http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-theres-no-reason-to-believe-trump-could-beat-clinton-in-new-york/article/2584614?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterNo, there's no reason to believe Trump could beat Clinton in New YorkBy MICHAEL BARONE (@MICHAELBARONE) • 3/1/16 2:44 PM
Could Donald Trump carry New York's 29 electoral votes against Hillary Clinton? Fred Dicker, the New York Post's intrepid Albany reporter, says maybe he could, citing "confidential" polls for legislative candidates in New York City suburban districts. But the single bit of data he cites, from a Siena poll, doesn't buttress his argument.
Dicker writes that the Siena poll has Trump leading Clinton among voters on Long Island — Nassau and Suffolk Counties — by 41-38 percent. That means that fully 21 percent were undecided, which seems dubious. But even taking those numbers at face value, it's hard to write a scenario that has Trump carrying his home state, which in the last four presidential elections has produced Democratic margins of 28 points, 27 points, 18 points and 25 points.
There's actually a test case for the proposition that a Republican who carries Long Island against Hillary Clinton wins the state: the 2000 Senate contest between Clinton and Republican Congressman Rick Lazio. Lazio, from Suffolk County himself, carried the two Long Island counties by a margin of 12 points. Add in suburban Westchester (which went for Clinton) and Rockland Counties north of New York City, and Lazio still had a margin in the suburbs of 53-45 percent.
In addition, despite Clinton's upstate "listening tour," Lazio carried upstate New York 50-47 percent. Yet despite this, he lost statewide by a not huge but clearly decisive 55-43 percent. Why? Because Clinton carried the five boroughs of New York City by a margin of 49 points.
Some Trump backers might argue that, if the Siena numbers are right, Trump is positioned to carry the suburbs by a wider margin than Lazio. And that Trump is bound to run far better than previous Republican candidates in the city where he grew up, where he lives and whose culture has left an imprint on him (he talks about people waiting "on line" to get into his rallies; Americans not from metro New York City say "in line"). And Trump fans might also argue that Trump could run much better than previous Republican candidates in upstate New York, with its closed factories, stagnant economy and bruised pride.
But if you do the arithmetic, you find that Trump would have to improve an awful lot over the best recent Republican showings to carry New York. To see why, take the November 2008 turnout (because 2012 turnout was depressed by Superstorm Sandy in New York City and the suburbs), and plug in the best recent Republican numbers: Lazio's 25 percent or George W. Bush's 24 percent in the city in 2004, Lazio's 53-45 percent margin in the suburbs and governor candidate Rob Astorino's 50-43 percent win over Andrew Cuomo in upstate in 2014. The result: Trump 44 percent, Clinton 54 percent. Trump would have to run six points better than any recent Republican in each region to eke out a 50-48 win over Clinton.
That's not likely to happen. The Siena poll had Clinton leading Trump 57-32 percent in their home state. Those results look a lot like the New York general election results in the last four presidential elections. It's theoretically possible for enough minds to change to transform the numbers. But I have seen no evidence that anything like that has happened.
