Video: New School Protesters Beaten, Arrested (Again)
B&H Photo Video Sued For Gender Bias
Person Fatally Struck By G Train At 7th Avenue Subway Station
16-Year-Old Confesses To Shooting That Caught Girl In Crossfire
Sexual Harassment On Subways An "Underreported Crime"
Though the end result of last night's mayoral election doesn't come as much of a surprise, the closeness of the race shocked a lot of onlookers. After running a record-breaking $100 million campaign that won major endorsements and blanketed the city in nearly non-stop advertising, Mayor Bloomberg defeated the underfunded Democratic candidate Bill Thompson by only 5 percent of the vote, winning with 51 percent to his rival's 46. This comes after polls from the days before the election predicted Bloomberg ahead by double digit — some even anticipating a win almost as large as his 20 percent victory in 2005. The pollsters might have some explaining to do.
According to the Times, the closeness of the race might be linked to what voters considered Bloomberg’s "heavy-handed move" to overturn term limits and his exorbitant campaign war-chest, which gave him a 14-to-1 spending advantage. Relying on exit polls, the paper reports that 45 percent of voters said term limits were a factor in their decision to vote against Bloomberg, and about the same number cited his exorbitant campaign spending as an important issue. That said, 70 percent of voters said they "approved of his job performance."
The Daily News thinks Thompson could have been a contender if Democrats hadn't dubbed him a lost cause months ago. The tabloid wonders what would have happened if the Comptroller and Mayoral hopeful had landed a full-fledged endorsement from President Obama instead of "a squishy, nonendorsement-endorsement of Thompson, after his press secretary couldn't even come up with Thompson's name."
An unnamed senior Thompson adviser bolsters the argument: "There are a number of people around Bill who felt that he was let down and that, yes, it could have helped if President Obama had campaigned with him...But that's not who Bill Thompson is. He has not been bitter." The News also calls out Vice President Biden, Rev. Al Sharpton, and City Council Speaker Quinn — who held her Thompson endorsement until the last minute.
A final factor might have been turnout, which was reportedly dismal. According to current numbers from NY1, only 1,100,649 New Yorkers cast ballots — less than the 1,235,997 who voted in Bloomberg's 2005 trouncing of Democrat Fernando Ferrer. An unnamed Bloomberg aide expressed his surprise about the rather tight outcome to Times: "Everybody was shocked." But according to Bloomberg's Twitter, the Mayor isn't stressing the five-point margin. "Thank you #NYC Humbled, proud, & excited to have the opportunity to serve you for another 4 yrs!"
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
We need to tell city council to get rid of Christine Quinn as Speaker, otherwise another 4 years of the city council rubber stamping Bloomberg's will. Also, Citizen Union, Rev. Butts (asshole), Andrew Cuomo, Michael McMahon and all those other so called democrats sold out to Bloomberg's wealth. Thanks for standing up for the people!!!!! Working FAmily party backed down to avoid an investigation on their "activities".
Vote, people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! goddamn
The election is over...but thanks for your post-election enthusiasm.
"Mayor Bloomberg defeated the underfunded Democratic candidate Bill Thompson by only 5 percent of the vote, winning with 51 percent to his rival's 49"
I enjoy reading Gothamist. It's probably my favorite blog. Thankfully, it's not my only news source.
Simple explanation for small margin: Bloomberg supporters and indifferents (the majority) knew he would win, so voting wasn't high on their list of priorities, while Thompson ran a relatively successful campaign and rallied a considerable amount of support, albeit a low, but relatively competitive, turnout. No matter, a win is a win is a win.
Turn off the TV. This is Bloomberg's campaign manager spin. The small margin was because people didn't want Bloomberg. That fact is that many who would have voted for Thompson stayed home because they probably believe all those "polls" that gave Bloomberg a double digit lead. This race was thompson's but Bloomberg's 100 millions has bought the election and bought turncoat democrats.
Sorry for your loss.
oh felix!
just admit it, you know you love Bloomberg and are secretly delighted that he won.
Baloney. Everybody I know, black, white, hispanic, male or female told me the same thing. They trust the guy to keep crime down and the economy viable. The rest is window dressing. They also admire a self-made man more than a hack politician.
Self made or with a $10 million severance package?
I voted, unenthusiastically, for Bloomberg because, face it, the city is a good place to live and work under his leadership. Had Thompson been able to project a plan, some charisma and a breath of fresh air, I might have voted for him. It certainly bothers me that Bloomberg spent so much of his personal fortune on the campaign, but I doubt whether it truly made that big of a difference.
The term limit issue, which seemed to be Thompson's major campaign issue, should have been an issue when the city council approved it. It was not an issue in this election, as it was already approved.
I don't see NJ, VA or any other election as a repudiation of Obama. People are just sick of politicians and they wanted out with the status quo.
Besides, Corzine was pretty lame as governor.
Bloomberg didn't project a plan neither. All he did was attack Thompson unfairly. Based on the last 8 years with children in homeless shelters and essential services cut back yet Bloomberg dolling out raises to city-employed supporters, Thompson was the better choice.
i've said it before - i'm not an avid bloomberg supporter by any means, but goddamn felix you know how to lay on that anti-bloomberg rhet.
"children in homeless shelthers," jesus christ. i get the sense that bloomberg paid you to come here to gothamist and post stuff like this ad-nauseum in thompson's favor, just to make us sick of it.
i think it worked.
V premiered last night.
HAHAHAAHAH Jimmy Fallon
Wow, that's the hardest I've ever laughed at anything involving Jimmy Fallon.
That's what you get when you try to take away the bike lanes.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Bloomie sent checks to Thompson's campaign just to prop him up so people would think there was a reason to show up and vote.
I wouldn't be surprised if Thompsom's entire candidacy was bought and paid for by Bloomberg so as to have the least charismatic candidate possible to run against. Even so, I held my nose and voted for Thompson.
great, more of the same.
page hits?
it reeks of corruption to me - corruption at the polls that had bloomberg up by 20% - corruption at the media for backing him over Thompson - corruption at reporting bloomberg would win and then annoncing he had won by a large majority...filthy corruption - no different than mexico, argentina, iran or whomever.
mmmmm...filthy, hot, and sticky corruption.
Thompson wasted $6mm.
What happened is that the hard core electorate -- people who will come out and vote in every election no matter what -- are also the same people who are personally offended by the term limits and campaign finance issues. And while they didn't really want Thompson, they thought that since Bloomberg had a safe lead they would vote against him to send a message.
That, and the black vote was still hung over from Obama's victory so they didn't mobilize like they otherwise might have for Thompson.
While watching Thompson's concession speech, I realized why I really voted for Bloomberg. There was the Rev Sharpton standing right behind Big Bill looking so forlorn because for another 4 years he will not be able to grow his shakedown business.
I voted for Thompson, but had second thoughts when seeing Rev Al standing around during the concession speech.
I don't think it's any great mystery. When you are told for months that your guy has it in the bag, people who wanted or were fine with Bloomberg didn't go the polls. People who really didn't want him did. I don't think it is indicative of some sort of mandate.
Okay,now all who went along with everything Bloomberg said and voted for him.....BEND OVER AND GREASE YOURSELVES. It's going to be 4 more years of getting SCREWED OVER by this administration. For a city that brags about being so tough and being the Greatest City in the World, it sure is full of gullible, naive people. Just like mice,you followed the PIDE PIPER OF BS and elected him to a (BOUGHT) third term. Some peoples minds are just easy to manipulate, or it could be that they're gluttons for punishment. Basically, it's going to be the same song and dance from the previous 8 years.....the City (according to Mayor PUTZ) will be under DIRE FANANCIAL STRAITS, not enough money for Police, Firefighters or other City services, and NO tax rebates for property owners, due to the horrendous fiscal crisis. You can bet your last dollar, however, that the TAX FREE subsidies will seem to MAGICALLY appear whenever some developer wants to build a Luxury Highrise in a neighborhood. Enjoy yourselves, YOU GET THE GOVERNMENT YOU DESERVE. P.S. INVEST YOUR MONEY IN VASELINE. Alot of (it) is going to be used on you.
I disagree with the idea that a solid Obama endorsement would've helped Thompson. It didn't help Corzine after all. Love Obama, but don't think he could've helped.
As an aside, I wish Dominic could've waited to get fired til after the election.
It is not correct that the NYT reported that "45 percent of voters said term limits were a factor in their decision to vote against Bloomberg." The mistake is in the words "their decision to vote against Bloomberg."
First, consider that Thompson received 46% of the vote. So, knowing that, it defies common sense that 45% of all survey respondents would have said that Bloomberg's successful move to overturn term limits was a factor in their decision to vote against him. That kind of symmetry just doesn't happen. Had Thompson received more than 55%, maybe it's conceivable that 45% of all respondents could have attributed that issue as a factor in influencing their choice.
45% of all survey respondents did say that Bloomberg's decision to change term limits made them "less likely to vote" for him. But even 19% of those voters still voted for him. Taking away one-fifth of 45%, that means that about 36% of all survey respondents said that this issue was a factor in their decision-making, and also that they voted against him -- but we can't conclude from that that they're tied. It's pretty much guaranteed that at least some of those voters were going to vote against him anyway, but because they didn't like what Bloomberg did on term limits, they said it was a factor.
Having said that, the NYT survey questions could have been improved. It would have produced more revealing results if voters who voted against Bloomberg had been asked:
"If term limits had been repealed without Bloomberg's involvement, would you have been significantly more likely to have voted for him?"
That way, it would have been much less likely that many who voted for Thompson or other candidates primarily for other reasons, such as Party or spending levels or tax policies, would have been much "falsely" counted as saying this issue influenced their choice.
Bloomie could have done better, if he understood the word OVERKILL.
One other point:
Of those respondents who said that Bloomberg's spending was the single most important factor in their choice, 49% said they voted for Bloomberg vs. 47% for Thompson!
Among those who said that Bloomberg's spending was one among several important factors, 63% said they voted for Thompson, and 30% said they voted for Bloomberg.
This doesn't make sense to me. Bloomberg received fully 50% more votes among voters who said his spending was the most important factor in their decision-making than among those said it only one among several important factors??
hey how come gothamist runs so many photos without captions or credits? i'm assuming this one would read, "jimmy fallon joins mayor mike bloomberg at his victory party tuesday night."? and no photographer credits? how do you get away with this???