Where are the Republican candidates for New York?

Sure, Mike Bloomberg won big nearly two weeks ago to extend Republican control of the New York City mayoralty. But what does this mean for the Republican Party in the years ahead? In the city, the New York Times points out that there are no apparent successors to the Mayor for the 2009 election.

There are only a few in New York City that hold any positions in government that might be a launching pad for a bid to extend the control of the mayoralty to 20 years. Vito Fossella of Staten Island, the only Republican congressman from the city, James Oddo, also of Staten Island (and represents a small part of Brooklyn) who is the Minority Leader of the three Republicans in the City Council, and Martin Golden of Brooklyn, a former City Council member that was elected to the State Senate in 2002, all come to mind. However, those three don't look strong enough right now to take on Democrats such as the popular Comptroller William Thompson and Congressman of the 9th District of New York (parts of Brooklyn and Queens) Anthony Weiner.

The Times reports that it would be a steep uphill battle for either one of those Republican candidates simply because there are few Republicans in the city and thus, it would be extremely difficult for the party to raise enough money for its candidate to run a viable campaign. Therefore, the best hope for the Republicans may be a candidate that could finance his or her own campaign.

The same problem that Republicans see in 2009 was also a problem in 2001 after Rudy Giuliani was set to depart due to term limits. It's very possible that Democrats would have won the election had it not been for Bloomberg's entry into the race.

Which brings to mind the ingredients that made a Republican victory possible, as highlighted in the article:

"The fact of the matter is, Bloomberg adopted a re-election strategy to be nonpartisan and actually nonpolitical," said Serphin R. Maltese, a state senator and chairman of the Queens Republican organization. "I don't know if I believe that you continue to have a party that way. Post-Bloomberg, it's self-evident that there are not a lot of people who want to come forward and run for office as a Republican who don't have the benefit of a large fortune."

And later in the article:

"It is the governing principles that are more important than the personalities themselves," said Mr. Fossella, citing improvements in the city's quality of life and crime control. The past four elections have shown, he said, that if a Republican candidate is willing to "subordinate that partisan or ideological difference to the role of governing," voters will "have enough common sense to distinguish between those differences that are material and those which are not."

But as Mr. Fossella himself noted, it is equally likely that the Republican line in 2009 will serve much as it did for Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Giuliani before him: as a vessel for candidates who are too mercurial or impatient to work their way up through the Democratic nomination, or not clearly liberal enough to win the backing of the city's dominant political interest groups.

"More than anything, the Republican Party is a vehicle for positive change," said Mr. Fossella. "And I think the party would welcome anyone who wants to be a part of that."

So is it possible that a Republican would find much success by...well, being a Republican? Or would a Republican candidate only find success if they highlight their abilities as a manager and leave partisan politics behind? If so, what does that mean for the Republicans as they look for people to rise through their ranks? And what does it mean for Democratic hopefuls that would have to fight their way to the top to win their nomination?


Is this the key to becoming Mayor now?

The article suggests that there may be a few potential candidates that could viably run on the Republican ticket in 2009. But the Times succumbs to hype that this person could do anything. One of the possibilities (yes, in pure speculation) is Donald Trump. Would Trump have any interest in being Mayor? Which Trump would the city get: the one that went bankrupt or the one that's enjoyed immense success?


Vote for him or you're fired!

The path to an easy shot at the general election does indeed run straight through the Republican Party. But is it something that the Republicans want?

The 2006 Gubernatorial race is underway, with a little under a year until the election. Although there may be a competitive race to win the Republican nomination, it looks unlikely that the Republican candidate in the general election will win. That is not to say that there isn't a chance, but the way polling has found, the Republicans face an uphill battle.

Part of the problem may be that the current field of potential gubernatorial candidates is not attracting the hearts and minds of voters across the state.

Former Massachusetts governor William Weld has thrown his hat into the race. However, there are new troubles for Weld as he finds himself having to answer for recent positions he held.


Is Weld fading fast?

Three-time gubernatorial candidate Tom Golisano is also in the competition. Independently very wealthy, Golisano financed his own campaigns and in 2002, under the Independence Party ticket, won 14% of the vote. His campaign website announces that on October 11, Golisano changed his voter registration to the Republican Party.

However, among primary voters, Golisano may not be popular. For one thing, he has run each time against current and outgoing Governor George Pataki. Furthermore, Golisano is affiliating himself with Republicans like Arizona Senator John McCain and talks about the Reform wing of the Republican Party. This may not go well with conservative Republican primary voters. Lastly, the three previous runs may provide enough ammunition for opponents to use against him. While he certainly has enough experience to run (after all, 14% of the vote under a third-party ticket after defeating Pataki to win the Independence Party line is impressive), it is still uncertain whether he would be able to survive a Republican primary.


Can Golisano win the support of Republicans for the primary?

Three other candidates for the Republican ticket have not yet had enough support to appear in polls against Democratic front-runner Eliot Spitzer just yet. However, that does not mean that they will be out of the race. With a crowded field right now, anything is possible.

Urban Elephants has listed the polling done thus far for the Republican candidates versus Spitzer. So far, Tom Golisano has the best chance against Spitzer, but even he is facing a 58-26 disadvantage, according to a poll by Siena College.

Finally, the race for Senate is also underway as Hillary Clinton tries to win a second term as New York's junior senator.

The current leader for the Republican nomination is Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro. Her campaign is failing to gain on Clinton although there is still one year left to go until the election. The polls (thanks to Urban Elephants for this list) show that Pirro is staying at around a 60-30 disadvantage with Clinton.

The main challenger to Pirro is former Yonkers mayor and member of the State Assembly, John Spencer. Aside from an anomaly in a Strategic Vision poll at the end of October, Spencer has about the same level of support in a matchup against Clinton. Perhaps this is the bare minimum that a Republican candidate would get against Clinton and the polls could only tighten, even if slightly, from now until the 2006 election.

However, Clinton will be very tough to overcome. Unless a Republican heavyweight candidate like Rudy Giuliani enters the race, this field of Republicans will not defeat Clinton. The best they could hope for would be to damage any chances that she might run for President in 2008.

So where are the Republican candidates? Now with another grand cycle in the eternal electoral fight, with Pataki stepping aside to chase delusions that he will be President, to Bloomberg leaving the Mayor's Office after 2009, the Republican field is thin. Of course, Democrats like Eliot Spitzer and Hillary Clinton are strong candidates. However, Democrats will cross party lines for strong Republicans and/or against weak Democrats (see Ferrer, Fernan-D'OH). Perhaps this will provide competitive Democratic primaries in the future, as voters look for differences in the candidates.

But as it stands right now, the Republicans are rather weak. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? That very well depends on one's political views. But is it ultimately good for New York? Perhaps a housecleaning is needed statewide and the only way to do that is to elect Democratic candidates. As far as New York City goes, it might not always be for the best that there is no strong challenger to the Democratic nominee. Think Ferrer facing someone that wasn't Bloomberg.

But there is still a chance for Democrats to reform themselves in the city. The embarrassing show put forth by Ferrer's campaign may show Democrats that they might not want to travel down that road and instead go in a new direction, looking towards 2009 potentials like Comptroller William Thompson and Congressman Anthony Weiner.

The effects of weak Republican statewide candidates remains to be seen. Would they be able to cultivate stronger candidates for future races? Or would they face a split between moderate members and conservative members (as well as the Conservative Party)? Would Democrats find themselves fracturing because of internal debates? It is simply too hard to tell at this point.