Tuesday's Election Results (local)

[ceebeegee]

There seems to be a lot of second-guessing about Bloomberg's smaller-than-expected margin of victory over Thompson--apparently it was only 5 points instead a projected 12 or so. Second-guessing and what seems to me to be an attempt to force this into a narrative, that being Bloomberg's supposed erosion of influence. Frankly I think all it means is that not many people here in the city voted on Tuesday because they all knew that Bloomberg would win. Thompson was nothing, a cipher. All he had going for him was that he wasn't Bloomberg, but he stood for nothing and he made a lot of basic, amateurish errors in his campaign (misspellings on campaign materials and in commercials, poor coordination with staff, etc.). A hapless effort overall.

I said something about this on Alex's FB page but to expand on it--I have a problem with the Democratic party in New York State. They're this well-entrenched party machine, like Tammany Hall, especially here in the city, so the only way to break through is to put in your time and eventually you'll get rewarded with a slot on the ticket. And so we, the voters, are presented with a bunch of talentless party hacks for our Democratic choices--I mean, Bill Thompson? Ferrer? Paterson? The ONLY way Paterson got on the Spitzer ticket for Lt. Governor was because he'd put in the time--he has zero leadership qualities and is unelectable. And with anemic choices like Ferrer and Thompson, we get trounced by more charismatic mavericks like Bloomberg and Guiliani--guys who actually have a chance at breaking through the pack because the pack is so much thinner in the NYC Republican party. Bloomberg was a Democrat originally--he had to switch parties to have a shot at the nomination. (And then switched again to become an Independent.) And look who he ran against in 2001? Mark Green, whom I actually don't mind personally or as Public Advocate, but is a bland, by-the-numbers leader. I think he does better snarking on the side, because he diesn't really impress me as a leader--I reacted quite badly to his negative campaigning in 2001.

The exception to this is Anthony Weiner, who is a NYC Democrat and I love him. He's like a charismatic geek--kind of like Bloomberg, now that I think of it. Very intelligent and a hard worker. I'd like to see him run again in four years.

Comments

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

All valid points. (I did see your FB post, BTW.) I can see the discomfort with the idea of politics becoming exclusively the province of the wealthy because, obviously, a lot of good potential leaders may be excluded. I will say, with Bloomberg, his wealth is entirely the result of the good idea he had and turned into a very successful business. He didn't inherit it, he made it. That sort of thing doesn't necessarily correlate to effective political leadership but it's a good sign. I also have to appreciate someone who doesn't take the polls for granted (Bloomberg's campaign spending) and actually campaigns, although I can certainly see how it could be interpreted as poor sportsmanship. Whereas Thompson's campaign was a bit of a joke. Interesting article here on that. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/nyregion/23thompson.html?scp=5&sq=thompson%20misspell&st=cse) How you run your campaign is definitely a harbinger of how you execute the office--I can't respect a leader who doesn't show up, or whose press releases misspell his own name.

I love me some Anthony Weiner. I liked him four years ago and there was an interesting article (http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/59907/) about him a few weeks ago in NY Magazine that made me like him even more.