Wow, Bloomberg only wins by 4

crescent22 · 11-03-2009, 11:05 PM

This is the surprise of the night. Corzine losing is nothing - anyone with a brain would have seen he was only ahead when Daggett was polling 15 and Daggett wouldn't get 15 on election night.

Most polls had Bloomberg up low teens, the lowest one was 8. Bloomberg really did buy this election. He knocked out Anthony Weiner with relentless attacks so he didn't bother to run. Then he was left with the most incompetent opponent in history - a guy who ran a deaf mute campaign. A guy who couldn't figure out in the capital of media that there are things you can do to attract attention even if you don't have money.

A halfway decent adversary, one who could partially connect with voters and act like the rough-around-the-edges take-no-shtt guy New Yorkers love would have won. This fascinates me. Bloomberg spent over $100 million to get 550,000 votes; figure he would have gotten half of that anyway spending no money - this is $400 an incremental vote.

Shame on the Democrats for not putting up a candidate with a pulse.

Saugus · 11-03-2009, 11:08 PM

In a highly liberal area, as well...

Dang it, this election should have been an easy one for the Democrats.

LogicWarrior · 11-03-2009, 11:11 PM

The DS had a clip where Robert Gibbs didn't know the Democrat's name.

crescent22 · 11-04-2009, 09:20 AM

It's hard to understate Bloomberg's money effect on lots of things. Look at turnout.

1,100,000 people voted - this is the lowest absolute turnout since 1917, when women still couldn't vote. There were 1.29m votes in 2005, 1.48m in 2001, and 1.9m for Dinkins' 1989 win. Many, many people didn't bother to vote because they thought Bloomberg was a lock.

zoosermom · 11-04-2009, 09:44 AM

Anecdotally, I know many republicans/conservatives (even me and my own family) who voted for every other race, but not the mayoral race. So as not to give a vote to Bloomberg whom we don't care for very much. The repeal of term limits was a very big deal among folks of my persuasion and it was something of an organized movement to leave that race blank. Not huge, of course, but it was definitely there and was also a factor in many people not voting at all.

crescent22 · 11-04-2009, 09:46 AM

because it makes New York govt feel no different than a third world dictatorship with a malleable constitution

zoosermom · 11-04-2009, 10:03 AM

Exactly crescent. We chose term limits twice. Now, I'm not particularly a fan of term limits after having seen the dregs that are now in our City Council, but it offends me on principle that Mr. Bloomberg thwarted the legally expressed will of the people. I really and truly have a problem with that as do many other people.

member · 11-04-2009, 11:04 AM

Im just glad he won, having a republican in office is what made NYC what it is today, 50 years of democrats are what made it what it was between the 50's and 80's.

Quote:

Mr. Bloomberg thwarted the legally expressed will of the people

So did FDR, but im sure that was ok.

lockn · 11-04-2009, 11:07 AM

Member, the 22nd Amendment was ratified six years after FDR died.

zoosermom · 11-04-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

just glad he won, having a republican in office is what made NYC what it is today

Exactly right, and that republican was Rudy Giuliani. Bloomberg is only occasionally a republican. He has also undone many of the quality-of-life changes made by Giuliani, imposed himself where he doesn't belong, and made some bone-headed choices. He has, however, dealt very well with the unions and welfare programs. So a little good, a little bad, but not really republican. Thompson really is a democrat, so we are better off.

zoosermom · 11-04-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

So did FDR, but im sure that was ok.

This is NOT ok.

New York is not at war with anyone. Except, of course, Washington, DC.

member · 11-04-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Member, the 22nd Amendment was ratified six years after FDR died.

But it was a known assumption in other texts, such as those by George Washington, that a term limit was to be two. They made it a law, because FDR broke the assumption, which hadnt been broken before and thus there was no need for a law.

Quote:

This is NOT ok.

New York is not at war with anyone. Except, of course, Washington, DC.

So we are at war with two other countries now, should Bush been able to stay in power, you seem to be giving him grounds to do so.

zoosermom · 11-04-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

So we are at war with two other countries now, should Bush been able to stay in power, you seem to be giving him grounds to do so.

Good God, NO. Where did you get that from? I specifically responded to the post about FDR. Don't make things up, ok?

member · 11-04-2009, 11:37 AM

If it was ok for FDR. why not Bush. FDR was by far a much more disastrous president than Bush was.

zoosermom · 11-04-2009, 11:39 AM

I'm not sure that it was ok for FDR. I really don't have an answer to that. I don't think I can really speculate what might have been, you know? One would like to think that any American president would have had the strength and wisdom to win World War II, but who really knows?

On a personal level, I like to know that it's 8 and out for the president, but I speak for no one but me.