Yesterday, Ben Smith of Daily Politics asked,  “Who lost the State Senate?”, offering five alternative theories. The day before, it was Wayne Barrett who raised the same issue; but, I started complaining last spring.

I outlined theory #2 (Blame the County Leaders) in my pre-election Voter’s Guide (11/6/06) and again after the election  (11/10/06), but in a way, its just a subset of  the usual Albany malaise (4/29/06). For their own reasons, the Assembly Democrats have little interest in a Democratic Senate; many County leaders are Assembly members, others depend upon the Assembly Democrats to provide them essential support. In Brooklyn, some local Dems are actually bragging about how their decision to prevent an opponent for Republican Senator Marty Golden allowed the Democrats to pick up one more Assembly seat, bringing Shelly Silver's veto proof majority up to a superfluous 108 out of 150.

The ability of the entire Senate Democratic Conference (with a few exceptions) to repeat theory #1 (Stop Complaining, we did great!) over and over again as a mantra (10/5/06), for months before the election, is proof positive that Paterson is not solely to blame for his conference's lame performance. They can whine all they want about Joe Bruno’s money machine, the Albany Bi-Partisan Iron Triangle and gerrymandering, but their obstacles, although formidable, were no worse than those faced by Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel. Chuck and Rahm were busy recruiting good candidates for seemingly hopeless races before any Democratic trend became apparent; by contrast, the Senate Dems have had a few years notice of the coming Spitzer tsunami.  They’ve known for months that they’ve fucked up big-time, so they’ve had their excuses neatly in place. What they never expected was that some candidate would actually manage a near miss, despite their efforts, and show them up for the bunch of gutless incompetents that they are. As such, the near victory of Albert Baldeo for Serph Maltese’s seat is their worst nightmare.

Their exercise in dharma cost them big. Back in  2000, when visions of sugarplums danced in Marty Connor’s head, the Senate Dems may have bitten off more than they could chew, but they put their money where their overstuffed mouths were. Every conference member signed as personal guarantuer for a large pre-election bank loan. One heard of no similar gesture  this year, and that surely sent a message to others that the Senate Dem’s commitment was lacking; so why bother helping them? 2006 was a once every thirty years landslide not seen since 1974, which, as I outlined (5/10/06), was also blown by the Senate Dems while their leadership was in flux. The excuse that they are waiting for 2008 is just that; presidential years have not always been such unequivocal successes for Senate Dems. The iron was hot this year, but no one struck. The opportunity may not recur. A 53/47 victory over McCain for our electoral votes will not carry in many (or any) new Democratic senators. 

As to reason #5 (Blame Eliot Spitzer), it is mostly unfair, but not entirely so. The decision by Spitzer (and Hilary and Hevesi to accept the Independence line (8/2/06), when the Independence Party (IP) was endorsing every Senate Republican candidate who either had a semblance of a chance of victory or was fighting off the semblance of a challenger, was almost unforgivable. This IP's survival was on the line; they needed Spitzer as their candidate in order to survive. He had real leverage, he failed to use it, and he thusly contributed to Republican Senate margins. He could also have exerted some pressure on the Working Families Party (WFP) to toe the line [although WFP’s (8/3/06) role in losing the Senate deserves a numbered (10/28/06) paragraph (10/31/06) all its own (11/8/06)].

But Spitzer also showed real balls. Despite threats from Joe Bruno to gridlock his legislative agenda, he campaigned with threatened Democratic incumbent David Valesky, and Democratic challengers like Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Brooke Ellison. Contrast Spitzer to Mario Cuomo who practically endorsed marginal Senate Republicans while the cameras rolled. It is rumored that Spitzer may have helped in other ways as well. Could he have done more? Sure. Did anyone ask him to? Probably not. Has anyone else in a comparable position ever done even half as much? No way!

In this sorry tale, Eliot Spitzer stands as a hero, albeit an imperfect one, yet practically the only imperfect hero real Democrats had. It is not even "Day One" and something has already changed.