Chartock didn't even pronounce Gillibrand's name right (it's Jill-i-brand) and stated that the recent NY Times article which called this race the political battle of Sweeney's life was not "based in fact."
Chartock said, "I happen to know he's not in that kind of trouble... I don't happen to think that's true" And "I happen to have certain you know proof of that."
What proof could that be are you in touch with people who are rigging voting machines and can predict elections before votes are cast?
What about the fact that Gillibrand has been meeting with voters here for almost 2 years now? That she's been to my county more than Sweeney has in the last year? Or that the last time this district was held by a Democrat was right after the Nixon administration... when Republicans were unhappy with ethics issues, as they are again?
Chartock claimed to have sources to demonstrate that he was right. Mr. Chartock, sources don't decide elections, voters do.
Chartock disagreed with another panelist who said that Sweeney is one of the 20 targeted seats to turn over. Chartock said, "Nope, nope, nope, not true."
I happen to know AC is utterly WRONG in that claim because the Democratic Congressional Committee is funding this race and Gillibrand raised almost as much money as Sweeney did in the last funding cycle (Sweeney's showing was considered weak for an incumbent).
Then Chartock had the nerve to accuse the NY Times of "slanting" their article. Gee all that love from Mr. Chartock and John Sweeney doesn't even list WAMC on his media links page. Oh, he has a link to the Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Liely radio station because Sweeney's just such an independent thinker, you know.