Giuliani Vs. Clinton, 2000

In 2000 we missed what would have been one of the great battles for the Senate of the modern era, a Giuliani Vs. Clinton race for the Senate seat of New York.

Just two years earlier Schumer & D'Amato spent a combined total of 40 million dollars and Giuliani-Clinton would have been at least 30 million dollars.


So. Let's say Giuliani stays in. The obvious question is: who wins?

The next question is money—how much does Giuliani & Clinton vacuuming up cash impact both the Presidential and down ballot races? As is, Gore was hurt by all the cash and time Bill/Hillary devoted to the Senate race and they'd almost certainly devote more with Giuliani in. This could effect a number of other 2000 Senate races on both sides.

Their respective future political careers? Butterflies in the Presidential race?
 

maverick

Banned
Hard to say...its a heavily democratic state, not to mention the symphaty for Clinton for having a cheating husband which she used to start her own political life...

And of course Giuliani is popular in NYC, but this is the pre 9-11 Giuliani...
 
Hard to say...its a heavily democratic state, not to mention the symphaty for Clinton for having a cheating husband which she used to start her own political life...

And of course Giuliani is popular in NYC, but this is the pre 9-11 Giuliani...

The last four Quinnipiac polls before Giuliani withdrew were:


(The margins of error were in the 3-4% range among 700+ sample groups.)

Clearly Clinton has a slight edge.

Neither is terribly popular: Giuliani has fav/unfav/mixed/'don't know' of 36-30-27-6 (in middle May, up slightly from April); Clinton has 37-35-22-6 (middle May, unchanged from April).

Essentially they're equally liked, but Clinton is more disliked than Giuliani.

Quinnipiac said:
Giuliani leads among upstate voters 45 - 39 percent, and among suburban voters 55 - 34 percent, while Clinton leads 59 - 32 percent among New York City voters.

Clinton is "too liberal," 35 percent of New York voters say, while 4 percent say she is "too conservative" and 49 percent say she is "about right."

Giuliani is "too liberal," 10 percent of New York voters say, while 23 percent say he is "too conservative" and 55 percent say he is "about right." Among Republicans, 80 percent say Giuliani is "about right."


Overall the situation is pretty good for both candidates, with Giuliani having lower negatives and more room to grow in NYC; Clinton—obviously—has retained a slender but consistent lead for over a month.
 
So. Let's say Giuliani stays in. The obvious question is: who wins?

Assuming things go pretty much as per OTL in terms of Rudi's personal life, etc, (Which, as I recall, was one of the main reasons he dropped out in OTL) I wouldn't put money on him winning it. Pre-9/11, and back in the good old days of campaigning, there'd be nothing stoping Clinton mudslinging her way to victory.

I'd say Clinton by about two to five percent.
 
So who would be Mayor of New York City in time for September 11th ? Or would Giuliani have held on to that AND run for the Senate at the same time (planning to drop the former if he won the latter) ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Well, presuming Rudi is elected to the Senate as Mayor, then presumably the Deputy Mayor would take over. No idea who that was at that point. EM will know.

Rudi couldn't run for Mayor in 2001 due to term limits, (he actually said in OTL the Mayoralty prevented him from campaigning more) so if he decides to make a really serious run, he might drop the Mayoralty anyway both to give him more time to campaign and to try to connect with upstate voters.

Edit:

Nope. It would go to this guy. He narrowly lost against Bloomberg in OTL - presumably here, post-9/11, he would thrash him. If Rudi does win, or - worse - resigns during the campaign and then loses, then I doubt some in the Republican establishment would thank him for that.
 
Last edited:
Top