Besides the giddy thrill that must come from beating your opponent’s signature achievement into a bloody pulp, freshman Rep. Michael Grimm’s assault on the healthcare bill carries implications for his reelection chances.

By virtue of his narrow victory and experience as an FBI agent, Grimm landed on the money magnet Financial Services Committee, which oversees Wall Street.  By far, the Financial Service Committee’s largest source of campaign contributions from political action committees (PACs) and individual donations came from the financial, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector of the workforce.

It just so happens that many of the behemoth banks and investment houses cried during the height of the debate that the healthcare bill would damage their ability to rake in record-breaking profits almost annually.

In most cases, the top industries in this sector favored Democrats in the 2010 election cycle, but most likely because they held majorities in both chambers of Congress and The White House.  With Republicans in control of the House–and according to some, The White House, just saying—that largess will likely shift to Republicans such as Grimm.

Grimm already has some traction with that sector.  Of the top five industries donating to Grimm’s campaign, three of them—real estate, insurance, and securities and investment—fell under the FIRE sector.  And it doesn’t hurt that Staten Island’s second largest segment of the workforce came from that sector.

Some may point out that Grimm’s opponent, Michael McMahon, received far more money from vocal opponents of the health care bill, such as Goldman Sachs.  In fact, Goldman represented McMahon’s largest contributor, but that largess likely served as enticement for McMahon to vote against the bill.  It’s reasonable that Goldman’s charity may shift to Grimm in the next election cycle.

For a first-year congressman such as Grimm, having Wall Street just a Ferry ride away can be a blessing.

In the lead up to the vote on the healthcare bill, former Rep. Michael McMahon faced a belligerent crowd of 800 in the auditorium of a Staten Island high school.

Compared to other lawmakers, the freshman democrat escaped the most vicious threats.  The Jerry Springer moment came when one indignant audience member with a microphone vowed to disrupt his reelection chances.  Uninterested in the torch-and-pitchfork vote, McMahon said he would not respond to threats.

McMahon eventually voted “no” on the bill.  He said it would hurt the hospital system on Staten Island and Medicare benefits for seniors, but he still lost—by three points.

McMahon’s eventual victor, Republican Michael Grimm, offered a counter argument during the campaign.  The bill would hurt the hospital system on Staten Island and Medicare benefits for seniors.  See what he did there?

All of this hints at a pretty simple calculus for winning the seat on Staten Island and part of working class Brooklyn in the last election.  Mention your Democratic opponent’s name in the same sentence as Nancy Pelosi with little regard to the context.  Because it appears that McMahon recognized the vital importance of the healthcare sector on Staten Island, which represents a third of its workforce, but it didn’t help him at the polls.

Sure, McMahon voted “no” on the heath care bill.  But he didn’t vote hard enough. He didn’t go that extra step of extorting lawmakers with compromising 8 x 10 glossies to vote “no.” Worst of all, Pelosi gave him a pass, according to the campaign storyline.

But what really separated Grimm from McMahon was Grimm’s willingness to repeal the bill.  In repealing the bill, Grimm would save us from the reprehensible character in Joker makeup threatening to destroy the hospitals on Staten Island.

Two of the three hospitals on Staten Island could lose federal funding.  Staten Island University Hospital may lose almost $23 million for a medical education program.  Richmond University Medical Center expects significant losses as a result of the bill.

McMahon would later justify voting “no” on these grounds during a congressional debate at Wagner College, but Grimm slammed him for admitting he would not vote to repeal the bill. Grimm would—and did.  With much of the district disgruntled with not just the healthcare bill, but what it symbolized, this put Grimm a neck’s length ahead of McMahon.

Meanwhile, the medical community didn’t seem too insistent on repeal in the first place. Health professionals seemed pleased enough with McMahon’s efforts, contributing $77,000 to his campaign.  Grimm received $31,500.  But the repeal effort continues, however fruitlessly.

Since the repeal effort now faces an unreceptive Democratic majority in the Senate, and a veto by President Obama, Grimm and other Republicans have called an audible.  Dissect and Dismember has overtaken Repeal and Replace as they attempt to dismantle the bill piecemeal style.

Add Gary Ackerman to the list of New York politicians upset about the census.

According to last month’s census count, New York City only has 8,175,133 people, a growth of only 2.1 percent and far different from the initial projections of 8.3 million, and Queens, one of the most populous counties in the country, grew by only 0.1 percent. The release caused quite a stir in New York City, to say the least, and the Mayor has announced that the city is formally challenging the results.

“Everything we know about these neighborhoods tells a different story,” Mike Bloomberg said. “People who have tried to find apartments in these neighborhoods can confirm there just isn’t an abundance of vacancies.”

Ackerman’s district – New York’s 5th – gained only 44,782 people. According to Social Explorer’s Andrew Beveridge, the current district population of 699,143 is a 2.59 percent deviation of the ideal district population size of 717,707. What that means is Ackerman’s is one of many seats in New York City that could be in danger of going away.

The redistricting of New York after the latest census could come as quite a blow to New York Democrats in general, who make up the vast majority of the state’s congressional seats. And with his many years in Congress, the presumed undercount may be the only way that Ackerman has even a chance of being bumped from his seat.

But Ackerman isn’t the only politician facing redistricting problems. As a matter of fact, New York’s 5th ranks as one of the least affected in the city. Peter King and Greg Meeks appear to be hit hardest on that front, as their districts deviate close to 9 percent from the ideal population size.

What could affect Ackerman, however, are his district’s shifting demographics. Ackerman’s district has seen great growth in its Asian and Hispanic population. Overall, the 5th District has dropped from 44 percent non-Hispanic white to 36 percent white. Asians, meanwhile, make up 33 percent of the district, and Hispanics 26 percent. Even in parts of historically white Port Washington and Manorhaven, the Hispanic population has increased by between 15 and 30 percent. This change means that his largely white and Jewish base isn’t as prevalent as it once was, and it’s a change he’s already working to address directly. When asked about the census, Ackerman called the Queens results “bizarre,” and blamed them on a faulty count – particularly in the borough’s more diverse areas.

“I know of no neighborhood where there are fewer people than there were in the last census,” he said. “But I know of scores of neighborhoods where the population has increased in multiples, particularly within the ethnic and minority communities in Queens.”

These census results – accurate or not – indicate that Ackerman will have to start appealing to a broader base of New Yorkers going forward.