The embattled legislator had already lost his coveted housing committee and Brooklyn Democratic Party chairmanships this summer when news broke of allegations that he sexually harassed four female staff members.

To read the full article, please visit cityandstateny.com.

It’s been an exhausting couple of weeks. You were evacuated. You lost power – in all senses of the word – for so long that you debated eating your pumpkin-scented candle and only source of light or heat. You saw cars floating by and started imagining yourself with the Waterworld-inspired cornrows of Spring Break 1996. You never wanted to go back there. Ever.

And then at last the sun came out, the water receded, electricity was restored, and, if you were lucky, not too much damage was done. But then it was time to vote! You saw Facebook friends battling Facebook friends, partisan on-lines being drawn. It got ugly.

Now your fingers are tired and you have a hollow feeling inside that even the largest Obama-shaped-pancake-face won’t fill.

How to post in a post-Hurricane Election world.

1. Don’t rush it.
2. The right tweet/photo/status will present itself in time, but you can’t force it.
3. Put your filter back on because the rapid fire sharing of news and experiences that may have made you a Hurricane Sandy star will not do the same moving forward.
4. Imagine, for example, if you treated the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday with the same level of urgency and importance: “The turkey JUST hit the table, but the mashed potatoes aren’t ready, and we’re all out of serving spoons. #DIDSOMEONEFORGETTHECRANBERRYSAUCE?”
5. Nobody wants to see, or read, that.
6. Instead, take a few breaths. Go ahead and eat your turkey. Enjoy it.
7. Take a photo if you must, but – like the bird itself, or a freshly baked pie – let it sit for a bit before posting. Otherwise, if you cut it too soon, all those delicious juices and glorious pie gooeyness will spill out into the dish and be lost forever.
8. Nobody wants a hollow, goo-less liquid mess of a pie for a Facebook friend. And nobody wants to follow your dry turkey ass on Twitter. Regain your composure. Let it cool, and chew carefully so you don’t bite your tongue.
9. Now, as for the election and those of you who voted on the “losing” side, do a few angry push ups and let it go.
10. Hell, “Like” some cute pictures of Bo already and be the bigger (wo)man.
11. If you start to swell up with the desire to post an angry retaliation comment, try and look on the bright side – at least now Mitt Romney can finally blink.
12. As for Sandy, if you were in the blasé bunch posting pictures of yourselves outside chugging beers in Battery Park until Sandy o’clock, tweeting “Hurricane Blackout here I – ” until you lost power and ate nothing but your unrefrigerated words for the next five days, now would be a good time to start posting some links to Red Cross relief efforts.
13. Make amends with the big guys (at the weather station) before the next nor’easter rolls in.
14. The hidden benefit of taking some time is that you may even give the illusion, whether it’s true or not, that you do in fact have a life.
15. So, go for a walk or something. Read anything that doesn’t require charging, downloading, or sharing. If you do feel the need to share, do it in person. You’ll be amazed at how quickly – or alarmingly slowly – live human interaction comes back to you.
16. Whatever you do, do not post about that empty feeling in the post-Hurricane Election social media lull. That is, unless you’re under the age of fifteen – in that case, convince your parents to take that Thanksgiving Caribbean Cruise, get yourself some cornrows, and start posting!

When I started this piece I found myself writing the same story everyone else has about the emergence of President Clinton as the star of the 2012 election cycle. His incredible Democratic convention speech made the arguments on behalf of President Obama better than the candidate himself – leaving pundits speechless and the party faithful hungry for more. And by cleverly extending his speech into the local evening news, he grabbed millions of viewers otherwise disinterested in politics.

The Obama cultivation and inclusion of Clinton in his reelection effort is no real surprise. Recent polling shows that 68 percent of Americans view Clinton favorably – 18 points higher than President Obama and more than 50 points higher than Congress. President Clinton oversaw the greatest economic expansion in recent history, creating 22 million jobs under his watch. But it’s not just his record that is appealing. Democrats appreciate the Clintons more in hindsight because they remember not only his ability to connect with voters, and enthusiasm for the Party faithful – but also his political acumen. Everyone misses the old days, when no one was above a good partisan fight, but politics wasn’t nasty or mean.

If Obama’s embrace of President Clinton is inherently logical, the opposite could be said about Mitt Romney. At first glance, it is stunning to think that the GOP nominee would ever see any advantage in playing up Clinton. But it was the best option he had.

While the GOP faithful still hold President Ronald Reagan in the highest esteem–and Mitt Romney referred to Reagan during the GOP primary–Reagan’s presidency was almost 25 years ago. A nice chunk of the electorate just isn’t familiar with Reagan, and think of him more as an historical figure rather than relevant to the politics of today. So while invoking Reagan might work with seniors, Reagan is not a useful standard-bearer for the voters Romney needed to reach.

Of course, Mitt Romney’s campaign also knew they couldn’t associate with President George W. Bush — the person most Americans still believe wrecked our economy and got us entangled in an unnecessary war in Iraq that cost us dearly in both lives and monies. Romney has gone out of his way not to discuss George W. Bush, and Romney is quick to change the subject if the Bush Presidency comes up.

So that left Clinton as the ‘go to’ guy. Romney may have made the calculation that Obama and Clinton had too much baggage between them to ever join forces. He was wrong.

I also believe that Romney may see much in common with President Clinton: a former governor with a focus on creating jobs; a politician who worked across the aisle when necessary, and a politician who believes he can triangulate himself in the model of Clinton. The Clinton association for Romney is about appealing to the middle, about beginning perceived as moderate. But here’s where Romney miscalculated.

The politics of the Great Recession are very different than in the Clinton era. In our hyper-partisan, Internet-fueled news cycle, Romney’s attempts to grab the middle just aren’t credible. Voters are paying more attention to the details than ever before. In the Bush years, they felt they were sold a false bill of goods – and they are now sensitive to Romney’s blatant flip-flops, like claiming credit for the auto bailout and now supportive of leaving Afghanistan in 2014 — that are spin rather than moderation.

We are now days way from determining the next President of the Untied States, and this is arguable an even more important election than 4 years ago.  We have two very different choices for president with very different ideas about government.

While both candidates have tried to associate themselves with President Clinton, only one can do so with credibility. There is a reason Bill Clinton is happily packing his schedule full of events to help re-elect President Obama, which I’m certain Clinton is enjoying. He knows that America cannot afford a President who says one thing, but will do another.  We had 8 years of that recipe and it was a disaster.

I know Bill Clinton, and Mitt Romney is no Bill Clinton. And the good news is the American people know it too.

Most recently, Clyde Williams was a congressional candidate for CD 13.  He served as National Political Director at the Democratic National Committee under President Barack Obama, Domestic Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton, a Vice President at the Center for American Progress, and as Deputy Chief of Staff of the U S Department of Agriculture. You can follow him on Facebook@clydewilliams2012, on twitter@clyde2012.

By Dan Rivoli and Allen Houston

While Republicans made a political comeback around the country, New York State Democrats fared relatively well. Andrew Cuomo is now Governor-elect, Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand trounced their GOP opponents and Tom DiNapoli held on to the State Comptroller seat.

Future New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo had a meeting Nov. 13, where they discussed all of the things that were taking place in the AG’s office right now. Photo by Daniel S. Burnstein

And with Eric Schneiderman soon to be sworn in as the next attorney general, Upper West Siders were able to elect one of their own to statewide office.

Schneiderman held his first press conference with Cuomo Nov. 13 to discuss how the pair would work together going forward.

“We had our first conversation today and I’m looking forward to many more,” Schneiderman told Cuomo, during a gathering after their meeting. “And as someone who is going to be representing you for a long time, I’m very pleased to see how circumspect you are.”

Schneiderman said that the two talked about all of the things that are currently taking place in the attorney general’s office, as well as the historic role that the office has played throughout New York’s history.

“I intend to work with the governor and to build on his great work,” he said. “Obviously we face significant challenges in this state right now.”

The governor-elect danced around whether he would give Schneiderman any special “executive order powers” to help him battle public corruption and clean up Wall Street.

“That’s something we will talk about going forward,” he said.

Cuomo said that a comprehensive reform package passed by state lawmakers would be a much better tool for taking on Albany, rather than any obscure provisos that he could give to the attorney general.

“The best way to do this is not by a bunch of hodge-podge efforts but by a piece of legislation, passed by the state legislature,” he said. “Everyone who ran said that they were running to clean up Albany, and now they have to do it.”

The governor-elect and the future attorney general agreed that Khalid-Sheik Mohammed, alleged 9/11 mastermind, shouldn’t be tried in New York, though they offered no ideas on another venue.

“I’m against it. Period,” Cuomo said. “Not in New York. Not in New York.”

Added Schneiderman: “I’ve previously said that it shouldn’t happen in New York City.”

He added that the trial shouldn’t take place elsewhere in the state, either.

While they have that in common, the two campaigned under completely separate styles. Cuomo portrayed himself as a fiscal conservative and Schneiderman campaigned as progressive, said Mark Landis, a local Democratic district leader and lawyer.

“He put out a progressive campaign message throughout the primary,” Landis said. “But it was also a pragmatic progressive message… realizing an attorney general is not a chief prosecutor but a chief lawyer for a variety of interests for the people of this state.”

One of his early campaign messages highlighted his work as counsel to the nonprofit West Side Crime Prevention Program. The ad delighted Marjorie Cohen, the nonprofit’s director.

“I’m very proud of the connection to the beginning of his community activism,” Cohen said.

Joan Paylo, a district leader for Schneiderman’s home club Community Free Democrats, said that Schneiderman would have to be front and center when attorneys general from other states tackle national issues.

“Our hometown guy can put that on his shoulders,” Paylo said, “and run with it.”

By Dan Rivoli

Rep. Jerrold Nadler may have won re-election to his Upper West Side-based district with a lopsided 75 percent of the vote. But the “shellacking”—in the words of President Barack Obama—Democrats took on Election Day throughout the country sent Nadler back to a familiar place: the House minority.

Most of Nadler’s career in the House has been spent in the minority, save for the first two years of his tenure after being elected in 1992 and the four years since Democrats took over Congress in 2006.

In a post-election interview with the West Side Spirit, the nine-term lawmaker discussed his work chairing a committee on constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, legislative achievements, funding for New York and his agenda for his 10th term.

Nadler focused on reacting to recent Supreme Court decisions, such as co-sponsoring the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law that increases opportunities to remedy pay discrimination, or a bipartisan effort to amend the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As the outgoing chair of the judiciary subcommittee, Nadler said he is likely to see his national security legislation scuttled. He was working on a State Secrets Act, which would limit the president’s ability to cite the protection of state secrets in cases against the government.

“That probably won’t go anywhere now,” Nadler said.

During his time as the highest-ranking Democrat on his civil liberties committee, Nadler said he spent his time fighting Republican proposals to “attack” a woman’s right to choose and rights for gays and lesbians.

“I was the main line of defense on that,” Nadler said. “I probably will revert to being the first line of defense against crazy proposals.”

In addition to his civil liberties work, Nadler is a senior northeast Democrat on the transportation committee, responsible for securing transit funding for the region.

Nadler hopes that a $450 billion transportation reauthorization bill can pass, but is wary that there will be additional funds for other projects.

“[That] is the minimum we have to spend over that time period to keep the roads, highways, bridges [and] mass transit [in] a decent state of safety and repair,” Nadler said, “without even talking about any major new initiatives.”

Nadler criticized Republicans’ promised cuts in spending—save for entitlement programs and defense.

“It’ll gut the housing programs, the education programs, transportation—you name it,” Nadler said. “We will feel very hurt by it in a myriad of ways.”

As a critic of the war in Afghanistan, Nadler believes that the new Congress will be more sympathetic to the Obama Administration’s goals.

“Let their 35-year civil war continue if they want to. We can’t solve that civil war for them,” Nadler said. “I think that view is going to have less sympathy in a Republican Congress, than it did previously.”

Nadler, in explaining the massive loss of Democrats this election, believes that unemployment was still high for the voters. The unemployment rate, Nadler said, would have decreased with a larger stimulus bill. One amendment he introduced out of principle, he said, would have increased each figure in the stimulus bill by 75 percent.

The other reason for Democrats’ loss, he said, was political.

“I do think the president should have used the bully pulpit to explain why we needed more stimulus,” Nadler said, “and to blast the Republicans when they kept blocking more stimulus.”

For the next two years, Republicans will set the agenda Nadler and other Democrats will abide. But he believes some of his priorities will help stimulate an economy in recovery.

“I hope we’re going to try to do things to stimulate the economy somewhat, such as the transportation bill,” Nadler said. “We can do other things such as extend the unemployment insurance.”

By Alan S. Chartock

If there is a single thing we saw in this year’s election cycle, it is the futility of incredibly long campaigns that last, sometimes, for years. Some may argue the point, saying that you have to “stage” an election and that the millions of dollars and huge numbers of hours that are devoted to the campaigns pay dividends. To counter that idea, consider the possibility that voters are really not all that stupid and sometimes actually know what they want. In this case, they didn’t make up their minds until the very last week of the campaign. They are even able to decide which of the lesser of two evils they are willing to put up with. Andrew Cuomo was a central figure throughout the process. Carl Paladino self-destructed and lost his angry edge when he went too far. Still, despite his gaffes and considering all the tabloid attacks in the New York Post and the Daily News, he did extraordinarily well, proving that homophobia and racism still sell.

Cuomo must have had an awful lot of people thinking about him with reservations. I suspect that part of the reason why Republican Comptroller candidate Harry Wilson and Republican Attorney General hopeful Dan Donovan did so well, closing like crazy at the end of the election cycle, was that people wanted someone looking over Andrew’s shoulder. Nor was Cuomo particularly helpful to either Democratic Attorney General candidate Schneiderman or incumbent Democratic Comptroller Tom DiNapoli. At least one insider suggested to me that Andrew wants in with the millionaires club—Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg and Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman—in order to move on to the presidency.

The races for District Attorney and Comptroller told us a lot about voter attitudes. I sat on a panel of questioners for one of the debates between Dan Donovan, the Republican District Attorney from Staten Island, and Eric Schneiderman, the brilliant lawyer and State Senator. Schneiderman had an expansive view of the DA’s office; he would continue in the tradition of Andrew Cuomo, whom he called the “Sheriff of Wall Street” (that was actually Spitzer’s title). Schneiderman was endorsed by the New York Times, and Donovan by the New York Post. Harry Wilson, the Republican candidate for Comptroller, was endorsed by most of the major editorial boards. With all that going against him, it was extraordinary that Tom DiNapoli, a very nice man, did as well as he did. His opponents tried their best to tie him to the disgraced Alan Hevesi and to Speaker Sheldon Silver who appointed him to a thankless job in a time of lean when all pension funds took a major hit. The degree of momentum Wilson had going for him toward the end was fascinating because almost no one knew who he was.

One didn’t need a crystal ball to see what happened in the State Senate coming. The unhappy and frustrated voters of Long Island and Westchester threw out the Democrats in the last election cycle. The momentum continued in this election. There were enough marginal Senate Democrats to make a difference this contest. It didn’t help the Democrats that their performance has been terrible since they took control two years ago. It was as if they were taking instructions from “Loser Central.” The middle-class voters didn’t trust them and they only have themselves to blame for their problems.

As one friend put it, “They were like kids in a candy store, stealing everything that wasn’t nailed down.” I responded, “More like thugs in a candy store.”

The fact that State Inspector General Joe Fisch came out with a blockbuster report damning the way in which the big Aqueduct gambling contract was awarded didn’t help inspire any appreciation for them. Senate Republican Leader Dean Skelos had to have been kneeling by his bed, praying, “Dear God, please let these people keep behaving as badly as they are.”

People took a long time to make up their minds, but in the end, they tried to balance their bets. Unfortunately, my bet is that nobody learns anything from what we’ve just seen.
_
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

Most of the races West Siders will be voting for are foregone conclusions.

Democrats are expected to trounce their Republican opponents in the two Senate races and Andrew Cuomo is a lock for governor. Locally, state legislators will walk into a new two-year term.

There are nearly a hundred heated House races throughout the country that will decide which party controls Congress. But West Side Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Charlie Rangel are safe bets.

Still, Upper West Side voters lived up to their reputation and came to the polls. Home to the most loyal of Democratic voters, a good turnout could only help Eric Schneiderman, the liberal Upper West Side state senator locked in a tight race for attorney general, and State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, who faces a strong challenge from Republican Harry Wilson. (West Side Spirit went to press before election night results were announced.)

A poll worker outside of P.S. 87 on West 78th Street between Amsterdam and Columbus avenues said additional hands were called in to help with the higher than usual turn out for the morning, lunch time and evening rush.

“You expect a big turnout for what we call a major election,” said Council Senior Center volunteer Florence Kohn, referring to the 2008 presidential race. “I think we have a pretty good turnout.”

Kohn, who quoted the adage that those who don’t voting can’t complain, said she was dedicated to getting out the vote for her favorite candidates. She did, however, have choice words for Carl Paladino, the Republican gubernatorial nominee that she and other West Side voters would not mention by name.

“It’s offensive to even have someone like that on the ballot,” Kohn said.

In a city where Democrats rarely have competitive general elections, there were Upper West Side voters that wanted to show their support for progressivism.

Richard Levenson said it was important to vote against the conservative Tea Party activists and Paladino, “the great ‘genius’ from Buffalo.” Levenson voted straight down the Working Families Party line, which cross-endorsed Democrats this year.

“I like to vote for the liberal left-leaning party,” Levenson said.

Despite being a tenant lawyer who likes “rent to be low,” Levenson opted for Cuomo over the Rent Is Too Damn High Party’s candidate for governor, Jimmy McMillan.

But there was more on the line this election day than just the election of candidates. This is the second time New Yorkers used new scanning machines that read paper ballots marked by voters.

The new voting method had a rocky debut during the Sept. 14 primary as machines broke down, malfunctioned or jammed with a paper ballot. Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the primary day operation a “royal screw up” that was “unacceptable.”

But there were some reoccurring complaints about the ballot this year.

“It’s not laid out particularly well,” said Peter Chapin, who had voted at P.S. 87. “The type is too small.”

But Sally Cohen called the paper ballot and the electronic scanning machine the “best of both worlds.”

“It’s worked beautifully today,” Cohen said. “I know the primaries had problems.”

Though Cohen said that the candidates she voted for are on track to winning Nov. 2, she wants a high turnout on the West Side.

“The more noise we can make,” Cohen said, “the better.”

CUNY launched a voting drive aimed at battling apathy among young voters and students.

CUNY students are encouraged to wear their school’s colors and apparel to the polls. The university system got Barnes & Noble to give students a 25 percent discount on collegiate apparel to help. Campus stores are giving out “CUNY VOTES” buttons every day until the election. Faculty members have been recruited to encourage students to vote Nov. 2.

Assembly Member Daniel O’Donnell has no Republican challenger for his Upper West Side seat for the Nov. 2 election. But he nonetheless opened campaign headquarters in his district to help fellow Democrats in competitive statewide races.

On one of the final Sundays before the election, O’Donnell held an open house at the 940 Amsterdam Ave. storefront to attract new activists to drive voter turnout in what is expected to be a tough year for his party.

About four dozen people listened to O’Donnell and Rep. Charles Rangel of Harlem stress the importance of the upcoming election before volunteers got back to work later in the day.

“If you are a person in this nation and you work for a living, you need to get Democrats elected,” O’Donnell said.

Rangel said he was confident that his party would hold on to both houses of Congress, although polling suggests Republicans are likely to take control of the House.

“If common sense had anything to do with it we would not even be threatened,” Rangel said.

Volunteers at the headquarters said they had recently spent much of their time on the phones and knocking on doors for attorney general candidate and hometown favorite Eric Schneiderman, an Upper West Side state senator, and Rep. John Hall, who represents the Congressional district in the Hudson Valley.

Schneiderman is competing with Republican Staten Island District Attorney Dan Donovan in a close race for the position now held by Andrew Cuomo, the heavy favorite to be governor. Hall, meanwhile, is in a dead heat with Republican ophthalmologist Nan Hayworth, whose personal wealth Democrats at the open house said could complicate things.

Cynthia Doty, an Upper West Side Democratic district leader and member of Three Parks Independent Democrats, said local activists who had “adopted” Hall would provide a valuable boost to his campaign.

“We helped him win four years ago,” she said. “He won a primary he wasn’t expected to win.”

Doty said Hall’s current race is “very tight” but that she thinks the candidate will prevail.

O’Donnell said Democrats also have their eyes on the state comptroller race, in which Democrat Tom DiNapoli faces Republican businessman Harry Wilson. Recent polls show DiNapoli in the lead, but Wilson has received major newspaper endorsements.

Daniel Cohen, a recently elected state committee member, said a strong turnout in the city could be the key to winning closely contested races.

“We need to ramp up turnout downstate to offset more conservative turnout in upstate New York,” he said.

Rangel is expected to comfortably win his reelection bid against Republican and former professional football player Michael Faulkner. However, Rangel must stand on trial before Congress Nov. 15, for allegations of House ethics violations.

During his speech, Rangel briefly referred to the controversy, thanking local Democrats for their help in “breaking up fears brought by the papers.”

Later, Rangel called the allegations “irrational” and said, “The people are saying, ‘I trust Rangel.’ That’s step one.”

In fact, the Department of Sanitation makes phone calls and sends letters to every campaign office prior to active campaigning informing them that “postering” is illegal. So political candidates and their campaign managers and staff who claim they are not aware that “postering” is unlawful are at best disingenuous, and at worst blatantly dishonest.

Nor is this a case of First Amendment rights: “free speech” (or in this case advertising) does not trump sanitation. Political candidates have many avenues for campaigning and politicking. They can appear in person any place where constituents gather. Their staff can set up tables, distribute literature or sell buttons, or ask potential voters to sign petitions. Candidates can write positions papers and have them published in the press. They can buy ad space in newspapers, on radio and television, and appear on broadcast programs. They can (and do) inundate the public with direct mailings. And, of course, they can use the Internet with websites and email—probably the most cost effective and modern way to reach a wide audience.

Campaign posters tell a voter very little. They seem to be made for name recognition only, but very few people will actually make the decision to vote for someone based simply on seeing a poster. In fact, estimates show that campaign posters account for, at best, one or two percent of votes. Given how heavily some candidates poster, and the costs of printing, using posters does not show much financial savvy on the part of campaign managers. Nor do political candidates and their campaign managers apparently take into account how negatively the litter affects many voters—thus possibly costing these candidates more votes than the posters create.

The most ironic aspect of campaign postering is that most candidates run for public offices where making, modifying and/or enforcing laws is the primary function. Yet these same candidates knowingly and deliberately break the law in order to get elected!

So when you see someone removing a campaign poster—and anyone has the legal right to do so—don’t make the assumption that they work for another candidate. Rather, it’s more likely that one of your neighbors is trying to keep the neighborhood clean—and the candidates honest.

–
Sam Katz and Ian Alterman are the president and vice president, respectively, of the 20th Precinct Community Council.