Upper East Side, Manhattan: Clinton or Trump?

[Suburbia]

Who wins this area in the General Election? I am fascinated with this area in Manhattan. The politics seems very right wing. Rudy Giuliani did well there in his mayoral runs and Michael Bloomberg did well there in his mayoral runs. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney previously did well there. Who wins this area of Manhattan?

[Ronnie]

You're kidding, right?  Hillary in a rout.  Donald even lost to Kasich there.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Lol if TRUMP could lose this to KASICH of all people.... He'll lose it to CLINTON.

[IceSpear]

bronz pls

[Fight for Trump]

Uh... as a former UES resident, I can confidently say it's not "very right-wing", and certainly not Trump right-wing. Bloomberg is center-left, not right-wing. Clinton will clean up all of Manhattan.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

While I get the sentiment that Trump is well connected in the elite NYC community, I seriously doubt that many of his erstwhile friends are planning to vote for him.

1) Clinton has probably equal connections among the financiers, highly compensated service professionals (lawyers, medical specialists, etc), and corporate executives that populate the Upper East Side.

2) Donald Trump was always known to be an... eccentric figure. Most people who have had personal contact with him describe him as a pathological narcissist. While many of these people might have included him at their parties, spoken politely with him, maybe invested with him, I highly doubt that they would vote for him on a secret ballot.

2) Clinton is running a campaign that makes fundamentally more sense to that kind of person. Clinton promises, fundamentally, to make sure the trains run on time. That's why she talks about her experience, that's why she talked in the primary about how Sanders' ideas "would never come to pass," and strongly implied Sanders was crazy and impractical.

A Clinton presidency won't be *weird *. Investors, professionals, and corporate executives all have a strong interest in this continuing. Not just because, as crazy populists like me will say, they benefit from the status quo, but also because quiet, sensible actions by the US Government are best for Wall St., corporations, and the highly compensated service industries that aid them. Government policy will consider all parties, the collateral consequences, and will compromise accordingly.

3) This is to a great extent the opposite of what Trump is promising. Walls on the Mexican border? That isn't *sane * policy! Who would imagine someone at Brookings coming up with something like that? Erratic, improvised speeches? Tacitly encouraging violence?  Plus Trump saying a bunch of things that are simply beyond the social pale, and I can't imagine well-to-do elites voting for him.

3a) Mitt Romney, George W, Bloomberg, and Giuliani all promised a strong, sensible hand on the helm of state. Bloomberg and Giuliani promised that the police would protect you, things will be safe, and Wall St.'s prosperity was key to NYC's future. George W and Mittens both had impeccable pedigrees, and promised unfrightening, well tested conservative bromides. Irrespective of whether or not the Upper East Side would have voted for those same beliefs in the mouth of Goldwater, at that point Conservative was a Safe Ideology that didn't promise much change from the past.

So no, the UES won't go for Trump. It's like asking if the City of London (aka, the tiny financial district in the center of London) would vote for Leave.

SOURCE: I grew up in the UES's summer playground (coastal CT) and went to a ritzy school with a bunch of NYC commuters' children.

[Skye]

Mistook Trump for Hillary.

[Seriously?]

Staten Island may go to Trump, as it is the only real sane part of NYC.

The UES may be one of his best performing areas of Manhattan, but he's not winning it and that's not saying much. If Trump is going to narrow the D margin from 2012, it's going to be done in the middle-class areas of Queens, certainly not Manhattan.