HUChronicle_Twitter_Logo.jpg

Hi.

Welcome to the official, independent student-run newspaper of Hofstra University!

Policy over identity

In a political landscape where incumbency is the largest indicator of potential electoral victory, progressive candidate Cynthia Nixon needed a clear-cut victory in the Aug. 29 New York Gubernatorial Debate. The actress, best known for portraying Miranda Hobbes in “Sex and the City,” was looking to bridge a polling gap which leaves her trailing roughly 30 points behind Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Anything short of a gubernatorial knockout would effectively be considered a de facto win by Cuomo.

This event had the potential to be a game-changer for Nixon, and while she debated well by many standards, she certainly did not outperform Cuomo. The debate was heated from the start and set the tone for the hostile interactions of the candidates throughout the night. In the very first question, Nixon was tasked with qualifying herself as a candidate capable of running a state of 20 million people and a budget of almost $170 billion. To this query, she responded with a too-brief summation of her key issues, naming her support of LGBTQ+ equality, women’s rights and more equitable funding of public schools. To pardon her inexperience in the face of a two-term governorship, she explained that, “experience doesn’t mean that much if you’re not good at governing.” And while I acknowledge that statement as a very astute observation, Nixon certainly did not take long to switch the focus of her response from her own issues to Cuomo. Nixon was given an opportunity to speak at length about her legislative plans, expectations and ideology, but allowed such a moment to pass. One or two instances of such neglect could have been excusable, but this theme permeated nearly all of Nixon’s responses of the night.

Over and over, Nixon highlighted the vast array of areas in which Cuomo has failed during his time as governor, from the mess of the New York subway system to the current Republican control of the state senate. Nixon attacked, baited and hit upon virtually every sore spot which the Cuomo administration has floundered through with clever lines. In particular, Nixon made it a point to highlight Cuomo’s “incredible corruption” explaining that, “he used the MTA like an ATM.” Nixon showed herself to be the aggressor in most of their exchanges and presented herself as a fierce candidate. Perhaps the most memorable moment of the night came following a particularly fierce series of interjections by Nixon. “Can you stop interrupting?”  Cuomo asked. “Can you stop lying?” Nixon responded. So, yes, Nixon succeeded in disqualifying Cuomo with her witty comments and quips. But ultimately that was merely half of her objective of the night; she needed to not only invalidate Cuomo but also present herself as the better candidate, a task which deserved far more consideration than it was given.

For this reason, I think Nixon did an admirable job in the debate, but Nixon could only make so much traction with the focus centralized solely on Cuomo. A campaign cannot be boiled down to one issue, especially if that issue is your opponent. As a figure with no experience in politics, Nixon had an obligation to her supporters to defend her beliefs and plans. The blue-blooded feminist within me was yearning to champion Nixon, an underdog who, if elected, would be the first gay female governor of New York. Unfortunately, Nixon left the debate having presented a clearer image of who Cuomo is as a candidate than herself. 

Cuomo, on his part, seemed intent on pretending his true opponent of the night was not Nixon but President Trump, a tactic completely opposite to Nixon’s, but which he accomplished with ease. To this extent, Cuomo went to great lengths keeping Nixon out of the equation, seldom referring to her by name and indicating that “Trump is the problem.” As the incumbent who has thus far been favored in the polls, Cuomo simply needed to not make any serious blunders in order to maintain his lead and took a safe route to do so. Whereas Nixon was fierce in nature and attack, Cuomo was stone-faced and resolute in his responses. Cuomo dismissed Nixon at every turn, clarifying that his “opponent lives in the world of fiction,” while he resides in reality. Overall, Cuomo had a lower bar to overcome and was able to clear it with room to spare. 

Both candidates articulated their points well, but this debate was not particularly transformative in any sense of the word. It was exactly what one candidate had hoped for and another feared, and I don’t foresee it significantly altering the course of this election. Nonetheless, no one will know for certain until election day comes on Nov. 6 and voters will have the ability to determine the leader of New York state for the next four years. The duty now lies with the voters of New York to be registered, available and educated in their decision-making.

Still a long way to go for Title IX at Hofstra

The dead are not political pawns