WI: Giuliani Runs Against Clinton in 2000 Senate Race

Growing up in NY, I remember the debacle of Rick Lazio running against Hill' Clinton.

What a lot of people forget is that Giuliani was originally running against her, and amidst a public divorce and a bout with prostate cancer he was neck and neck in the polls with Hillary, and conservative candidates had a 46 to 42 plurality over Clinton in the last poll taken before he dropped out. As soon as the baton was passed to Rick Lazio, he got crushed in the polls by Clinton. He ended up losing by 12 points.

What If some POD back in the 70s and 80s Giuliani's cancer happens in 1995 so that (as is true OTL) he is left impotent. This pre-empts Rudy's philandering and holds his marriage together for a few more years.

Can Rudy win? Who becames mayor of NY? What becomes of Hillary? Does Rudy capitalize on 9-11 still (the Senator that "knows NY") and use this to win re-election in 1996?
 
Here is a relevant data point. Gore carried New York with 60% of the vote, and beat GW Bush by 25 points.

During the Cold War/ Civil Rights ere there was something of a tradition of voters overwhelmingly voting for one party for the Presidency and the other for Congress, but by 2000 that had pretty much come to an end. In a large visible Senate race, the other party winning the state in the presidential election by 25 percentage points is too much of a headwind. Lazio actually did pretty well to only lose by 12 points, he ran well ahead of his party's presidential candidate that year.

So if Giuliani runs and no scandals come out, he loses the Senate race by 4 points and Hillary Clinton's reputation is enhanced somewhat by having defeated a high profile opponent.

Likely nothing at all changes from IOTL. However, there are two butterflies that could be big if they survive. One is Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. It was close enough that minor weird PODs earlier could well change the result. The other is that more Democratic donor money gets sucked into the more visible New York Senate race, and they wind up losing a couple of close Senate races in other states. Every 21st century election where the Democrats have wound up in control of the Senate its been very close, except for 2008.
 
It's an interesting question, and one I have thought about before. Giuliani in 2000 was much admired in NYC, even before 9/11 vaulted his political stock to the Moon in it's immediate aftermath. In a theoretical Senate campaign, I can see him carving out a larger slice of NYC voters than any other Republican possibly could. Ditto some of the other large cities of the state.

The NY Conservative Party nominated Rick Lazio for the Senate seat. It stands to reason that they would do the same in a Giuliani candidacy. If he gets a larger share of votes out of NYC, and manages to stave off Clinton's surprising victories in Upstate counties, like Cayuga, Niagara, and Rensselaer, Giulliani stands to win the election by, I think, a comfortable margin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_New_York,_2000#Results_2
 
FWIW, in 2000 the Democrats did not lose a single Senate seat that they had held in states that Gore carried. The only two seats they had held that they lost were in NV and VA--both states carried by Bush (and obviously Robb had personal problems in VA...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2000

Bush got 35.23% of the vote in New York state in 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 I don't doubt that Giuliani would have run ahead of *that* but I question whether he would have run far ahead *enough.* New Yorkers who voted for him for Mayor would not necessarily do so for Senator. And BTW his ratings as mayor were down to 44 percent as early as February 1999. https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/...l/new-york-city/release-detail?ReleaseID=2266 They didn't go above 50 percent again until November 21, 2000, and they never again were anything like they had been in 1997-8 until after 9/11.
 
Giulani likely gets beaten by Hillary (she has never lost an election in her lifetime other than the 2008 Democratic primary, and I don't see Giulani pulling an Obama).
 
Here is a relevant data point. Gore carried New York with 60% of the vote, and beat GW Bush by 25 points.

During the Cold War/ Civil Rights ere there was something of a tradition of voters overwhelmingly voting for one party for the Presidency and the other for Congress, but by 2000 that had pretty much come to an end. In a large visible Senate race, the other party winning the state in the presidential election by 25 percentage points is too much of a headwind. Lazio actually did pretty well to only lose by 12 points, he ran well ahead of his party's presidential candidate that year.

So if Giuliani runs and no scandals come out, he loses the Senate race by 4 points and Hillary Clinton's reputation is enhanced somewhat by having defeated a high profile opponent.

Likely nothing at all changes from IOTL. However, there are two butterflies that could be big if they survive. One is Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. It was close enough that minor weird PODs earlier could well change the result. The other is that more Democratic donor money gets sucked into the more visible New York Senate race, and they wind up losing a couple of close Senate races in other states. Every 21st century election where the Democrats have wound up in control of the Senate its been very close, except for 2008.
Hillary was really hated in NY, but you are right NY never elected a Republian Senator during a presidential election since Reagan. So, getting Rudy elected would be tough by default, though not impossible as NY did have a republican governor. Rudy was hurt for being too socially liberal, but when the alternative is hillary some upstate hicks may see the light...
 
If he gets a larger share of votes out of NYC, and manages to stave off Clinton's surprising victories in Upstate counties, like Cayuga, Niagara, and Rensselaer...
Good point. Never underestimate the importance of the deceased on election day. They are tenacious voters that cast their ballots early and often.
 
They didn't go above 50 percent again until November 21, 2000, and they never again were anything like they had been in 1997-8 until after 9/11.
Any Repub that wins 50% of NYC wins the election. Look at how NYC usually votes:

fivethirtyeight-0724-NYmain-blog480-v2.png
 
Any Repub that wins 50% of NYC wins the election.

Well, in the first place for most of 1999-2000 he was considerably below fifty percent job approval ratings. The boost in late 2000 was largely due to sympathy because of his cancer. And secondly there is a vast difference between job approval ratings *as mayor* and the willingness to vote for someone *for senator.* Residents of New York City have been much more wiliing to vote for Republicans for mayor(LaGuardia, Lindsay, Giuliani, Bloomberg) than for "national" offices including senator. Party labels are much less important in mayoral races.
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the chart that pattersonautobody posted.

From 1972 to 1992, Democratic presidential candidates tended to get 4% to 6% more of the vote than their popular nationwide percentage. The chart covers margins, so its a bit difficult to read, and you need the nationwide figures, but basically the Republican margin in New York was never more than 11% smaller than their nationwide margin on the three elections they carried the state, and the Democratic margin never more than 11% bigger on the three occasions they carried the state.

Up until 1968, New York had actually been a swing state. Dewey carried it in 1948 while losing nationwide. It had a Republican Governor and legislature, and Republican Senators more often than not. This turned into a Democratic lean in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Republicans could still get elected to the federal Senate. Republican Senators were elected in 1974, 1980, 1986, and 1992. They held that particular seat for over forty years.

In the 1990s this changed. Democratic presidential candidates started consistently running 10% ahead of their nationwide popular vote percentage in New York. New York turned into a safe Democratic state. The last Republican Senator from New York was elected in 1992, with the last Republican governor elected in 2002. People in 2000 really hadn't absorbed this change.

You don't get a Republican Senator from New York short of a completely nationwide meltdown of the Democratic Party, a complete re-alignment, or something causes the gap between New Yorker's voting behavior starts shrinking. If the Democratic candidate gets indicted for bribery mid-campaign, this doesn't affect things, they just replace him.

Btw, New York City politics uses a different party system, though the nationwide and state party labels are confusingly still used.
 
Top