Good. Gillibrand would have beat him anyway.
No she wouldn't have.
I'm just wondering, what makes you all so confident that Giuliani would beat Gillibrand? New York is a very Democratic state and Giuliani is a poor, uncharismatic candidate. And please don't tell me that polls show Giuliani leading, since polls mean absolutely nothing a year before election day. Truman demonstrated this over 60 years ago.
So all polls are irrelevant? Brilliant argument there buddy.
I'm not saying all polls are irrelevelant. I'm just saying people's opinions can rapidly change. For instance, the polls showed Bush leading Gore by 15-20%. Even one month before election day, most polls showed Bush with a 5-10% lead. Gore actually won the popular vote by 0.5% in that election. Obviously you would have guessed Bush was going to win in a landslide if you would have looked at the polls in 1999 or even in late 2000. Similarly, the polls showed Dukakis leading Bush Sr. by 10-20% up until the fall of 1988 (2 months before election day). Bush Sr. won that election by a margin of 8%, which is a pretty large margin. This is another case where polls from a year or several months before election day were wrong in predicting the final outcome of an election.
