Pal,
We are old Freeper pals and NY-philes, but I am very pessimistic about it.
Hilly carried the day in 'the city' by an absurd margin of 3-1 or so. Rudy may break into that a bit, but I am not sure. His window to do it was back in 2000, but health reasons caused him to bow out. At that point, I pretty much conceded the race to Hilly.
Kerry carried nyc by 3-1 or 4-1 I think. NYC simply just does not get it - from the gum cracking sassy latina secretary or GAP associate, to the crusty working class 'union'' type who puts on his 'nice' sportcoat from time to time to talk down to everyone else, to the terminally lib 'suit' who works on Wall St or a NYC law firm, in the end, it's Hilly country.
9-11 did nothing to shake up these know-it-all NYCers. I have written them off. It's a shame that they will consistently swing the state in these types of matters.
Sorry if I am more jaded than I should be. They are a lost cause.
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.
that said, I also predict that if Rudy or Pataki does run, Hillary will just skip the race and move to the presidential run. she cannot afford to take the risk of losing, if she does, her presidential bid is toast. so I don't think we will even see a Rudy v Hillary senate race.
but if course, I could be wrong.
I looked at the Presidential race returns. George W. Bush substantially improved on his 2000 showing in New York, cutting the Democrat margin by 500,000 votes. Did all of that improvement take place in Upstate New York?