(Photo: Getty)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg just released his public schedule for tomorrow, and it's a doozy. Throughout the day, the mayor is set to meet with over a half-dozen members of the country's congressional leadership, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Also on the list is former presidential candidate John McCain, a couple moderate Republicans and a press conference with New York's two senators on the city's request for billions of dollars in federal aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

While the agenda of the meetings was not disclosed, it's likely Mr. Bloomberg will be focused on securing that financial assistance for the city's recovery efforts. Whether or not he will be successful, of course, is unclear; despite the aggressive slew of planned meetings, he recently sounded less-than-optimistic the request would be honored in full, joking yesterday he was still optimistic about the city's efforts to host the long-gone 2012 Olympics.

As a side note, even with the busy day in Washington D.C., Mr. Bloomberg is still scheduled to attend the Rockefeller Center New York Christmas Tree Lighting back in Midtown, Manhattan.

View the full schedule of events below:

10:45 AM Meets with Senator Lamar Alexander
11:15 AM Meets with Senator Susan Collins
1:00 PM Meets with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
2:00 PM Meets with Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
2:30 PM Joins Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand to Discuss the City’s Hurricane Sandy Federal Aid Request
3:00 PM Meets with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
3:45 PM Meets with Senator Saxby Chambliss
4:15 PM Meets with Senator John McCain
5:00 PM Meets with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
8:15 PM Attends Christmas in Rockefeller Center Tree Lighting Ceremony

(Photo: Getty)

Earlier today, President Barack Obama gathered with the majority and minority leaders of both houses of Congress to move forward in avoiding automatic spending cuts and tax hikes set to occur at the end of the year. Although Democrats and Republicans have, at times, seemed to have irreconcilable differences in the process, the various elected officials walked out of the Roosevelt Room with an optimistic outlook that a compromise would be reached.

"I can only echo the observations of the other leaders that it was a constructive meeting. We all understand where we are....We are prepared to put revenue on the table provided we fix the real problem," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, according to a White House pool report. “Most of my members, I think without exception, believe that we're in the dilemma we're in not because we taxed too little but because we spent too much."

Mr. McConnell's comments are notable because Republicans are currently in a stalemate with Mr. Obama on whether to fully extend the Bush-era tax cuts or to let them expire for the top 2% of earners. If neither plan were to come into effect, rates would increase on the entire base of taxpayers.

Congress' other GOP leader, Speaker John Boehner, concurred with Mr. McConnell. “While we're going to continue to have revenue on the table it's going to be incumbent on my colleagues to show the American people that we're serious about cutting spending and solving our fiscal dilemma," he said. "I believe we can do this and avert the fiscal cliff that is right in front of us today."

The revenue issue is part of a larger effort to stop "sequestration," massive automatic spending cuts to education, defense and more if a specific deficit-cutting plan is not arrived at, an event many feel would be economically catastrophic. But, echoing their partisan counterparts, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sounded positive about the negotiation's direction.

"This is the first time we've deal with these issues and feel we understand what the problem is," Mr. Reid said. "I felt very good about what we were able to talk about in there. We have the cornerstones of being able to work something out."

Mr. Reid said his chamber would be working on the issue through the Thanksgiving recess next week.

Grace Meng and Michael Grimm (Photo: Meng Campaign/Getty)

New York State started off as a key battleground in the Democrats' battle to retake control of the U.S. House, especially after the courts intervened in the redistricting plan and shook up a lot of traditional boundaries. However, most of these races were focused in areas further Upstate and the suburbs, leaving the heavily Democratic New York City with just two congressional elections of note.

In Queens, Democratic Assemblywoman Grace Meng faced off against GOP Councilman Dan Halloran for a seat crafted from the district remnants of outgoing Congressmen Bob Turner and Gary Ackerman. Despite Mr. Halloran's polling showing the race a tie, those numbers did not pan out and Ms. Meng is currently ahead by roughly 2-to-1, which matches how Democrats have historically performed within the area.

In a more hotly contested race spanning Staten Island and southern Brooklyn, Republican Congressman Michael Grimm successfully defeated Democrat Mark Murphy, according to multiple projections. Democrats were initially hopeful that a barrage of bad headlines, notably an FBI investigation into Mr. Grimm's fundraising during his 2010 congressional campaign, would shift things in their favor. However, Mr. Grimm was an energetic legislator and an aggressive campaigner, resulting in an electorate apparently unwilling to indict him based on headlines alone.

Elsewhere in the state, endangered Democrats Tim Bishop and Bill Owens have both won as well, but Rep. Kathy Hochul, occupying staunchly conservative territory in Western New York, is narrowly trailing GOP challenger Chris Collins. In the Hudson Valley, Republican Congressman Chris Gibson has a modest lead over Julian Schreibman, while Mr. Gibson's GOP colleague, Nan Hayworth, is currently trailing her Democratic challenger Sean Patrick Maloney. Seats in Rochester and Syracuse have already been called for Democrats Louise Slaughter and Dan Maffei respectively, with Mr. Maffei's being a pickup for his party.

Anyway, what will you be looking for tomorrow when the results come trickling in? Is there a certain candidate that needs to clear a threshold in order to remain legitimate? A challenger that will show herself to be a rising star if she does well? Will endorsements matter? Incumbency? The economy?

Let us know what you will be looking for by shooting an email at dfreedlander [@] observer.com. If you promise to refrain from excessive spin, anonymous and semi-anonymous submissions are welcome.

Here are some of our thoughts:

Vito Lopez’s Big Day
A lot of the framing of this election season has been about the “Brooklyn Spring”—insurgents rising up against the party establishment. If only it were so simple. Instead Vito Lopez, head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party is backing one longshot and one favorite. The longshot is Erik Dilan, who is going up against local icon Nydia Velazquez. The favorite is Hakeem Jeffries, who is going up against firebrand Charles Barron. But even here the lines are so neat. Mr. Jeffries is also a favorite of Brooklyn’s Democratic reformers who want to boot Mr. Lopez out, as well as Gov. Andrew Cuomo and most of the city’s elected class. So even though Mr. Lopez counts himself a Jeffries fan, a win here won’t be too big of a mark in his favor—although he did make things a lot easier for Mr. Jeffries by chasing incumbent Ed Towns out of the race. A win by Mr. Dilan, however, would represent an incredible coup for the Brooklyn boss and would amount to a stunning comeback for someone who even only a few years ago looked like he was done for due to a series of city and federal investigations into his non-profit.

Most wise political heads I have spoken with think Ms. Velazquez is the favorite headed into tomorrow, but pay attention to the margin of victory. She has skated through Election Day after Election Day for decades now, and if Mr. Dilan gets under 10 points, expect the congresswoman to see regular challenges from now on, possibly again from Mr. Dilan in 2014.

Will Ethnicity Trump All?
The redrawing of the lines meant that Gary Ackerman’s old seat in Queens is now a plurality Asian, and that Charlie Rangel’s Harlem seat is now a majority Latino. Ethnicity is just about thicker than anything in New York politics, and it will be interesting to see if Mr. Rangel’s long record and incumbency beats out the desire of Hispanics to elect one of their own, Adriano Espaillat, to Congress (if he wins, Mr. Espaillat would be the first Dominican in Congress.) Meanwhile, out in Queens, Grace Meng is running to become the first Asian from New York in Congress. Her opponent, Rory Lancman, has a lot of support from some of the politically powerful labor unions affiliated with the Working Families Party. Will pathbreaking candidates energize enough voters to beat out sophisticated ground operations?

And speaking of the WFP:
Over the last several years, the Working Families Party has found itself on opposite sides with the Queens County Democratic Party. And in a sign of the shift in political power from county machines to labor machines, the WFP won more often then they lost. The Meng/Lancman race though is a pretty big stage for the WFP, and it will be interesting to see if they can topple the county party—which backs Meng—in order to get one of their own in Congress.

Turnout, Especially In the US Senate Primary:
With the odd June primary, turnout is expected to be stunningly and embarrassingly low. How low remains anyone’s guess, and is actually the biggest wild card headed into tomorrow. If not enough people show up to vote, even the wildest of wild cards has a shot, and easy favorites could be in for a humbling election night.

For those and other reasons, pay attention to turnout in the GOP US Senate primary between Bob Turner, Wendy Long and George Maragos. That race has gotten an awfully little bit of attention, and if turnout is as low as it appears to be, then Kirsten Gillibrand should be feeling pretty good over the next several months.

(Photo: NY1)

Councilman Charles Barron and Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, both candidates for an open congressional seat in Brooklyn, don't really like each other very much. At least, that's the most obvious impression from a debate between the two Democrats on Inside City Hall last night.

It started off with Mr. Barron calling Mr. Jeffries "negative and immature" and a "sore loser" over his dismissal of  retiring Congressman Ed Towns' endorsement.

"You're just a sore loser," Mr. Barron continued. "You can't have all of the endorsements. You can't get them all, man!"

But it was over foreign policy issues that the two had the most contentious interaction. Mr. Barron, of course, has a long history of bombastic declarations in support of African dictators and against Israel.

"I certainly can't compete with Charles Barron for the pro-Gaddafi vote," Mr. Jeffries mused on the topic before switching over to Mr. Barron's criticism of President Barack Obama. "Charles Barron has been willing to go after the President of the United States in such a reckless, vicious and disrespectful fashion. In the context of Muammar Gaddafi, my opponent called ... President Obama essentially a murderer."

"That's a lie," Mr. Barron interjected.

"It's irresponsible rhetoric to have called the President of the United States essentially a tool of the white establishment," Mr. Jeffries added. "It's irresponsible to say the president is essentially an Uncle Tom who has got an 'F' grade as it relates doing business on behalf of black folks."

"This is his immature way of trying to use Obama to give himself credibility," Mr. Barron retorted. "We reserve the right to be constructively critical of the president. He's trying to use that because his campaign is desperate now, they're falling behind."

When it came for the opportunity for the two to ask each other questions, Mr. Barron offered a very simple inquiry.

"Why should we trust you?" he asked, alleging Mr. Jeffries has gone through a series of flip flops on a wide range of issues.

"What's the sources, Charles?" Mr. Jeffries responded. "I mean is it the 'Charles Barron Encyclopedia on Conspiracy Theories?'"

The Senate Democrats would like to see districts like this still see some change.

Earlier today, the New York State Senate Democrats asked the court currently enacting the state's new Congressional redistricting plan to consider expanding their efforts and, at the very least, draw up their own maps for the State Senate as well.

They made two core arguments about the need for this legal action in their letter to the court.

"First, the Legislature’s plan is subject to preclearance by the Department of  Justice pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a process that can take up to 60 days," the wrote, referring to the required process of federal review for some counties in New York like the Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn.

Next, they argued the redistricting lawsuit the Senate Democrats filed against the increase in size of the State Senate adds enough uncertainty into the process that a contingency plan is needed:

"Second, as described in more detail below, the Legislature’s addition of a 63rd Senate seat violates Article III, Section 4 of the New York Constitution and will be challenged in state court. If the Legislature’s 63-seat plan is blocked either by the Department of Justice or by a state court, then the federal Constitution will require this Court to develop and implement a lawful Senate plan because it is undisputed that the current districts (which were drawn in 2002) do not comply with the federal one person, one vote rule."

Of course, if the 63rd seat is struck down, the Legislature could always theoretically move to pass a new redistricting plan with 62 seats. However, the Senate Democrats' lawyers contend there might not be enough time, creating the need for the federal redistricting court to make a decision on the issue even as its being currently litigated in a completely different court.

"We recognize that this is the very same issue that we will be litigating in state court. But as we have explained, it is this Court—not the state judiciary—that is primarily responsible for enforcing the federal Constitution," the letter argues. "And nobody can assure this Court that the state courts will rule on the constitutionality of the 63rd district before it is too late for this Court to enforce the Equal Protection Clause."

The letter concludes by saying "We acknowledge that this is a highly unusual procedural posture," and, "We are aware of no case in which any federal court has ever been asked to address a threshold state constitutional question regarding the size of the legislative body to be redistricted."

How much change the court would enact on the existing plan in this extremely hypothetical scenario is unknown. While there was a Supreme Court decision in Texas where it was ordered a court-drawn map “should take guidance from the state’s recently enacted plan,” there could be a lot of leeway for change when the total number of districts changes as well.

View the full letter below:

"Professor Persily generally dismisses the Senate Majority Defendants’ (and other parties’) concerns about 'respecting the cores of prior districts,' insisting such claims are merely 'pretextual arguments for protecting incumbents,' they wrote in their letter. "As a threshold matter, incumbency protection is a traditional redistricting principle, as Professor Persily himself has previously recognized."

The letter further argued against placing incumbents politicians in the same districts if at all possible.

"[A]voiding incumbency pairings actually enhances the reality and appearance of judicial impartiality," they wrote, again contending protecting sitting Representatives should be more highly prioritized in the process.

The judge involved in drafting the redistricting plan was more than dismissive of these incumbency-protection claims and there's a reasonable probability the three-judge panel that will effect the final plan will share a similar view.

The specific objections were all centered around Republican districts, notably adding more Republican voters to the districts of GOP Congressional Members Pete King, Bob Turner, and Michael Grimm in the immediate New York City area. For example, the letter argued for a housing project, likely inclined to vote Democrat, to be removed from Mr. Grimm's district and for ideologically conservative Russian and Jewish voters to be added back into Mr. Turner's.

View the full 14-page letter below:

First, Mr. Cuomo argued again the judge's map was "remarkably similar" to the competing plans the State Assembly and State Senate presented to the court.

However, a quick glance at the court's map and the legislative proposals shows this not to be the case.

“It certainly doesn’t appear like the courts maps are … close to anything that exists or have been proposed,” Steven Romalewski, director of the mapping services at the City University of New York, told The Empire yesterday.

Secondly, Mr. Cuomo argued the judge worked to protect incumbent politicians, which would align the court with the interests of the Legislature.

"The magistrate clearly took incumbency into consideration," he said, contradicting the sworn affidavit of the court's redistricting expert. Representatives Bob Turner, Gary Ackerman, and Kathy Hochul, as well as retiring Rep. Maurice Hinchey, were drawn out of their districts and might also disagree.

"I don't think the magistrate's lines are going to be all that different than the assembly and senate lines. I think it's a marginal difference," he again contended later in the interview.

However, as Mr. Romalewski also noted to The Empire yesterday, the court map, if anything, represents something closer to the good government group Common Cause's proposal than the Legislature's. If the court were to intervene on the State Senate and Assembly maps as well, there might be even more substantive differences between their plan and Albany's, as Common Cause's maps for the State Senate and Assembly are very, very different from the legislative maps coming out of Albany.

"Nowadays, the outcry from the Dominican community is to elect a Dominican to serve in the United States Congress. In fact, there are many candidates of Dominican descent who are qualified to effectively represent their community in the US Congress," he wrote in one of his 'What You Should Know' letters this morning.

"I say this even though, as you know, Senator Adriano Espaillat and Senator Jose Peralta voted for gay marriage, and because of that they will have problems with Catholics and Evangelical Ministers within the Hispanic community," he continued. "But Since Adriano is the frontrunner, I suggest that the gay community start a series of activities to raise at least a million dollars for Adriano before it's too late."

Mr. Espaillat, who will soon register a federal committee for a possible Congressional run, likely has not started heavily fundraising yet. But, as the primary election date is only a couple months away, at the end of June, it would be surprising to see millions of dollars pile into his campaign account.

Mr. Díaz's full letter, which you can read below, was overall a plea for the Hispanic community to remain united should a new Latino-majority district emerge under the final congressional map:

“Cursed is the one who trusts in man” (Jeremiah 17:5) … “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4)

These biblical passages bring to mind the struggle that the New York Dominican community and their leaders have been engaged in for many years in their efforts to be effective in the political landscape of New York City in this great State of New York.

In this fight, the Puerto Rican leaders have been very helpful and have tried to do everything possible to open doors to help Dominicans.

You should know that back in the year 2000, after the federal census results were released, Puerto Rican leaders such as former Assemblyman Roberto Ramirez, former Bronx County Chair Jose Rivera, Mike Nieves and many others got together to create a Senatorial District that included a majority of Dominicans and Hispanics. Their intention was to see Guillermo Linares get elected to serve as the first New York State Senator of Dominican descent. Ever since that time, they have wanted to make history.

Jose Rivera and the others hoped that every single leader of the Dominican community would put their personal interests aside and like good Dominicans, join the effort to help Guillermo Linares become not only the first Dominican City Councilmember, but also to continue making history as the first Dominican Senator.

How sad and what a huge disappointment it was! – especially for Linares - to see that many of those very same Dominican leaders who today are calling for a Congressional seat to represent the Dominican community were the first ones to abandon Guillermo and went to campaign for Eric Schneiderman – a non-Dominican.

You should know that the result of that race could have been completely different IF every single leader of the Dominican community would have joined the efforts of New York Puerto Ricans to get Linares elected.

That is not the only time that Puerto Rican leaders have come together to help the Dominican community with their political aspirations.

You should know that every elected member of the Puerto Rican community throughout the City of NY - excluding me (I stood with mi amigo Hiram) - supported and campaigned for Jose Peralta against Hiram Monserrate to help Peralta become the first Dominican Senator in New York State.

When Eric Schneiderman became the New York State Attorney General, Adriano Espaillat became the second person of Dominican descent to become a New York State Senator. For that victory, we have to give special thanks and credit to Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. for his intense, immense and positive contribution of convincing Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, Councilmember Oliver Koppell and the members of the Ben Franklin Reform Democratic Club to join him in asking for the Jewish community in Riverdale to vote for Espaillat against one of their own. Without that support, Espaillat would never have been elected.

Other Puerto Ricans, Jose Rivera among them, were the ones responsible for choosing and supporting Nelson Castro to become an Assembly Member, even though that position was formerly occupied by Luis Diaz, a Puerto Rican. And the Puerto Rican leadership has been very instrumental in recommending the appointments of judges of Dominican descent to serve on the Supreme, Criminal and Civil Courts of Bronx County.

Nowadays, the outcry from the Dominican community is to elect a Dominican to serve in the United States Congress. In fact, there are many candidates of Dominican descent who are qualified to effectively represent their community in the US Congress. Among potential candidates are State Senator Adriano Espaillat, State Senator Jose Peralta, Assemblyman Guillermo Linares, City Council Member Fernando Cabrera, and Bronx District Leader Yudelka Tapia.

I say this even though, as you know, Senator Adriano Espaillat and Senator Jose Peralta voted for gay marriage, and because of that they will have problems with Catholics and Evangelical Ministers within the Hispanic community. But Since Adriano is the frontrunner, I suggest that the gay community start a series of activities to raise at least a million dollars for Adriano before it's too late.

I pray that if and when the opportunity becomes a reality for a Dominican to run for US Congress in a district where he or she can claim victory, that everyone will get together and stand with the Dominican candidate - even if that candidate may not be the one they prefer – AND – I also pray that what happened to Guillermo Linares in 2002 will not happen to anyone again in 2012.

To all those candidates - Dominican or not - who may aspire to run for public office, I would like to dedicate to them that biblical passage I used to start this column: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man” (Jeremiah 17:5) … “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4)

I also recall the words of one of my professors from my philosophy class when I was a student at Lehman College: “My dear children, that blue sky isn't blue and it’s not even a sky.”

I am Senator Rev. Rubén Díaz and this is what you should know.

Last week, the court presented a draft map which contained a number of substantial changes to the electoral landscape. Notably, Congressmen Bob Turner, Maurice Hinchey, and Gary Ackerman saw their districts dismantled. Two of these districts inevitably had to be cut, as New York is required to lose two Congressional Districts this cycle. The plan additionally created a new Asian-plurality district in Queens that Mr. Ackerman has vowed to campaign for.

(Mr. Turner may be currently exploring a possible run for the U.S. Senate and Mr. Hinchey is retiring.)

Tonight's map is basically identical to the previous submission, but one particularly significant change in New York City stands out. Brooklyn Representatives Yvette Clarke and Ed Towns traded territory so areas of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill would be returned to Mr. Towns' district. As these neighborhoods are the home and base of one of Mr. Towns' challengers, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, Mr. Jeffries may find an easier electoral path forward for his ambitions in the latest set of lines.

View the maps below: