The 2006 New York elections could become for Democrats what the battle of Trafalgar was to the British Empire two centuries ago – the climactic victory that ushers in unchallenged supremacy. And just as a direct line leads from Trafalgar to Waterloo, this victory can lead to a new national Democratic ascendancy. Best of all, the republicans are cast in the role of the French.

There are several notable strategic parallels, in the underlying alignment and relationship of forces, between the naval battle of 1805 and the electoral battle of 2006. First, Trafalgar solidified what was an accepted fact of life, British dominance of the high seas. Second, the Napoleonic navy was badly trained, badly divided, demoralized and ineptly led. Third, there was no recovery for the losing side – ever.

The same basic parameters apply to the political situation in New York State. It is an accepted fact of life that New York is a blue state, with a roughly 5:3 Democratic advantage in party registration over les republicains. The Quinnipiac poll recently pointed out that the baseline statewide republican vote is only 30%.

In terms of training, coherence, morale and leadership, again, Democrats have a commanding lead over our opponents. Democratic organizations, both national and local, have used the time since the 2004 election to build an infrastructure statewide for empowering activists. Progressive organizations are working closely together to achieve common goals. Morale and motivation are high on our side, due to a confluence of national sentiment and state issues, such as Bush fatigue, Pataki fatigue, the obvious need for reform in the state legislature and the bleeding of the right over issues both foreign – the Iraq war – and domestic – corruption, social security, pay to play politics, judicial extremism, governmental dishonesty, and so on. It seems safe to say that these factors will drive Democratic turnout to high levels, while simultaneously depressing the core republican vote. We expect that we’ll see a replay of the 2004 elections; in New York, the anti-Bush backlash helped against republican candidates up and down the ballot.

The key issue, however, will be leadership, and this is where the gap between the two sides is most pronounced. George Pataki is already spending more time in Iowa than Albany, which creates a leadership vacuum in the top-down structure of his state party. The slate of men running to succeed him, meanwhile, is flawed: Tom Golisano has run against Pataki three times, creating a yawning credibility gap should he get the nomination; Bill Weld, while superficially attractive, is tarred by scandals, near-incoherent in terms of policy positions, and unpopular with the right-wing base; while the last candidate, John Faso, a lobbyist, holds social views more appropriate to Utah than New York. The underlying weakness of the other side can be traced by the fate of the right-wing minor parties: the “right-to-life party

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |