Incumbency has long been a virtual guarantee of re-election in New York City. In 2005, only one incumbent, the ever-quirky Allan Jennings of Queens, tried for another term and lost.
Could this year be different? While most New Yorkers are not closing following the city primary — and those who are watching the citywide contests and the Manhattan district attorney race — the defeat of incumbents could be the other story of this election.
As Courtney Gross reported in Gotham Gazette early this year, many challengers, who planned to run before the extension of term limits, expecting a race for an open seat, have stayed in their races, challenging the incumbent. “Term limits may not have truncated the 09 race, but provided ammunition for it,” Courtney wrote.
Some eight seats are open, with the winner uncertain in most of them. On top of that, in 24 districts, one or more candidates hope to pull off that rare feat in New York and knock off an incumbent.
Undoubtedly most will fail. And some dont seem very serious. (in keeping with GG policy, we’re not going to name names here), but looking at lists of incumbents who have lost backing from some unions, the Working Families Party, Citizens Union, the New York Times and the Daily News, among other, we would not be surprised to see four to eight incumbents go down. (To find out if this happens, go to Gotham Gazette’s election results page.)
Some could be brought down by ties to the slush fund scandal, some by anger over the extension of term limits, some by ineptitude. Some might even deserve to keep their jobs.
Whatever the reason, if this comes to pass, it could mean that New Yorkers have finally found a way, along with term limits, to get rid of politicians they don’t like — the voting booth.
By Gail Robinson on September 15, 2009, 5:37 pm
In category:
City Hall,
Electoral Politics,
Gotham City,
Governing | No Comments »
RSS Feed