Corzine mentions Nia Gill, woman for Senate

Go with Gill (0.00 / 0)

I'm not prepared to endorse any one person, but Gill is looking better and better to me. They can't attack her on the machine front and she's obviously appealing to certain core Democratic constituencies. And to be less pragmatic about it, the idea of a solid progressive like Gill representing our state in the U.S. Senate is so exciting.

Out of curiosity, was there anyone talking about Gill publicly before us?

---

by: Scott Shields @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 08:04:56 AM CST

breaking the news about Gill (0.00 / 0)

I've been trying to get so-called 'wildcards' into the discussion since my diary of Oct 27 and mentioned her on Nov 9.  I hadn't seen her name in the press, only the usual suspects, but I wasn't reading the Jersey Journal, in which jmelli found a mention of her yesterday, or scouring the media. She was pretty prominent on stage with Corzine at the victory party. I'm happy to see a more comprehensive discussion going on in the MSM, though the soundbytes including WNYC's of yesterday still rankle (only mentioning the top 2 or 3).  

I agree with Jenny that the 20 pt. lead among women is a good reason to look for a woman, but would be satisfied with a progressive minority too.

---

by: kwilkinson @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 13:25:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not a chance (0.00 / 0)

This is a recipe for disaster. Corzine couldn't possibly be that stupid.

 

---

by: jcwabbit @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 08:42:22 AM CST

i don't know much about her (0.00 / 0)

To answer Scott, we may have broken this news here!

However, naming a woman based on the poll numbers, would be the democratic thing to do.

Wether or not Ms. Gill is the right woman would require a bit more investigation on my part.

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 08:57:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I like what I see (0.00 / 0)

I just read the material on her in the NJ Legislators link (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/gill.asp) and I like what I see.  You can't fault her on credentials (no Harriet Miers here), can't fault her on progressive street cred, and she comes from a densely populated part of the state, which means she has her base of support where it can do her a lot of good by reaching a lot of people in surrounding areas quickly.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 10:11:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Follow the money (0.00 / 0)

I like what I see of Senator Gill, but she doesn't raise money like others do.  She has only $285,000 in her current election cycle, while Ellen Karcher (as long as we are talking about women candidates), for instance, has raised $777,464, which is a boatload of bread for a State Senate race.

I wish Gill had raised that sort of money.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 11:07:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fundraising (0.00 / 0)

In an primary for an open seat, I'd probably agree with you, but while Karcher's definitely outperformed Gill, I don't really think previous fundraising efforts should be given too much weight. No matter who Corzine appoints, the national Dems will jump in and level the playing field -- the DNC and DSCC won't risk losing Jersey. Besides, if appointed, she'll be a sitting Senator, which will instantly improve anyone's fundraising abilities.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 11:43:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

I feel the same way, Scott, but in another thread there has been discussion about how much you can count on national party organizations to help you with dough and it didn't sound very helpful.  I feel it would be better, when you way the factors in increments of good, a little good, a lotta good, and so on, if she raised money more effectively.

Sure, when she runs for the Senate in New Jersey she should be able to get both funding and volunteers from, for instance, the unions.  But again, I wish she had her own significant funding source already established.  That just makes her chances so much more attractive.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 11:56:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fundraising not an issue (0.00 / 0)

Gill represents an overwhelmingly African-American, Democratic district and faces only token GOP opposition, so she doesn't need to raise much money.  If she becomes a sitting (albeit unelected) Senator, the money will flow in.  Corzine (former DSCC Chair) will make sure of that.  The bigger question is, can she beat Little Tom Kean?

---

by: lonemorriscodem @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 13:28:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can we start calling him "Mini Tom" (0.00 / 0)

or would that be mean?

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 13:32:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Re: Not a chance (0.00 / 0)

This is a recipe for disaster. Corzine couldn't possibly be that stupid.

Care to elaborate?

---

by: Scott Shields @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

An elaboration (0.00 / 0)

It doesn't seem very wise to me to run a no-name candidate against one with high name recognition which is what is going to happen next November if it is Gills v Kean.

Being in office for a few months will not give her any appreciable edge. She'd hardly have time to warm the seat before she has to start campaigning again.

Nobody knows her outside her own little corner of the state. Let's face it, our Democratic Congressmen have little enough statewide name recognition; the statehouse crowd has even less.

If you think that picking a black woman for the seat will increase women or minority votes for the party, I think you are wrong. If it's Gills v the super-conservative Kean, where else are they going to go?

The Democrats already have the women's issue voters and the minority rights voters. You are not going to pick up GOP or Independent women or minorities because they are voting GOP for other reasons than sexual or racial identity. You gain nothing and risk losing even more white males and elderly voters who are not ready to vote for a black female.

 

---

by: jcwabbit @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 14:31:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't know about other people, but you have my position wrong (0.00 / 0)

I know I have been talking about picking a woman for the seat, but my main concern has been having someone who wouldmake a great Senator too, someone whom I could support whole-heartedly in the 2006 campaign.

Guess what?  Gill has qualities that certainly make her one of the people I could support whole-heartedly, and her being a woman, whatever the color, is extra nice because it gives the state the chance to break down some barriers and make a statement about equality and opportunity.  But don't get me wrong:  I want a strong candidate.  The strength of her resume, however, is the most attractive quality here.  Name recognition?  You betcha.  But that can change, and as an incumbent, Gill will have the chance to get that.  I know what some people have said, but I think she could gain name recognition mighty quick. And it's a great name.  Short, easy to spell, easy to remember, easy to pronounce.

And no "s" at the end.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 14:41:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gill would be a monumentally bad decision by Corzine. (0.00 / 0)

Ignoring the question of latent racism (which would hamper my preferred candidate, Bob Menendez, as well), Gill would be a disaster for the state Democratic Party.  First and foremost, the snubbing of the entire Congressional delegation for anyone other than Codey would almost certainly incite an epic primary battle that would leave Gill battered and bruised if she managed to eke out a victory (which I don't think she has a chance of doing, when she's fighting Congressional opposition with millions in the bank).  The specter of such major primary battle will hurt her fundraising ability--big donors will, again almost certainly, donate to the perceived big guns of Andrews and Menendez.  The US Senator label will be okay for some money, but let's face it--if she's going to have a primary fight, she'll get almost no work done before the primary, because she's going to have to be fundraising every day she's not in Washington, and she doesn't have the support structure of a Menendez or an Andrews.

And, even if she manages to win in a squeaker for the Democratic nod, she'll have likely spent most of her money in the primary, forcing her to take massive amounts of funds from the DSCC, which will hurt elsewhere in the country.  It's extremely expensive to run in New Jersey--factor in Kean's popularity (due to name confusion), the fact that I'd imagine his father is going to stump for him in a manner that will make it look like he ignored Forrester, and the cash flow problem, and it could be quite possible the DSCC gives up on New Jersey and writes off the seat for six years to fight in closer races that it thinks would be winnable.

Nia Gill, for all her laudable qualities, would almost ensure an end to the Republican dry-spell in Jersey.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 15:36:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"epic primary battle" (0.00 / 0)

Let's clarify something here...

Essentially what you're saying is that none of our Democratic Congressmen have the integrity and/or loyalty to suck it up and support a sitting Senator in a primary, thereby jeopardizing a Senate seat for at least six years just because they think it's their turn to run for Senate?

Either you think our Congressmen are really lame, egomaniacal pols OR you're carrying water for a certain candidate and trying to threaten Corzine out of appointing Gill. If there's a third option I'm missing, by all means please let me know what it is, because I'd like to be wrong on both fronts.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:01:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I made full disclosure as to who I support in my post. (0.00 / 0)

And I'm not an egomaniac who believes Jon Corzine is going to be threatened by my assessment of the situation.

However, statewide openings don't occur very often in New Jersey, since we only have three statewide elected offices at the moment.  For people like Menendez and Andrews, this is the last chance for them before 2013, presuming Lautenberg runs for reelection like he's said he will, and Corzine runs for reelection like I imagine he will (I don't think either's going to get the LG nod; it'll be a female State Senator or Congresswomen, I suspect).  So, yes, I do think there will be a very big primary battle REGARDLESS of who ends up with the appointment.  However, Menendez, Andrews, and Pallone have the money to scare off their opposition.  Codey has favorable ratings and name recognition that can scare off his opposition.  Gill has neither.  And I don't buy into the belief that the US Senate seat is going to automatically translate into both those qualities, because big money donors are very results-oriented and will break towards the person they think will win the primary, rather than the person who currently has the seat.

I don't think their decision to run a primary indicates a lack of integrity or loyalty, for the record.  I think each one truly believes he will be the best US Senator to fill Corzine's seat.  There's a certain inherent egotism in running for office, after all, because it requires you to believe that you have the best solutions for a large number of people.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:33:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Primary (0.00 / 0)

First of all, I didn't say you were an egomaniac. I was asking if you thought the Congressmen were. I'm not going to engage in name calling or any other crap like that because I'm pretty sure at the end of the day, we're going to wind up on the same side. (I also was more or less joking about the 'certain candidate' crack -- you've been very clear about who you back.)

You definitely made some interesting points in here. But what I wrote still stands... you're saying that Gill basically doesn't deserve to run because she doesn't have money and will ensure a divisive primary. But then you're saying there's going to be a divisive primary anyway. So... then why shouldn't Corzine just appoint her if incumbency isn't going to make a difference?

I'd honestly like for you to address some of the points I made. Menendez is seen as a machine pol. How does he overcome that? In our other exchange, you admitted and accepted that not only is Menendez part of the Hudson machine, but that he is the Hudson machine. How is that going to play with voters in a general election, especially in a year when corruption and cronyism are going to be national issues? And are you willing to support any other candidate? By talking about Hudson not turning out if he doesn't win, it seems to me that you think Menendez is more concerned with getting his than contributing to larger party success. How is that an attractive trait in a candidate to you?

Though you keep saying that Gill won't be able to raise funds, I think you're massively underestimating the attractiveness that a solidly progressive candidate will have to the national grassroots. Howard Dean proved that it's not all about big donors and the talk about Gill has already bounced from here to MyDD to Daily Kos. The netroots isn't quite a machine, but candidates like Dean and Paul Hackett can tell you we're certainly getting there.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 20:46:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Allow me to be devil's advocate (0.00 / 0)

I'm just tossing this in to play devil's advocate.  I like what I see of State Senator Gill, but I am not wedded to anyone as my favorite choice at this time.  But Scott, you spoke about grassroots fund-raising.  What I see there is an element of risk.  Yes, the grassroots can turn out for and fund a candidate handsomely, but that is an iffy proposition, while the one thing Congressman Menendez has going for him is that he is a sure thing when it comes to fund-raising.  And then you have to look at whether Senator Gill will continue to raise funds from either the grassroots or traditional sources once she has successfully defended her position in the Senate and is no longer a plucky grssroots darling but rather the incumbent.  Now if there is one thing smart people do in life is mitigate risk.  Sometimes you have to "go all in on a hand", but you don't do it unless you have calculated the odds and evaluated the risks.

Just a thought.

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 22:13:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think she doesn't deserve the position. (0.00 / 0)

Okay.  There's a bunch of questions there, so I'll try to separate my answers.

//Gill, Primaries, and Money//
Truth be told, I don't known enough about Nia Gill's positions to make sweeping statements.  She might make a fantastic US Senator.  I think Bob Menendez would, as well.  Same with Pallone, Codey, Holt, or Andrews. I think the thing about a Gill appointment is that it would ensure a primary.  I think if Menendez gets it, Andrews might pull the trigger anyway, but he'd be more wary since Menendez's warchest is bigger than his.  If Gill's appointed, and Menendez jumps in (I think he would), Andrews is sure to jump in, because he'll perceived cracks in the North Jersey base and, maybe rightly, believe that his South Jersey base would be enough to overcome fractured North Jersey support.  I've made the point a few times, and I suspect everyone gets it, but I simply don't believe squaring off Gill and Kean at this point is an efficient utilization of funds.  If we have any hope of supporting candidates in states like Montana and Ohio, we can't spend the massive amounts of money that would be necessary to hold New Jersey, which would be a Democratic hold with a candidate like Menendez or Andrews.  It's nothing against Nia Gill or her positions.  Just give her a few years to build a campaign warchest before throwing her into battle with NJGOP dream candidates.

As an aside, what we need to remember is that Hackett had a gigantic push during a special election, utilizing resources that are going to be spread around 435 House, 33 Senate, and however many Governors races that are happening simultaneously.  I don't think Ohio's 2nd would have been close had it been during a regularly scheduled election; Hackett's 3% defeat was a political perfect storm.

//Menendez, Machines, and Cronyism//
As far as Menendez's ties to Hudson County, truth be told, I'm not entirely convinced the electorate actually cares as much as newspapers think they should about organizations.  Simply, the "Dreaded Political Organization" as described in the papers doesn't exist.  I've been involved in organizations, I've seen how things go down, I've done everything from gruntwork to sign-planting to canvassing to mailings to phonebanking to physically driving candidates around in local, county, state, and federal elections; trust me, the criticism of political organizations are overwrought in most cases.  Perhaps that's why I cringe when I see otherwise intelligent people talking about "Corzine bucking Democratic machines."  I'm simply not convinced people care about organizations.  For all Forrester talked about Corzine's legitimate ties to Democratic organizations, the Torch, etc, the electorate didn't care.  And for all Kean tries to exploit Menendez's ties to Hudson County politics, or Andrew's ties to Norcross, or whoever's ties to whatever villain du jour, people aren't going to care.

The problem with cronyism and corruption is that there are no real definitions for them.  Few politicians take part in obvious cronyism and corruption, simply because if it's obvious, there's usually an electoral backlash.  After all, McGreevey last year and Whitman's almost-loss to him in 1997 still stand as grand examples of how the voters treat blatent cronyism and what happens to people who partake.  Corruption, well, the Torch is our prima facie example.  But it's not as clear cut an issue as it seems.  Two similarly qualified people, one you know, one you don't, you'd go with the person you know.  The best firm in the state donates money to your campaign, but you probably knew you were appointing them anyway.  However, to the guy or gal that didn't get the job, that's cronyism.  To the firms that didn't get the contract, that's pay-to-play or corruption.  The lowest bid isn't always the one that should be taken; known quantities with slightly less stellar qualifications are sometimes better than unproven hotshots.  So until we have a real working definition of corruption (and I'm sure people will swoop in with obvious examples, but singular examples generally don't feed into anything other than that sort of stuff being taken one case at a time), why are we getting stuck in the trap of fighting on turf that's always going to benefit the opposition?  It'll be a bold move, but if asked, I'd suspect the best answer is "I'm against corruption and cronyism, and I'm also against global warming, so let's discuss why a vote for my opponent is a vote against alternative energy."

//Menendez's character//

If Menendez jumps into a primary, I don't think it's him putting himself over party.  Same with Andrews, or Pallone, or even if Gill decided to challenge Menendez if he got the appointment.  People jump in because they think they've got the best ideas, and are the best people for the job in implementing them.  And, as for who I, or the Hudson Democrats, or the South Jersey Democrats will support after the appointment and any potential primary, I'd suspect the answer's going to be the same: I'm going to support the Democrat, and put the primary behind me.

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 23:32:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Easy way to boost Name Rec? (0.00 / 0)

Send the Jr. Senator around with the Senior Senators like say Clinton, Schumer, Kerry...

Send her loaded up with the talking points to the  Sunday talk shows, send her to all media availabiliites.  This solves the name rec and the money problem.

She could be the Obama of NJ except female.

I think she can do it.

Though the arguments against are weighty.

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:06:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

screw them (4.00 / 1)

You gain nothing and risk losing even more white males and elderly voters who are not ready to vote for a black female.

Screw them. We shouldn't pander to racist bigots. If they won't pull the lever for someone because of their skin color or gender, I don't want them voting for my team. We live in New Jersey, not Alabama. I think we can do better than this.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 14:47:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

I was about to comment the same thing. Let the other party have the racist vote.

---

by: jennypenny @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 15:30:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On the other hand... (2.00 / 1)

Selecting Gill because she is a black woman is equally pandering. I guess pandas aren't as endangered as we thought.

While it's noble to sacrifice one's self for principles when duty calls, it's insane to do so when it could just as easily be avoided. Yet that is exactly what you are calling for.

In case you haven't noticed the GOP seems to be doing quite well with the racist vote. Last time I checked they were in control of everything at the national level. This is not the time to be playing social scientist with our seat in the US Senate. This is a time for careful deliberation and prudence. Not some "wouldn't it be nice" and "can't we all just get along" scheme.

Politics is often the art of compromise. Picking Gill is a shot across the bows.

 

---

by: jcwabbit @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:24:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think Gill would be a better LG pick in 2009, anyway. (0.00 / 0)

It'll serve two purposes; tie her into Corzine's financial network by turning her into his natural successor, and raise her name recognition statewide by virtue of her position.  She'll then be positioned for Governor in 2013 or Senate in 2012 (I think Andrews wants to be Governor, so she could be replaced as LG by him if she moved up to US Senate).

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:38:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

2012 if Lautenberg retires, I mean. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: sucopsucoh @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:39:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Insane social scientist? (0.00 / 0)

Let's get this straight --  unless Corzine appoints a white male he's insanely playing "social scientist"?  

---

by: jennypenny @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:44:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (0.00 / 0)

I have never advocated selecting someone just because of their skin color or gender. In fact, I'm getting attacked from both sides. First because I don't knee-jerkingly support a woman, and now because I do. There are several candidates I would be happy with as our next Senator. Gill is one of them. That means I'm pandering?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:52:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

knee-jerk support (0.00 / 0)

You weren't be 'attacked' for "not knee-jerkingly supporting" a woman.  My comment was about your quoting an article saying Corzine wasn't sexist b/c he committed to appointing women to cabinet positions.  I was trying to find out if you thought those types of appointments should satisfy people who want to see diversity in NJ's congressional delegation.

And regarding jcwabbit's previous comment, Jenny hits the nail on the head when she asks if it's a social experiment unless a white male is appointed.

---

by: kwilkinson @ Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 00:46:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Superconservative? (0.00 / 0)

Hardly--both Keans are the embodiment of moderate Republicanism.  That's why he lost his Congressional primary; not conservative enough for the GOP base.  And that plus his father's goodwill is what makes him dangerous in a statewide election.  What I'd really like to see is a GOP primary challenge from the fringe that forces Kean to tack farther to the right to win the primary, but no one seems to want to play the role of Jeff what's-his-name; you know, the wingnut who beat old Clifford Case way back when.

---

by: lonemorriscodem @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 15:43:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am with DBK (0.00 / 0)

The more I read, the more I like.

She has family values bills, privacy bills, healthcare bills, anti-death penalty bills, voter rights bills (like the one Holts has stalled in congress).

This woman looks like the kind of woman we NEED in the Senate.

And look, if Republicans can call Democrats racist for opposing Every immigrant minority they decide to put up for a Judgeship than Democrats should have the right to retaliate by the same tactics.

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 11:29:11 AM CST

AND FURTHERMORE (0.00 / 0)

What is with all this talk about Kean being SUPER Candidate of the decade..  perhaps century?

I realize Tom Kean may be popular thanks to his work on the 9/11 commission but that doesn't make him infallible.

Look folks, a Kean of any name is beatable and they are not squeaky clean nor do they fall in line with Jersey voters' needs.

Otherwise they would have a D at the end of their names.

So I for one am done with the Super Kean talk.  He is beatable if he has an R and it is up to folks like us to find ways of poking holes in his pretty boy image.

Dammit.

Media In Trouble

---

by: Media In Trouble @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 16:11:51 PM CST

Tom Kean Junior (4.00 / 1)

A dynamic candidate could do wonders against His Junior-ness Kean. Imagining the contest:

 

This race would be engaging for voters.  Two plumbers at my house before he election said they weren't voting because "they're all the same," and I could see what they meant about Forrester and Corzine.  Here would be a reason to pay attention, maybe.  I would guess Gill would bring in the now-established-as-crucial women's vote.  If she's quick on her feet she could be a star.  He looks brash and boyish, she looks mature and intelligent.

---

by: jennypenny @ Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 17:55:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]