Hillary vs Rudy 2000

Let's say Rudy doesn't get cancer and doesn't have to drop out of contention and his campaign against Hillary continues

how do we see that senate race going; and butterflies longer term
 
Rudy would still lose, he was excessively harsh on Hillary and just as polarizing. By the time he dropped out he was trailing her by double digits and would likely still lose, but closer to 52-46 rather than Lazio's 55-43 IMO.
 
Giuliani is all but certain to still lose, but the consequences are interesting if someone else is New York mayor on/after 9/11.
 
I was assuming he won. He can't be both mayor of New York City and senator from the State of New York.

The order of succession means Mark Green becomes Mayor, and he'll run for a full term in the fall. Dunno how effective he'd be at 9/11- certainly not as effective as Rudy. That said, we all agree that Giuliani was on track to lose badly to Hillary given a spring 2000 POD.
 
The order of succession means Mark Green becomes Mayor, and he'll run for a full term in the fall. Dunno how effective he'd be at 9/11- certainly not as effective as Rudy. That said, we all agree that Giuliani was on track to lose badly to Hillary given a spring 2000 POD.

Agreed about Rudy losing. No way he defeats Hillary. It would have taken a Republican who could contrast her abrasive and polarizing style to win. Someone more along the lines of George Pataki, and less like Rudy.

As far as if Rudy won? Well Mark Green's going to have a tough job. If Bloomberg still wins the GOP Nomination then he's going to have a very difficult reelection campaign. Depending on how he handles 9/11, he will either win or lose by a slender margin. Giuliani's record in the Senate will probably be as a social liberal and fiscal conservative, as well as a strong war hawk. He probably supports all of Bush's major legislation, including the Iraq War. I doubt he votes to ban partial-birth abortion or gay marriage. He probably doesn't run for President in 2008, but if he does he suffers the same result.
 
The order of succession means Mark Green becomes Mayor, and he'll run for a full term in the fall. Dunno how effective he'd be at 9/11- certainly not as effective as Rudy. That said, we all agree that Giuliani was on track to lose badly to Hillary given a spring 2000 POD.

My only point was that it would spark a bit of a difference if Giuliani won, not he could have won.

But yes, you are right, Hillary Clinton was going to win that seat, whether against Giuliani or Laio.
 
Partial birth quite possibly he votes yes: Rudy isn't exactly Barbara Boxer on the issue. Gay marriage no on both on the federalist and personal belief reasoning.
 
Partial birth quite possibly he votes yes: Rudy isn't exactly Barbara Boxer on the issue. Gay marriage no on both on the federalist and personal belief reasoning.

Well a large number of more moderate Dems also voted to keep the procedure legal. I think he probably would have voted against the ban as long as he wasn't a deciding vote, if only for helping ensure his reelection.
 
Another scenario: JFK Jr. lives, and faces off against Rudy. Then who wins?

JFK Jr. wins fairly easily, but he has to compete in the War of the Democratic Succession first. Young, charismatic, zero polarization, likeable, and the same ideological profile as Rudy: fiscally centrist and socially liberal.

(On a more personal note, don't spoil my USEA debut)
 
Probably JFK Jr. He was more charismatic and would have had plenty of money behind him. Plus he's a Kennedy. Meanwhile Hillary probably runs for Governor of Illinois.

I'm not sure about the Clinton for Governor thing, but I would love to see what Illinois looks like without Rod Blagojevich. I'm sure she'd do a better job.
 
I'm not sure about the Clinton for Governor thing, but I would love to see what Illinois looks like without Rod Blagojevich. I'm sure she'd do a better job.

Hillary hasn't lived in IL since she was a teenager (same applied to RFK in '64), but that's more of a connection than outright carpetbaggery. Maybe she runs for what IOTL is Mark Pryor's Arkansas Senate seat. With a July '99 POD Kennedy will have to challenge Hillary in a War for the Democratic Succession.
 
Hillary hasn't lived in IL since she was a teenager (same applied to RFK in '64), but that's more of a connection than outright carpetbaggery. Maybe she runs for what IOTL is Mark Pryor's Arkansas Senate seat. With a July '99 POD Kennedy will have to challenge Hillary in a War for the Democratic Succession.
The thing is, apparently the Clinton's were both very keen on moving to New York. So they wouldn't be pleased with going back to Arkansas, but if they really have no choice, than I think that's as good a guess as any as to what they do. The Clintons don't seem like the type to take there ball and go home.
 
The thing is, apparently the Clinton's were both very keen on moving to New York. So they wouldn't be pleased with going back to Arkansas, but if they really have no choice, than I think that's as good a guess as any as to what they do. The Clintons don't seem like the type to take there ball and go home.

Of course not, but I was replying to hcallega's proposal. I said there would be a War of the Democratic Succession, but Kennedy is the slight favorite for the reasons I mentioned. He needs to get his message upstate despite operating at a financial disadvantage. Meet-and-greet, free press from his media friends (stay away from the national media, better to present himself as the underdog), a constant media circuit plus his own media management skills should do the trick. More likely the state party backs him while the federal party splits: Nita Lowey might back him out of spite, Dinkins and Koch are also up for grabs- both Cuomos likely stay out. Another key is quickly positioning himself as the New Democrat he was by aggressively moving to paint Hillary as the VRWC Hillary who is more liberal than her husband. Be firm but civil in the debates, unlike Lazio.
 
Top