The Gate/Domestic Partner clan solemnly remembered Memorial Day by helping six-year old Dybbuk construct a diorama memorializing his early childhood walk to the Kane Street Synagogue pre-school, and then drinking far too much at a barbeque attended mostly by natives and foreign stock from Poland, Israel, Sweden, Japan, Korea and Arizona, thrown by the family of Dybbuk‘s fiancé (yes, it is an arranged marriage; Dybbuk arranged it himself. He plans on buying the house across the street with the proceeds from his fishing fleet and living there happily with his wife and his daughter Pebbles).
Dybbuk put me to sleep at 9:30 after reading me a story from “Diary of a Wimpy Kid,” and went downstairs to watch the season finale of “In Treatment” while Domestic Partner sat at the computer playing “Club Penguin.”
At least, that’s how I remember it.
I awoke at 1:59 AM, dry-mouthed in a cold sweat, wracked with guilt for reminding a new Facebook friend of our experience dating in High School, thereby laying to waste both years of analysis (with a shrink who looked more like David Byrne than Gabriel), and the good works of the local Chabad House.
Then it hit me. I must prove I was right about Steve Harrison’s electability. I got up and went to the computer.
I must stop making those Gazpacho Bloody Marys.
Back in November of 2007, I published Riders of the Lost Cause (Starring Harrison Fraud), a piece which argued the unelectability of the former conservative Democrat from Bay Ridge who had evolved into the cause celebre of the NYC left. I argued that virtually any Staten Islander would be a better candidate, but even failing that, a Brooklynite who could actually raise money would be preferable. And, I backed it up with actual election statistics proving Harrison’s weakness.
The response was furious. The Piece was removed from its co-posting on The Daily Gotham. Left-Bloggers, like Michael Bouldin, who later called Dan Squadron’s 54-46 victory again Marty Connor “a landslide,” couldn’t say enough about how the “close” 57-43” defeat Harrison had suffered for the seat in 2006 proved he was the best prospect for sure victory in 2008, even though Harrison had previously had the coattails of a Spitzer landslide (which he trailed by over 20%), while the 2008 candidate was probably going to have to run ahead of some Democratic Presidential candidate who was losing the district (which Hillary had done against Rick Lazio, and which Obama eventually did, though by a smaller than expected margin, probably owing to the fact that he’d benefited from his name ending in a vowel).
Yes, they said, Harrison had lost in 2006, but they had a ready explanation:
Rosalie907 (11/18/2007): Your post is from the Recchia/Lopez songbook and doesn't hold water…You know, had Steve [Harrison] gotten support from Recchia and Lopez in 2006 he would now be in Congress. Ironic isn't it, Dom and Lopez wouldn't help him with Gravesend and Bensonhurst and he lost those 2 neighborhoods.
Mole333 (11/19/2007): Harrison's biggest mistake last time around (other than starting late, which he already has learned from and corrected) was not shoring up his Brooklyn support. He did better than Barbaro in SI and worse in Brooklyn. With an earlier start, more money and a learned lesson, he can build on the name recognition he made last time.
If they’d actually read the piece, they’d have known their assertions were practically a mathematical impossibility. Harrison would have needed about 80% in Brooklyn to win with the same turnout, or, in the alternative, he would had had to raise turnout enough to more than double his Brooklyn numbers, which wasn't going to happen, even if he were running against Charles Barron.
True, in 2008, with Staten Island Councilman Mike McMahon as the nominee, the Brooklyn machine did make such an effort and the Democratic vote for Congress vote was doubled. While I’m sure Vito Lopez and Dominic Recchia would be happy to take the credit Rosalie would surely ascribe to them, it should be noted that a more plausible explanation for the increase in turnout might have been that it was a Presidential year, and turnout rose similarly everywhere.
Nonetheless, I think I owe it to Rosie and Moley to put their theory to the test.
In 2006, Steve Harrison received 32,125 votes on Staten Island and Vito Fossella received 45,850. Since the Lopez-Recchia betrayal theory is based upon the idea that real effort in Brooklyn by the county organization would have alone changed the results, we will leave those numbers be.
In 2006, Harrison received 13,006 votes in Brooklyn and Fossella 13,484. But in 2006, Mike McMahon got 26, 411 and his Republican opponents, Bob Straniere, got only 13, 549.
It should be noted that, unlike Fossella, Straniere was not the nominee of the Conservative and Independence parties, whose candidates accounted for 3,324 Brooklyn votes in 2008. Since we are already ascribing to Lopez and Recchia the power to raise Democratic turnout to Presidential year levels solely based upon their influence in Bensonhurst and Gravesend, I suppose it would not also be unrealistic in such a context to grant them the power to posthumously strip Fossella of his 2006 Conservative and Independence Party endorsements in the Brooklyn portion of the district as well, rather than ascribing the 2008 votes on those lines to Fossella. After all, I want to give Rosie and Mole’s assertions every fair opportunity to be proven correct.
Anyway, here are the results. If Vito Lopez and Dominic Recchia somehow miraculously managed to more than double Harrison’s 2006 Brooklyn vote, so that it reached the level that Mike McMahon reached in 2008, and we held Fossella to his 2006 Brooklyn performance level, Harrison would have gotten 58, 536 votes, and Fossella 59,334. In others words, no effort by organization Democrats on behalf of Harrison’s 2006 campaign could have elected him to Congress that year.
Rosie, who once denounced McMahon as a DINO, was last heard ascribing McMahon’s very high Party Unity Scores to the fact that he follows the dictates of the House Democratic Leadership.
But wasn‘t that the point in choosing the most electable Democrat?