Question for New Yorkers

vulturesrow · #1 10-10-2005, 02:51 PM

Why have Republicans been so successful in the mayoral elections? Not really trying to start a debate here, I am genuinely curious as NYC is obviously a very liberal city. I realize the likes of Bloomberg and Guliani arent dyed in the wool republicans, but they are republicans.

Hal 2000 · #2 10-10-2005, 03:04 PM

Crime was a huge problem when Giuliani (former DA who helped sink the NY mafia) was elected. Bloomberg obviously has deep pockets for his campaign, and Democrats lately have gotten neither a great turnout, nor enough support from people that should be their base. At least one Hispanic organization has already denounced Ferrer. He'd be lucky to get 40%

SheetWise · #3 10-10-2005, 03:59 PM

What we think is good on a federal level is not necessarily what we want on a local level. It's common to see conservative cities with a Democrat mayor as well -- which to me, makes a lot more sense.

andyfox · #4 10-10-2005, 04:03 PM

Even when I grew up in New York in the 1960s, liberal Republicans did well there. John Lindsay was first elected mayor of New York as a Republican. And at that time, New York state had two somewhat liberal Republican senators (Jacob Javits and Kennth Keating), as well as a Republican governor (Nelson Rockefeller). All this despite overwhelming registation majorities for the Democrats. So voting for somewhat liberal Republicans is not something new for New Yorkers.

vulturesrow · #5 10-10-2005, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All this despite overwhelming registation majorities for the Democrats. So voting for somewhat liberal Republicans is not something new for New Yorkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I might not have been clear in my OP. I know that this is usual for NYC, just trying to figure out why. Dinkins was the last real liberal, no?

sam h · #6 10-10-2005, 04:46 PM

I think you just have to look at individual explanations for each mayor. New York was in such trouble during the 1970s and 1980s and a lot of that had to do with the incompetence and bureaucratic bullshit of the local democratic machine. Giuliani came in basically promising to clean house. Nobody cared about his ideas about national political issues as long as he could clean up crime and get the city on firmer financial footing. Both things happened under his administration, probably more because of spectacular economic performance than his "broken windows" policies. It's important to remember, however, that people soured on his conservative stances regarding censorship, the use of force by police, and other issues. As the end of his second term approached, a majority of New Yorkers wanted him out badly and his political career looked pretty dead despite his own thoughts on the matter (he would have done better than Lazio, but still would have lost to Clinton if he had ran for senate). Then 9/11 hit.

Bloomberg is a centrist who leans left on most issues and, in a vacuum, might have run on the democratic ticket rather than the republican one. But its hard to break into democratic politics in New York as you have to please all sorts of entrenched party power brokers. He's popular in the city because he's all about the bottom line and getting things done but is closer ideologically to most people than Giuliani.

#7 10-10-2005, 04:47 PM

Two reasons:

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

2) The Republican mayoral and statewide candidates steer clear of the wingnuts that dominate the GOP in other parts of the country.

#8 10-10-2005, 05:42 PM

[ 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?

JackWhite · #9 10-10-2005, 05:49 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is on target in that post. I think one party cities or states tend to breed corruption and cronyism. Both parties are guilty. I give credit to the many New York City Democrats who were willing to overlook partisan affiliation to vote for the candidate who they thought would make the best mayor.

nyc999 · #10 10-10-2005, 06:21 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is on target in that post. I think one party cities or states tend to breed corruption and cronyism. Both parties are guilty. I give credit to the many New York City Democrats who were willing to overlook partisan affiliation to vote for the candidate who they thought would make the best mayor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty liberal and cannot get myself to vote for Ferrer. There is so much in-fighting in the Democratic party, and to a lesser extent - corruption. Additionally, there is a sense of "its my turn" with Ferrer and past candidates, so the best candidate doesn't necessarily get the nomination.

There are rumors that many of the big Democratic players publically backing Ferrer are privately rooting against him. Apparently there is someone (can't think of the name) that everyone in the party thinks can take the election in 2009.