- ‹ previous
- 5345 of 8807
- next ›
Maybe GOP Voters Should Consult New Yorkers for Thoughts on Rudy
The New York Daily News has conducted a poll in which it asked New Yorkers who they thought was a better mayor and a better potential president -- current Mayor Michael Bloomberg or former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
The results? Bloomberg in a landslide. For both.
Who is/was a better mayor -- Bloomberg 56%, Giuliani 29%.
Who would make a better president -- Bloomberg 46%, Giuliani 29%.
Now I know that New York is a heavily Democratic city, but if America's love affair with Rudy Giuliani is based on the fact that he "protected us" or "showed us strength" on 9/11, what does it say if the people who needed protection most, and who needed to see strength the most, don't like the man? Shouldn't it be a requirement if running for office that the last people you governed are satisfied with your performance?
Actually, if that was the case, Romney and McCain would be out too.
Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton would be just fine. For some reason, I can't find numbers on Obama, but I'd bet he's doing just fine in his home state.
Update: Yes, I know Bloomberg is technically a Republican, but he was a life-long Democrat before he ran and is about as liberal as any "Republican" can be. He's well-liked across party lines because of his effectiveness. That's why I once called him post-partisan.
Wait, I thought you were the guy who doesn't trust polls? Just kidding.
To reiterate a point I've made here before (some people are probably sick of it by now), look at Bill Richardson's appeal to Republicans and Independents as compared to Clinton's. Then explain to me why Hilary is leading the pack.
This is especially interesting when you consider that NY's "independents" are probably more left-leaning, whereas NM's "independents" are probably more right-leaning.
Bill Richardson sounds pretty good on the environment. I'd be curious to know what he thinks of nuclear power. He, of all the candidates, should be aware of the issues of storing nuclear waste.
The environment is the single most important issue to me, bar none.
That said, *, are you stating that you think that Bill Richardson leaning toward the right is a good thing? Not to me. I'm looking for a strong liberal. The center is so far to the right these days that it's literally scary to me. When people in today's center thing that The New York Times is "a liberal rag" and I know that it is still just slightly RIGHT of center, I get nervous. I'm looking first for an environmentalist, second for a liberal. Since the two have a tremendous overlap, I expect not to have to choose between these ideals.
Oh, and, as a New Yorker, I agree with the poll. El Duce may be the least bad on the Republican side. I hope he gets the nomination. I also hope he loses.
Scott,
I'm strictly talking about chances of victory in the general election. I think Richardson's appeal to the center and disillusioned conservatives make him a lock for a general election victory. I understand that the far left would be less happy voting for Richardson than Kucinich, but they will vote for whomever the Dems nominate at this point. That makes Richardson a lock to win. I also think that Richardson would be a better president than any of the other candidates, but I'm also not a Democrat.
Understand, I'm not saying that Richardson is the only Democratic candidate who can win. After eight years of Republican corruption and incompetence at the executive level, it's the Democrat's election to lose. But if I were a Democratic voter, I'd prefer to take the sure thing at this point. I think Hillary stands a good chance of losing in the general election if she is the Democratic nominee.
Oh, and, as a New Yorker, I agree with the poll. El Duce may be the least bad on the Republican side. I hope he gets the nomination. I also hope he