Mayor Bloomberg autographs a copy of the Daily News, AP Photo by David Goldman
Apparently, today's a bad day to be the richest and most powerful person in New York City. In the wake of last night's not-as-big-as-predicted victory over Democrat Bill Thompson, the press has decided that Mayor Bloomberg's easy days are behind him. The Times thinks that for the first time in years, the mayor "finds himself governing New York City from a most unaccustomed vantage point: Vulnerability" — a fact that "could have profound implications for the tenor of a third Bloomberg term, not least that it is likely to hinder the mayor’s well-honed ability to cow Democrats and liberal interest groups."
The Post points out that upon taking keeping office, Bloomberg will need to resolve a $5 billion budget shortfall before July 1 while working with a City Council inhabited by a handful of new, and not necessarily compliant, members. Keeping watch of the Mayor will be Public Advocate-elect Bill de Blasio — whose primary duties will involve castigating the Bloomberg administration and proving that his position deserves to exist. "You'll see a lot of strong voices as checks and balances," promised de Blasio. "It will be a very different experience than what he experienced the last eight years."
Nonetheless, Bloomberg — who spent at least $157.27 per vote compared to Thompson's $13.12 — seems to be in good spirits for someone who just shelled out $100 million to buy something he already owns: "Did it cost a lot? Yes, it did. But take a look in New Jersey: Jon Corzine spent $40 million and did not win." And the media mogul considers his 5 percent victory big enough: "I don't think the margin of victory was narrow. The Yankees win, whether they win in four, five, six or seven, it's Number 27 - that's all that matters, okay?"




I'm not a fan of Bloomberg but I must say, I don't see what the problem is. He won, so he will get to be the mayor for 4 more years. Am I missing something? It's not fair but it happened. Besides the slight blow to his ego, what's to stop him from being the same autocrat as always?
Agreed. And for everyone bitching about abolishing term limits without considering what citizens want; well, the election was a referendum. The majority (plurality?) of voters wanted Bloomberg back for a third term.
well the election was a referendum yeah that is some logic you have going there...
By law NYC has a very powerful mayor. Unlike Obama or Gov. Patterson, he really doesn't face a legislature as a counter-weight to his power. In fact, with mayoral control over education and greater outsourcing to private firms, he's more powerful today than when first elected.
Is there anything now to stop him from going for a fourth term?
Well-- okay?
Bloomberg-- close more streets! Build more bike lanes! Tax the bridges! Tax the tunnels! Build more parks on the streets! Your transit positions are what I voted for.
Moricai,
I can't tell if you're joking, but I agree with you. I voted for him to, though I'm a Democrat. I don't see him as a Republican.
No irony here-- he closed off a chunk of street outside my workplace & turned it into a little park-- it radically improved the area. I hate commuters using NYC infrastructure & being offended that they might have to pay for it. Bloomberg fights the State Legislature, & is rich enough to ignore lobbyists. I'm usually deeply opposed to plutocrats, & I get why the term limit thing bothers people-- but I can get down with the Empire State Darth Bloomberg.
There's no better leader than a good king and none worse than a bad one.
Just wait until even more luxury condo buildings are approved all over the city.
But I suppose this means "mayor for life" is out of the question now?
Come, come. This isn't Boston! http://bostonist.com/2009/11/03/election_shocker_boston_retains_inc.php
All right, Mike.
You got your way and got what you wanted.
Now prove you deserved it.
one can only hope,
I hope I'm still around to see it.