Elizabeth Warren Warren and Bernie Sanders do NOT according to a NYTimes Upshot/Siena College poll a year out from Election Day….
Hmmm?
Is this why Biden wins the electability question among Democrats even as Warren had a surge in the polls, but does NOT lead….
Donald Trump’s support has frayed slightly….
But he’s right behind Biden in the important states that Trump won over Hillary Clinton that Barack Obama won….
Elizabeth Warren does worst than Biden and Sanders….
The Times poll deals with the ACTUAL race for the Presidency….
The Electoral college ….
The Popular vote does NOT pick the President…
The poll has Biden way ahead of the other two inn the states except for North Carolina….
THIS IS IMPORTANT for Democrats , right now…
The election is a year away…
Things could change…
But right now?
Joe Biden IS the best choice on paper…
That said?
It’s up to Democratic primary voters…
Despite low national approval ratings and the specter of impeachment, President Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College.
How Trump fares among registered voters
 Trumpvs. |
 Biden |
 Sanders |
 Warren |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan (n=501) |
Even
|
Sanders +2
|
Trump +6
|
||
| Pennsylvania (661) |
Biden +3
|
Sanders +1
|
Even
|
||
| Wisconsin (651) |
Biden +3
|
Sanders +2
|
Even
|
||
| Florida (650) |
Biden +2
|
Trump +1
|
Trump +4
|
||
| Arizona (652) |
Biden +5
|
Trump +1
|
Warren +2
|
||
| North Carolina (651) |
Trump +2
|
Trump +3
|
Trump +3
|
Across the six closest states that went Republican in 2016, he trails Joe Biden by an average of two points among registered voters but stays within the margin of error.
Mr. Trump leads Elizabeth Warren by two points among registered voters, the same margin as his win over Hillary Clinton in these states three years ago.
The poll showed Bernie Sanders deadlocked with the president among registered voters, but trailing among likely voters.
The results suggest that Ms. Warren, who has emerged as a front-runner for the Democratic nomination, might face a number of obstacles in her pursuit of the presidency. The poll supports concerns among some Democrats that her ideology and gender — including the fraught question of “likability” — could hobble her candidacy among a crucial sliver of the electorate. And not only does she underperform her rivals, but the poll also suggests that the race could be close enough for the difference to be decisive.
In national polls, Mr. Trump’s political standing has appeared to be in grave jeopardy. His approval ratings have long been in the low 40s, and he trails Mr. Biden by almost nine points in a national polling average. But as the 2016 race showed, the story in the battleground states can be quite different. Mr. Trump won the election by sweeping Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina — even while losing the national vote by two points.
Democrats would probably need to win three of the six states to win the White House, assuming other states voted as they did in 2016 — an outcome that is not at all assured.
How Trump fares among likely voters
| Trumpvs. |
Biden |
Sanders |
Warren |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan (n=501) |
Biden +1
|
Sanders +3
|
Trump +4
|
||
| Pennsylvania (661) |
Biden +1
|
Trump +1
|
Trump +2
|
||
| Wisconsin (651) |
Biden +2
|
Even
|
Trump +2
|
||
| Florida (650) |
Biden +2
|
Trump +2
|
Trump +4
|
||
| Arizona (652) |
Biden +2
|
Trump +4
|
Even
|
||
| North Carolina (651) |
Trump +2
|
Trump +4
|
Trump +4
|
The Times/Siena results and other data suggest that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown since 2016, raising the possibility that the Republicans could — for the third time in the past six elections — win the presidency while losing the popular vote.
As we’re becoming all to used to, James, you shoehorn or misinterpret facts to suit your opinions and presuppositions.
You’re obsessed with polls for an event a year from now, but you don’t understand them.
First of all, the differences between Trump and the various Democratic candidates are within the combined margin of error, except perhaps for Trump’s 6% lead over Elizabeth Warren among registered (not likely) voters in Michigan and Biden’s 5% lead over Trump among registered voters in Michigan.
But as you say, it’s more useful to look at likely voters, where the Trump difference with each Democrat in each of the six states is within the combined margin of error (4% either way when you add +/- 2% for Trump to +/- 2% for the Democrat ).
And, as you say, especially given the 2000 & 2016 elections, one has to look at each state (and its Electoral Votes) individually.
In Michigan (with the smallest sample, 501), Bernie Sanders actually does better than Biden against Trump. In Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (samples around 650 likely voters), Biden does 4% better than Sanders against Trump, and in the Sunbelt states of Arizona, Florida and North Carolina (samples also ~650-660 in each state) , Biden does 6% better against Trump than Sanders. Biden’s performance against Trump has similar margins (distributed differently among the 6 states) among likely voters compared to that of Elizabeth Warren.
But it’s a year away from the general election, and several months before the Iowa caucuses.
I think it is okay for James to mention that Biden usually outperforms others in head-to-head, but it is no longer “always outperforms” and the magnitude is shrinking. I agree with Dave that those numbers are likely to change as we get closer to the election. At some point, it becomes a legitimate issue if Biden continues to hold a lead in head-to-head competition.
I have tried to point out that the numbers i post ARE for NOW ….
3 months before nomination voting and the general election….
As for manipulating the poll interplay?
I AM a Biden supporter
But I HAVE posted stories on the leaders that do mention their strengths and weaknesses…
That includes Biden….
I do also feel and say that Biden is Not the favorite of the media and HAS led the race from the jump and u’d NEVER know it…
I have mentioned here several times that the supposed S.C. “firewall” for Biden may not be as sturdy as is claimed here.
The primary season is very fluid and when candidates start to win was rvlose they create new realities.
If Biden loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, then he may have much more difficult time in S.C. than it would appear now.
I caught James Clyburn of SC on the CNN Sunday show and while he pointed out that his young grandson is a Buttigieg staffer, he nonchalantly confirmed that older black voters (i.e. Democrats) in his state have a problem with Mayor Pete being gay. He said it was a “generational thing” but also offered nothing to suggest he thought these people were wrong or that he disagreed with them.
Yeah he’s probably homophobic.
Talk about grasping at straws.
I always notice lots of Republicans telling usc how being homophobic is wrong.
I didn’t say he was but if you had actually seen the interview, you might actually be able to opine on it better.
He certainly inferred that older black Democrats are homophobic and that he didn’t see that changing.
Is this something you have a contrary opinion on being around South Carolina Democrats or various ages and races?
I have found many older people still have homophobic views , at least more so than younger people.
That’s pretty much accepted.
I don’t think it’s confined to older Blacks necessarily either and, as I mentioned, the Religious Right still harbors large numbers of Homophobic people and Leaders.
As to Clyburn ,just because he didn’t explicitly condemn that means nothing.Apparently he was simply explaining the matter of certain people opposing Buttigieg.
If it were a Republican not explicitly condemning an attitude like that, it would have gotten notice.I would have assumed Clyburn would have at least said something to infer he felt differently than these people.
Again, Buttigieg is running as a Democrat in a very early important state. What Republicans in SC might think of him is fairly irrelevant at this stage in the game.
Indeed the Religious Right, a major component of the Republican Party ,still often condemns homosexuality.
I’ve never noticed any Republican politicians taking them to task for such.
Religious Right conservatives are unlikely to be voting in the SC Dem primary.
This is an issue for Democrats. When there is a gay Republican candidate one day running for President, it can be addressed then. (Insert your own Lindsey Graham joke here)
Right now, there is lots of evidence that young white people on the left are fine with Mayor Pete being gay and even cite that as a reason to support him, while older minority voters on the left seem to have a problem with it.
So, you are saying that Clyburn has no obligation to do so until Republicans do so?
I don’t think either has an “obligation “ to do so.
Since you were trying to imply that Clyburn “should “ have said something I was just noting that no Republicans take on the Religious Right over this either.
And as we both know no Republican will ,if he has national aspirations.
When an openly gay candidate is running and is being attacked specifically for that reason, people on the right will speak up against it. That has been seen in a Congressional race in San Diego for instance.
And there have been instances where Republicans have been falsely (or irrelevantly) accused of being gay by people on the far right and those candidates have been defended by conservatives in regards to the merits of their candidacies.
Yeah the Republicans have been very supportive of Gays.
It’s so well known politically.
Without the support of the sometimes viciously homophobic Religious Right, they would not win a national election and indeed are major supporters of Donald Trump.
And Trump also ran as the most LGBT friendly Republican ever.
Generally speaking, it’s no longer quite the issue it was on the right.
but maybe SC Dems feel differently.
How “LGBT friendly” can you be if you pick Mike Pence as your VP?
VP pick is pretty irrelevant. Pence has gone along with everything Trump has said on the issue. Ivanka and Jared have more power than Pence anyway.
To be fair, Dick Cheney was certainly the most pro-LGBT to this day on any Republican ticket. He was far ahead of just about every national Democrat in saying he would support same sex marriage.
In 2004, the Democrat ticket deliberately had a duplicitous strategy to try to “remind” voters that Cheney had a lesbian daughter.
Ha ha! You are clearly bored at wprk and want to make a mountain out of a molehill with your little Republicam grievance.
Hope it keeps you entertained till quitting time!
Trying to pass some time.. yes.
But if nobody else actually saw this Clyburn interview, I think that you have to acknowledge as such. I think if any of you had actually seen it live, you would have been left with a similar thought.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons for people to oppose Buttigieg for the Presidency, such as his being merely the 37 year old Mayor of the fourth largest city in Indiana.
Opposing him simply because he is gay seems wrong and ought to come across as wrong to someone who has been around politics as long and is in a top party leadership role like Rep. Clyburn. It’s worth a quick acknowledgement of “I don’t think it’s right.”
(and it seems from what has been written about focus groups that people are most upset that Pete has a husband and lives with him. Shouldn’t perceived monogamy at least be worth some moral points?)
You couldn’t care less about any of this.
I’ve never seen you all up in arms when Republican Presidential candidates bow the knee of fealty to openly homophobic leaders of the Religious Right.
Who do you think you’re kissing with this little piece of faux”outrage”
Then again, you said you were “bored.”
When did I say I was “outraged?” I am simply pointing out that out of all the reasons Mayor Pete should not be President, his gayness should not be at the top of the list.
Either you agree with me on that or you do not. Which is it?
How hard would it be for you “jack” to simply admit that some Democrats are simply wrong on a moral issue.
Or maybe you don’t think they are wrong. If so, own that.
I think anyone who is homophobic is wrong be that person a Democrat or a Republican ,a Black or aWhite.
Of course this little canard you’re now throwing in had nothing to do with what started this discussion which was that you felt Clyburn should have said something after explaining why some older Blacks opposed Buttigieg .
As fo Buttigieg himself, his being Gay aside?You oppose him as vigorously as you do all the Democratic candidates and everyone here knows that, your “concern’ or whatever little game you are playing today notwithstanding.
Have fun being uh “bored” and find a new shtick.
Well, maybe Clyburn should have answered the question the way you started off your last post and this would not be something people were talking about.
Instead, he seemed to give credence to what is typically called “bigotry” or even “hatred.”
A complete double-standard.
And yes, I criticize Buttigieg, his being gay “aside” as you concede, since it’s not something I concern myself with.
I also would feel far less afraid for the country if he were President as opposed to Warren or Sanders.
Who was “attacking” Buttigieg.
According to you Clyburn was just explaining thecopposiition to him as he perceived it.
I didn’t say anybody was “attacking” Buttigieg, did I?
However, it is being given as a granted and sort of with a smile and a shrug by Clyburn that his political appeal is hurt by what most Democrats would easily describe as “bigotry” or even “hatred.”
You did of course defend Fritz Hollings and supported him for President after all the “hateful” remarks he made over the years, long after such things started becoming unacceptable.
But I suppose being a Republican means I shouldn’t care about unfairness to Jews either.
Just say, “well, some people might feel that way. I don’t think it’s right. I’m neutral in the race at this point, but I am proud of my grandson for taking on a role in that campaign.”
Instead his answer came off more like, “yup, they aren’t getting over THAT” Oh well. Us old folk are gonna just stay old.”
If Clyburn had been asked this question about Bernie Sanders and large segments of South Carolina Democrats, would he have been as willing to admit that Sanders being Jewish was a political problem?
The candor in this case of Buttigieg seemed a bit eager to be spoken to.
Now, if information came out that Trump had an affair with a gay porn star (perhaps the guy that someone used to post about on P1) and paid him hush money to cover it up, would Trump lose Evangelical support?
I tend to doubt it. People in that group would claim it was a positive for Trump and then compare him to Cyrus from the Bible or something.
The Buttigieg ‘gay’ thing WAS posted here a few weeks ago….young black’s won’t have problems with Buttigieg…
But in general?
Biden’s older (40 and up) base comes out to vote in bigger numbers…
Biden WILL win SC….
Actually Sanders has been polling better then Warren there …
Biden is ahead by strong double digits…
New Nevada poll has Biden lead and Sanders 2nd….,
What happens if Biden comes in third or fourth in Iowa? If he gets second, perhaps he can make it a battle against the other person in terms of electability or experience and hope for a quick rebound in NH, which is often what happens in both parties,, but how would he spin third or fourth?
Biden is behind in Iowa but as DSD points our he’s behind around the MOE….
There is little chance he’s come in 3rd or 4th….
But of course he could….
Warren has opened up a better lead in NH…
But as been said OVER AND OVER…
These two states are small and NOT Diverse…
Biden LEADS in Nev,SC, Texas and almost EVERY other state polled RIGHT NOW….
So?
Whike he doesn’t want to go there
He just COULD actually lose both
and actually still blow out the field by Super Tuesday ….
That’s not in the realm of reality.
If he fares poorly in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the people supporting him now, who do not want the prospect of Elizabeth Warren being the nominee, will be on to looking for someone else, either inside or outside the field.
Remember, Biden is 0 for 2 as a Presidential candidate… dramatically.
This time, he went into it with all sorts of advantages. If he can’t make something happen in IA or NH, that should be a huge warning to Democrats about his ability overall.
Well as long as we are discussing 2004 candidates and how they ranked on LGBT rights how about that very open minded Senate candidate Alan Keyes!
Well, in 2004 Alan Keyes had his openly gay daughter by his side at nearly every campaign event while completely decked out in rainbow gear, working on his campaign.
The same gay daughter he later disowned?
We’ve had this exact discussion before. There is no reason to believe he permanently “disowned her.” You ought to at least know the facts. Any rifts they had in 2005 were not about her being gay, although the father did say he did not approve of it. Still, the parents knew she was gay, as an adult, and still provided for her, and the father hired her as his political employee.
She said that she had started to be involved in anarchy groups in 2005. At the time, she was receiving a salary from her father’s political committee (i.e. donors) and living in an apartment that the committee rented out. She was apparently told that because of the new interest in anarchy movements she could no longer live in that apartment. She was 20 years old by this time. She was not exiled from the family or anything like that. I have no idea what became of the family unit since, but her father clearly was willing to utilize her publicly in his political efforts even after knowing she was gay.
So the defense here is that Alan Keyes is only a little homophobic.
He continues to believe that homosexuality is a sin. Great way to show support for your daughter who you kicked out of her apartment and stopped paying her college tuition. At the age of 20.
Hey, but it’s all good. Being a little bit homophobic is like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren’t. And Alan Keyes and his wife have shown who they were the first time.
The desire to defend this religious bigot astounds me. But, I stopped being astounded when Corey defended Nixon’s anti-Semitic rants to the “very holy Billy Graham.”
Gives new meaning to the term Party Over Country!
Is the reason that you believe Alan Keyes is very open-minded because he allowed his daughter at his campaign events without requiring that she tone down the gayness?
I’ve never particular cared if Alan Keyes was open-minded or not. I did observe her though taking part on the campaign and found it noteworthy at the time, considering his views.
The narrative that he “disowned” her or somehow took negative action against her because she was gay just just simply not backed up by facts. It’s more of an urban legend, similar to the urban legends that were told about Hillary Clinton and which I pushed back on online.
Generally speaking, campaign donors are not going to donate to a campaign that pays for someone who has vastly different political views (in this case anarchism) to have a salary or to live.
He kicked her out of her apartment and stopped paying her college bills, but he didn’t disown her??!!
What kind of asshole father does that?
And Keyes still freely objects to her lifestyle as if he thinks she can do something about it (paging Mike Pence).
This is his fucking daughter not your average campaign staffer. Ah Republicans blindly defending other Republicans. Pretty sad when Dick Cheney is morally superior on an issue.
Time for Trump to put old Alan in the Cabinet
Back to an earlier sub-topic: Donald J. Trump may have said he approved of LGBT(Q) people, having the support of an explicitly homophile Gays for Trump, and even forcing the Republican convention to condone (even cheer) LGBT(Q), but there’s nothing I can see in his administration that favours the LGBT(Q) population — most notably his attempt to forbid (and even discharge) trans people volunteering to serve, fight for, and even risk death or disability for, the United States and its Constitution.
To me, it’s a little reminiscent of the contrast between a very inclusive-looking 2000 GOP convention with Dick Cheney telling the Wednesday Group before G.W. Bush’s inauguration in January 2001, that the Trump-Cheney administration was determined to govern from the hard Right with no concessions to moderate Republicans, and that GOP legislators had no choice but to support that agenda. The only one of those half-dozen Republican Senators who did not fold was Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
And Chafee became a Democrat. Republicans are almost completely homophobic.
And Chafee has since left the Democrats and joined another party.
Maybe that says something about Chafee or maybe he was offended that there are so many anti-gay Democrats in SC that some people just choose to shrug off.
Really?
You are defending that Right Wing nut job Alan Keyes?
He was still mouthing off that homophobic stuff a mere four years ago.Thankfully he seems to have drifted off the scene.
The Kook was claiming that Gay marriage could lead to Civil War and other such foolishness.
As I said yesterday and will reiterate.
You couldn’t care Less about homophobia but were so bored yesterday that you started this whole discussion and where does it finally lead?
To you defending a nut like Keys!
Good days work!
What other irrelevancy does today hold?
Interesting conversation about the homophobia that infests the Republican Party from Trump’s various appointments to Mike Pence bigotry against gays when he was Governor.
And, although our friend seems to think that Mike Pence isn’t important to this discussion. I beg to differ, given the shit that appears to be flowing down on Trump, Pence may take on new importance to the Nation along with his homophobia.
But let’s talk about the real GOP.
How quickly people forget the anti-gay marriage propositions the Republicans put on the ballot to hype turnout from so-called Christians. And it worked. But those who deny the real intent behind Nixon’s Southern Strategy will surely try to deflect the homophobia of his Party.
Interesting this new found concern for Mayor Pete and how certain segments of the Democratic base might respond to his candidacy. It might be important to point out that the first serious black, woman, and gay candidates for President are all Democrats. While the Republicans have exclusively run old white guy’s culminating in a huge orange piece of shit.
South Carolina came up today and it reminded me that the Bush campaign did serious damage to John McCain’s campaign by simply spreading the rumor that he has a black child. When this year’s Democratic Primary campaign gets to this level of vitriol please get back to me. But it won’t.
Finally, if Lincoln Chafee isn’t a candidate himself next year I have no doubt that he’ll be voting for the Democratic nominee. Chafee is both practical and a social liberal, he will vote for the only candidate who can beat Trump.
CG needs more to do at his job. No one was buying his “Democrats are the REAL homophobes” argument.
Hey I can’t blame him for trying. Reminds me if when I was still a young Republican in the 1990s. I tried to bring up Tipper Gore’s crusade to label explicit lyrics as proof that the GOP was the party of free speech. The old white guys did not give a shit and had no interest in proclaiming the Republicans pro Tupac.
Lincoln Chafee weighs presidential bid as Libertarian
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [via WJAR-TV, Cranston, RI)
Thursday, August 22nd 2019
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — Former Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee is considering another run for president as a Libertarian.
The onetime governor of Rhode Island confirmed in a text message he is open to another presidential run, this time with the Libertarians.
The Daily Beast was first to report the news Thursday.
Chafee moved to Wyoming this year and joined the Libertarian Party. He told The Daily Beast he is motivated by the deficit and because of his anti-war views.
Chafee was a Republican in the U.S. Senate and became an independent after losing his seat in 2006.
He was elected Rhode Island governor in 2010 as an independent and became a Democrat in office.
He did not run for reelection but mounted a short-lived run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2015..
He did not run for reelection but mounted a short-lived run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2015.
https://turnto10.com/politics/lincoln-chafee-weighs-presidential-bid-as-libertarian
This one will be short lived too.
Larry Sabato….
Every story on the IOWA caucuses should include this: “Iowa’s population is 91% white. Thus, it is not representative of the U.S. population & even less representative of Democrats.” And New Hampshire is 94% white, yet IA & NH winnow the Dem field all by themselves. Go figure.
So, if Biden does poorly among white Democrats, what does that say about his ability to win the votes of white Independents that Democrats need to win the general election?
I don’t think any serious person would disagree that whomever ultimately becomes the Democrat nominee will have a huge advantage with black and Hispanic voters against Trump.
You guys need to add white voters more than anything else to win.
Joe Biden does NOT do poorly among white Democrats….
Sanders and Warren do better among younger Democrats…
It’s just that Biden takes the black vote 3 to 1 in most states…
Biden takes most of the white over 45 vote also…
He IS the leader with moderate Democrats black and white….
THOSE groups tend to elect the nominee which HAS been and runs as a moderate , which is to the left of a conservative Republican…
Interesting?
Trump peeled off some indies in 2016…
Biden seems to be doing better than Trump and his fellow Dem’s with them right now….
Let’s NOT forget….
Right NOW?
Biden does better than his fellow Democrats and against Trump…
*Everything* you are saying about Biden today in terms of “let’s not worry about the early states” and “look at all the states he leads that will come up later” and “look at how he does better than the others in the general election.” could have been said in November of 2007 by Presidential supporters of Rudy Giuliani.
He, he, he…..
Yea Rudy?
Who was a Vice President for 8 years?
Or?
Was in the US Senate for decades?
Or.
Was a Democrat?
THAT Rudy?
Yeah, he had a larger lead than Biden had in meaningless national polls.
(At one point his national celebrity was far more valuable than having been VP or in the Senate)
He decided that Iowa and New Hampshire weren’t important and he would wait to make a stand in Florida.
I told everyone his national celebrity was bull shit….
He tried to Geta third term after 9/11….
New Yorkers said , NOPE…
Bloomberg after him DID get the third term…
Rudy WAS NOT ALL that going into 9/11…
His political judgement sucked then….
It hasn’t gotten any better….
Whenever you return to the topic of “Rudy would not have won a third term in 2001 had he been eligible to run”, you set a new personal record.
Thank You CG on my Rudy truth telling efforts…
Corey is correct on this issue. James is not being objective again. Of course Rudy would likely have won re-election. And the fact that a Republican replaced Guliani is significant.
The fact that Biden served as VPdoesn’t mean that much. It didn’t help Dan Quayle – did it?
It is very unlikely for a Democrat who was previously defeated in their bid for President to be elected President. I’m not even sure it ever happened. And Biden not only was defeated, he was humiliated..
Z?
PLEASE READ the following….
All u guys outside of New York have brought into Rudy as the second coming in the Big Apple after 9/11….
THAT is NOT True….
I’m listing stuff to back up what I HAVE been saying here..The man was NO different than who he is TODAY
NY Times Oct. 1, 2001…
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s chances of staying in office past Dec. 31 dimmed markedly today. State lawmakers declared the idea of extending his term by 90 days all but dead, and some in the mayor’s camp said he would not try to run for a third term.
Mr. Giuliani said last week that if the three major candidates for mayor did not agree to a three-month extension of his term, he might run again in November on the Conservative Party line — an idea that defied the city’s term limits law and faced certain legal challenge.
Today, as groups like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause opposed any attempt to extend his stay in office, some of the mayor’s top aides said there was little chance that he would attempt to run again, noting that the deadline for securing the Conservative Party line is next Monday. ”I don’t hear anyone talking about that any more,” one aide said…
…
”I don’t see any chance of it happening,” said Assemblyman Roger L. Green of Brooklyn, chairman of the Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative Caucus…
…
Mr. Giuliani supported the term limits measure when it went before voters in 1993 and again in 1996. After the attack on the trade center, he quietly explored the possibility of overturning the law, but was rebuffed by the City Council and the Assembly…
…
In Albany, minority lawmakers, in particular, have adamantly opposed allowing Mr. Giuliani to remain in office. Of the 99 Democrats, 24 are black or Hispanic..
…
Assemblyman Keith Wright, a black Democrat from Manhattan, said: ”It is time for Rudy to ride off into the sunset. We’ve had enough of this guy, and on Dec. 31, we shall all overcome.”…
More…
……..
Mr. Giuliani said yesterday that he had decided that seeking a third term would cause too much acrimony. The mayor said he told Mr. Long that running on the Conservative line ”would lead to division and it would lead to litigation.”
”And the city doesn’t need division and litigation at this time,” he added. ”The city needs every effort we can make to keep it unified.” Mr. Giuliani also acknowledged that the Legislature had not given him much hope in his quest for a third term.
Mr. Giuliani said his offer to stay was simply that: an offer that the Legislature and the candidates could take or leave. He said he had no political motivation for wanting to stay in office…
More…
…
The Nation June 17, 2002
Rudy Giuliani was a C-plus Mayor who has become an A-plus myth. Since the atrocity of 9/11, Giuliani has managed to merge himself with wounded New York until the man and the metropolis–and this almost religious event–seem to be one heroic blur.
But in April 1999, in the sixth year of his term-limited mayoralty, Giuliani had only a 40 percent approval rating from the people he governed, who knew him best. A year later his divorce lawyer was savagely attacking his wife, Donna Hanover, while the Mayor was flaunting his mistress in public. He even brought his girlfriend into the Mayor’s residence, Gracie Mansion, while his wife was still residing there. They don’t allow this kind of behavior in trailer parks!
As a result, Giuliani’s popularity plummeted again in the spring of 2000. He was almost a laughingstock when he withdrew from his Senate campaign against Hillary Clinton. The official reason given was the Mayor’s diagnosis of prostate cancer, but even conservative writers like William Safire in the New York Times and Robert Bartley in the Wall Street Journal had urged him not to run in pointed columns focused on his chaotic personal life.
In May 2000 Giuliani looked like a control freak who had lost control of himself.
Then came the events of 9/11, and Giuliani re-emerged as an international celebrity. By all accounts he took charge when the towers fell, and he displayed leadership when others were dumbstruck. Individuals he knew–and loved–died in the attack, and this gave him sensitivity and dedication….
More…
All of that means absolutely nothing and is completely irrelevant to the point that has been brought up on this matter.
In November of 2001, Rudy Giuliani had about an 85% job approval rating in NYC. He would have won in a sweeping landslide *then.* This is not even an arguable point. (Now, NYC wouldn’t even vote him to a Nostalgia Commission.)
You know what?
Some people are hopeless when confronted with the facts …
I should known that some people will defend Rudy’s mythology🙄
james, “hopeless” defines you to a hilt on this and many other matters.
This Giuliani in 2001 matter is probably the one solitary thing that every single other person on here would agree together on and wonder why it is even up for discussion.
Dan Quayle = Joe Biden??????🤣
It’s actually a pretty good comparison, age difference aside.
Both were elected to the Senate while very young against incumbents that had been heavy favorites.
Both were considered pretty good as Senators as far as working with others, across the aisle, making friendships, etc.
Both were completely loyal Vice Presidents who were called upon to rally portions of the base politically.
Both are known for gaffes and misspeaking.
Both sat out a cycle when they stood the best chance to possibly be nominated, and then ran four years later.
Quayle went nowhere. It remains to be seen for Biden, but lucky for Joe, he doesn’t have to face Michelle, Sasha, or Malia Obama in the field.
You can’t even keep your lines straight at this point.
So, it’s not the states are too white now but that the state’s are too young?
This is only going to get worse for you over the next couple of months. I will not relish watching it.