Why Exactly Did Mario Cuomo Never Run for President?

In 1988 and 1992, the expected Democratic frontrunner was Mario Cuomo - the popular, highly charismatic Governor of New York. He was notable for breaking new ground for Italian-Americans in public life, his unabashed liberalism, and his magnificent oratory. Even President Reagan once quipped that Cuomo, not him, was really "the great communicator." However, in both years Cuomo declined to run citing bizarre reasons: the first time because of his "bad back," the second time because it was supposedly more important to deal with New York's budget deficits. Most people tend to dismiss these explanations as excuses, believing that there were deeper reasons for Cuomo's decision to sacrifice the presidency. But even so Cuomo's true motives are hard to pinpoint. So why really did Cuomo never run?
 
In 1988 and 1992, the expected Democratic frontrunner was Mario Cuomo - the popular, highly charismatic Governor of New York. He was notable for breaking new ground for Italian-Americans in public life, his unabashed liberalism, and his magnificent oratory. Even President Reagan once quipped that Cuomo, not him, was really "the great communicator." However, in both years Cuomo declined to run citing bizarre reasons: the first time because of his "bad back," the second time because it was supposedly more important to deal with New York's budget deficits. Most people tend to dismiss these explanations as excuses, believing that there were deeper reasons for Cuomo's decision to sacrifice the presidency. But even so Cuomo's true motives are hard to pinpoint. So why really did Cuomo never run?
He didn't want to? Being president of any country is one hell of an ungrateful job.
He got to rest on his laurels as a great politician of new york state instead of risking his legacy and health.
Not every politician is always hungry for more, as hard as it can be to imagine that.
 
He didn't want to? Being president of any country is one hell of an ungrateful job.
He got to rest on his laurels as a great politician of new york state instead of risking his legacy and health.
Not every politician is always hungry for more, as hard as it can be to imagine that.

Similar answer for Mitch Daniels. Fans were expecting him to leap after the vice presidency with Trump. But, really? Why? He had a better paying and far less stressful job, and long term security as president of a major university. Attending University policy meetings, and the fund raising party circuit sounds a lot more fun than the hectic and thankless US VP position.
 
I've never looked too deeply into it, but I believe I've heard that he was angling for a spot on the Supreme Court that never came.
 
He didn't want to? Being president of any country is one hell of an ungrateful job.

According to those close to him he "very badly" wanted to run in 1992 and indicated this in his 1991 speech taking himself out of the race. Even in his 1992 speech nominating Bill Clinton for President at the DNC there's an awkward pause before he says Clinton's name, like he really had wanted to say "I Mario Cuomo" and not "Bill Clinton."
 
Occam's Razor suggests that there was some nasty scandal that would come out if Cuomo ran. I have no idea what that would be, but it is the simplest possible explanation.
 
Well, short of any of the other explanations offered here, maybe Cuomo simply thought he couldn't win. In 1988, he may have thought that the legacy of Ronald Reagan's new brand of conservatism was still too powerful for a New York liberal to beat, and in 1992 it initially seemed like Bush was poised to win reelection. The stress and the commitment that a Presidential campaign would entail, just to wind up losing, may not have seemed all too appealing to him.
 
While Cuomo was popular, he lacked financial support and national infrastructure for a successful run. Primaries are in many ways an endurance test and some candidates fizzle out easily if they cannot start or maintain the fundraising-support-victory feedback loop. His liberal credentials were also seen as a vulnerability as he was seen as "dreaded New York liberal," unsuitable for both the country and the conservatives and moderates within the Party. It just seemed that he couldn't capture the nomination on his own and he never dared to try,

If he ran in primaries, I suspect he would end up in 2nd and 3rd place (at best) after gradually losing momentum and campaign funds. His best bet was to be chosen as a VP for someone.
 
Last edited:
Well, short of any of the other explanations offered here, maybe Cuomo simply thought he couldn't win. In 1988, he may have thought that the legacy of Ronald Reagan's new brand of conservatism was still too powerful for a New York liberal to beat, and in 1992 it initially seemed like Bush was poised to win reelection. The stress and the commitment that a Presidential campaign would entail, just to wind up losing, may not have seemed all too appealing to him.

IMO this is most likely. In 1986 Harris polling showed every single Democrat including Cuomo trailing Bush, with the exception of Gary Hart. And in late 1991 Bush beat Cuomo in opinion polls by 5%, in fact Bush was leading in the race generally until Perot dropped out in the summer of 1992, after that Clinton had a consistent lead. But the conventional wisdom the year before was that Bush was going to win and it was better to wait for 1996. Cuomo wasn't the only leading Democrat not to run in '92, Al Gore didn't either. Perhaps Cuomo's failure to become President wasn't really due to what a lot of people have speculated (lack of confidence, fear of anti-Italian bigotry, etc), but due to something simpler: pure miscalculation. Had the Persian Gulf War never happened and if Bush didn't enjoy that temporary boost of popularity, I think Cuomo would've run and won. In OTL he came so close to running he even chartered a plan to NH to meet the filing deadline, then waited until the last minute to decline.

If he ran in primaries, I suspect he would end up in 2nd and 3rd place (at best) after gradually losing momentum and campaign funds. His best bet was to be chosen as a VP for someone.

Not true. In 1992 he was leading his closest primary opponent by 20 points. He easily would've crushed Tsongas and Clinton in New Hampshire, before whipping Brown in New York and Wisconsin.
 
Not true. In 1992 he was leading his closest primary opponent by 20 points. He easily would've crushed Tsongas and Clinton in New Hampshire, before whipping Brown in New York and Wisconsin.

Speculation cannot be factually true or untrue.

Cuomo did not participate in 1992 election or you mean national polling average? Have you adjusted it for name recognition which cannot win the elections alone as plenty of elections have shown?

The 538 analysis actually shows that after controlling for name recognition Cuomo was behind Brown, Wilder, Kerrey and Harkin in latter half of December 1991.

Your speculation doesn't contradict my speculation that Cuomo campaign would in 1992 end up facing an uphill battle against Clinton who prepared a massive national infrastructure and could outlast Cuomo until the convention while Cuomo would have to continue winning outside liberal urban centers to persuade the rest of the party, voters, SDs and donors to continue funding his campaign.

All while being a liberal governor from a state that can be easily painted as a mismanagement hellhole that barely reelected him, who opposes the death penalty after the infamous ad usage in the previous elections and who can be quoted to have suggested ceding territory to Saddam Hussein.

He would have to win nearly every primary and continue winning when the primaries move from New England to convince donors to finance his campaign and indecisive primary voters he can defeat Bush. Clinton would not give up after a defeat in New Hampshire, he would wait to rebound as he already had war chests prepared for Florida and other states. Clinton would have to be painted as the unwinnable, and this would probably require all OTL nineties scandals coming out in quick succession.

Cuomo could never persuade enough people in time he could win the elections and he knew it - he was perhaps the man many would want to win but did not believe he actually could, a perpetual second (ideal) choice, earned only through his combative speechmaking.
 
Last edited:
Speculation cannot be factually true or untrue.

Cuomo did not participate in 1992 election or you mean national polling average? Have you adjusted it for name recognition which cannot win the elections alone as plenty of elections have shown?

The 538 analysis actually shows that after controlling for name recognition Cuomo was behind Brown, Wilder, Kerrey and Harkin in latter half of December 1991.

Your speculation doesn't contradict my speculation that Cuomo campaign would in 1992 end up facing an battle against Clinton who prepared a massive national infrastructure and could outlast Cuomo until the convention while Cuomo would have to continue winning outside liberal urban centers to persuade the rest of the party, voters, SDs and donors to continue funding his campaign.

All while being a liberal governor from a state that can be easily painted as a mismanagement hellhole that barely reelected him, who opposes the death penalty after the infamous ad usage in the previous elections and who can be quoted to have suggested ceding territory to Saddam Hussein.

He would have to win nearly every primary and continue winning when the primaries move from New England to convince donors to finance his campaign and indecisive primary voters he can defeat Bush. Cuomo could never persuade enough people in time he could win the elections and he knew it - he was perhaps the man people would want to win but did not believe he could win, a perpetual second choice.

A) Hillary Clinton had more name recognition in 2008 yet she lost. B) Apparently you didn't even read the entirely the very article you cited, which reads, "Mario Cuomo, may be the politician in modern times who would have been most likely to win the presidency if he had only bothered to run for it." If anything that hurts your claim instead of helping it. C) Clinton would be unable to last beyond the initial primary season after a poor showing in New Hampshire. In OTL he was able to regain momentum by acquiring an identical amount of delegates to Tsongas even though he technically lost the primary. There's no way that is going to happen with Cuomo in the race. Clinton most likely finishes a distant third, with his defeat blamed on the sex scandal that occurred just before the primary. He'll be seen as tainted by the Democratic leadership and the party base, and eventually he'll withdraw by Super Tuesday at the latest. D) Cuomo was not "barely re-elected," he was elected to a second and a third term by the largest re-election margins in the modern history of New York gubernatorial races. In 1990 he defeated his nearest opponent by 31.8% of the vote!
 
A) Hillary Clinton had more name recognition in 2008 yet she lost.
Yes, correct, I am quite glad you agree with me. As I said name recognition does not win the elections and that is the main advantage of Cuomo.

Apparently you didn't even read the entirely the very article you cited, which reads, "Mario Cuomo, may be the politician in modern times who would have been most likely to win the presidency if he had only bothered to run for it." If anything that hurts your claim instead of helping it.


Now you've devolved to pure intellectual dishonesty since you conveniently choose to ignore what doesn't suit you in the article, just two paragraphs below.

upload_2018-10-28_23-4-22.png


You cannot read only what you want and pretend the rest of the article does not exist.

C) Clinton would be unable to last beyond the initial primary season after a poor showing in New Hampshire. In OTL he was able to regain momentum by acquiring an identical amount of delegates to Tsongas even though he technically lost the primary. There's no way that is going to happen with Cuomo in the race. Clinton most likely finishes a distant third, with his defeat blamed on the sex scandal that occurred just before the primary.

The "Comeback Kid" story is just spin and no one seriously believes he would withdraw after a defeat in a single state. Cuomo would probably steal more votes from Tsongas than from Clinton anyway. Clinton had enough funds and would never quit the campaign until the primaries have moved to the South. His campaign always had a plan that relied on showing he had staying power.

In 1990 he defeated his nearest opponent by 31.8% of the vote!

That is a creative way to state he won because of the split Republican vote between Rinfret and London. In fact, he won 53,2% of the vote in 1990, which is a decrease of 12 points compared to his 1986 victory.


This is not discussion, this is soapboxing about the great liberal hope of Cuomo so I'll leave it to others to continue providing the rope to hang yourself.
 
Last edited:
Now you've devolved to pure intellectual dishonesty and personal insults since you conveniently choose to ignore what doesn't suit you in the article, just two paragraphs below.

Oh please, this is utter nonsense. First of all, most of the polling I've seen put Cuomo far in the lead, including Gallup which put Cuomo at 33% and Brown at 15%. (Here's the link for those interested: https://books.google.com/books?id=E...v=onepage&q=mario cuomo 33% brown 15%&f=false) Your graph is a worthwhile source, but I have to take all the evidence into account when making decisions. So ultimately my opinion hasn't changed, sorry.

This is not discussion, this is soapboxing about Cuomo so I'll leave it to others to continue providing the rope to hang yourself.

Introducing facts into a discussion constitutes soapboxing? That is devolving into "intellectual dishonesty and personal insults." Throughout the discussion I've done my best to represent the facts and that hasn't changed here. In starting this thread I wanted to have a productive discussion about American politics, not deal with someone who would rather spit venom and spin untruths than have a beneficial debate.

Ignored.
 
Top