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.

[dangus]

>>He'd be a good choice, but he's not a New Yorker - he lives in Illinois.<<

Well, actually he lives in Maryland. (That's his problem.) I think you're thinking of Hillary Clinton. She's from Illinois :^D.

[dangus]

Well, we know Hillary could beat Bill... or at least throw a telephone at him. :^)

[dangus]

"When you look back over the last several decades, the "frontrunner" for a presidential nomination almost never gets it: Dean, McCain, Bradley, Gore (in 88), Hart, Bush (in 80) and the list goes on."

Uhh... On what planet were McCain, Bradley and Bush (in 80) frontrunners? You're calling a one-term congressmen and long-gone chief spook a front-runner over the former Governor of California who won 48% of the primary vote against an incumbent just four years earlier?

Or you expected the monster from Goonies to beat the incumbent vice president in 2000?

And please, McCain was a media darling, but W had been the favorite since 1997. Did McCain ever top 10% among registered Republicans in any state besides New "We hatessss Bushesss" Hampshire.

The only two people that weren't seen a mile off were, ironically, the two you did not mention: Mike Dukakis and Bill Clinton. And even Bill was known by insiders to be the 1992 nominee as early as 1988.

The good news for democracy is that 2008 will see, for the first time since 1980, two primaries whose results have not been pre-determined. (Even though Reagen was the obvious eventual winner in 1980, I'll at least allow that this was because he had run such a great insurgency race in 1976: THe party didn't want him, but couldn't beat him.)

[Dante3]

Rudy has by far the best chance.

[dangus]

If they go moderate the choice will be Evan Bayh. Joe Lieberman would infuriate the Democrat base too much. Think of the anger that Pennsylvania Republicans have towards Santorum, who has been a rock-solid conservative. Now imagine the anger the crazies in the demonrat party have for a man who defended Bush's foreign policy. Gephardt and Lieberman also stink of loser. And Zell Miller is simply a Republican; the difference between him and fellow Georgian Newt Gingrich, to Democrats, is that Newt at least had the honor to switch parties.

[NeoCaveman]

Of course, Pataki is much less liberal than Chafee, and Chafee is one RINO Senator that I would rather see lose to a Democrat so long as we aren't in danger of losing the Senate. But if Chafee was running against Hillary, I'd all of a sudden think he was Chafee-rific.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Defeat Hillary!

[dangus]

... but frankly I'm betting on someone who is reliably liberal socially, but Southern, so he will claim to be conservative. Someone like Mark Warner (Gov.-VA), Phil Bredesen (Gov.-TN), Mike Easley (Gov.-NC), Bill Richardson (Gov.-NM), or Bill James (Gov.-OK).

[dangus]

Bush got clobbered in the outer suburbs in 2000, but made strong gains in 2004 in Suffolk County (LI), and even won Rockland and Orange counties (downstate mainland). He did even gain votes in the Bronx (!).

[dangus]

REALLY??? He could win Suffolk County??? I could say I grew up in a red county???!!!!!!

[diabolicNYC]

I'll volunteer, here are my qualifications:

Age: 25
Ideology: More conservative in my left pinky than the entire NY "GOP"

[dangus]

>>Sure, side with the rich. How about a Met?<<

The inaugural ball could beheld at a Howard Johnson, if that made you happy.

Strange coincidence: HoJo (the Restaurant) and HoJo (the Met) have the same colors: Blue and Orange.

[dangus]

>>Sure, side with the rich. How about a Met?<<

The inaugural ball could beheld at a Howard Johnson, if that made you happy.

Strange coincidence: HoJo (the Restaurant) and HoJo (the Met) have the same colors: Blue and Orange.

... Oh, and you do realize that Joe Torre was also a Met, don't you?

[dangus]

>>6% in Queens, 9% in Brooklyn, 2.5% in Manhattan, 5% in the Bronx, 3% in Westchester,<<

Yes, but Zero times (1+2.5%) still equals zero. While his growth in Manhattan looks reasonable, it still amounted to nothing. In contrast, his growth in the suburbs amounted to a lot of votes.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Bill James (Gov.-OK)."

---

Bill James stopped writing his Baseball Abstracts to become Governor of Oklahoma? : )

The Governor of Oklahoma is moderate Democrat Brad Henry.

[dangus]

Oh, Peter King is sooo good, I hate to lose him in a quixotic campaign. The House needs him!

[AuH2ORepublican]

Yes, Bush's gains in Manhattan were pretty much nothing. I mentioned Manhattan (along with every other NY county within the NYC metro area) because not doing so would mislead people into thinking that Bush's gains in NYC were larger than they were.

[dangus]

Oops. you are correct. Mental failure.

[montag813]

how about Jimmy Swaggart!!!

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Zero times (1+2.5%) still equals zero"

---

Oh, I see what the confusion is. I didn't mean to say that Bush got, for example, 5% more votes in the Bronx than he did in 2000. When I wrote +5% for the Bronx I meant that he went from 12% of the Bronx vote in 2000 to 17% in 2004. Bush's vote percentage in the Bronx actually went up by 42% and his vote total in the borough went up by 46%, but obviously those percentages are highly misleading since Bush started off with such a low percentage in 2000.

[jimfree]

I'm ready to take a "listening tour" of the state.