N.Y. GOP Seeks 2006 Senate Candidate

NY Sun ^ | 11/10/04 | WILLIAM F. HAMMOND JR.

[wagglebee]

ALBANY - New York Republicans don't have a lot of time to bounce back from their drubbing at the polls last week: The race against Senator Clinton is just two years away.

Defeating the former first lady, or at least tarnishing her image, will be a priority for Republicans nationwide in 2006, given Mrs. Clinton's status as the Democrats' early front-runner for president in 2008.

[stolat]

How about the bloviator (sp) himself, Bill O'Reilly?

[OneTimeLurker]

Your analysis applies to Rudy as well. If he loses he's finished that's why I don't think he will run.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I don't think the same statement can be made of Peter King. In fact, from a purely media-centric perspective, he would probably make the best possible GOP candidate. In terms of getting favorable press, the guy is better than Schumer. I mean, a total lens louse.

He also might be better positioned than anyone else to loosen the stranglehold the Dems exercise over the NY labor movement. I'm not saying that the unions wouldn't come out behind Hillary's reelection, but King would definitely have an advantage over other potential Republican opponents in this regard.

Cong. Sweeney has a lot of the same desirable qualities. Unfortunately, he's not very well known outside of political circles.

Both guys share the exact same problem, occupying seats that might flip, should either decide to run against HRC.

Vito-my congressman-on the other hand, has no such worries. I'm not sure if he'd perform as well as the other two, but let's not get ahead ourselves at this point.

I don't think we should lose sight of the goal, here. Which is, ultimately, preventing this woman from ascending to the White House. Whether or not she wins reelection isn't nearly as important as by what margin she emerges victorious.

I think that if the GOP can improve upon Lazio's performance by two or three points-which should be relatively easy, unless they nominate another cadaver along the lines of a Howard Mills-then Hillary's ambitions for higher office will have to be shelved indefinitely.

[zbigreddogz]

RUDY! RUDY! RUDY!

[HitmanLV]

2004 Election Results

NY STATE
Kerry*	3,986,172	58%
Bush	2,793,745	40%
	+ 1,192,427
NYC (5 Boros)
Kerry*	1,653,767	75%
Bush	544,359	25%
	+ 1,109,408
Manhattan	Kerry - 468,841 -  82% Bush -   95,362  -  17%
Bronx	Kerry - 260,438  -  82% Bush -   52,752  -  17%
Staten Island	Kerry - 62,603  -   42% Bush - 84,270  -   57%
Brooklyn	Kerry - 468,403  -  74% Bush - 156,612  -  25%
Queens	Kerry - 393,482  -  71% Bush - 155,363  -  28%

2000 Election Results

NY STATE
Gore*	3,767,609	60%
Bush	2,235,776	35%
	+ 1,531,833
NYC (5 Boros)
Gore	1,543,523	71%
Bush	376,984	19%
	+ 1,166,539
Manhattan	Gore - 409,777 * 79% Bush - 78,941 * 15%
Bronx	Gore - 239,869 * 86% Bush - 33,221 * 12%
Staten Island	Gore  - 68,903 * 52% Bush - 60,115 * 45%
Brooklyn	Gore - 445,196 * 80% Bush - 89,377 * 16%
Queens	Gore  - 379,778 * 74% Bush - 115,330 * 23%

In 2004, Kerry won 1,192,427 more votes statewide than Bush.  In 2000, Gore won 1,531,833 more votes statewide than Bush.  That means Kerry won 339,409 less votes than Gore in NY State.  - 22%

In 2004, Bush won 2,793,745 votes statewide in NY, and in 2000 he won  2,235,776 votes.  That means he won 503,969 more votes statewide in 2004 than he did in 2000. + 25%

In 2004, Kerry won 1,109,408 more votes than Bush in NYC.  In 2000, Gore won 1,166,539 more votes than Bush in NYC. That means Kerry won 57,131 less votes than Gore won in NYC.  - 5%

In 2004, Bush won 544,359 votes in NYC, and in 2000 he won 376,984 votes in NYC.  So Bush won 167,375 more votes in NYC in 2004 than he did in 2000. +44%

So in NYC, 167,375 more voters came out to vote for Bush - some of them may be in the 'Gore 57,131,' some of them may have voted for other candidates in 2000, and some may just have not voted in 2000 at all.

Note that of Kerry's -57,000, about 20,000 lost votes are in the Bronx.  A lot had been said about the lack of enthusiasm for Kerry from the Black community, and the Bronx is predominantly Black.  Also in the Bronx, Bush gained almost 20,000 votes.  Are those the same people who 'flipped' to Bush in 2004?  If true, that's a huge victory for Dubya among Bronx African Americans, though you won't read about it in the NY Times!

In Manhattan, Kerry gained 60,000 votes, Bush gained only about 17,000.

In Staten Island, Kerry lost around 6,000 votes, and Bush gained 24,000 or so votes.  This was the only boro Bush won in 2004 (he lost all 5 in 2000).

In Brooklyn, Kerry gained about 23,000 votes, and Bush gained about 66,000.  A whole lot more Brooklyners voted and many more voted for Bush, (and Kerry still won the boro commandingly).

In Queens, Kerry gained about 13,000 votes, and Bush gained about 40,000 votes.

There was an increase in voter turnout, also.  In 2004, 6,918,282 or so voters cast a ballot in NYS, and in 2000 6,319,352 or so voters cast a ballot in NYS, for a 9.5% increase or so in turnout.

So here is what it looks like to me.  Kerry lost a lot more votes statewide than he lost in NYC (-22% & -5%).  Bush gained both stateside and citywide, though still not nearly enough to carry either (+25% & +44%).

Of the margins for victory, in 2000 NYC provided a 1,166,539 vote edge for Gore, against the state's 1,531,833 total edge (365,294 non-NYC votes provided the balance of the winning edge for Gore).  In 2004, NYC provided a 1,109,408 vote edge for Kerry, against the state's 1,192,427 edge (83,019 non-NYC votes provided the balance of the winning edge for Kerry).

The difference between the non-NYC winning edge between the two elections was 282,275 votes, in Gore's favor. So most of Bush's advantage was indeed outside of NYC, though when you look at it closely (like I just did), even though he lost NYC by 1.1 million votes in 2004, he did a lot better in the City than he did in 2000. 

And that being said, it's the difference between his 2000 spread of 71% to 19%, and the 2004 spread of 75% to 25%. Bush still lost the state by a dramatic 1,192,427 votes.

[HitmanLV]

Also note that Kerry won 110,000 more votes in NYC than Gore did. While Bush gained, Kerry gained some in NYC also, just not as much.

[HitmanLV]

Oops, I made a big mistake, some apples and oranges action. Here is the corrected analysis. Sorry!!

2004 Election Results

NY STATE
Kerry*	3,986,172	58%
Bush	2,793,745	40%
	+ 1,192,427
NYC (5 Boros)
Kerry*	1,653,767	75%
Bush	544,359	25%
	+ 1,109,408
Manhattan	Kerry - 468,841 -  82% Bush -   95,362  -  17%
Bronx	Kerry - 260,438  -  82% Bush -   52,752  -  17%
Staten Island	Kerry - 62,603  -   42% Bush - 84,270  -   57%
Brooklyn	Kerry - 468,403  -  74% Bush - 156,612  -  25%
Queens	Kerry - 393,482  -  71% Bush - 155,363  -  28%

2000 Election Results

NY STATE
Gore*	3,767,609	60%
Bush	2,235,776	35%
	+ 1,531,833
NYC (5 Boros)
Gore	1,543,523	71%
Bush	376,984	19%
	+ 1,166,539
Manhattan	Gore - 409,777 * 79% Bush - 78,941 * 15%
Bronx	Gore - 239,869 * 86% Bush - 33,221 * 12%
Staten Island	Gore  - 68,903 * 52% Bush - 60,115 * 45%
Brooklyn	Gore - 445,196 * 80% Bush - 89,377 * 16%
Queens	Gore  - 379,778 * 74% Bush - 115,330 * 23%

In 2004, Kerry won 3,986,172 votes statewide, and in 2000 Gore won 3,767,609 votes statewide.  Kerry won 218,536 more votes than Gore. +6%.

In 2004, Bush won 2,793,745 votes statewide in NY, and in 2000 he won  2,235,776 votes.  Bush won 560.000 more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000. + 25%

In 2004, Kerry won 1,192,427 more votes statewide than Bush.  In 2000, Gore won 1,531,833 more votes statewide than Bush.  That means Kerry's margin of victory was 339,409 less votes than Gore's margin of victory across NY State in 2000. -22%

In 2004, Kerry won 1,653,767 votes in NYC.  In 2000, Gore won 1,543,523 votes in NYC.  Kerry won 110,000+ more votes than Gore. +7%

In 2004, Bush won 544,359 votes in NYC, and in 2000 he won 376,984 votes in NYC.  So Bush won 167,375 more votes in NYC in 2004 than he did in 2000. +44%

In 2004, Kerry margin of victory in NYC was 1,109,408 votes.  In 2000, Gore's margin of victory in NYC was 1,166,539 votes. That means Kerry's margin of victory in NYC was 57,131 votes less than Gore's margin in 2000.  - 5%

So in NYC, 167,375 more voters came out to vote for Bush than in 2000 - some of them may be in the 57,13 Gore votes that Kerry lost,' some of them may have voted for other candidates in 2000, and some may just have not voted in 2000 at all.

Note that of Kerry's 'lost' 57,000 Gore votes, about 20,000 are in the Bronx.  A lot had been said about the lack of enthusiasm for Kerry from the Black community, and the Bronx is predominantly Black.  Also in the Bronx, Bush gained almost 20,000 votes.  Are those the same people who 'flipped' to Bush in 2004?  If true, that's a huge victory for Dubya among Bronx African Americans, though you won't read about it in the NY Times!

In Manhattan, Kerry gained 60,000 votes, Bush gained only about 17,000.

In Staten Island, Kerry lost around 6,000 votes, and Bush gained 24,000 or so votes.  This was the only boro Bush won in 2004 (he lost all 5 in 2000).

In Brooklyn, Kerry gained about 23,000 votes, and Bush gained about 66,000.  A whole lot more Brooklyners voted and many more voted for Bush, (and Kerry still won the boro commandingly).

In Queens, Kerry gained about 13,000 votes, and Bush gained about 40,000 votes.

There was an increase in voter turnout, also.  In 2004, 6,918,282 or so voters cast a ballot in NYS, and in 2000 6,319,352 or so voters cast a ballot in NYS, for a 9.5% increase or so in turnout.

So here is what it looks like to me.  Kerry's increase statewide was a little less than his increase in NYC (6% & 7%).  Bush gained much more both stateside and citywide, though still not nearly enough to carry either (+25% & +44%).

Of the margins for victory, in 2000 NYC provided a 1,166,539 vote edge for Gore, a large component of the state's 1,531,833 total edge (365,294 non-NYC votes provided the balance of the winning edge for Gore).  In 2004, NYC provided a 1,109,408 vote edge for Kerry, a larger component of the state's 1,192,427 vote edge (so only 83,019 non-NYC votes provided the balance of the winning edge for Kerry).

The difference between the non-NYC winning edge between the two elections was 282,275 votes. So while Bush made some gains in NYC (167,000 votes) most of Bush's advantage was indeed outside of NYC, though when you look at it closely, even though he lost NYC by 1.2 million votes in 2004, he did a lot better in the City than he did in 2000. 

And that being said, it's the difference between the  2000 spread of 71% to 19%, and the 2004 spread of 75% to 25%. Both are commanding losses.  Bush still lost the state by a dramatic 1,192,427 votes in 2004 (though NYC was much more responsible for the margin of victory in 2004 than it was in 2000).

[Tabi Katz]

Pataki has no base to energize the way Hillary does.

[Tabi Katz]

I agree. He may be able to win NY, with the RINO vote, but the South and Midwest would never support a gun-grabbing pro-abortion extremist for president. There are plenty of people out there who will clamp down on terror without being to the left of Mao on social issues.

[NYCVirago]

I just as soon see Rudy run fro President at this point - a Senate loss to Hilly in 2006 would take a bit of the 'shine' off him, but that being said, he needs to do something to keep the 'shine' on him for another 4 years if he is to be a credible candidate in 2008.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rudy be the new Homeland Security guy very soon.

All this being said, while I think Hilly is a good campaigner who can raise a lot of $ in a national run, and has friends in both the right and the low places, I don't think she is nearly the 'shoe in' at the primary stage, nor the general election stage, as her fawners like to think.

The smarter Democrat voters out there do not want her -- and these are the same folks who worshipped Bill Clinton. She has more ideological baggage than her husband, but with none of the charm. And she would be deadly in the south.

[NYCVirago]

I think he would run close enough in NYC, especially Queens (he would win it over Hillary) and Brooklyn to win statewide. Hillary needs those huge margins in the NYC counties to win, any erosion in that, she's toast.

And Rudy would win SI too, of course. Even when Lazio ran against Hillary, and Staten Island went for Gore, Hillary still lost Staten Island.

[George W. Bush]

"Rudy, Rudy, Rudy..." - Cary Grant

[Drunken Lout]

Why not Ed Koch?

(He'd switch parties I'm sure.)

[Rocket1968]

I'd like to see Lazio run again.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"think that if the GOP can improve upon Lazio's performance by two or three points-which should be relatively easy"

---

Yeah, but doing 2%-3% better than Lazio (which you are correct to point out would be easy to do, since it won't be a presidential election year so Hillary won't benefit from Gore coattails) still means that Hillary wins comfortably. We need to get close to 50% to beat her. Maybe Rudy for Governor and Pataki for Senator could do that, but I'd rather have Rudy run against Hillary.

Peter King is a media whore, but that doesn't mean that he is popular. When he was considering running against Schumer earlier this year, a lot of Republicans were hoping that he would in order to get him out of Congress and out of the public eye.

And King's past support for the IRA will not help him get the "security mom" vote. If you don't think that Hillary will exploit that issue, you don't know Hillary. She'll run to King's right on the War on Terror and the media won't call her on it.

[dangus]

Sigh. So much Clinton paranoia. Rudy wats the job, doesn't he?

[DeFault User]

The south that is the base of the republican party would never go for a guy like him.

Evidently Republicans in North Carolina don't agree. The successful Republican candidate, Burr, had Giuliani TV ads endorsing him big time.

[dangus]

My dream is to see someone else knock of Hillary and see Rudy as governor. He is not a legislator by temperment; he seeks to get things done and to carry the colors up the hill. I fear the Senate is not the best use of his magnificent talents; it's just "using" his star power, but not his person to win a race.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"the Bronx is predominantly Black"

---

No, the Bronx is predominantly Hispanic. According to the 2000 Census, 48.4% of Bronx residents are of Hispanic origin, and given the trend I would wager that Hispanics are now at least 50% of Bronx residents. Blacks constituted 35.6% of Bronx residents in the 2000 Census, but since the Hispanic box on the Census form can be filled by people of any race, that 35.6% includes many black Hispanics. I did some quick math, and 29.9% of Bronx residents were white, but only 14.5% were non-Hispanic whites, so 15.4% of the Bronx population was composed of white Hispanics. 24.7% of the Bronx population marked "some other race," and let's assume that all of them were Hispanic (I'm sure most of them are Hispanic, since many Hispanics in the NYC area are racially mixed and don't feel comfortable with any of the race boxes). Subtracting 15.4% and 24.7% from the 48.4% Hispanic population gives us 8.3% of Bronx residents being black Hispanics. And subtracting that 8.3% from the 35.6% black population leaves only 27.3% of Bronx residents being non-Hispanic blacks.

I would wager that Bush's improvement in the Bronx came from Hispanic voters and from Jewish voters from the North Bronx.