To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

New York gubernatorial election, 1994

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New York gubernatorial election, 1994

← 1990 November 8, 1994 1998 →

 
George Pataki NYC 2000.jpg
Mario Cuomo NY Governor 1987.jpg
Nominee George Pataki Mario Cuomo
Party Republican Democratic
Running mate Betsy McCaughey Stan Lundine
Popular vote 2,488,631 2,364,904
Percentage 48.8% 45.4%

NewYorkGubernatorial1994.svg
County results

Governor before election

Mario Cuomo
Democratic

Elected Governor

George Pataki
Republican

The New York gubernatorial election of 1994 was an election for the state governorship held on November 8, 1994. The election resulted in the upset defeat of Democratic incumbent Governor Mario Cuomo by Republican George Pataki. The win was one of the most notable of the "Republican Revolution" that year.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/3
    Views:
    650 155
    488
    441
  • Congressional Elections: Crash Course Government and Politics #6
  • NJ Gov. Jim Florio 1993 Campaign Ad (first term accomplishments)
  • NJ Gov. Brendan Byrne 1977 Campaign Ad (Byrne touts progress in NJ)

Transcription

Hi, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Government and Politics, and today we're going to talk about what is, if you ask the general public, the most important part of politics: elections. If you ask me, it's hair styles. Look at Martin Van Buren's sideburns, how could he not be elected? Americans are kind of obsessed with elections, I mean when this was being recorded in early 2015, television, news and the internet were already talking about who would be Democrat and Republican candidates for president in 2016. And many of the candidates have unofficially been campaigning for years. I've been campaigning; your grandma's been campaigning. Presidential elections are exciting and you can gamble on them. Is that legal, can you gamble on them, Stan? Anyway, why we're so obsessed with them is a topic for another day. Right now I'm gonna tell you that the fixation on the presidential elections is wrong, but not because the president doesn't matter. No, today we're gonna look at the elections of the people that are supposed to matter the most, Congress. Constitutionally at least, Congress is the most important branch of government because it is the one that is supposed to be the most responsive to the people. One of the main reasons it's so responsive, at least in theory, is the frequency of elections. If a politician has to run for office often, he or she, because unlike the president we have women serving in Congress, kind of has to pay attention to what the constituents want, a little bit, maybe. By now, I'm sure that most of you have memorized the Constitution, so you recognize that despite their importance in the way we discuss politics, elections aren't really a big feature of the Constitution. Except of course for the ridiculously complex electoral college system for choosing the president, which we don't even want to think about for a few episodes. In fact, here's what the Constitution says about Congressional Elections in Article 1 Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." So the Constitution does establish that the whole of the house is up for election every 2 years, and 1/3 of the senate is too, but mainly it leaves the scheduling and rules of elections up to the states. The actual rules of elections, like when the polls are open and where they actually are, as well as the registration requirements, are pretty much up to the states, subject to some federal election law. If you really want to know the rules in your state, I'm sure that someone at the Board of Elections, will be happy to explain them to you. Really, you should give them a call; they're very, very lonely. In general though, here's what we can say about American elections. First stating the super obvious, in order to serve in congress, you need to win an election. In the House of Representatives, each election district chooses a single representative, which is why we call them single-member districts. The number of districts is determined by the Census, which happens every 10 years, and which means that elections ending in zeros are super important, for reasons that I'll explain in greater detail in a future episode. It's because of gerrymandering. The Senate is much easier to figure out because both of the state Senators are elected by the entire state. It's as if the state itself were a single district, which is true for states like Wyoming, which are so unpopulated as to have only 1 representative. Sometimes these elections are called at large elections. Before the election ever happens, you need candidates. How candidates are chosen differs from state to state, but usually it has something to do with political parties, although it doesn't have to. Why are things so complicated?! What we can say is that candidates, or at least good candidates, usually have certain characteristics. Sorry America. First off, if you are gonna run for office, you should have an unblemished record, free of, oh I don't know, felony convictions or sex scandals, except maybe in Louisiana or New York. This might lead to some pretty bland candidates or people who are so calculating that they have no skeletons in their closet, but we Americans are a moral people and like our candidates to reflect our ideals rather than our reality. The second characteristic that a candidate must possess is the ability to raise money. Now some candidates are billionaires and can finance their own campaigns. But most billionaires have better things to do: buying yachts, making even more money, building money forts, buying more yachts, so they don't have time to run for office. But most candidates get their money for their campaigns by asking for it. The ability to raise money is key, especially now, because running for office is expensive. Can I get a how expensive is it? "How expensive is it?!" Well, so expensive that the prices of elections continually rises and in 2012 winners of House races spent nearly 2 million each. Senate winners spent more than 10 million. By the time this episode airs, I'm sure the numbers will be much higher like a gajillion billion million. Money is important in winning an election, but even more important, statistically, is already being in Congress. Let's go to the Thought Bubble. The person holding an office who runs for that office again is called the incumbent and has a big advantage over any challenger. This is according to political scientists who, being almost as bad at naming things as historians, refer to this as incumbency advantage. There are a number of reasons why incumbents tend to hold onto their seats in congress, if they want to. The first is that a sitting congressman has a record to run on, which we hope includes some legislative accomplishments, although for the past few Congresses, these don't seem to matter. The record might include case work, which is providing direct services to constituents. This is usually done by congressional staffers and includes things like answering questions about how to get certain government benefits or writing recommendation letters to West Point. Congressmen can also provide jobs to constituents, which is usually a good way to get them to vote for you. These are either government jobs, kind of rare these days, called patronage or indirect employment through government contracts for programs within a Congressman's district. These programs are called earmarks or pork barrel programs, and they are much less common now because Congress has decided not to use them any more, sort of. The second advantage that incumbents have is that they have a record of winning elections, which if you think about it, is pretty obvious. Being a proven winner makes it easier for a congressmen to raise money, which helps them win, and long term incumbents tend to be more powerful in Congress which makes it even easier for them to raise money and win. The Constitution give incumbents one structural advantage too. Each elected congressman is allowed $100,000 and free postage to send out election materials. This is called the franking privilege. It's not so clear how great an advantage this is in the age of the internet, but at least according to the book The Victory Lab, direct mail from candidates can be surprisingly effective. How real is this incumbency advantage? Well if you look at the numbers, it seems pretty darn real. Over the past 60 years, almost 90% of members of The House of Representatives got re-elected. The Senate has been even more volatile, but even at the low point in 1980 more than 50% of sitting senators got to keep their jobs. Thanks, Thought Bubble. You're so great. So those are some of the features of congressional elections. Now, if you'll permit me to get a little politically sciencey, I'd like to try to explain why elections are so important to the way that Congressmen and Senators do their jobs. In 1974, political scientist David Mayhew published a book in which he described something he called "The Electoral Connection." This was the idea that Congressmen were primarily motivated by the desire to get re-elected, which intuitively makes a lot of sense, even though I'm not sure what evidence he had for this conclusion. Used to be able to get away with that kind of thing I guess, clearly David may-not-hew to the rules of evidence, pun [rim shot], high five, no. Anyway Mayhew's research methodology isn't as important as his idea itself because The Electoral Connection provides a frame work for understanding congressman's activities. Mayhew divided representatives' behaviors and activities into three categories. The first is advertising; congressmen work to develop their personal brand so that they are recognizable to voters. Al D'Amato used to be know in New York as Senator Pothole, because he was able to bring home so much pork that he could actually fix New York's streets. Not by filling them with pork, money, its money, remember pork barrel spending? The second activity is credit claiming; Congressmen get things done so that they can say they got them done. A lot of case work and especially pork barrel spending are done in the name of credit claiming. Related to credit claiming, but slightly different, is position taking. This means making a public judgmental statement on something likely to be of interest to voters. Senators can do this through filibusters. Representatives can't filibuster, but they can hold hearings, publicly supporting a hearing is a way of associating yourself with an idea without having to actually try to pass legislation. And of course they can go on the TV, especially on Sunday talk shows. What's a TV, who even watches TV? Now the idea of The Electoral Connection doesn't explain every action a member of Congress takes; sometimes they actually make laws to benefit the public good or maybe solve problems, huh, what an idea! But Mayhew's idea gives us a way of thinking about Congressional activity, an analytical lens that connects what Congressmen actually do with how most of us understand Congressmen, through elections. So the next time you see a Congressmen call for a hearing on a supposed horrible scandal or read about a Senator threatening to filibuster a policy that may have significant popular support, ask yourself, "Is this Representative claiming credit or taking a position, and how will this build their brand?" In other words: what's the electoral connection and how will whatever they're doing help them get elected? This might feel a little cynical, but the reality is Mayhew's thesis often seems to fit with today's politics. Thanks for watching, see you next week. Vote for me; I'm on the TV. I'm not -- I'm on the YouTube. Crash Course: Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports nonprofits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives at Voqal.org. Crash Course is made by all of these nice people. Thanks for watching. That guy isn't nice.

Contents

Democratic primary

While Governor Mario Cuomo's approval ratings throughout 1993 and towards 1994 were slipping (usually under 40%), no major names appeared or sought to challenge him for the Democratic nomination. Only two candidates announced their intention to challenge Cuomo; Lenora Fulani, who had been the nominee of the New Alliance Party for governor in 1990 and for president in 1988 and 1992, and Roy Innis, the National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. Ultimately Innis did not turn in any petitions though Fulani, despite facing a small challenge to her own petitions, made it onto the ballot.

However, despite succeeding on making it onto the ballot, Fulani's bid was generally considered a losing effort with no hope of keeping the nomination away from Cuomo. Cuomo for his part refused to join her in any debates and, like many other Democrats, questioned whether Fulani was actually seeking the Democratic nomination or merely attempting to convince African-American voters to move over to the New Alliance Party; these views were rather quickly legitimized by Lenora Fulani herself. Most African-American politicos of note however would continue to support Mario Cuomo for the nomination, with the notable exception of Adam Clayton Powell IV. Fulani was also far outstripped when it came to fundraising, raising a paltry $93,000 to Cuomo's $6 million.

Despite fears among some that African-Americans voters would punish former New York Mayor David Dinkins's loss to Rudy Giuliani to his administration's response to the Crown Heights riot and criticism of Dinkins's efforts to handle it, Cuomo defeated Fulani by a 58.9% margin in the Democratic primary on September 13.[1][2][3][4]

Candidates

Declared

Withdrawn

  • Roy Innis, National Chairman of CORE (Effectively Withdrew – July 14, 1994)

Results

Democratic Gubernatorial Primary Results[5]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Mario Cuomo 548,762 79.45
Democratic Lenora Fulani 141,918 20.55
Total votes 690,680 100.00

Republican primary

Candidates

Declared

Withdrawn

Declined

Convention

Initially most expected Senator Al D'Amato to be the Republican and Conservative party nominee for governor in 1994 and began what looked like the beginnings of a campaign late in September when he attacked Mario Cuomo's record as governor, claiming that New York had become "the taxasaurus and spendasaurus capital of the nation." However, less than a month later D'Amato had definitively chosen not to run, feeling that his party might take control of the Senate in the 1994 elections, which would make him chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. (That is what eventually happened.)

After considering several candidates, D'Amato, in conjunction with the State Party Chairman William Powers, decided to endorse the candidacy of State Senator George Pataki, who, it was thought, could mend the growing rift between the party's moderate and conservative factions.[8][9][10]

However, before even D'Amato made his decision to forgo seeking the Republican nomination for governor, former gubernatorial candidate Herbert London declared on October 5. Running on a platform of tax cuts, reductions in state Medicaid and welfare payments and social conservatism, London was critical of both Cuomo and D'Amato, the later especially given his support of pork barrel politics while also espousing support for fiscal conservatism. However, even after D'Amato had withdraw and so allowed for campaign funds to become available to other candidates, by mid-January, he had just under $4,000 in donations left out of about $54,000 raised despite his considerable base of supporters. Because of that and his social conservatism, many Republican party leaders considered him sure to lose against Cuomo, who would drive many swing voters back towards the Democratic nominee.[11][12]

Evan Galbraith, a businessman from Manhattan and former ambassador to France under the Reagan Administration, decided to explore running for the Republican nomination on January 4, and nearly instantly obtained endorsements from several notable figures, among them Henry Kissinger and William Buckley. Galbraith was considered by some as an alternative to London, holding similar positions (Galbraith wished to cut property and individual taxes in half, to reduce welfare spending, and to reinstate the death penalty) but at the same time managing to appeal to a larger base of moderates who would be key to winning the election. Galbraith had also previously been a candidate for governor in 1990, but his candidacy was taken to court, where it was declared that he was ineligible due to not having lived in New York for the required five years. Galbraith would finally formally declare on April 29, but by this time most conservatives had coalesced around either London or Pataki.[13][14]

State Senator George Pataki formally declared his candidacy on March 14, but had been actively preparing for a campaign since the previous fall with the support of D'Amato and William Powers. While Pataki on paper at least appeared as a unifying candidate capable of appealing to both conservative and moderate Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Ralph Marino refused to support his nomination, angry over Pataki's association with Change – New York which had worked to prevent his reelection. There was also concern over Pataki's position on the abortion issue, with both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice organizations not being satisfied as to his "middle-ground" approach.[15]

Former  U.S. Representative Bill Green declared his candidacy on March 18, hoping to become the moderate alternative to Pataki and London, claiming he was conservative on fiscal issues while "sensibly compassionate" on social issues. His bid was almost instantly fatally wounded however when Michael Long, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, made it clear that he did not think Green could be nominated by them, possibly resulting in a rerun of the 1990 Gubernatorial Election where the Republican and Conservative candidates split the vote. However Green remained confident that, if nominated, he could pull enough votes together from the center that he could potentially defeat Cuomo, even if the Conservatives nominated their own ticket.[7]

Former State Party Chairman Richard Rosenbaum was the last to declare on March 23 with a platform very similar to that of Bill Green but went even further, supporting Medicaid-financed abortions and tighter restrictions on guns. He also managed to create a much larger campaign chest of about $1.2 million (dwarfing that even of George Pataki) and decided against trying for an automatic ballot spot through the convention process, opting instead to directly petition for a place on the ballot; Rosenbaum, a Republican of the Rockefeller mold, had no illusions as to his chances of attaining the required 25% of the vote to succeed in doing so. Rosenbaum also decried the Republican party's efforts to work with the Conservative party, considering it "a recipe for losing", and sought to bring the state Republican party as a whole back towards the center.[6][16][17]

J. Patrick Barrett, a businessman from Syracuse who was expected for some time to also join the race, dropped out on May 20 when he came to the conclusion that he could not obtain the support of 25% of the delegates to the Party state convention, which would have put him on the ballot for the September 13 primary election.[18]

Results

At the Republican Party state convention Pataki won the overwhelming support of the delegates present with Herbert London, the runner-up, falling short of the required 25% to automatically obtain a place on the party's primary ballot despite the support of Senate Majority Leader Ralph Marino. Controversy was stirred when supporters of Bill Green intended to change their vote from Green to London so as to possibly put him above the 25% threshold for automatic inclusion in the primary, but were prevented by party leaders who declared the vote final. Even had the entirety of Green's vote had gone to London however, he would have needed the support of some of Galbraith's delegates in order to have done so.[19]

Republican State Convention Vote[19]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican George Pataki - 72.40
Republican Herbert London 22.10
Republican Evan Galbraith 2.80
Republican Bill Green 2.60
Republican Scattering 0.10
Total votes 100.00

Primary

London, Galbraith and Green were all initially determined to petition to be on the primary ballot on September 13, but efforts were made to try and assuage any additional conflict within the party's nomination process. In return for his support, Herbert London was nominated for the position of Comptroller, allowing for Pataki to secure much of London's support within both the Republican and Conservative parties. A few days later on May 31, Bill Green would withdraw so as not to potentially split the vote of moderate Republicans with Richard Rosenbaum and endorse him.

With the support of almost the entire party behind him however, George Pataki managed to easily win the primary on September 13 by a 51% margin. Richard Rosenbaum would endorse Pataki the next day.[16][19][20]

Results

Republican Gubernatorial Primary Results[21]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican George Pataki 273,620 75.60
Republican Richard M. Rosenbaum 88,302 24.40
Total votes 361,922 100.00

Conservative primary

Conservative Gubernatorial Primary Results[22]
Party Candidate Votes %
Conservative (N.Y.) George Pataki 17,649 78.40
Conservative (N.Y.) Robert G. Relph, Sr. 4,862 21.60
Total votes 22,511 100.00

Independence Party

Independence candidate:

  • Richard M. Rosenbaum, former Chairman of the Republican Party of New York (Initial Nominee – Withdrew September 14 – Endorsed George Pataki)[23]
  • Tom Golisano, businessman (Nominated – Added to Ballot September 28)[24]

Libertarian Party

The original Libertarian candidate was New York City radio personality Howard Stern, who announced his candidacy for governor on his nationally syndicated radio show on March 22, 1994 on a platform of reinstating the death penalty, letting road crews work only at night, staggering highway tolls to prevent traffic jams, and to resign from office as soon as these goals were accomplished. Shortly thereafter the majority of state Libertarian Party members (there were only around 600 active members at the time) worked to draft Stern to run on their ticket, most considering him their best option to attain for the party automatic ballot access. Stern won the party's nomination by a two-thirds majority on the first ballot at their state convention on April 23, 1994.[25]

Libertarian State Convention Vote[26]
Party Candidate Votes %
Libertarian Howard Stern 287 75.33
Libertarian James Ostrowski 34 8.92
Libertarian Norma Segal 24 6.30
Libertarian Dottie Lou Brokaw 22 5.77
Libertarian Joseph Brennan 10 2.63
Independent Scattering 4 1.05
Total votes 381 100.00

Later however, Stern refused to file the financial disclosures required by law of any party seeking to hold public office; he filed suit against the state of New York arguing the law violated his right to privacy and freedom of association. When the court denied his petition for injunction, Stern called a press conference on August 4, 1994 and withdrew from the election. However Howard Stern had in the months since his nomination also found himself increasingly strained from the state Libertarian party's leadership, having refused to communicate with them effectively or to aid them in collecting the 15,000 signatures needed to put the party on the ballot. Some had even argued that Stern should have simply let the case drag on until the party's nominees were put on the ballot on October 3, where he could then have withdrawn while his name would have remained on the ballot and would not be able to be removed.[27]

Robert L. Schulz, a political activist from Queensbury, New York, replaced Stern on the statewide ballot. Stern's running mate, Stan Dworkin of Westchester County, remained on the slate as candidate for lieutenant governor.

General Campaign

Though early on in the election Cuomo led by as much as ten points, Pataki was eventually able to tie him due to his difficulty in defending his record. Pataki promised to cut income taxes by 25 percent which appealed to voters in an economic downturn.

One key issue in the election was capital punishment. Cuomo had long been a staunch opponent of the death penalty while Pataki supported it. In the 1980s and early 1990s most New Yorkers supported capital punishment due to high crime rates. Republican ads pointed to the case of Arthur Shawcross, a multiple murderer convicted of manslaughter who was paroled by New York in 1987 and committed additional murders while on release (during the time Cuomo was governor). This revelation caused a significant loss of support for Cuomo.

Polling

Source Date Pataki (R) Cuomo (D) Golisano (IF)
Buffalo News Nov. 6, 1994 38% 42% 5%
Marist Institute Nov. 3, 1994 40% 43% 7%
New York Daily News Nov. 3, 1994 36% 50% 7%
New York Post/FOX-TV Nov. 2, 1994 32% 46% -
Quinnipiac College[28] Nov. 1, 1994 31% 44% 7%
New York Times Oct. 31, 1994 34% 44% -
New York Daily News/WNBC Oct. 30, 1994 42% 43% -
New York Post/FOX-TV Oct. 30, 1994 40% 36% -
New York Times/WCBS-TV Oct. 7, 1994 44% 41% -
Quinnipiac College Oct. 2, 1994 38% 42% -
Marist Institute Oct. 2, 1994 44% 38% -
WROC-TV/WIXT-TV Sep. 16, 1994 41% 35% -
New York Post/Buffalo News Sep. 11, 1994 43% 41% -

Results

While the race was very close overall, Pataki won by running up huge margins outside of New York City. Cuomo won only one county outside of the Five Boroughs, Albany County.

New York gubernatorial election, 1994
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Republican George Pataki 2,156,057 41.43%
Conservative (N.Y.) George Pataki 328,605 6.31%
Tax Cut Now George Pataki 54,040 1.04%
Total George Pataki 2,538,702 48.79% +27.44%
Democratic Mario Cuomo 2,272,903 43.68%
Liberal Mario Cuomo 92,001 1.77%
Total Mario Cuomo 2,364,904 45.45% −7.72%
Independence Tom Golisano 217,490 4.18% N/A
Right to Life Robert T. Walsh 67,750 1.30% −2.10%
Libertarian Robert L. Schulz 9,506 0.18% −0.43%
Socialist Workers Lawrence Lane 5,410 0.10% −0.21%
Majority 173,798 3.34% -28.49%
Turnout 5,203,762
Republican gain from Democratic

See also

References

  1. ^ "Moynihan Won't Fight The Petitions Of Sharpton". The New York Times. 15 July 1994.
  2. ^ "Pataki Will Face Rival in Republican Primary". The New York Times. 28 July 1994.
  3. ^ "Tilting at the Same Windmill, but on a Faster Steed". The New York Times. 11 September 1994.
  4. ^ "Pataki Easily Wins the Right to Oppose Cuomo". The New York Times. 14 September 1994.
  5. ^ "Our Campaigns - NY Governor - R Primary Race - Sep 13, 1994".
  6. ^ a b "G.O.P. Leader Will Run For Governor as 'Moderate'". The New York Times. 23 March 1994.
  7. ^ a b "Ex-Rep. Green Announces for Governor". The New York Times. 19 March 1994.
  8. ^ "D'Amato, Raising Funds, Assails Cuomo's Record as Governor". The New York Times. 28 September 1993.
  9. ^ "D'Amato Skips a Race". The New York Times. 20 October 1993.
  10. ^ "Peekskill Legislator to Seek Governor Nomination". The New York Times. 10 November 1993.
  11. ^ "Conservative Is Joining G.O.P. Race for Governor". The New York Times. 5 October 1993.
  12. ^ "Candidate Seeks New Armor For Crusade Against Cuomo". The New York Times. 31 January 1994.
  13. ^ "New Gubernatorial Entry Gets Financial Backing". The New York Times. 5 January 1994.
  14. ^ "Galbraith, a Former Envoy, Enters the Gubernatorial Race". The New York Times. 29 April 1994.
  15. ^ "State Senator Pataki Formally Declares Challenge to Cuomo". The New York Times. 15 March 1994.
  16. ^ a b "Republicans and Conservatives Solidify Efforts Against Cuomo". The New York Times. 26 May 1994.
  17. ^ Sack, Kevin (1994-03-20). "POLITICAL NOTES - Seeking a Nomination Without a Party's Help". New York State: NYTimes.com. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  18. ^ Sack, Kevin (1994-05-21). "G.O.P. Race For Governor Is Narrowed". New York State: NYTimes.com. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  19. ^ a b c "G.O.P. Backs a Legislator to Oppose Cuomo". The New York Times. 24 May 1994.
  20. ^ "Green Dropping Out Of Governor Race; Backing Rosenbaum". Associated Press. 1 June 1994 – via The New York Times.
  21. ^ "Our Campaigns - NY Governor - D Primary Race - Sep 13, 1994".
  22. ^ "Our Campaigns - NY Governor - C Primary Race - Sep 13, 1994".
  23. ^ "SWIPING AT CUOMO, PATAKI GIVES OUT PLAN ON GOVERNING". The New York Times. 15 September 1994.
  24. ^ "Campaign Trail; Cuomo the Ballplayer Helps Cuomo the Candidate". The New York Times. 29 September 1994.
  25. ^ "Gov. Howard Stern? Some Fail to See Humor". The New York Times. 3 April 1994.
  26. ^ "Our Campaigns - NY Governor - LBT Convention Race - Apr 23, 1994".
  27. ^ "For Stern, It's Balk Radio: He Ends Bid for Governor". The New York Times. 5 August 1994.
  28. ^ "New Poll Gives Cuomo 13-point Lead In New York".
This page was last edited on 5 November 2018, at 10:55
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.