Spitzer is now the de facto incumbent.  Given how few non-incumbents are elected, or even bother to run, are you upset because 23 percent of the coverage is going to the de-facto challenger? 

What't the chicken and what is the egg here?  The polling is based on name recognition, and name recognition comes from the media.  As of now, Spitzer's accomplishments, which I respect, have received more coverage than Suozzi's, which I also respect.  Be satisfied with that, will you?

I guess this is what is meant by "sucking all the air out of the room."

Larry,

Why am I not surprised that you don't agree with me? 

It if were 23% of the coverage of this race I would say eh, whatever, but  23% of the entire blog's posts concern Tom. That is insane. 23% of the posts shouldn't even be about that race, let alone one candidate. The coverage is incredibly biased. Are they trying to report on the race, which is a runaway for Eliot, or make it more exciting? The media should not be doing doing the latter.

As to Eliot, he's been an amazing AG who earned his name recognition doing things in his current office. Tom's publicity is from stupid stunts. The Times' blog is giving someone polling at 13% more coverage than the front-runner. If you can't appreciate that this is bad journalism, you are hopeless.

We have an incumbent oligarchy in New York State, run for the benefit of the narrow interests that support them, and the expense of the rest of use and the future.

Suozzi dared to challenge this oligarchy by

1) Unseating a vested Republican machine, and then

2) Supporting challenges against incumbent legislators, including primary challenges against incumbents from his own party.

That is his crime, the thing that makes him pathetic.  I had been calling for it for years, so I grateful as I must be.  The smart move, the careerist move, is to back the winners and get ahead, principle be damned.  He took the courageous route, and frankly, that's more of a story than 23 percent.

Suozzi's dillemma is similar to what my Dad faced 30 years ago.  An accountant, he had been out of work for months in the 1970s recession, had three kids, and had run out of money.  He got a job with a subsidiary of a major corporation that wasn't doing so well, the head of which was worried about how the parent company would react to the news.  So he told my Dad to scam the financial reporting, in effect committing a crime.  My Dad refused and was fired, right before Christmas.  He decided not to blow the whistle on the grounds that his family had sacrificed enough, and to do so would tank his career.  Eventually, we had to move to Tulsa OK to find work (oil & gas was booming there then) where he landed a job.  In short, Suozzi has my respect twice over.

The way the game is set up, you almost have to sell out to get ahead, even with Spitzer's father's money or Suozzi's political pedegree.  So I don't blast Spitzer for having been supported by Andrews who was supported by Norman, and I wouldn't be surprise if Suozzi had to accept support along the way that I would not have taken.  That makes me a "loser" with a pathetic campaign by your standards, doesn't it?  I made my protest, got 1,000 votes and little attention.

I too will be hopeful that Spitzer will pull an Al Smith and turn on his backers and their interests, just as he turned on his class with his Wall Street investigations when they got out of line.  If he lets them off easy for the past -- a small fine, a slap on the wrist, but fairness going forward -- well, that's better than we have now.  I'll be hopeful, but not confident.  The legislature will be happy to give hime a few symbolic victories to help his run for President while stifling any real reform.  People say Spitzer is arrogant and angry.  I can only hope so.

Twenty-three percent of the total in the Times Blog?  Since the Times point of view is to back the incumbent, unless the incumbent is under indictment, and perhaps even then, I doubt there will be many posts on legislative "races."  So what else is there to talk about.

Larry,

I didn't say Tom is pathetic, but his campaign is. Tom's done some great stuff, but his run for Governor makes no sense, and he has no chance of even coming close to making it a real race, let alone winning it. And who, pray tell, is funding this race? Could it be all the Wall Street zillionaires who hate Eliot for what he's done down there? Yeah, that's integrity.

Twenty-three percent of the total in the Times Blog?  Since the Times point of view is to back the incumbent, unless the incumbent is under indictment, and perhaps even then, I doubt there will be many posts on legislative "races."  So what else is there to talk about.

Are you joking? There is the Senate race--Hillary, Tasini, K.T., and John. There's at least as much controversy there as with Eliot vs. Tom.

There is the Republican challenge to Eliot in John.

There is the 11th Congressional District.

There is the 12th Congressional District.

How about Sylvia vs. Brian for the assembly?

I can't remember a single post about Hiram challenging John Sabini in Queens, where I've heard he might actually pull an upset.

How about Ken Diamondstone v. Marty? The Politicker had my favorite post of any blog this week breaking what CODA and Rosie did on that race.

The Mayor and the City government should also be ripe for topics for postings.

What is Scott doing as Beep? I've heard a lot of things, but read nothing on the Empire Zone.

There's plenty to talk about, without obsessing about this loser.

I've said this year is boring for politics, and it is. But the idea that 23% of the Times posts are covering Tom is clear bias--It makes me wonder if New York Times or at least it's political blog wants this to be more of a race, so they are using their power to attempt to manipulate it by giving an unreasonable amount of attention to a challenger who's barely in the double digits.

Did you see the opening video to the Empire Zone? Patrick Healy talking about how exciting this year is, speaking about Tom like he has a real shot of winning if he plays his cards right? It was one of the silliest things I've ever viewed and possibly intended to generate news rather than report it. The Times should be ashamed of itself for letting it's blog be so biased.

Am I alone on this? I've never begged for comments before, but do any other readers of this blog and the Empire Zone agree with me?

(It makes me wonder if New York Times or at least it's political blog wants this to be more of a race, so they are using their power to attempt to manipulate it by giving an unreasonable amount of attention to a challenger)

It isn't really the case here, since during the past few years the Times has given extensive attention to the accomplishments of both Spitzer and Suozzi.

But in my view, the free media accorded to incumbents for every little handout, deal and "study" is one reason that incumbents are so unassailable.  It's better than an ad funded by a contribution from a special interest -- an "objective" source says this person is important.

If the Times were to start "using their power to attempt to manipulate it by giving an unreasonable amount of attention to a challenger" in order to make it "more of a race," particularly in the legislature, I'd be in favor!  Unfortunately, it does the opposite.

I agree the entrenched incumbent thing is a problem, which can only be solved with term limits, which are a double edged sword.

In any case, if you think it's appropriate for the news media to intercede to make it better, than you are beyond hopeless. The media is supposed to report on the news, even comment on it in editorials, but not try to manipulate events. I'm not saying that is what the Times is doing here, but it could be seen that way.

I agree on term limits.  These days even open seats aren't open seats, given what has happened out in Buffalo -- a decision not to run for re-election announced the day after petitons are filed.

But as for coverage, it's a chicken and egg issue.  One can conclude that the press release-driven coverage given to incumbents during all the years between elections is in fact manipulating events.  The press implies these people and what they do are important, and lets people know who they are and what they do.  A little coverage for the challenger would merely balance this.

I've debated this with actual journalists before (don't know if you are one).  But if pre-determination of importance is the standard, then no challenger should be reported on, since challengers don't win.  And if the standard to determine if someone should run is whether they can win, no one should run against incumbents.

Therefore, getting back to public finance, where I am on firmer ground, the logical thing to do is cancel elections, thus saving money.

The media can't make things even between frontrunners/incumbents and challengers. Should they cover the challengers? Absolutely. This week Tom should have been covered for his petitions getting in early and the silly baseball cards. The Empire Zone, however, covered him a couple of times a day every day. It's bad journalism to cover candidates when they aren't doing anything new or noteworthy, but making the same complaints over and over (e.g., debate, debate, debate).

Yes, the media should try to give the public a good understanding of who all the candidates are, but when they cover someone as much as they are covering Tom, it looks as if they may be trying to influence the election.

At some point candidates need to garner and sustain support of the public to warrant media coverage. Tom has thusfar failed to do this and, therefore, the Times relentless coverage is not appropriate.

Brennan's seat.  Not that I have anything against Brennan per se.  Someone told me he was a real reformer.  But when I asked who were his candidates in the primary against those who weren't reformers, and was told everyone just stays in their districts and keeps their job.  So what good is he.

Twas, as you say, a pathetic campaign, just a do my civic duty minor party shot when I couldn't stand it anymore.  I believe you can follow the link and see what I had to say, if you are interested.  Lets say the experience gave me an insight into the political side of government works, and it didn't make my any less cynical.

Cause I've shot my wad.  Where are the rest?

If I got more than 1,000 votes (even 4,000), I'd go around telling others they have a civic duty to run too.  As it is, I can't say there's a point.

After I wrote this, someone emailed me the idea that they are simply "printing" whatever press releases they receive and Tom, as desperate candidates are wont to do, issues a lot of them. The idea that they are just incompetant is more appealing than that they have an agenda.

As to the financial filings, they are perfectly fine subject to write about, if they have something to add other than, as you say "X raised a lot of money" (or didn't for that matter). For instance, is Jeanine raising money from Wall Street people who hate Eliot, and think a Republican will let them get back to their funny business? That's what I suspect, which would be a good story. Unfortunately, Patrick and the rest of the Empire Zone crew don't seem to read this site, so they won't hear our constructive criticism.