NYC Mayoral Primary Tonight

Not many around the country are paying attention to tonight's mayoral primary in New York City. It's understandable. Hell, not many in New York are even paying all that much attention. The fact of the matter is that Mike popular with both Republicans and Democrats.

If you think this sounds blasphemous, check out this statistic. One recent poll offered Democratic primary voters a fictional contest in which Bloomberg was given as a choice. He actually would have beaten Democrats Fernando Ferrer 42% to 23%, with Congressman Anthony Weiner at 10% and Gifford Miller and C. Virginia Fields in the single digits. In reality, voter turnout today was quite low.

Even though Bloomberg runs as a Republican, he's perhaps the biggest RINO in the United States, actually giving tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates around the country throughout the nineties. (Oddly, this includes $1,000 each to now-Democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jon Corzine.)

In order to win the primary without a runoff, a candidate needs 40% or more. As I write this, 99% of the vote has been counted. Ferrer has 39.93% of the vote. It's not yet clear if there will be a runoff, but there's already talk of a recount.

And that is when I go to bed.

Tags: Primary Elections (all tags)



Go Gifford!
by craverguy 2005-09-13 07:05PM | 0 recs
Just curious, but why did he become a Republican? I know politicians do that now and then. Ray Nagin was a Republican before the primary when he switched parties because the city is so Democratic. New York is even more Democratic. So why is Bloomberg a Republican.
by elrod 2005-09-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg
Baically, he became a Republican because everybody and his brother was running in the Democratic primary and there was maybe two guys running in the Republican primary, both of whom got blown out of the water when Bloomberg started pouring his personal fortune into his campaign coffers.
by craverguy 2005-09-13 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg
Sigh.  The least he could do is switch back.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-14 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg
It's easier to get out of the Republican primary (no opposition) than the Democratic primary (where there are multiple candidates, like 4 this time)
by v2aggie2 2005-09-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Bloomberg should switch parties
After reelection.  It would definatly help if he choses one day to seek higher office.
by jkfp2004 2005-09-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Will NY Dems Learn
Socially liberal, anti-working class Bloomberg. Chris wrote a beautiful rant about this, but I really wish it would get through to more Democrats. When Bloomberg screws teachers, police and firefighters and transportation unions in a bid to break their contracts, he's merely a pro-choice George Bush. Don't forget that he funneled millions to Bush's election campaign. He's a pro-choice George Bush.
by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-09-13 08:21PM | 0 recs
Anti-working class is a pretty unfair characterization.  I wouldn't call Bloomberg a progressive, but he's not gone out of his way to screw city workers.  He has tried to work his way out of a deficit and not jack up NYC's already sky-high taxes.  The NYC public unions typically ask for obscene pay raises every year.  Bloomberg has always been able to cut deals with them at the end of the day.

I'm a pretty big fan of Bloomberg.  He's one of the few politicians these days that governs like a mature adult.  He's not vindictive, not photo-op driven, not trying to stir up trouble like Rudy did. He's balanced the books and kept crime low without so much of the brulaization of minorities that was rampant in Rudy's mayorship.

Although New York is generally progressive, at the end of the day they like their mayors competent above all else.  That's why Bloomberg will win easily.  And I definitely consider him a RINO.

by alhill 2005-09-13 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Bah
Teachers, Firefighters, transportation workers, and cops till they got screwed have had to go without a contract for several years. Longer than they had to under Guiliani. Bloomberg has tried to cut their protections in the contract. There's no issue of taxes here, the city has a winfall of revenue. Bloomberg assumed that he can get elected by being socially liberal, and doing what Bush does to public unions. If you get your info from the NY Post you may be reading a biased source my friend.
by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-09-13 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Bah
True, but then a lot of major cities have issues like that as well.  Dem or Republican, the city worker get screwed in pursuit of the great uniter in politics... money.
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-14 09:33AM | 0 recs
I hear Jerry Kilgore
got his ass kicked by Tim Kaine in tonight's debate. I really hope the people of Virginia wake up and realize that Kilgore is going to undo all of the good that Mark Warner did and that if they like what Warner has done, they should elect Kaine. If Warner wants to prove his viability as a national figure, he needs to get Kaine elected and find a challenger to Allen who can force him to burn some money. If Allen is allowed to skate freely to re-election, he's going to amass a gigantic warchest for 2008, which would be bad for us, and especially bad for Warner.
by dole4pineapple 2005-09-13 08:55PM | 0 recs
Just out of curiosity...
...does that have anything at all to do with the New York City mayor's race?
by craverguy 2005-09-13 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Just out of curiosity...
not at all...just thought I'd bring that up.
by dole4pineapple 2005-09-13 09:54PM | 0 recs
so, we're going to have to wait for absentee ballots, which may take days, to decide whether there will be a run-off in 2 weeks, which will cost the city millions.

All of this could be avoided with IRV.

"If New York City had instant runoff voting, the city would save millions of dollars this year and guarantee there was majority support for the Democratic candidate for mayor," charged Gloria Mattera today. Mattera is the Green Party candidate for Brooklyn Borough President.

"Instant runoff voting (IRV)encourages voters to vote for the candidate they really want, without worrying that their vote will help elect someone they don't like," added Mattera. "In multi-candidate races such as this year's Democratic primary, IRV ensures that the winner is supported by the majority of voters, instead of just getting more votes than anyone else. The Green Party supports IRV as a way to increase voter participation."  

An instant runoff ballot allows voters to rank multiple candidates in order of preference. If no one gets a majority in the first round of ballot counting, the candidate with the fewest votes is thrown out, and the second choices on those ballots are counted. The process continues until one candidate has received a majority. San Francisco uses IRV for most citywide offices, and Ireland and Australia use it for major elections. More information about IRV is at

by brooklyngreenie 2005-09-13 09:35PM | 0 recs
Bloomberg Supported Bush in 2004. Nuff Said ...
I don't live in New York, so I can't comment on how Mike Bloomberg is doing as Mayor.  But as far as I'm concerned, he supported George W. Bush for re-election in 2004, and that is reason enough why he should be denied a second term.

Don't give me the "but-he-had-to-he's-a-Republican" crap.  George W. Bush is without exaggeration the worst President that this country has ever had, and his re-election is one of the worst catastrophes to have ever hit us and I am still depressed over it.  Because of this, I hold every fucking idiot responsible and liable who did anything from voting for Bush to actively campaign for him.

The following is an excerpt from Michael Bloomberg's speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention:

I want to thank President Bush for supporting New York City and changing the homeland security funding formula and for leading the global war on terrorism.


The president deserves our support.


We are here to support him.


And I am here to support him.

For the full speech, click here.

'Nuff said.  Michael Bloomberg supported George Bush in 2004.  He must be stopped.  I don't give a shit about anything else he has done as Mayor of New York, any Democrat would be better!

by Paul Hogarth 2005-09-13 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg Supported
Yeah, it amazes me about W.  I thought for a while that Harding was at least worst then Bush.  Had Bush lost in 2004, I am sure it would be true.  But now Bush is truly the worst POTUS in history.  Lets make sure the history books reflect that.
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-14 09:37AM | 0 recs
Bloomberg Will Win
Thus far I think he's done an excellent job as mayor, he's not part of the usual political machine. Most democrats are satisfied with him, In fact off the top of my head more than half of my strongly liberal anti-Bush friends (which are quite a few)are going to vote for him. He gets a 57% approval rating from Democrats in the last survey I saw.  
by NJDEM1 2005-09-14 06:54AM | 0 recs
The reason Bloomberg looks so good to a lot of Dems is because the Dem party nominates nothing but crusted machine politicians to be mayor.  These guys see New York as basically a local entity comprised of a myriad of interest groups.  When you see these tiny figures like Ferrer, it makes you realize that Bloomberg is pretty damn good.

More Dems support Bloomberg than any other candidate, even "Dems".  Are they all fools?  There's some reason why Bloomberg is extremely popular among New York Dems.

I think the main reason NYC Dems have elected Rudy and Bloomberg is that they are turned off by the Dem party's being completely mired in machine politics.  

Possibly my feelings about Bloomberg/Ferrer comes from the fact that I'm not a progressive that comes from the union side of the movement (I come more from the social issues side).  I'm always a bit suspicious of the unions, particularly in the context of municipal public employees.  Many, not all, but many New York city workers do very very well for the skills their jobs entail.  Compared to other cities, New York has a lot of public employees and they get paid a lot.  That's one reason why taxes in NYC are outrageous: federal + state + city taxes are over 50% of marginal income for most people.

The fact that Bloomberg brought the city into a surplus to me doesn't seem like a good reason to throw the surplus back to the municipal workers.

That said, I can understand how a progressive from the labor side might have very different feelings about Bloomberg.  I don't think he's gone out of his way to destroy unions or anything, but I don't think anyone would claim he's "pro-worker."  He's a businessman, and he is largely pro-business in his economic policies.

by alhill 2005-09-14 08:28AM | 0 recs
Weiner Concedes

The feeling is that even if somehow Freddy ends up below 40%, in order for Anthony to possibly win he would have to bloody the party,cause  major racial strains,and basically hand the election to Bloomberg in November. And the consensus is that when the absentee ballots are counted Ferrer will be over 40% anyhow. Weiner surged late and absentee ballots are filled out earlier.

by Sy Gold 2005-09-14 08:47AM | 0 recs
Weiner knows the score
He can't win in a runoff, but more importantly, Freddy won't win in the general.  This was a name building race for Weiner, and he's succeeded beyond expectations.  He'll be a major player for future races, including the 2009 nomination, and the potential senate seat opening should Hillary become POTUS.

Dropping out now will generate good will from Freddy's organization.  Selfishly, I wanted him to fight it out, cause Freddy is a hack-and-a-half, and he deserved some of the back stabbing action he gave to Mark Green in 2001.  Bloomberg will deservedly coast to victory anyway.

by jeff212 2005-09-14 08:55AM | 0 recs
a few things
God, I'm so sick of people saying no one cares about this. So turnout was down, 500,000 still voted. If you don't care about, fine, shut the fuck up. But, yes, plenty of New Yorkers do care about who their governor is going to be. This kind of cynicism about politics only helps the right and is beneath the entire ethos of this site.

A few other things. Bloomberg certainly isn't a RINO. He's raised millions of dollars for the GOP -- the real GOP, not the fake Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee GOP that doesn't really exist. He didn't have to do that, but he did. He also personally wrote a check to the GOP for 7 million dollars for their convention here, and personally made that entire week possibly. Bush's entire race was based on 9/11. That's the week he passed Kerry in the polls. Had that convention not been held in New York, or had Bloomberg had the balls to denounce the unbelievably shameless and cynical political exploitation of this city's tragedy by Bush, there's an argument to be made Bush would not have won. Bloomberg let Bush use his constituents in the worst way. He didn't have to, but he did.

You want to hold Chertoff, Brown, Bush, Cheney responsible for their decisions? Hold Bloomberg responsible for his.

Then there his obsession with stadiums -- the worst possible use for public space and public money there is.

Oh, and his poll numbers? Do you know anything about politics? He's already spent 40 million dollars. Do you know what happens when you spend lots of money? Your poll numbers go up. To mention his vaunted "high" poll numbers without mentioning his unprecedent spending is simply either intentionally deceptive or just stupid.

By the way, before his most recent spending campaign, his numbers were in the 40's -- not strong for an incumbent. He's now spent over 100 million dollars and has yet to stand for election a second time.

This is a man who outspent Mark Green by 30 million dollars and won by 36,000 votes.

It's understandable that the moronic media will discuss Bloomberg without discussing his money, but it's beneath this site.

by js100142 2005-09-14 10:33AM | 0 recs
"Governor" should obviously be "Mayor" in the previous post.
by js100142 2005-09-14 10:36AM | 0 recs
a few things of my own
The only reason I didn't write about Bloomberg's money is that I didn't think it was necessary in the context of this election results post. In my mind, it's a really obvious given. To the extent that I think I have anything to apologize for, it's short-changing the background on the race in this post.

Do you also think I should be writing about Corzine's money advantage over Forrester in the NJ gubernatorial race as well? Because I haven't done that either.

And could you maybe be a little less harsh in the future? You made some really good points about coverage of this race, but it's really hard for me to acknowledge that fact after you call me stupid and deceptive, saying I know nothing about politics, and accusing me of shilling for a Republican.

by Scott Shields 2005-09-14 12:40PM | 0 recs
I apologize for the tone. It was fueled less by your post then by the media coverage of Bloomberg last night. For instance, he had a party which New York One (a good outlet) of all places noted was "well attended and has a lot of excitement here, unlike Virginia Fields headquarters," without mentioned Bloomberg's money -- that party probably cost a million dollars.

So it was more about the media coverage than your post, Scott. That, and the fact that I have many Dem. friends voting for Bloomberg and it's driving me crazy.

So, apologies...

by js100142 2005-09-14 12:55PM | 0 recs
It may make us crazy
But he IS going to spend, well, whatever it takes to win.  And he has cleverly coopted many of the major union endorsements.  Wait a couple weeks for 1199 to come out for Bloomberg, and then we can call it a day.

But the guy has a nearly 60% approval rating among democrats, and I just don't see what Ferrer has to throw at him.  It'd take a totally united and motivated democratic party to overcome the amount of cash Bloomberg will drop, and that just doesn't exist.  And it largely doesn't exist because most Democrats LIKE Bloomberg.

As a New Yorker, I don't really care what Bloomberg does it terms of fundraising for the GOP when it was convenient to him.  More important is what he does governing the city, and he's done a pretty good job, and a far better job than there's any reason to believe Freddy could do.

by jeff212 2005-09-14 01:32PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads