Help me to understand...Why would Bloomberg win in NYC?

I really cant understand why he would win in a very heavy Democratic City. Could someone fill me in?

Republican in Name Only, as the saying goes..

were democrats until they decided to run for Mayor.

he's a repug in name only plus his challenger was weak

in 2001 because there were so many candidates, so he became a Republican.

I don't really pay attention to his policies, but from what I have seen, he seems pretty liberal, at least on social issues.

It makes me think that money is everything in politics, and Bloomberg's a billionaire.


ugghh

24/7 hours of feel good ads, in all languages, and no opposing voice to counter the ads. Democracy at work.

than Corzine AND Forrester combined...their spending got criticized across the nation; his did not.

on AAR and in general make him sound like a dem. He knows how to talk the talk. Meanwhile, he helped raise millions for the Chimp and only really cares about making money for those with money. He fooled a lot of people and we're stuck with a repuke for mayor again. Now our next governor is gonna be another story!

Sad to see him win.

name only.

a repug is deed also. If you watched the debate he is in lock stock march with *'s policies.

And a major beneficiary (hint: Bloomberg Tower)

I'm sure it exists, whatever it is, but it isn't a NYC preoccupation. The city is easier to navigate, help is easier to get, with 311, and there's follow up. Makes a difference.

a few months ago, at Lexington and Third between East 58th and 59th. It takes up the whole block. Who knows how many gazillions Bloomie sunk into it.



Anyway the only way Bloomberg gets a return on his investment is by making sure there's a brisk commercial real estate market in Manhattan, and the way to do that is to get rid of a certain pair of jumbo downtown office towers.

He wasn't even Mayor yet! And on 9/11 the polls showed Mark Green beating Bloomberg (although the Democratic Primary was that day.)

Whether he "had something to do with it" is one of the many questions that hasn't been investigated.

First of all, he can probably tenant most of it with his own organization. He's got his money because he built a better mousetrap and it keeps paying off.

You have no idea what real estate is like in Manhattan if you think that's any consideration at all.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely and NYC was a one-party city for long enough for us to deserve 40 years in the wilderness. We messed up. Something to remember if we sweep both houses next year. Power corrupts no matter what side you're on.

Me, I voted for Ferrer, but I was confident he wasn't going to win, and, since I never wanted him to run for Mayor, I'm okay with that.

I'd be very interested to see if any of the power grab propositions got in, though. I only voted yes on the transportation bond issue. I want to ride the Second Avenue Subway before I croak.

They can't field good candidates and gave us awful mayors under Beame, Koch, and Dinkins. Beame is the one I hate the most because he presided over NYC becoming the shithole of the 1970's, followed by Koch because he is a DINO. The crime-ridden image of NYC that "Middle Amercia" had did not go away until the mid 1990's under Giuliani. As much as I hate that guy, he did get crime down (but with help from Clinton's anti-crime programs, a booming economy, and gentrification and privatve sector help in rehabilitating the city.)
My prediction for 2009 is that we will see Anthony Weiner beat Vito Fossella, who is a real conservative Bush-kisser as opposed to Bloomberg, who may be a on Bush's side, but is not afraid to speak out against him. I believe that Fossella will be the Republican candidate, because Bloomberg has no sucessor who is like him in any way. Weiner is like Bloomberg on the idelogical spectrum but slightly to the left, and he appeals to many of the same Middle Class white voters in the outer boroughs.

I like Anthony Weiner a lot, I was disappointed he didn't make it far this time.

He reminds me of Spitzer, only younger.

In a way a mayor's job is not partisan in the way running a state or country is, to begin with.

In NYC the real division is about, to use a shorthand, whether The City is to be run for the rich or for the poor or for the young middle/working class or for the old middle/working class. Dinkins ran it for the poor for 8 years. Giuliani ran it for the old middle/working class for 8. Bloomberg has run it for the rich for 4, and now he's getting it to 8. That's about building pompous city 'symbols' and ballparks and monuments, that kind of thing, while neglecting services.

Ferrer represents running The City for the poor and old again, which the young and middle class won't agree to.

The expressed need, but for which the conditions aren't right yet, is for a candidate who prioritizes the interests of NYC younger middle/working class voters. That requires that NYC have friends in DC that don't shortchange it out of the federal money needed to deal with the urban poor adequately as a basis. I.e. federal 'regime change' to Democrats.

yet he's raised millions for bush and repugs and his only interest is to increase earnings for the wealthy? How does that make him a repug in name only?? New Yorkers are smarter than that and most are dems to boot. If this is true, his billion dollar ad campaigns wouldn't make any difference.

Was he a good mayor? I think that will be the deciding factor.

No one seems to be able to build a winning coalitions because too many want to be mayor,

Black voters will turn out in big numbers for a black candidate but are cool to Hispanic candidates. Most politicians have had to go so far overboard to cater to the political fetishes of their constituents that they are unable to build a winning coalition and even if they do win they have trouble governing.

A moderate or liberal Republican like Bloomberg or (shudder) Guiliani can win New York City.

and he pounded it home with 75 million dollars worth of moronic TV ads.

Reality is he's a highly political , pro-war, pro-Bush conservative who spread lots of bucks around in the 80's and 90's among republicans and democrats alike. Good for business. (He's worth @ 6 bill)

Opponent had no money, was relatively undistinguished and was Hispanic.

Got it now?

Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice and dresses in drag from time to time. Seriously.

IMO, many of the Republicans in NY/NJ are basically conservative Democrats (until they kiss the ass of people like Bush).

Also, as someone said upthread, the NYC Dems are completely incompetent and can't seem to agree with each other on anything. It's gotten to the point where I think they get into pissy arguments for fun.

They can afford to do that because they know, right now, that even if they're stuck with a Republican, it's a Republican like Bloomberg or Giuliani (who kind of scared people for a while, with his control freakishness, though).

Do you how many times I've read the New York Times or the New York Post and read about some random Democratic official going to jail or resigning for corruption? They cannot get their act together because they are lazy and fat.

:shrug:

compelling reason why he should replace him.

I live in NYC, and I could not be certain the city would be better off with Ferrer replacing Bloomberg. There are always two main issues in New York: crime and education. On both, things have been getting better under Bloomberg (they might have done that also under a Dem, but we don't know).

The city under Bloomberg is fiscally sound, despite having to deal with a bush economy (Giuliani made his career off a Clinton economy; if he had been stuck with a bush economy, he would have ended up being run out of town.) There was a lot of moaning when Bloomberg raised taxes early in his term, but what a difference from the criminal bush tax cuts.

Bloomberg's biggest negative was his attempt to build a football stadium/Olympic stadium on Manhattan's west side. What a fiasco that would have been--a billion dollars of tax money for a huge elephant of a football stadium for people from the suburbs to sit in ten days a year watching football, and built right in time for a global economic crisis and the end of cheap oil. The thing would have been obsolete before construction was finished.

I could never vote for someone with an R next to their name in the current political climate, so I did not vote for Mayor. The Dems need to learn that just because people agree with you on most of the issues does not mean they will elect a leader--be it mayor or President--simply because of their position papers. Bloomberg isn't charismatic, but he is a competent manager, and he seems like he would handle a crisis well.

I think he's a Republican in the way that FAUX is a news outlet...name only.