Paterson’s “Realistic” Exit Has Democrats Sighing With Relief

Paterson’s “Realistic” Exit Has Democrats Sighing With Relief

Paterson’s “Realistic” Exit Has Democrats Sighing With Relief

Weak New York governor’s decision strengthens party’s hand in 2010 election and 2011 redistricting fights.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

The decision of embattled New York Governor David Paterson to quit his bid for a full term is exceptionally good news for Democrats–not just in New York but nationally.

Rocked by scandals, including the recent revelation that he had personally meddled in a domestic violence dispute involving a top aide, the governor decided to drop his 2010 bid–although, according in the he will not resign the governorship.

"I am being realistic about politics," Paterson explained. "Today I am announcing that I am ending my campaign for governor of the state of New York."

This is a personal tragedy for Paterson, who has struggled personally and politically since assuming the governorship of former Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was forced to resign after getting wrapped up in a prostitution scandal.

It is, as well, a tragedy for the Paterson family, which had been at the forefront of New York Democratic politics since the current governor’s father, Basil, was one of the first African-Americans to earn a top spot on a statewide ticket in the country. (Basil Paterson was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 1970 and served as New York Secretary of State. He remains an epic, and active, figure in New York labor, civil rights and political circles.)

Just about everyone in New York Democratic politics would have liked to see Basil Paterson’s son make a success of the state’s top job. But his tenure has been plagued by budget crises, political stumbles and personal conflicts. And his decision to seek a full term unsettled Democrats who may have liked the governor personally but did not like his prospects politically.

Thus, for New York Democrats–who faced the prospect of a bruising primary fight between Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, which might in turn have weakened the eventual Democratic nominee in what is shaping up as a tough year for Democrats in every state–Paterson’s exit is anything but a tragedy.

Cuomo, the son of former Governor Mario Cuomo, is well positioned to make the gubernatorial run, with good prospects of winning the primary and general election.

That’s important for Democrats in New York because, though New York is a blue state, it has a history of electing Republicans to the governorship–especially in years when national trends favor the GOP. Having a strong candidate at the top of the ticket should benefit Democratic prospects in the race to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s old U.S. Senate seat (where appointed incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand could face tough primary and general election challenges) and a number of marginal House seats where recently-elected Democrats will struggle this year to retain formerly Republican seats.

Perhaps, most importantly, a strong showing for New York Democrats in 2010 will put them in a good position when it comes time to redrawing congressional districts in a state where redistricting has historically provoked bitter partisan wrangling.

The 2010 gubernatorial races–as well as state legislative contests–will define the direction of redistricting nationally. And the drawing of district lines remains the most definitional force in our politics, even more meaningful than money or the personal appeal of particular candidates.

In the absence of the sort of redistricting reform that would foster honest competition — as opposed to the current system that allows politicians to use the map-drawing process to reduce and even eliminate competition in some states — it matters who controls the statehouse when fresh census figures arrive. And it matters particularly in New York state, where Democrats have in recent years claimed a half dozen suburban and upstate seats that used to be considered reliably Republican. Many of those districts remain highly competitive and the redistricting process could well determine whether they tip to one party or the other.

With national Democrats worrying more and more about not just the 2010 election cycle but the redistricting fights of 2011 in key states such as New York, Paterson’s exit will inspire some sadness for an overwhelmed man and his family. But there will, as well, be a great sigh of relief at the news that their prospects for retaining the upper hand in New York politics have just improved–dramatically.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x