Why did Mayor Bloomberg win by so much?

nt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

1. He's really a dem (switched to run when dem party chose another) and a careful review of many policies backs that up.

2. Money, and lots of it.

did not run a great campaign, was greatly hurt by the amount of money he had to spend compared to the unlimited funds Bloomberg had at his disposal.
fernando should have pushed harder on tying Bloomberg to Bush. first time i saw anyone handing out ferrer flyers was today. bloomberg has had volunteers handing flyers out for weeks.
also the fact that the majority of other candidates (at least in astoria) having no opponent or were cross endorsed meant that joint campaigning was limited at times.

peace

convention, should have realized the connection between Bush and Bloomberg, after he prevented them from using Central Park for rallies, arrested demonstrators and put them in the hands of Rep. operatives, These people alone could have ousted Bloomberg. But the problem was that people didn't vote. The turnout was even more dismal than 4 years ago, and for all his money Bloomberg got 20-something thousand
LESS votes than last time (some landslide!) But look at the media: They portray the NJ election as one with a bad turnout and moan about all the money spent, and the NY election is presented as a landslide, mandate (and Bloomberg spends more money than the 2 NJ candidates combined). It WAS, however, as you say, rather bizarre that since the primaries we have seen no TV ads for Ferrer, and I've seen no Ferrer leafletters at all. I'm still looking for an explanation for all this.

That was one of the lies that he got away with. He also not nearly as popular as his media colleagues claim. Fewer than 1 in 10 New Yorkers bothered to vote for him. He spent >$142 per vote.



A review of his policies would show that he:
- supports the Iraq war and occupation
- denied NYers due process during the RNC
- has a close working relationship with other Republicans

As Mayor of NYC it is really irrelevant what Bloomberg thinks about the Iraq war. We can worry about his positon on Iraq when he runs for national office. And let's not blame big money either...there have been more than few millionaire Republicans who have run for office and lost....Ask Ron Lauder.

Let's face it, in the scheme of things Bloomeberg is a moderate and that is why many Dems could vote for him with a clear conscience.

Prove to me that Bloomberg is a closet Democrat or moderate.

You assert this without offering any refutation of facts to the contrary. I have plenty more info that shows just how Republican he is. What do you have?

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

yet, to see the MSM, only New jersey election was an orgy of spending (60 million by TWO candidates for a statewide election) and not NYC (over 100 million by only one candidate for a citywide election). That is called ...a landslide, despite only a 16th of the voting population bothering to show up.

advantage (estimated at anywhere between 10-1 to 17-1) in $$$$.

Dem donors were discouraged... or so it is said...by DEM heavyweights from helping Ferrer.

Slick, slick, slick campaign by B. Best crew $$$ can buy. Lots of nonsense numbers floated re. the schools and test scores; all swallowed whole by fawning media and much of the general public.

He's "pro-choice" (huh?), "pro-gay rights" ( wha?!). Uh-huh.

Middle and upper-middle class, which basically doesn't use the public schools and couldn't care less about test scores, but does care about crime and property tax rebates ( I myself got a four hundred dollar rebate check in OCT. with a letter signed by guess who?) went for B. in a big way.

Also Ferrer's a second generation Puerto Rican. Doesn't help in some circles.

OTOH, B won by less than 20%. Given the pre-election polls ( last one I saw was 38%) and enormous $$$ advantage, it strikes me as a bit underwhelming.

Could he be contemplating a move up? Maybe a challenge to Schumer or even Spitzer next year. Hmmm.....

If he ran against Spitzer then he would get crushed. All of the New York Democrats who voted for Bloomberg would vote for Spitzer, well except for Wall Street, which I think is moving to fight Spitzer next year.

Most dems in this city were afraid Ferrer would end up being another Dinkens and as much as many of us dislike Bloomberg, the one thing we are smart enough to recognize is that he is very competent.

Despite various unforgivables, such as the RLC convention, Guantanamo on the Hudson, huge donations to Bush and his ilk, many New Yorkers are very rational and know that we (all) are possibly coming up on hard times. We know that Bloomberg can handle it. We are pretty sure Ferrer couldn't

Also, the Dems in this city are pathetic - they haven't run a decent candidate in years. Still this city remains largely liberal and democratic.

Just maybe he wouldn't have stopped us from demonstating against Bush, maybe he'd give a little more money to people than corporations for stadiums, etc. I don't know what you mean by "hard times" and "competence." Does Bloomberg reducing the police force and starting salaries (and I believe reducing the fire dept.) giving away our money for stadiums and arenas, help us through "hard times." Has he stopped train fares from going up, has he reduced class size in schools, he's cut money for daycare. How has he proven himself to be so "competent."?

he does, but I think there is a lot of fear that the city could go bankrupt again. I didn't vote for him and wouldn't - The RNC convention and little Gitmo were enough to get me to hate him with a passion and I can't stand the thought of listening to his obnoxious, patronizing whiny voice for another 2 years.

I was just explaining the sentiment expressed by many New Yorkers - in papers, on the street, in conversation - (being one myself gives me an inside perspective) and a lot of people feel that the hell they know is better than the hell they don't.

I credit the repubs taking over to one NYC mayor. David Dinkins... during his first term he let his buddies and social responsibility run wild. Rudy got in as most said something had to be done. Rudy backed the Dem Gov Coumo and caught hell for it from the repugs. The memory of the Dinkins days still linger for many here.

also a contributing factor. These three allowed for NYC is be a shithole. The grafitti, squege men (sp?) and Times Square whore house reputation hurt NYC's image. Also, don't forgot the burning Bronx and the Central Park jogger. You do not have that happening under Bloomberg. While he has done some unfavorable things that help Republicans, he has done a better job with the city than Beame, Koch (who is not a real Democrat anyway), and Dinkins. Wait until 2009, when Anthony Weiner gets elected, because he is the only Democrat out of the current group who will not let New York City down.

Also, some truth. Dinkins beat Giuliani by about two points in '89 and lost to him in '93 by about the same tiny margin. The Crown Heights riots hurt Dinkins, no question , but there wasn't exactly a huge stampede of DEMS to the republican Giuliani in '93. Rather a small but critical 5% or so of the electorate moved over.

Dinkins claims... and there is evidence to substantiate it... that crime had peaked and had begun to go down in the last two years of the Dinkins tenure. There was an OBVIOUS double standard in how the NY media treated him ( "the washroom attendant" one racist, and wildly popular radio windbag would routinely snarl) and how it treated Koch and Giuliani.

Dinkin's deficiencies have been greatly exaggerated. It could be reasonably claimed, among other accomplishments, that he "cleaned-up city hall" after the city-for-sale reign of Ed Koch.... like the current mayor, a wildly overrated media darling. Dinkins rule was relatively scandal-free. Koch had people slitting their throats rather than testify before grand juries.

But he was elected three times. And there isn't a republican candidate for anything that he won't endorse.

Go figure. Lesson: you can fool most of the people much of the time.

questionable. Giuliani did help in cutting crime in NYC to an extent (being harder on Chuds and Squege Men), but a booming economy and aid from Clinton-era programs also contributed. Other factors: gentrification and more aid to the city from the private sector, whether it was maintain Central Park, or the "Disneyification" of Times Square. The private sector (and the state and local officials) also helped stablize NYC's economy after 9/11 with subsidies and aid to small businesses and advertisements for shoppers. Battery Park City, for example, could have gone to shit with nothing but empty apartments. Yet, there are now more people living in Lower Manhattan than on 9/10/2001!

grocery protests where Dinkins and Ward fought all court orders to keep protesters a very reasonable distance from the store entrance, instead they were allowed to essentially block the entrance till a Superior court forced the police dept to act like a police department

People believed the polls and stayed home. Also, Ferrer... his 2001 karma. If the same number of voters as in 2001 showed up, he would have lost!
744,757 in 2001
701,268 2005
How is that affect your theories?

with the argument that the position is basically managerial and he is a good manager. I could not stomach this, remembering his arogant and illegal actions during the RNConvention.

The "he's really a democrat" argument was also pervasive among registered democrats, sadly.

Still, the numbers do not lie. For all the investments, it was a big bust. Makes me feel slightly better about fellow NYC-ers 9only slightly, because not voting ain't too snart either)