The supporters and endorsers of Sheldon Silver's bid to retain his seat, and therefore the Speaker's chair, generally maintain that we may finally have the opportunity to pass major bills such on marriage equality, education finance reform, rent regulation, and so on. The underlying threat is that if Silver loses then those bills won't pass.

How's that again?

Suppose, just for the fun of it, that lightning strikes, the earth shakes, and Silver loses. The immediate result would be a mad scramble for leadership in the Assembly, and the only guarantee is that nobody knows who would win. Well, almost the only guarantee -- for whoever wins will have to promise to push forward exactly those reforms that Silver's supporters are talking about.

The Democratic caucus has been stymied for far too long by Joe Bruno. Assuming Democrats gain control of the state Senate, it's a sure bet that Assembly will push for quick passage of major reforms. Yes, Silver will probably go along with it; he has cemented his power in the Assembly by listening to the wishes of his caucus (which is why, Tom DiNapoli is Comptroller and also why there was no vote on congestion pricing). But a new Speaker would have to do the same thing.

The difference is that Silver isn't really the most progressive Speaker we could have, nor would he necessarily get things done. If Silver were more interested in getting things done than blaming others, rebuilding lower Manhattan (his district!) would have progressed much faster. Yes, he'll go along with the caucus (many call it "leading from behind"), but he's not out in front on campaign finance reform, he has stymied rules reform, and he severely watered down what little ethics reform that passed. And those last two don't require Senate help -- we're talking about the rules of his own House.

So don't support Sheldon Silver because we need his progressive leadership -- he hasn't shown any.