You are aware that NYC is roughly 20 times the size of Hunter's district population wise, and that it's bigger then all but a handful of states?
Even I can see the flaw in your silly logic, and I'm not even a Giuliani supporter.
Dear zbigreddogz,
"You are aware that NYC is roughly 20 times the size of Hunter's district population wise, and that it's bigger then all but a handful of states?"
Actually closer to about 12 times, but who's counting?
"Even I can see the flaw in your silly logic, and I'm not even a Giuliani supporter."
There is no flaw in the logic. Whether being mayor of New York City qualifies one to be president or not (I don't really believe that it does - but that's another thread), that isn't what is under discussion.
Folks are talking about who is electable, and using past performance of those who have and have not been elected president as an indicator of future performance. Past performance shows that folks whose sole elective experience is as a US Representative seldom get elected president.
Using this past performance indicator, I see that folks whose only experience is as a big city mayor also don't seem to get elected president.
Thus, based on how many big city mayors get elected president, one could say that Mr. Giuliani is darn near to unelectable.
Now, I think that the whole effort of predicting who is electable in the future based on what offices those elected previously held in the past is a little foolish, and thus, don't really think that Mr. Giuliani is unelectable because all he's ever done, electorally, has been Mayor of New York City, but that is, after all, my point.
No one has been elected from the House to the Presidency of the United States since 1880? Okay. No one has been elected to the presidency who had previously only been elected as a big city mayor.
sitetest