Why is Gov Patterson behind? (appointed, layoffs, schools) - City-Data Forum

Nestlequik · 11-24-2009, 01:26 PM

Can anyone tell me why Gov Patterson is so behind in the polls? It seems to me that he is tough on legislators and he's making the tough decisions necessary to get NYS out of debt. I don't have much on him other than that so i'm trying to understand why his approval rating is so poor? Am i missing something?

boan · 11-24-2009, 01:38 PM

He's generally portrayed as an in-over-his-head buffoon in the media (newspapers, radio, etc.). That may have something to with it.

SobroGuy · 11-24-2009, 02:07 PM

That's exactly why he is behind. He actually wants to get things done and is holding people responsible. He wants major union concessions, which means the unionc unleash their attack dogs and millions on ads painting him as inept/incompetent/dangerous. He expects legislators to do their job and fix the mess, so they attack him and paint him to their constituents as unorthodox/a bad Governor/inexperienced. He would have excellent poll numbers if he simply was a do-nothing politician and didn't want to achieve anything...and simply let legislators and unions run wild. This is the price you pay for trying to do anything..Obama is suffering the same fate.

bluedog2 · 11-24-2009, 02:22 PM

He has been put in the position of having to tell a lot of groups that they can't have what they want.
That is never popular.

holden125 · 11-24-2009, 02:25 PM

He's in a position of having to force unpopular things through, since he's trying to balance the budget.

He was also never elected to the office, and he lost a lot of luster with the process leading up to the Gillibrand appointment, when he didn't seem to know what he was doing. He really started to drop around that time.

Andrew Cuomo also has name recognition and has taken over Spitzer's pre-governor, pre-scandal role as the "Guy Who Appears in Public to Be Taking on Wall Street," which has gotten him favorable press.

Nestlequik · 11-24-2009, 07:05 PM

Thank you, i thought i was the only one. So maybe people will see through the smoke and mirrors.

LINative · 11-24-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boan

He's generally portrayed as an in-over-his-head buffoon in the media (newspapers, radio, etc.). That may have something to with it.

Bingo. I pretty much agree with all the posters above me.

When he first became governor, I thought he was doing a good job standing up for the taxpayers, talking about a balanced budget and reining in the public employee unions. All of a sudden the press starts attacking him. Kind of interesting isn't it?

cheese9988 · 11-25-2009, 10:11 AM

The state has to close a $3 billion dollar deficit, but yet nobody in the senate wants to cut anything. We have NO money and Patterson proposes cuts across the board. The budget cuts will affect everybody, the only person willing to stand up for this IS Patterson. The senate with the unions, and/or what ever interest groups behind them paint a picture that Patterson is some evil dictator. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to spend more money, when there is no money to spend. I would say a cut for all services across the board is fair.

dbh522 · 11-29-2009, 12:22 AM

Right, it's all the big bad unions. Meanwhile, while Patterson was asking the unions to void contracts already in place and forego raises for state employees, he was giving his executive staff major raises (as high as over 60% in some cases). At one of the State Authorities Patterson appointed a new director who created about 16 new upper management positions each paying six figures. But, while this was happening the employees working there making $30K should have been totally okay with losing their contract and raises. Because you know, that wouldn't affect those Man/Con positions. Yes, Man/Con did give up their raises in exchange for no threats of layoffs. Patterson is all for everyone feeling the pinch, that is, except for himself and his friends.

foo895 · 12-05-2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbh522

Right, it's all the big bad unions. Meanwhile, while Patterson was asking the unions to void contracts already in place and forego raises for state employees, he was giving his executive staff major raises (as high as over 60% in some cases). At one of the State Authorities Patterson appointed a new director who created about 16 new upper management positions each paying six figures. But, while this was happening the employees working there making $30K should have been totally okay with losing their contract and raises. Because you know, that wouldn't affect those Man/Con positions. Yes, Man/Con did give up their raises in exchange for no threats of layoffs. Patterson is all for everyone feeling the pinch, that is, except for himself and his friends.

I was actually surprised to see all the pro-Patterson posts. Finally somebody comes into this thread and stirs the pot.

Maybe if he cut the salaries of some of his people he wouldn't have to cut funding for hospitals and schools.

I guess we're just a couple of uber-liberal nuts though huh?