Okay, this isn't going to be a long diary but I haven't seen another entry where this would be an appropriate standalone comment.

It is infuriating that states like New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey should have even a chance of electing Republican governors.  The Republican party should be dead-dead-dead in the Northeast but the Democrats keep giving them a chance to crawl back to life.

The problem is that we have to insist on competence from our candidates.  And that insistence on competence needs to trump ideological preference.  I don't care whether your sentiments are "Progressive" or "Blue Dog," if your candidate can't cross and sustain the competence threshold, it does your cause---our cause---no good at all.  

There's more...

Let's concede one point: winter 2009 is not a good time to be a governor. There are budget shortfalls, which require hard choices to cut popular programs and impose unpopular tax increases; no wonder so many are fleeing to the comfort of the administration. But having said that, it takes a special skill to plunge to a level of popularity below the guy who solicited prostitutes and was the focus of a federal sting.

The latest Marist College poll finds Gov. David Patterson's job approval at an historic low, the worst job approval of any governor since they started polling 27 years ago (via NYT):

Only 26 percent of the 1,045 registered voters surveyed said Mr. Paterson was doing either a good or excellent job, while 71 percent said he was doing a fair or poor job. Even Eliot Spitzer had a higher approval rating a year ago, 30 percent, when he was the governor amid his prostitution scandal. The poll results indicate that voters believe Mr. Paterson is working hard and understands the state's problems, but suggests people do not have confidence in his ability to lead.

In head-to-head match-ups both in a Democratic primary against Andrew Cuomo and in a general election against Rudy Giuliani, Patterson gets killed, performing even worse than in previous polls.

Among Democrats, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo trounces Mr. Paterson in a hypothetical primary matchup, 62 to 26 percent. In a general election, Rudolph W. Giuliani would beat Mr. Paterson, 53 to 38 percent, according to the poll.

And how does Cuomo perform against hypothetical Republican opponents?

If Republican Rick Lazio were to campaign against Democratic New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Cuomo would defeat his Republican opponent hands down. 71% of the state's electorate report they would back Cuomo while just 20% would vote for Lazio. Cuomo doesn't do quite as well against Giuliani, yet he still receives majority support and has a wide lead against the former mayor. 56% of voters report Cuomo would be their candidate of choice in this hypothetical matchup. This compares with 39% who would cast their ballot for Giuliani.

I don't know how seriously to take Giuliani's numbers against Patterson; we all remember his heights of popularity nationally when the GOP presidential primary began. But from my perspective, Andrew Cuomo is now required to run to ensure this seat is safe. He was the people's choice for Senator and now he's the people's choice for Governor. It's hard to imagine Patterson recovering from this.

There's more...

Reports are that it will be Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, who represents a relatively conservative (R+3) upstate district. Patterson should really hurry up and get on the stage. MSNBC is filling the empty space ripping him as "confused" and "incompetent."

Gillibrand is a Blue Dog but interestingly, per TPM, she has shifted her position on marriage equality in a more progressive direction.

Empire State Pride Agenda has put out a press release saying that Gillibrand has spoken to them, and they are glad to say that New York will have its first Senator who endorses full marriage equality. This is a big change for Gillibrand, who previously had a conventional Democratic position of endorsing civil unions and non-discrimination laws, but not being for gay marriage. [...]

...We are now in a world in which endorsing gay marriage can actually be a politically beneficial choice in a statewide setting.

Update [2009-1-23 12:53:23 by Todd Beeton]:Patterson is not really redeeming himself with this rambling speech. He's now getting to the point. "I appoint the Senator from this moment on until a special election in November 2010. The term ends in 2012 wherein there will be another election."

The New York Times:

Gov. David A. Paterson was preparing Friday to announce at a noon news conference his selection of Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, a 42-year-old congresswoman from upstate who is known for bold political moves and centrist policy positions, to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a person who spoke to the governor early Friday.

An aide to Ms. Gillibrand confirmed early Friday morning that she had accepted the appointment.

Update [2009-1-23 12:53:23 by Todd Beeton]:Patterson has just officially announced Gillibrand is his pick. She will speak next.

Update [2009-1-23 12:53:23 by Todd Beeton]:"I realize that for many New Yorkers, this is the first time you're hearing my name and you don't really know me. I promise, over the next two years, you will get to know me and more important, I will get to know you."

Update [2009-1-23 12:53:23 by Todd Beeton]:Gillibrand has asked to serve on the Armed Services and Agriculture Committees in the Senate. She pledges to bridge upstate and downstate and work across the aisle to help all New Yorkers.

Patterson just whispered something to her (I thought it included the word "president") as she spoke and she looked at him and sternly said "Now? Now? Should I finish? I'm going to finish." She handled it well.

There's more...

Caroline Kennedy should be thanking the Rod & Ron show for hogging all the Senate appointment freakshow oxygen and making this report from The AP feel inconsequential by comparison.

Officials say the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy will be the governor's choice to fill the New York Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Two people close to Gov. David Paterson tell The Associated Press they believe Caroline Kennedy will be his choice, but the governor cautions he's still looking.

That's what Patterson would say, of course, since he has vowed not to announce his pick until after Hillary Clinton is confirmed as Secretary of State but it's not insignificant that behind the scenes, some resistance to Caroline seems to be waning.

Meantime, despite early reservations, New York state's most powerful legislative leader tells the New York Post he'll support Kennedy. State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver says he'll work for her election.

All things considered, it's hard not to think Kennedy's appointment to the Senate is essentially a done deal and Patterson's decision was made much easier by Blagojevich's stunt the other day.

Update [2009-1-2 12:18:58 by Todd Beeton]:And speaking of US Senate appointments we'd almost forgotten about, Gov. Bill Ritter will reportedly announce his pick to replace outgoing CO Senator Ken Salazar tomorrow.

There's more...

As a source of speculation the NY-Senate seat to be vacated by Hillary Clinton, provides a whole range of entertaining angles. I find it a bit of a shame that Caroline Kennedy has apparently wrapped up the appointment. This not because she wouldn't be good in the job, I have great respect for her uncles and her father and some of her cousins, and I think perhaps like Ted she could parlay her famous name and connections and good intentions into a wonderfully successful senatorship. She did make a nice speech for Obama. The Senate was never intended to be strictly democratic. The Democrats should not shoot themselves in the foot by being overly "fair" (the Republicans never would), and should set themselves up to win elections (incumbency, fundraising, name-recognition etc.). However, I have a bit of hesitation over the extent to which our politics is hereditary, the undemocratic nature of gubernatorial appointments to otherwise elected office, and Ms. Kennedy's mostly mysterious positions, qualifications, and intentions.

This is not to say that Caroline Kennedy shouldn't be Senator, and if she is I will be a strong supporter, but I'd be a bit easier about it, if she had to prove herself through an election. And I'm a little sorry that Gov. Patterson seems to have begun to be boxed in. I also think this is a critical moment in US History and it would pay to have somewhat experienced, competent senators dealing with stimuli, climate change, health care, judicial appointments and the like. I think one of the NY House members, perhaps Jerrold Nadler or Nydia Velazquez would have the legislative expertise (and established positions) to be effective right away. However, appointing one of the dozen house members who wants the spot, would create a lot of animosity for Patterson. Appointing Kennedy avoids that. But even with borrowed staff and a protective wing from her uncle, I worry that she would have to take a year or two of watching carefully before being an effective senator.

Appointing Andrew Cuomo would also supercede the congressionals by being a statewide official, with a strong name who could be the strong favorite in 2010. However Patterson might be perceived as simply trying to eliminate a competitor for his reelection, you still have the heredity issues, and it would probably be a pretty big slap in the face for Kennedy.

My alternative is to appoint Mario Cuomo.

There's more...