Bloomy tops Rudy in battle of the titans Daily News poll shows overwhelming support for billionaire By KATHLEEN LUCADAMO DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU Posted Monday, May 14th 2007, 4:00 AM Michael Bloomberg is not only a better mayor of New York than Rudy Giuliani - he'd make a better President, too. That's the result of a Daily News poll released today that asked the voters who know best - New Yorkers - which man belongs in the White House. City voters overwhelmingly chose Mayor Mike over America's Mayor as their pick for President, 46% to 29%. "I feel in my heart Bloomberg is a better man," said Jaen Garcia, 53, of Highbridge, the Bronx. Bloomberg insists he's not running for President, even though he has dropped more than a few tantalizing clues, including traveling around the country, pushing national policy changes and reviving his Web site. If he decided to enter the race - most likely as an independent - Bloomberg and his billions could cast a huge shadow. But whether he's willing to take on GOP front-runner Giuliani remains to be seen. Giuliani enjoys a national reputation as the man who cleaned up New York and held the country together in the devastating weeks and months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Here at home, though, it's a different story, The News' survey shows. Some 56% of voters said Bloomberg has been as the more effective mayor, and 29% picked Giuliani. An additional 10% ranked them about the same, and 5% didn't know. <img src=http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2007/05/14/amd_pollgrafic.jpg> "I like that everything Bloomberg said he is going to do for the city, he did. There are more charter schools and I like that," said Sharran Roberts, a 30-year-old mother from Bushwick, Brooklyn. "[Giuliani] did over his wife, he did over [New Yorkers] and he is not going to do it with the country," Roberts said. Blum & Weprin Associates surveyed 503 registered voters in a Bloomberg-Giuliani showdown and the 2009 mayoral race for The News. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. In the poll, Bloomberg trounces Giuliani among every demographic group as a better mayor and potential President except Republicans and voters under age 30. "I'd vote for them as a presidential team, but egos get in the way," said Dan Ricciardi, a 54-year-old doctor from Brooklyn Heights. "[Bloomberg] is more of an elitist, but he is an excellent mayor." The survey found Giuliani's biggest weakness as mayor was with African-Americans, where he trailed Bloomberg by 64% to 20%. "Giuliani was a very hostile person to the African-American community," said Michael Lewis, a 58-year-old African-American from the upper West Side. "I don't particularly like Bloomberg, either, but he is less rigid." Not surprisingly, Bloomberg's greatest vote of confidence for President came from the richest voters - those earning more than $100,000 annually - who prefer him, 61% to 31%. "I just see [Bloomberg] as a better person," said Susan Gershen, a 63-year-old upper West Sider. "And I'd be interested in what he has to say if he runs for President. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/200...ops_rudy_in_battle_of_the_titans-2_print.html
The survey found Giuliani's biggest weakness as mayor was with African-Americans, where he trailed Bloomberg by 64% to 20%. ....ya see, this is why polls are so messed up....there is too much weight on this stat when the grim reality is that a very small % of A.A's actually vote in elections.
Ha! Another Rudy supporter who can't handle the truth that Rudy is not as well loved as people think he is...
Bloomberg is far to the left of Rudy and would fit in comfortably with the Democrat candidates. It would be interesting to see the effect he would have as a third party candidate. The conventional wisdom would be that he would hurt the Republican candidate, but I am far from sure that would be the case. I could see him draining the wealthy liberal professionals from the Democrats. It could completely alter the dynamic of the race, for example by giving the Republicans a real shot at some of the northeastern and upper midwest blue states. Certainly, very few southern or evangelical republicans would ever vote for a guy like Bloomberg. He's way off the reservation on numerous issues.
The local pundits miss the boat. All it takes to get elected is all the states Kerry won plus Ohio. Bloomy could be running for VP, who knows... He has the money to finance a campaign, no problem there, and this country can turn on a dime (we have seen it before when Kerry lost in Iowa, then quickly became the nominee), so people like Bloomberg, Fred Thompson, Gore are still mentioned...primarily because there is no dominant candidate on the left or the right. There is a big black hole, just waiting to be filled. The bloom is slowly going off of Obama, Rudy's corrupt side is coming out, McCain is doddering around, Romney isn't gaining...and on the dem side it is a mess, with Obama and Hillary probably unelectable because of their genetic dispositions... So a moderate republican like Bloomy appeals to some, a right winger like Thompson appeals to some, and Gore...who has the most real life experience in government continues to tease... It is funny to hear you, when anyone in your party doesn't follow the Rush Limbaugh party line (like Bloomberg) that you label them off the reservation...
HA! another dumb ass post in which you respond and make assumptions but fail to READ what the poster said... I neither supported nor bashed Guiliani....I was questioning the poll because as is often the case....polls can be misleading and flat out WRONG...kind of like you. FWIW: I don't like Rudy all that much....he is a sheep in wolves clothing...I think he's more of a democrat then a republican.....The only thing I give him credit for is cleaning up NYC....Its unreal the changes that occurred under his watch.
WOW!!!! Did you break this down scientifically? ....on the flip side, all it takes to get elected is win all the sates Bush won..Duh! With this sort of reasoning you could become a great teacher of trading: " All you have to do to make money is not take losses and let the winners ride".
I now really do believe you are that stupid...some people just pretend, you are the real thing when it comes to stupidity... It has to do with where candidates need to focus their time and energy in order to win the presidency. We saw in 2000 that winning the general popular election means nothing if you don't win the real election, i.e. electoral votes. So, winning all of the states that Kerry won by a dem should be easy, and Ohio is the swing state. Doh!
Surely you don't maintain that Bloomberg could win republican primaries? He is way left of Guiliani and Guiliani is too liberal. It's not a matter of what Rush says, it's a matter of principle. I do basically agree with the rest of what you say however. I don't think it's quite fair to say that Hillary and Obama are doomed by genetics because, let's face it, their genetics are why they are where they are. If Hillary were a man, would she really be so clearly better than say Evan Bayh or Joe Biden? If Obama was not half black/muslim/etc, no one would have heard of him. He probably would not have gotten into Harvard Law and certainly would not be a Senator.
I don't know if he could win or not, he is not campaigning directly, he is not entering debates, many in the republican red states don't even know who he is. I am sure if he wanted, he could be just as much of a flip flopper as Romney and the others trying to suck up and pander to get voters to love him... You are talking of principle? You crack me up. A card carrying ditto headed member of the "end justifies the means" party talks about principle... You really do crack me up....