Question for New Yorkers

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Where there is a dominant party there is corruption and cronyism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you even try some semblance of non-partisanship or rational discourse in one of your posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

????? You realize that we're talking about the NYC Democratic party, right?????

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Where there is a dominant party there is corruption and cronyism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you even try some semblance of non-partisanship or rational discourse in one of your posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

????? You realize that we're talking about the NYC Democratic party, right?????

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sorry [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) Where there is a dominant party there is corruption and cronyism.


[/ QUOTE ]

Could you even try some semblance of non-partisanship or rational discourse in one of your posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the remark was NOT meant to be (as it was) about New York, it is still an absolutely correct remark. An unbiased, rational, cold-stone-factual and non-partisan remark, which is valid for all countries and all regimes, and for all of History. This is how true that remark is!

I cannot understand what you saw in that remark that made you jump.

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps because New Yorkers are truly independent in their thinking rather than base their thinking on partisan lines parroting the party line.

I find that Republicans tend to be more guilty of this partisanship than Democrats (and I am talking about the voters not the politicians or the media mouth pieces). I am happy that I am not affiliated with the Republican (or any other) party and can continue to espouse and advocate my moderate viewpoints. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps because New Yorkers are truly independent in their thinking rather than base their thinking on partisan lines parroting the party line.

I find that Republicans tend to be more guilty of this partisanship than Democrats (and I am talking about the voters not the politicians or the media mouth pieces). I am happy that I am not affiliated with the Republican (or any other) party and can continue to espouse and advocate my moderate viewpoints. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying that for the past 50 years or the Republicans have consistently provided a superior candidate? I can dig it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MaxPower]

I think you make the same post about almost any city or state.

California elected both Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan. Texas elected Ann Richards and George W.

If you were just talking about Manhattan, then democrats are a huge majority, but if you include the rest of the city and the rest of New York state, then democrats do not enjoy as large a majority as you might imagine.

I am confused by the responses to the extent they pertain to Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a Democrat. He changed to the Republican party because it was an easy way for him to get into the election without having to wage a primary battle against politicians entrenched in the well-established democratic political machine. His politics, while not as left as, say, Mark Green, clearly leans more toward what the average northeasterner considers "liberal" or "Democrat". The republicans were happy to have him, as he was their only chance at a victory. There are few if any true Republican politicians in NYC that could have any shot at making a mayoral election competitive, Rudy Giuliani aside. He was elected the first time because he had boatloads more money to spend than everyone else put together. He has done a credible job and probably will be re-elected.