Is Bill de Blasio done?

[Simfan34]

If NYC was a country there'd be a "postmodern coup" right now, yeah.

[The_Doctor]

He needs to breakup the police union, bad.

Leftists supporting union busting.  Who'd have thought? FDR is rolling in his grave.

Don't be an idiot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/

This is interesting as a statement. Most unions with collective bargaining power left are public sector unions. This statement, applied to modern days, means that effectively, the days of collective bargaining would be over, if we stripped public unions of collective bargaining (which I strongly support).

One of the few times I would say I agree with that Man Who Was in the White House.

[The_Doctor]

Don't worry fascists. Looks like de Blasio has been brought to heel. The cop coup has succeeded.

I do not see any concrete sign that de Blasio will back off his efforts and is just trying to evade public heat. I want to see him concretely pledging to support the officers in future cases and building a much more supportive relationship with the NYPD. They are his charges and he is their commander. He undercut them in the campaign and as Mayor. If he changes, he can reform them (through a mutually agreeable process).

If he doesn't, there could be further incidents, which could endanger his re-election. New York City does have a good history of electing Republican mayors.

[© tweed]

Don't worry fascists. Looks like de Blasio has been brought to heel. The cop coup has succeeded.

I do not see any concrete sign that de Blasio will back off his efforts and is just trying to evade public heat. I want to see him concretely pledging to support the officers in future cases and building a much more supportive relationship with the NYPD. They are his charges and he is their commander. He undercut them in the campaign and as Mayor. If he changes, he can reform them (through a mutually agreeable process).

If he doesn't, there could be further incidents, which could endanger his re-election. New York City does have a good history of electing Republican mayors.

I disagree, moving towards a Rudy/Bloomberg relationship with the PD is not his ticket.  he needs to go hard after Lynch personally and assert his authority, as the elected leader of a City that has civilian control over the police, and not vice-versa.  

to oversimplify, the Dems lost 5 straight mayoral elections because of the inherent problems of urban racial politics.  but the demographics are changing.  blacks + Hispanics are now just over 50% of the population and were over 40% of the electorate in the 2013 election.  BdB took 19 of 20 blacks and over 3 of 4 Hispanics  hold the line on that, and make the progressive white left happy & energized, and he can win even if he loses 2:1 or even 3:1 among whites.  

remember, Thompson pulled high 40s in 2009 despite a severe financial disadvantage and low visibility/nobody giving him a shot.  the floor for a Dem Mayoral candidate is very high, we won't see a Rudy/Ferrer type margin again for a long time.

besides, it's not like the election is tomorrow or even next year.  3 years is an eternity, so most of this discussion is premature and a bit silly.


EDIT: I was wrong on a few of the numbers.  blacks + Hispanics actually constituted 47% of the 2013 electorate, compared to 45% for whites.  BdB took 96% of blacks (28% of the electorate) and a stunning 87% of Hispanics (19% of electorate).  with those numbers, he theoretically could have won with as little as 10% (!) of the white vote.

[The_Doctor]

I agree it's premature and silly to forecast the next election. Who saw Bloomberg eking out a 51-46% win in NYC in 2009? Nobody, certainly.

The thing I'm focusing on what de Blasio should do, IMO. He gets no benefit in a protracted battle with law enforcement. Let me be a bit broad for a second. Any elected official has to work with institutional forces in their city, and the NYPD is an institutional force in New York City, as it is in any major city. The Mayor has to deal with that and respect that institution. It's an established institution with considerable political power, like any other political and public institution in an ubran area. (Teachers' unions are another example of this, by the way).

A costly battle with the NYPD costs de Blasio a lot and doesn't reap him much in the way of benefits. Maybe it will secure him re-election, maybe it will weaken the NYPD, as an institution. There is a reason, however, he should cooperate and work to reform the NYPD (if he sees necessary reforms; I don't necessarily agree that a few bad cops amounts to a needed wholesale reform in the NYPD). The simple truth is that law enforcement is going to be necessary in any major urban center and especially one where poorer communities exist.

They will always be necessary to the city's success, and ultimately, the public - no matter what - will broadly vote for law and order over civil liberty. Period. People don't want the freedom to resist arrest successfully as much as they want the freedom to be safe walking to the 7-11. Any indignation over the violation of civil liberties is trumped by the desire to be safe. You can argue with that impulse; good liberals have been trying to motivate people to embrace civil liberties over national/local security (and failed spectacularly, almost every single time). The ultimate point is that people want security, at almost any cost.

This is the essential human condition, and why de Blasio must negotiate and cooperate with the NYPD.

[© tweed]

the NYPD is an institutional force in New York City, as it is in any major city. The Mayor has to deal with that and respect that institution. It's an established institution with considerable political power, like any other political and public institution in an ubran area. (Teachers' unions are another example of this, by the way).

sure the NYPD is an "institutional force", among other institutional forces.  they have lobbying power, can lend a hand in media affairs and GOTV, and all that.. as can unions and other non-statal organizations (non-profits, etc)

the point here is twofold.  a) de Blasio has legal authority over the NYPD as the elected represented of the civilians.  PBA, in large part because they were given carte blanche by Rudy/Bloomberg for two decades, resents the Mayor's attempt to put any limits on their power.  there's an opening here for BdB to emphasize this, particularly because the PBA leader Lynch very much a public figure now, and has been saying things so extreme that even the Rudys of the world have to qualify their support for him with an "I wouldn't go that far"

b) even if de Blasio moves to the hard right on relations with the PD, all the way over to the Rudy/Bloomberg position, they're still going to hate him, and all he serves to do is alienate the civil society orgs that he will need to be re-elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol.  BdB is no anarchist, even though Pat Lynch and his acolytes may believe he is.  and if they believe that, there's no fixing the relationship.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

people who think like this are not going to be BdB supporters anyway.

[Yank2133]

The NYPD Labor union can go ****  themselves.

Get a grip! Acting like the mayor declared war on them.

[publicunofficial]

The reason NYC has Mayor de Blasio and not Mayor Quinn right now is due largely to de Blasio's anti-Stop and Frisk stance. Most New Yorkers know that the NYPD is not a paragon of virtue, especially their leadership, and are willing to vote against them.

[© tweed]

a late Aug 2014 (post-Garner death) Quinnipiac poll showed NYPD approval rating at 50% vs 42% disapprove, more or less the lowest rating on record.



a strong majority of blacks, majority of Hispanics, and plurality of Democrats disapproved.

[ag]

Don't worry fascists. Looks like de Blasio has been brought to heel. The cop coup has succeeded.

They are his charges and he is their commander.

They are city employees. They are, most definitely, not mayor's charges.

[ag]

If he doesn't, there could be further incidents, which could endanger his re-election.

Are you suggesting that NYC police will go around creating "incidents" in order to endanger his re-election? If yes, do you realize you are saying that there are criminals on the police force? If no, I do not quite understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

[BaconBacon96]

The rhetoric coming from the police union is becoming more and more aggressive every day. Unfortunately it looks like things will get worse before they get better.

[Türkisblau]

He needs to breakup the police union, bad.

Leftists supporting union busting.  Who'd have thought? FDR is rolling in his grave.

Don't be an idiot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/

Ditto.

As usual, CountryClassSF continues to be an idiot who does not understand any sort of nuance to an issue. Public sector unions either have to be heavily regulated or just done away with. The only reason they haven't gone yet is because the businessmen that fund the opposition to unions just don't care what happens with the public sector ones.

[The_Doctor]

Tweed, sorry for taking a bit to respond. Here we go.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(a) Yes, I agree de Blasio has authority over the NYPD, by virtue of his position. No disagreement over that. I can agree, with New York City now a minority majority city, there is an opening (within the city) for de Blasio to exploit Lynch's comments. But as I said, "There is a reason, however, he should cooperate and work to reform the NYPD ... The simple truth is that law enforcement is going to be necessary in any major urban center and especially one where poorer communities exist." You here look at the political upside for de Blasio, but from an institutional standpoint, de Blasio should actively work with and cooperate with the NYPD. This is a much better route to his goal of reform and yet winning support from the NYPD in the process. They can protest, they can actively cause negative media coverage, and they can undermine his administration, legally and politically. And that will have an effect.

(b) I disagree with this. They won't hate him no matter what, not if de Blasio actively repairs the relationship and understands the lessons gained from this latest episode. He's run a campaign and an administration that hasn't been friendly to law enforcement (read "De Blasio's nightmare" by POLITICO this morning for a better overview of that). The thing is, his administration has been terrible at relations with NYPD and PBA. This is bad for him politically, and institutionally.

If de Blasio somehow flipped to the right on this issue, hypothetically, it would be interesting (assuming it was accepted at face value). I don't think politically that he would be hurt. We've seen liberals become hawks on law and order - and still win elections (notably Bill Clinton). Becoming pro-law enforcement and coopting that issue has never backfired on anyone if done right. I don't mean right like what happened in Ferguson, I mean, continuing the broken glass theory of crime fighting, securing local communities, and supporting cops more openly.

In fact, de Blasio doesn't have to do much beyond improving his rhetoric and working to improve outreach to cops. This is really the simplest thing for him and he needs to do it, as I've said, for institutional and political reasons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody believes he's an anarchist. What people currently believe is that de Blasio is far more hostile to cops than his predecessors. He shouldn't be. It's one thing to be a reformer; it's another to be hostile to cops. I'm saying you can walk and chew gum at the same time metaphorically. Nobody would disagree (except a few people) that some reforms wouldn't help the system (warranted or not).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who vote for law and order tend to be a majority. Even African Americans don't have a majority in polling who think cops are anti-minorities. (The poll I saw yesterday morning on CNN said 37-25-25 or something along these lines on if they trust cops/believe they do a good or bad job). de Blasio should bear that in mind and operate along a more pro-cop line. I'm saying, at heart, people don't care about civil liberties; they care about being safe.

[The_Doctor]

If he doesn't, there could be further incidents, which could endanger his re-election.

Are you suggesting that NYC police will go around creating "incidents" in order to endanger his re-election? If yes, do you realize you are saying that there are criminals on the police force? If no, I do not quite understand what you mean. Could you elaborate?

They can do political activities that are legal, and undermine the mayor. They can protest, they can plant negative media stories, they can use social media while off duty. There is a ton of ways that the NYPD can express negative sentiments about the mayor while off duty. Their leaders have even more tools and can make life very difficult for de Blasio.

And given their role, they're going to get an outsized amount of attention from the public. And consequently, they can use that attention to shape the narrative about the de Blasio administration.

[hopper]

It would be one thing if it was just officers were slain, but this guy shot his girlfriend, too. This is just another indictment about how 2 years after Sandy Hook as a nation we've done nothing about helping loons with access to weapons.

If it weren't police officers in the news, this guy would've taken out his bullets on other people to send his incoherent message.

True,, but the Sandy Hook Shooter and now this guy in NYC had mental problems though too. Something needs to happen with "Mental Health Reform". I just don't know what should happen in detail.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Another performance like yesterday, yelling at the media for talking about protestors encouraging cop-killings, and he very well might be.

Fact is, he can recover very easily if he doesn't commit any unforced errors. I'm not sure he's interested in that, though.

[Gass3268]

Another performance like yesterday, yelling at the media for talking about protestors encouraging cop-killings, and he very well might be.

Fact is, he can recover very easily if he doesn't commit any unforced errors. I'm not sure he's interested in that, though.

It was a stupid question, he has every right to be angry about answering it.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Another performance like yesterday, yelling at the media for talking about protestors encouraging cop-killings, and he very well might be.

Fact is, he can recover very easily if he doesn't commit any unforced errors. I'm not sure he's interested in that, though.

It was a stupid question, he has every right to be angry about answering it.

Protip - any time an elected official is attempting to intimidate the News media for not covering a story the way they'd like, the odds are they've already lost the debate.

[publicunofficial]

The idea that BDB should work with the NYPD for reform is ludicrous. The NYPD, and every police department in America, has fought every single attempt at meaningful reform. If it makes their job slightly more difficult, or increases their accountability even slightly, the NYPD screams bloody murder.

[Mister Mets]

He's had a bad cycle. The same has happened to many executives.

He's not done because of this.

He may eventually be done in by bad policies, and a preference for criminals over cops is a symptom of that.

I think he should show the police unions the same level of respect he shows teachers unions. Before issuing a statement about reform he should consider how the tone of the statement might be different if it were about teachers (who have a worse track record, because crime has declined.)

[Badger]

OK, when we're done being stupid, should we actually wait for polls before writing the guys obituary?

This. I strongly encourage the posters here to listen to today's npr inteview of a NYTimes local affairs correspondent (can't recall the name) regarding this issue (too tired to provide a link now). Suffice to say this issue will suffice when--not if--DeBlasio reaches a contract with the patrol union.

[© tweed]

What people currently believe is that de Blasio is far more hostile to cops than his predecessors. He shouldn't be. It's one thing to be a reformer; it's another to be hostile to cops.

again, we really need to dig deep dissect how implicit ideology is hard at work here.

why is it an absolute no-go to be "hostile to cops"?  one basic reason springs to mind: that police are City employees, providing an important, or even indispensable, service to the public, and a solid relationship b/w the police and City Hall is necessary for optimal function.  fine, no objection.

but policing is far from the only essential public service provided by the city..  two others that spring right to mind are public school teachers and transit workers..

NYC employs 110k teachers, they're represented by the UFT. 

there are hundreds of thousands of people who commute to NY via public transit every day.  and countless thousands who ride City buses and subways.

let's do a thought experiment and, disregarding the unique legal issues facing each imagine a ten-week strike by each of the three groups.

a ten-week cop strike?  my Lord!  looting, chaos, anarchy... the only option would be calling in the National Guard and, essentially, placing NYC under military occupation, replete with curfews and martial law.  if it's hard to indict a killer cop, imagine trying to prosecute a killer Guardsmen. 

a ten-week public school strike?  even if we are the worst cynics, and think public schools are a glorified daycare.. where do we put the hundreds of thousands of children?  the parents can't not work.  a kind employer allows his employees to bring their kids to school, though the throngs of 7-year olds bouncing off of the wall doesn't help productivity.  packs of teens roam the streets, engaging in the most depraved hooliganism.  and our students fall yet another ten weeks behind those world-beaters in Japan, causing unknown cost to future GDP growth.

and, now, the big Kahuna: a transit worker strike!  this one is actually the only one that would be legal*, as they're governed by the Railway Labor Act.  it takes a few years, but after one CBA expires, the workers and the MTA have several mediation sessions with federal mediators, who keep pushing the date of legal strike back, and back... but it arrives.  we actually were in this situation in NY this year.  the unions could legally have struck on July 21, but they agreed to a deal with a few days to spare..

a transit strike of any length would WRECK the Ny economy, which is dependent on commuters to function.  without the LIRR AND MetroNorth, there is no way to get everybody into the City, it's physically impossble.  not only would the NY economy be slaughtered by our ten-week strike, the lost productivity suffered by the major corps that employ the commuters could not be replaced, only mitigated.  it's hard to put numbers on it, but a long-term MTA shutdown could lead to, a 20%, or 30%, reduction in NYC GDP.  it would be utter devastation.


--


that gives us an idea of the essentiality of all three services.  so, why is it that politicians are often lauded for publicly attacking the other public sector unions?  we've heard forever about awful tenured teachers, lazy transit workers who are robbing the public.  think of some of the thing said by the last round of GOP union-busters, Walker, Snyder, Christie.  imagine a pol saying to the cops some of the things Christie said about teachers.

what's the lesson here?  policing is one, but not the only, public sector service that's necessary in order for the status quo to function.  yet they are granted privilege in discourse not enjoyed by any other public worker, and when they feel the least bit threatened, they turn around and call their Boss an accomplice to murder.

a pol can blame bad test scores on bad, lazy, teachers.  could a pol blame an outbreak of violent crime on lazy overpaid cops?



my speculative guess here is that the American believes that police face bodily danger on an hourly basis akin to a wartime soldier.  they believe cops work day and night just to hold back a massive tide of social evil.  there's some idealization of masculinity to it too... power goes to the head.  walk around every day with the ability to hurt with impunity, forget the open violence --  to commandeer people physically, bind them, book them, maybe a few a day.  "yeah he'll be headed to State, he's got priors.."

in a personal encounter there's nothing that sets a cop off like signaling to him that he doesn't get to control every aspect of the encounter.  even over the pettiest thing.  walking around, driving around, there must be a sense of being a God amongst men -- and their dialog in civil society must be an outgrowth of that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can't believe I'm saying that but... I agree with Tweed 100%.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He was a rising star in the Democratic party and had hopes of future office, but that is over now, and he must move to reform the racial profiling in the Police dept in NJ and NY metro areas.