She doesn't really even have an opponent in New York. I think the Republican strategy is to have her win with 60% of the vote running against someone no one ever heard of. Since the opponent can't possibly win, Democrats who would never be caught dead voting for a Republican might cast a protest vote against Hillary, say for one of the fringe candidates, that they never would if the race was close. And the vehement leftwing Bush-haters consider Hillary to be a Quisling with her support of the Iraq War. Give 5% to the Left-Wing Fringe Candidate.
New York *does* have a reliable 35% Republican vote, maybe even some democratic Hillary haters who are *not* left wing crazies might vote for the Republican candidate in this instance, knowing the candidate has no chance of winning, to "send a message."
Now, a 60/40 race might seem like a landslide if you are running against a viable opponent but if you are running against someone with no political experience and no support and no real message other than "I am not Hillary," this will be seen as a warning to Democrats that in the bluest of blue states Hillary starts out with 40% who will vote against her.
Schumer got close to 80% in his last Senatorial election and Hillary, even though she won, ran WAY BEHIND Gore in 2000. Why would Democrats want to nominate a candidate who had half the margin of victory of Gore in 2000 and close to 20% less of the vote than Schumer?
JMHO ...
She needs to show a clear majority of eligible voters, not just win.
I believe with a little bit of media coverage Spencer can give her big trouble.
He may not win, but he can dent her image.