What happened to Paul Newell?
by Sebastian Benthall
I have mentioned Paul Newell–one of New York State’s Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver‘s first challengers in over twenty years–before on this blog. Newell represented a departure from New York’s infamous “three men in a room” style of politics, since displacing Silver would have be a serious coup against a monolithic and unrepresentative political machine.
In the course of the primary, Newell’s grassroots fund raising effort outpaced Silvers by more than two to one. Newell also garnered the endorsements of major New York newspapers including the New York Times, the New York Post, and the Daily News.
The day after the primaries, the New York Post reported Silver’s victory in the district with 68 percent of the vote against Newell’s 23 percent.
So what happened?
My guess is this: Newell had tremendous appeal across the state and even across the country as a good government reformer on the progressive “Change!” platform that has swept the Democratic party with Obama’s campaign. But meanwhile, Silver has had 20 years to use his almost unsurpassed clout in the state legislature to support the entrenched groups in his district. And ultimately, despite the impact of the election on statewide corruption and budgeting, the outcome came down to how Silver rebuilt ground zero seven years ago.
Like Sean Tevis’ campaign, this raises questions for me about the purpose of local elections. In this case, where the locally elected official has such enormous statewide power, it feels like his office should be judged by a statewide tribunal of voters. And indeed, I’m sure much of Newell’s support came from reform-minded people who could never cast a vote for him. But meanwhile, Silver first and foremost is a representative of the Lower East Side, and apparently supports those constituents very well. Were Newell’s supporters from outside that district just butting in where they have no business?
I don’t think so. But I’m curious to hear what others say.
Digifesto 
I’ve been thinking about this question a bunch, actually. David Segal won by about 68%, much of which had to do with the fact that he was the incumbent AND had the endorsements of most of the media and all the community organizations and etc. except the Chamber of Commerce, but there were still huge numbers that came out to vote against him. Surprisingly large numbers.
David Segal’s support was similar, in some ways, to Paul Newell’s. Most of his volunteers couldn’t vote for him and were volunteers because he’s one of the few genuinely progressive voices in the State House of Reps. In fact, he may be the State’s most progressive. Good for the State, indeed.
But his weakness is also that he doesn’t necessarily cater to issues of the East Side and East Providence voters who make up his district. His voters, for example, are genuinely not huge fans of rights for undocumented immigrants though Segal is one of the strongest voices in support of that issue.
I think he won, in part, because he does a damn good job in general and really struggles with balancing what is good for the State with what is good for his district. Not having another job – rare among RI politicians and something he has the privilege to do because he’s young and doesn’t have a family etc. – certainly helps that.
So there’s a question: how much does a locally elected politician owe to his district? The whole discussion of congressional earmarks prompted by Sarah Palin’s Bridge to Nowhere has reverberations of that question on a national scale, too.
There’s a big part of me that feels weird about people outside a district supporting a local politician. That’s why I didn’t donate to Tevis’ campaign, actually. But then again, it became clear in Ohio in 2004 just how important locally elected officials are to deciding much bigger issues. And I think, in this case, what is strategically sound for progressivism may outweigh what my idealist idea of “politically accountable” might otherwise dictate.