Rangel for Eliot
Eliot's team isn't waiting to hear Tom's announcement on Saturday.
Eliot and David Paterson will get Charlie Rangel's endorsement at his office tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Then, while Tom makes some kind of announcement on Saturday, Eliot will be attending a breakfast in Boro Park, courtesy of Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, according to a source. The event will be free to attend, according to this source.
With $19 million in the bank, money doesn't seem to be Eliot's main concern. Maybe the world's smartest man is thinking of something else.
Update: Eliot's campaign sends word they're not having a public event this Saturday, especially in Boro Park. It's shabbas. --Azi Paybarah
Why does a smart law enforcement type like Eliot go to Sharpton events and seek the endorsement of a Hikind. Both use their constituents frustration to bait other ethnics and have had serious ethical questions raised about their financial improprieties. Perhaps the AG should be investigating them.
Friday's Crain's Insider will have the correct day for the Hikind-Spitzer breakfast at 4901 12th Ave in Borough Park (apologies for the plug!).
As for a potential endorsement from Hikind, Spitzer seems to be pursuing endorsements the way Andy Stein used to. The problem being that the more endorsements Stein collected, the worse he did every election until he was utterly finished as a public official in NYC. Not saying that will happen to Spitzer, but it does seem to be a strategy he doesn't need.
The event is on Sunday morning. Duh.
So no good Christians can go then, eh? Nice.
No, that's another event...
I doubt Hikind is endorsing this early, especially on a Sunday morning. The cynic in me wants to say that he's buying time. Anyhow, Hikind seems to have lost his touch and relevancy - he endorsed Diane Savino who lost his AD, and backed Sampson for DA. (Although he did endorse Bloomberg, but that was a no-brainer.)
But Savino won the election so did it really matter that she lost his AD?
That's pretty funny anonymous. So what you're saying is: it doesn't matter that Hikind's endorsement carries no weight in his community because the candidate won without his help? Regardless, in Hikind's conservative district Suozzi could have some appeal. He could endorse Spitzer but many in his community will still vote for the conservative Suozzi.
Hikind has lost most of his juice. Bloomberg got the same percentage of the vote in the 48th AD in 2005 as he did in 2001 but had a much lower vote total by about 6000 votes. So in truth Bloomberg did better on Dov's turf in 2001 when Hikind endorsed Mark Green!!!
Most of Boro Park will not vote for Spitzer. It doesn't matter much what Dov says.
Diane Savino didn't just lose Dov's district with his endorsement. She got crushed in Boro Park. She got less than 30% of the vote. Dov didn't pull out many votes for Sampson and Larry Knipel either.
I think some are underestimating Spitzer's appeal in Borough Park and overestimating the effect of ideology in this community. These folks are conservative, but many are investors. And, many others are poor and avail themselves of social services. Plus Spitzer's been working this community's leadership for years.
In the case of Savino and Green, Hikind was mouthing the words but not dancing to the music, and there was much money and power attached to the other side. In the cases of Sampson, there was an opponent with his own history in the community (and other obvious factors which I trust need not be mentioned).
In this election there will not be the same countervailing forces. Moreover, this is a community that more than any other desires to be with the winner, and as long as Spitzer continues to look inevitable Borough Park will back him.
Sampson actually did suprisngly well in 48 AD. He ran 2nd, losing to Hynes by by 682 votes. It was Sampson best showing in a predominately White AD (other than 59 AD, which Sampson represents in Senate). So I think Hikind did show some clout.
Jerry: Your point would be even more well taken if you pointed out that in the case of the 59th AD, "predominanly white" means somewhat less than 50%.
Jerry- Let's talk about misleading. there were only 3182 votes cast in the Sampson-Hynes primary. Hynes got 50% and Sampson 28%. 28% is not a very good showing for your candidate if you are the Assemblyman and the district leader. If Hikind is the king in the 48th then Sampson should have won or at least come close. he came nowhere near. and you can't say that Hikind didn't work hard in that one. He advertised heavily that Brooklyn needed Sampson to "end the corruption".
not Jerry, you understimate the race factor. If you compare Sampson's vote to other Black candidates in the past, you have to be impressed. Compare 28% to the 12% Sampson received in neighboring 47 AD & 15% in next door 49 AD. If Hinkind is responsible for difference between 28% and 12 or 15%, it means he did deliver some votes.
azi the blogger: slow down! you make too many mistakes
Jerry- Dov must be well worth his price. I will admit to you that Dov delivered between 100 and 200 votes for Sampson. That is great. Only a political genius such as yourself can appreciate the value of those 100 votes. Dov is really a player.
If Sampson got 14% of the vote in 48 AD rather than 28%, that would be closer to a 500 vote difference. Was there another local politician in Brooklyn whose endorsement moved more voters?
Wow. An elected official can move five hundred votes! The satmar hasidim can move thousands, al sharpton can move tens of thousands, the great dov hikind can move 500 votes!!! Suozzi must be shaking in his boots from this influential endorsement.
(He could endorse Spitzer but many in his community will still vote for the conservative Suozzi.)
What makes Suozzi a "conservative?" And what does this (or for that matter "liberal") really mean to anyone for whom it is not a tribal affiliation?
The operative, bi-partisan politicial philosophy in New York is feudalism. Under capitalism you get what you earn, at least in theory, under socialism you get what you need, at least in theory.
In New York State those with particularly good deals keep them in bad times and get more in good times, while everyone else is lucky to break even. What you get depends on what you got, protected by the perpetual incumbents in Albany.
You could study all this in a library, while drawing your inflation-adjusted pension, except the the library is probably only open a few hours a day five days a week. And once the real estate boom is over, those hours will once again be going down.
Hikind did not endorse Mark Green in 2001. He endorsed Alan Hevesi in the primary and then remained neutral in the runoff and the general. It was Noach Dear who endorsed Green after having supported Peter Vallone in the primary
Enquist you are a fool. go get ann her coffee.
Hikind's endorsement is ridiculously overrated and has been for years. He loves to jerk candidates around for it, making huge demands all the way and playing them for fools. The assumption that even the 500 votes should be attributed to him is unsupported. Of course, some people have their own reasons for wanting to puff him up.
4:03, or should I say, Greg David - you are the fool So go get alair her coffee.
Why doesn't someone in the Brooklyn Democratic Party have the guts to say Al Sharpton is a race baiter and Jew hater. No Democrat will capture Albany if they continue to let Rev. Al make a shambles of the Democrats.
Running off with your secretary isnt good for your image, either Al.