Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Election results, surveys clarify one’s mind
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
Mahattanites and particularly East Midtowners are not dogmatic people, we are issue-oriented. This personal conclusion, recently supported by a post-election think piece in the NYTimes, was somewhat jolted by the 2006 election results. It seems that Manhattan’s eight NYS Assembly districts voted Democratic at an uniform rate of 87 to 92%, with two notable exceptions, one in our 74th AD, where Brian Cavanagh received 75% of votes. But that is explained by the former Assemblyperson Sylvia Frieddman’s run on the Working Families ticket. Add her 13%, and you are back in the comfortable 88/12% local Democratic range.
If you are wondering how the rest of NYC voted, it was all Democratic, with the 11 ADs of the Bronx even higher than Manhattan (one exception , Naomi Rivera’s 80th AD at 70%). Brooklyn’s 19 ADs were equally high, only three reporting in the 70% range, ditto three of the six Queens ADs. Staten Island had two of the three districts in the lower range, one at 52%. The six Manhattan State Senate Democratic seats were safe for the Democrats, in our area Thomas Duane’s 29th SD at 88% and Liz Krueger’s 26th at 79%.
Does all this mean that New Yorkers are real yellow-dog dogmatic Democrats? I should think not, seeing the consistent elections of Republican Mayors, a sign of the public’s determination to maintain a balance; in other words, let each side keep the other honest.
In that case, how did the NYS Comptroller’s race figure, given a Spitzer “clean up the State House” mission? The nearly universally non-endorsed Comptroller Alan Hevesi came in at 57% of the vote statewide, vs. J. Christopher Callaghan’s 39%. Quite definitive, even when compared to the Spitzer/Faso statewide 69/29%, citywide 83/14% and Manhattan-wide 87/10%, and the Clinton/Spencer 67/31, 82/16 and 85/12% ratios. Hevesi is actually even with Andrew Cuomo who came in 58/40% against Jeanine Pirro statewide.
In the Hevesi case we see the non-dogmatic relative values judgment. A lawyer friend, whom you know as the Old Curmudgeon, considers me unprincipled (“just like all you Liberals”) because I refuse to let a Manichean or binary yes/no governing principle dominate, e.g. abortion is/ is not absolutely wrong, gay marriage does/does not absolutely destroy the family concept. I find that he is denying a cardinal gradualist principle of his own chosen profession, as best expressed by William Schwenk Gilbert’s “let the punishment fit the crime,” but I suppose we will argue that forever. But I digress. In the case of Hevesi, the prevailing opinion that swung the voters may have been that there is an overarching social benefit of his governance of the state pension funds, as opposed to the stark contrast of Callaghan’s proposed strict maximizing of return, social investment be blown. It was not just the Spitzer avalanche that carried Hevesi; the Cuomo AG vote was equally low, and his luggage was considerably lighter, although Pirro’s was not.
Back to clarification of one’s mind. A Zogby Survey, arriving via the Internet, is a neat and gentle no-fee shrink session that provides one’s self-evaluation, highlighting one’s denials. The topics range far, and your non-threatening answers show whether the event is most, least or slightly likely/unlikely. After establishing one’s voting range, a series of questions ask whether a woman could be President and whether you could vote for her in certain combinations (ditto for Majority Leader). Religion in governance is approached by establishing how you feel about certain TV kids’ shows, suppressed by the network because their sectarian bases were deemed too narrow. That leads up to evaluating concepts like (but not including) “In God We Trust” and the respondent’s attendance pattern of religious observations. Very mild, non-threatening. I think that in New York, at least, our attitudes toward the Zogby female President question are answered by the closeness of the Manhattan-wide 87/85 and state-wide 68/67 Spitzer/Clinton pattern.
Other surveys (not just Zogby’s) ever since the 2005 elections have asked questions about the respondents’ range of reactions to such topics as the Iraq, Israel and proposed Mideast actions, and the scary domestic dilemmas, abortion and gay marriage. The latter is the most threatening, e.g. questioning whether a non-homophobic heterosexual will accept, say, a gay legislator who probably can devote him/herself very freely to the public obligations, but may have some hang-ups or aggressions due to the perceived or experienced general attitudes, undercurrents that may run counter to those of the midstream voter. Midtown New Yorkers have answered that question, by consistently electing and re-electing gay legislators to city and state legislatures.
So there, once more it is confirmed that we are the best, the brightest – and, I will add, the most giving and the most trusting and forgiving. Pat yourself on the back, a Happy Holiday Season (non-political and non-sectarian) to all readers and friends, winners and losers.
Mahattanites and particularly East Midtowners are not dogmatic people, we are issue-oriented. This personal conclusion, recently supported by a post-election think piece in the NYTimes, was somewhat jolted by the 2006 election results. It seems that Manhattan’s eight NYS Assembly districts voted Democratic at an uniform rate of 87 to 92%, with two notable exceptions, one in our 74th AD, where Brian Cavanagh received 75% of votes. But that is explained by the former Assemblyperson Sylvia Frieddman’s run on the Working Families ticket. Add her 13%, and you are back in the comfortable 88/12% local Democratic range.
If you are wondering how the rest of NYC voted, it was all Democratic, with the 11 ADs of the Bronx even higher than Manhattan (one exception , Naomi Rivera’s 80th AD at 70%). Brooklyn’s 19 ADs were equally high, only three reporting in the 70% range, ditto three of the six Queens ADs. Staten Island had two of the three districts in the lower range, one at 52%. The six Manhattan State Senate Democratic seats were safe for the Democrats, in our area Thomas Duane’s 29th SD at 88% and Liz Krueger’s 26th at 79%.
Does all this mean that New Yorkers are real yellow-dog dogmatic Democrats? I should think not, seeing the consistent elections of Republican Mayors, a sign of the public’s determination to maintain a balance; in other words, let each side keep the other honest.
In that case, how did the NYS Comptroller’s race figure, given a Spitzer “clean up the State House” mission? The nearly universally non-endorsed Comptroller Alan Hevesi came in at 57% of the vote statewide, vs. J. Christopher Callaghan’s 39%. Quite definitive, even when compared to the Spitzer/Faso statewide 69/29%, citywide 83/14% and Manhattan-wide 87/10%, and the Clinton/Spencer 67/31, 82/16 and 85/12% ratios. Hevesi is actually even with Andrew Cuomo who came in 58/40% against Jeanine Pirro statewide.
In the Hevesi case we see the non-dogmatic relative values judgment. A lawyer friend, whom you know as the Old Curmudgeon, considers me unprincipled (“just like all you Liberals”) because I refuse to let a Manichean or binary yes/no governing principle dominate, e.g. abortion is/ is not absolutely wrong, gay marriage does/does not absolutely destroy the family concept. I find that he is denying a cardinal gradualist principle of his own chosen profession, as best expressed by William Schwenk Gilbert’s “let the punishment fit the crime,” but I suppose we will argue that forever. But I digress. In the case of Hevesi, the prevailing opinion that swung the voters may have been that there is an overarching social benefit of his governance of the state pension funds, as opposed to the stark contrast of Callaghan’s proposed strict maximizing of return, social investment be blown. It was not just the Spitzer avalanche that carried Hevesi; the Cuomo AG vote was equally low, and his luggage was considerably lighter, although Pirro’s was not.
Back to clarification of one’s mind. A Zogby Survey, arriving via the Internet, is a neat and gentle no-fee shrink session that provides one’s self-evaluation, highlighting one’s denials. The topics range far, and your non-threatening answers show whether the event is most, least or slightly likely/unlikely. After establishing one’s voting range, a series of questions ask whether a woman could be President and whether you could vote for her in certain combinations (ditto for Majority Leader). Religion in governance is approached by establishing how you feel about certain TV kids’ shows, suppressed by the network because their sectarian bases were deemed too narrow. That leads up to evaluating concepts like (but not including) “In God We Trust” and the respondent’s attendance pattern of religious observations. Very mild, non-threatening. I think that in New York, at least, our attitudes toward the Zogby female President question are answered by the closeness of the Manhattan-wide 87/85 and state-wide 68/67 Spitzer/Clinton pattern.
Other surveys (not just Zogby’s) ever since the 2005 elections have asked questions about the respondents’ range of reactions to such topics as the Iraq, Israel and proposed Mideast actions, and the scary domestic dilemmas, abortion and gay marriage. The latter is the most threatening, e.g. questioning whether a non-homophobic heterosexual will accept, say, a gay legislator who probably can devote him/herself very freely to the public obligations, but may have some hang-ups or aggressions due to the perceived or experienced general attitudes, undercurrents that may run counter to those of the midstream voter. Midtown New Yorkers have answered that question, by consistently electing and re-electing gay legislators to city and state legislatures.
So there, once more it is confirmed that we are the best, the brightest – and, I will add, the most giving and the most trusting and forgiving. Pat yourself on the back, a Happy Holiday Season (non-political and non-sectarian) to all readers and friends, winners and losers.
# posted by Wally Dobelis @ 6:59 AM 
