Island to some heavily Democratic area, heavily enough to outweigh the fact that Staten Island will make up almost two thirds of any district.  With only two Republicans now in the NY state delegation, any losses of congressional districts for New York will come out of the Democrats' hide.  At this point its pointless to worry about winning districts that are probably going to disappear in three years.

Before we speculate about any congressional district, we have to ask two questions, first how many seats will New York lose after the 2010 census, and will the Democrats gain control of the State Senate and the redistricting process.

As of now, its more likely that the Republicans will gain/ keep control of the State Senate.  As for how many seats New York will lose, its hard to tell since at actually appears, contrary to what the NY Post prints, that New York is starting to gain population somewhere near the national average.  There is now net outmigration from Flordia now, which was particularly hard hit by the collapse of the real estate bubble.  Early in the decade, New York was projected to lose three seats, but now it is starting to look more like one.

The point is that if the Democrats hold control of redistricting, they can use the Brooklyn portion of the 13th to bring the existing Brooklyn districts up to the required population level, and attach Staten Island to some heavily Democratic area, heavily enough to outweigh the fact that Staten Island will make up almost two thirds of any district.  With only two Republicans now in the NY state delegation, any losses of congressional districts for New York will come out of the Democrats' hide.  At this point its pointless to worry about winning districts that are probably going to disappear in three years.

Before we speculate about any congressional district, we have to ask two questions, first how many seats will New York lose after the 2010 census, and will the Democrats gain control of the State Senate and the redistricting process.

As of now, its more likely that the Republicans will gain/ keep control of the State Senate.  As for how many seats New York will lose, its hard to tell since at actually appears, contrary to what the NY Post prints, that New York is starting to gain population somewhere near the national average.  There is now net outmigration from Flordia now, which was particularly hard hit by the collapse of the real estate bubble.  Early in the decade, New York was projected to lose three seats, but now it is starting to look more like one.

The point is that if the Democrats hold control of redistricting, they can use the Brooklyn portion of the 13th to bring the existing Brooklyn districts up to the required population level, and attach Staten Island to some heavily Democratic area, heavily enough to outweigh the fact that Staten Island will make up almost two thirds of any district.  With only two Republicans now in the NY state delegation, any losses of congressional districts for New York will come out of the Democrats' hide.  At this point its pointless to worry about winning districts that are probably going to disappear in three years.

Anybody who thinks this city still isn't profoundly affected by racial issues should look at the results.  I was at Thompson's election night party at the Hilton on 6th Avenue.  There was a big ballroom, two open bars, packed full of people.  But something caught your eye when you walked around.  Most of the people there were black.  If you walked to the Hilton from 7th Avenue and passed the Sheraton across the street where Bloomberg was having his party, you'd have seen droves of white people going in.

Just looking at the racial composition of the two gatherings could tell you what happened on election night.  Which is that white democrats either stayed home or voted for Bloomberg.  In predominantly white precincts in Manhattan and Brooklyn, Bloomberg won by huge margins.  Why should white democrat voters be more comfortable with a white republican than a black democrat?  Didn't almost all of these people vote for Obama?  In truth, you can't always see the political divisions as clearly in a national election as you can in local races.  Obama came across as a lot more independent to many of these voters than a local minority candidate ever could.

Whether the perception is right or wrong, some of these voters at least on the *local* level seem to see black or other minority candidates as being almost by necessity products of one neighborhood political machine or another.  Bloomberg's negative advertising played right into their fears that with Democrat mayoral candidates, particularly minority ones, the candidate is a puppet and that somebody or some group is holding the strings.  As a result I do not think Thompson got a fair shake from voters outside his core constituencies. 

Lets face it, the Democratic party in this city is ripped apart by racial issues.  The Democrats have now lost five mayoral elections in a row.  In a Democrat city! You can see it happening again in 2013.  The primary will be blown up by an ethnically and racially divided electorate, and some well funded *white* republican will swoop in and get all the independents and moderate white democrats voting for him/her, and turn off other democrats so much to their own party's candidate that they will either not vote or vote for the opposition.

This is also why people have been begging David Paterson not to run for election as governor in 2010.  They know that if he gets nominated, he'll never be seen as independent of the political machines that made him, and that a well funded well known white republican candidate will take moderate white democrats with him.  To beat Paterson, all his foes will have to do is use the blueprint for how Bloomberg has won three elections.

Realistically, we do have to worry about losing the 13th. Staten Island will form the core of a district, and while it can be attached to parts of Manhattan or Brooklyn with a more Democrat population than current (and has been in the past), an incumbent Republican could prove unbeatable regardless. Plus, moving the non-Island parts of the district to Manhattan would make it nearly impossible to keep two white Manhattan seats in existence, so it is no panacea for progressives.

The easiest way to keep the seat Democratic is to keep McMahon in it. Better a Dem who's with us 80% of the time than a Rep whose with us 20.

First, I'm white, Democrat and I voted for Thompson.  Now let me get to the 2nd part.  Why didn't Thompson have any campaign offices in white neighborhoods?  Where was his Bay Ridge Office, Bensonhurst, etc?  He had 3 locations in Brooklyn, one in Carnarsie, one on Nostrand Ave and a 3rd which I forget.  He made absolutely no appearances that I'm aware of at Clubs in our area (last I saw him was at United Progressives Dinner in early May).  Guiliani and Bloomberg's comments brought back memories to some people that they didn't want to remember. 

Let me ask you, what will happen in 2013 if we have 2 WHITE CANDIDATES?  How will that effect the outcome of the election?  Look at Staten Island, when our Grandchildren live there they'll still be voting Republican.  Look at their Borough President who should have been replaced 4 years ago let alone now.  His claim to fame is a fish tank at the ferry terminal where the fish keep dying.  He has overdeveloped the Island and it seems that once you cross that bridge you lose your Democratic beliefs and embrace the Republican Party.  Do you know they still want to succeed from the City?  The only thing stopping them is Albany.  I really feel we should let them do this, wait until they have to pay for their own police, fire, sanitation, etc and let their taxes balloon like Long Island.  Sure they have valid complaints about how they're treated (their mass transit is a joke and they're the only borough that has to pay a bridge toll to get to another borough).   

As for your comments on Paterson they're completely wrong.  Paterson is out of his league and the only reason why he's Governor is because Spitzer couldn't keep his zipper shut.  His skin color has nothing to do with his inability to govern. In that respect, why was it that when Paterson said he was going to run for a full term that other black politicans and leaders were the first to jump on his bandwagon?  They didn't bother to consider his qualifications, only the color of his skin. 

I'm so sick and tired of pinning black against white and white against black.  I (and millions of others) proudly volunteered and voted for Obama and would vote for any qualified candidate even if his skin color was green.  Sure, there are many people who vote based on skin color but they don't look out for their best interest when they do this only the skin color of the candidate.  They're ignorant and I feel very sorry for them.     

As I told you concerning Harrison, either party running a Brooklynite for this seat is a sign of stupidity.

It would be very easy to alter the borders of this district to make a non-indicted Democratic incumbent safe (not even Lower Manhattan could save john Murphy from Abscam). If the Democrats control redistricting, the seat can be made safer. But it will never be totally safe, nor will it ever be able to repeal the immutable culture of Staten Island, where even Sri Lankans and Liberians brag about never visiting Manhattan or even leaving the Rock.  

From tonight's SI Advance:

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/mcmahon_will_vote_against_heal.html

What I was talking about regarding Golden, is that with the Dems in the State Senate and if they continue to retain control in 2010, you can look for his district to be redrawn. 

As for McMahon, he bought into crap from those writing, emailing and phoning him and doesn't realize that even if he doesn't vote for this bill they still won't vote for him (gee, maybe in a few months he'll become a Republican.  Wouldn't surprise me in the least). 

As for Harrison, I doubt very much if he has any intention of trying again for this seat.  

thanks for admin.nice sharing.very nicee..