NYC Republicans looking at 31-year old councilman to unseat De Blasio in '17

[Simfan34]

^ 20th district. Peter Koo. The problem is - he is, essentially, moderate liberal (centrist on economy, more liberal (AFAIK) on social issues). Just as Bloomberg, and successful Republicans of the past (Lindasy, Kupferman and so on) were. But present day Republican party seems to hate such persons even more then Democrats. Especially - in their "own" party...

Which is where the hypothetical Liberal Party would come into play.

Do you know other council members that might fit into this mold? Garodnick is one. It seems many council members like to call themselves "independent Democrats".

I still remember walking along Park Avenue and describe herself to someone on the phone as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". That tells you what demographic such thought is most popular amongst. But I worry appealing to working class ethnic whites will necessitate comprising what would otherwise be strident anti-union rhetoric.

[smoltchanov]

^ Few, really. Only Kallos and, may be, Crowley, come to mind. And even Crowley may be too populist for such party... In the past most of such people came from Manhattan's UES, but, with Republican party becoming more and more socially conservative, many of them switched to Democrats. South in reverse))))

[Suburbia]

The 31-year old Councilman from Howard Beach, Queens is seriously mulling this run. I think he could make inroads. He's pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage (a Moderate Republican), and he is a white conservative outer borough ethnic. He could be the future of the NY GOP.

He'd probably be a better candidate than Joe Lhota, Rudy Giuliani's protege, who no one probably remembers anymore.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republian-eric-ulrich-mulls-mayoral-run-de-blasio-2017-article-1.2633740

[Suburbia]

Councilman Ulrich is going to be in a reality show to potentially show New Yorkers his potential bid for mayor. If the show goes well, he could potentially do well in a mayoral election. He's youthful, he comes from a conservative area of NYC (Howard Beach), and the NYC Trump supporters are fired up. He could still lose to De Blasio or Quinn or Jeffries in 2017, but he could run for mayor again in 2021 and 2025, and could potentially win, especially if NY is broke or faces high crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/nyregion/reality-show-would-follow-new-york-city-councilmans-mayoral-dreams.html

[Kingpoleon]

Ulrich has the best chance, assuming neither Tom Allon nor Raymond Kelly run.

[Suburbia]

Ulrich has the best chance, assuming neither Tom Allon nor Raymond Kelly run.

Tom Allon would be good as well. Steve Matteo, a Staten Island City Councilmember, would be good too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Over the last 100 years, folks who have been the Democratic nominee for Mayor have served for only 56 of those years.  If you take out the pre-LaGuardia period, non-Democrats have won the mayoralty more often.

There are some caveats to that.  Vincent Impellieieri, elected as an Independent in 1949, had been a Democratic Primary loser that year.  John Lindsay, a Republican, was re-elected as candidate of the Liberal Party in 1969 and switched to the Democrats in 1971.  Rudy Giuliani won as the candidate of the Republican and Liberal parties and had the support of former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch and many white Democratic regulars.  Michael Bloomberg was elected as a Republican three times, even after switching his registration to Independent, and often (as LaGuardia did) supported Democrats.

This doesn't change the fact that over a recent 20 year period, the REPUBLICAN nominee was elected Mayor of NYC FIVE TIMES IN A ROW, and it begs the question as to what is needed to bring this about.  What does the 1965 Lindsay, 1993 Giuliani, and 2001 Bloomberg candidacies have in common?  Are those conditions present here?  Let's look at this, one by one:

There was a large groundswell of Democratic discontent with the Democratic Mayoral nominee:   This was certainly the case in 1965 and 1993, but the differences were profound.  In 1965, it was the reformers that bolted to Lindsay; regular Democrats, some of them rather conservative, stuck with Comptroller Abe Beame, a reliable but lackluster candidate.  This was the model Lindsay stuck to in his re-election in 1969 as a third party candidate.  In 1993, it was the more regular Democrats who opposed Dinkins' re-election, many of whom openly endorsed Giuliani (who also had the Liberal Party nomination).  This was not so much the case for Bloomberg in 2001, but his Democratic opponent, Pubic Advocate Mark Green, was not considered a strong candidate, was not a favorite of regulars, and the election was held two months after 9/11, the height of the term-limited Giuliani's popularity.

The candidate was of significantly higher stature than the Democrat.  Arguably true in all circumstances.  Giuliani was a crime-busting US Attorney whereas  Dinkins was considered over his head.  Bloomberg was one of the world's richest men who built an incredible business, whereas Green was considered a bit of a dilettante.  Lindsay was the Congressman for the Upper East Side of Manhattan, whereas Beame was a rather anonymous City Comptroller. 

There were special circumstances.  Only Bloomberg really qualifies here.  Bloomberg was not considered the favorite until after 9/11; then, he ran on the new, improved Giuliani Legacy. 

Ulrich may have discontented Democrats he can rely on, but he really doesn't have overwhelming standing as a potential Mayoral candidate.  He's not a somebody in business (e. g. Don Trump or Ivanka Trump) with a following, he's not a guy with a heroic rep (e. g. Giuliani), and he's not a guy who can self-fund.  I see this as a non-starter.  If a guy like Ulrich steps up here, it's probably to try to gain a leg up on higher office (although this will be hard to pull off as a Republican).  I see no reason to believe that this sort of candidate will pull off an upset.  He's too weak and too limited for too many Democrats to get on board with.

[Beet]

De Blasio isn't experienced enough to go up against a 31 year old. The Democrats should find an 85 year old to run against him pronto.

[Fuzzy Bear]

^ 20th district. Peter Koo. The problem is - he is, essentially, moderate liberal (centrist on economy, more liberal (AFAIK) on social issues). Just as Bloomberg, and successful Republicans of the past (Lindasy, Kupferman and so on) were. But present day Republican party seems to hate such persons even more then Democrats. Especially - in their "own" party...

Which is where the hypothetical Liberal Party would come into play.

Do you know other council members that might fit into this mold? Garodnick is one. It seems many council members like to call themselves "independent Democrats".

I still remember walking along Park Avenue and describe herself to someone on the phone as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". That tells you what demographic such thought is most popular amongst. But I worry appealing to working class ethnic whites will necessitate comprising what would otherwise be strident anti-union rhetoric.

The "Liberal Party" of New York no longer exists.  It failed to get 50,000 votes for it's Gubenatorial candidate in 2002.  The Working Families Party fills the niche, but the Liberal Party was never really a "Liberal" party; it was a ballot line for candidates to siphon off Democratic votes, or lines for favored Republicans which enabled folks to vote for a Democratic Presidential Candidate and a Senate Candidate like Jacob Javits on the same ballot line.

[Suburbia]

Over the last 100 years, folks who have been the Democratic nominee for Mayor have served for only 56 of those years.  If you take out the pre-LaGuardia period, non-Democrats have won the mayoralty more often.

There are some caveats to that.  Vincent Impellieieri, elected as an Independent in 1949, had been a Democratic Primary loser that year.  John Lindsay, a Republican, was re-elected as candidate of the Liberal Party in 1969 and switched to the Democrats in 1971.  Rudy Giuliani won as the candidate of the Republican and Liberal parties and had the support of former Democratic Mayor Ed Koch and many white Democratic regulars.  Michael Bloomberg was elected as a Republican three times, even after switching his registration to Independent, and often (as LaGuardia did) supported Democrats.

This doesn't change the fact that over a recent 20 year period, the REPUBLICAN nominee was elected Mayor of NYC FIVE TIMES IN A ROW, and it begs the question as to what is needed to bring this about.  What does the 1965 Lindsay, 1993 Giuliani, and 2001 Bloomberg candidacies have in common?  Are those conditions present here?  Let's look at this, one by one:

There was a large groundswell of Democratic discontent with the Democratic Mayoral nominee:   This was certainly the case in 1965 and 1993, but the differences were profound.  In 1965, it was the reformers that bolted to Lindsay; regular Democrats, some of them rather conservative, stuck with Comptroller Abe Beame, a reliable but lackluster candidate.  This was the model Lindsay stuck to in his re-election in 1969 as a third party candidate.  In 1993, it was the more regular Democrats who opposed Dinkins' re-election, many of whom openly endorsed Giuliani (who also had the Liberal Party nomination).  This was not so much the case for Bloomberg in 2001, but his Democratic opponent, Pubic Advocate Mark Green, was not considered a strong candidate, was not a favorite of regulars, and the election was held two months after 9/11, the height of the term-limited Giuliani's popularity.

The candidate was of significantly higher stature than the Democrat.  Arguably true in all circumstances.  Giuliani was a crime-busting US Attorney whereas  Dinkins was considered over his head.  Bloomberg was one of the world's richest men who built an incredible business, whereas Green was considered a bit of a dilettante.  Lindsay was the Congressman for the Upper East Side of Manhattan, whereas Beame was a rather anonymous City Comptroller. 

There were special circumstances.  Only Bloomberg really qualifies here.  Bloomberg was not considered the favorite until after 9/11; then, he ran on the new, improved Giuliani Legacy. 

Ulrich may have discontented Democrats he can rely on, but he really doesn't have overwhelming standing as a potential Mayoral candidate.  He's not a somebody in business (e. g. Don Trump or Ivanka Trump) with a following, he's not a guy with a heroic rep (e. g. Giuliani), and he's not a guy who can self-fund.  I see this as a non-starter.  If a guy like Ulrich steps up here, it's probably to try to gain a leg up on higher office (although this will be hard to pull off as a Republican).  I see no reason to believe that this sort of candidate will pull off an upset.  He's too weak and too limited for too many Democrats to get on board with.

What about Council Minority Leader Steve Matteo or Staten Island Borough President James Oddo?

[smoltchanov]

^ Ulrich is better. In part - because he is more liberal socially. That's a plus in NYC... Staten Island candidates are, usually, social conservatives. But even Ulrich will have enormous difficulties in more then5:1 Democratic city.. Even with all DeBlasio problems..