City Heading to Political Oblivion
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

With the Republican political convention coming to town to renominate a Texan for the presidency, New York will again be the center of America’s political world, if only for a week.
Contemporary observers may find it hard to believe, but the Empire State was once at the pinnacle of national power as an incubator of presidential contenders.
From 1868 through 1948, there were only two elections in which New York did not have a candidate on the ballot – frequently, the state had more than one. In 1944, as in 1904, both major party presidential candidates were New Yorkers.
Since 1948, New York has not produced a single presidential nominee, though it has had three losing vice presidential candidates, two of them in the biggest blow-outs in history, and one appointed vice president, Nelson Rockefeller, who was replaced on the ballot when the election came around.
Is there any hope of the Empire State regaining its former glory? For over a century, New York was the most important player on the national scene, producing a plethora of presidential and vice presidential nominees.
And in choosing the presidential nominee, the head of Tammany Hall was one of the focal points of the Democratic convention. This situation has been completely upended. Even mentioning New York politicians for higher office has slowed.
Currently, three politicians from the Empire State are mentioned as candidates in 2008, but two of them, Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani, are long-shot moderate Republicans and the third, Senator Clinton, was imported well after she became famous.
The big reason for the downfall may be simple demographics. For over a century, New York was the largest state in America, providing the greatest haul in the Electoral College. But westward expansion and the growth of the South eat away at New York’s place in the nation, as it has slid from first to third in size since 1964.
Being the biggest state does not ensure presidential success, but it certainly helps. The same thing has happened to that other former presidential incubator, Ohio. As the Buckeye State has tumbled down the population line to seventh from third, its ability to grow presidents has fallen with it.
Ohio, which elected seven presidents in 52 years, has not had a candidate of any sort on the ballot in 60 years. Who’s replaced these two old powerhouses? California and Texas, number one and two on the population charts, and together the home of five recent presidents. Since 1948, California and Texas have combined to feature candidates on the ballot in every election but two.
Changes in the political currents are another important cause. While New York was often a swing state in a close national election – in fact it had gone Republican in 13 of the 26 presidential elections in the 20th Century – it is now solidly in the Democrats column. In 1988, it was one of only a handful of states to support Michael Dukakis, and both Bill Clinton and Al Gore racked up huge victory totals in the state.
Even though Republicans are regularly elected to high office, they are from the endangered moderate “Rockefeller Republican” branch of the party, whose policies are frequently an anathema to the more conservative base. Just the name Rockefeller, who’s been dead for over 25 years, shows how long it’s been since this wing of the party has tasted power.
In their reach for the White House, Messrs. Pataki and Giuliani will have to overcome the fact that the Republican Party has not nominated a pro-choice candidate of any sorts since Roe v. Wade, positions that both New Yorkers have staked in winning office in the state.
Neither the geography nor the demographics should stop New York Democrats from becoming candidates. After all, two Massachusetts politicians have grabbed the nomination in the last two decades. However, New York state Democrats have not been able to pull it together. There is no easy explanation, but perhaps the extremely dysfunctional state government is to blame.
New York’s much-criticized three-men-in-a-room political dynamic leads to a warped perspective on electoral power. By the time a candidate such as governor is ready for the national stage, the contender may no longer be capable of making good political decisions – witness the hamlet act of Mario Cuomo.
The Empire State still remains one of the main engines of commerce in the global economic system. National party leaders and presidential hopefuls still feel free to stop on by to raise millions for campaign funds, though they are invariably for races in other parts of the country. But, in terms of political leaders for national office, it’s bankrupt.