NYC Mayoral Election

[Sarnstrom]

61% In:
Ferrer: 43%
Weiner: 28%
Fields: 15%
Miller: 9%
Others: 6%

[Ben Meyers]

61% In:
Ferrer: 43%
Weiner: 28%
Fields: 15%
Miller: 9%
Others: 6%

Thanks for posting the info, Sarnstrom. Where is it coming from?

[Sarnstrom]

I'm getting numbers from www.ourcampaigns.com


81% In:

Ferrer:     41%
Weiner:   28%
Fields:     15%
Miller:      10%
Others:      6%

[Sarnstrom]

HOLY CRAP:

95% In:

Ferrer:    40.1%
Weiner:  28.9%
Fields:    15.8%
Miller:     10.1%

Can you say "Recount".

[WalterMitty]

HOLY CRAP:

95% In:

Ferrer:    40.1%
Weiner:  28.9%
Fields:    15.8%
Miller:     10.1%

Can you say "Recount".

i can say bloomberg landslide.

[Sam Spade]

Where are the rest of the votes from?  This might give us an idea whether Ferrer's totals will increase or keep decreasing.

[Sarnstrom]

99.7% In:

Ferrer:    39.92%
Weiner    29%
Fields:     16%
Miller:      10% 

[nini2287]

Weiner has conceded to avoid a runoff.

http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Sep/EEN4328574ebd461.html

[© tweed]

Weiner has conceded to avoid a runoff.

http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Sep/EEN4328574ebd461.html

I was hoping for a runoff.  It would have been fun.

[Defarge]

Weiner made a very smart move.  Kept the party together, and is setting himself up to run in 2009.  Very classy, gotta admire him.  This is a show of party unity I don't think that party has seen for a very long while.

[nini2287]

Weiner made a very smart move.  Kept the party together, and is setting himself up to run in 2009.  Very classy, gotta admire him.  This is a show of party unity I don't think that party has seen for a very long while.

Since Weiner lost the race, is he going to run for re-election to his house seat?

[© tweed]

Weiner made a very smart move.  Kept the party together, and is setting himself up to run in 2009.  Very classy, gotta admire him.  This is a show of party unity I don't think that party has seen for a very long while.

Since Weiner lost the race, is he going to run for re-election to his house seat?

I'm sure he will.  He's in a very safe district.  But he dream job always has been to be mayor.

[Ben Meyers]

Weiner's a damn good politician.  Heck, I might even support him come 2009.  But for now, I'm gonna support Mike Bloomberg, who I'm distantly related to.

[dazzleman]

Weiner made a very smart move.  Kept the party together, and is setting himself up to run in 2009.  Very classy, gotta admire him.  This is a show of party unity I don't think that party has seen for a very long while.

He surrendered to the racial arsonists.  It's clear that there's no future for a white candidate in the Democratic party in New York city.  Weiner has surrendered to the idea that it's somehow wrong to challenge a "minority" candidate, one who has made race and ethnicity the center of his campaign.  In four years, there'll be another "minority" candidate, and God forbid he has the audacity to beat that candidate, the minority voters will stay home on election day. 

If he really wants to be mayor, he'd be better off doing what Bloomberg did, and switching to the Republicans.  Strange as it seems, the political breakdown in mayoral politics right now seem to favor the Republicans.  The heavy presence of the racial arsonists like Sharpton in the Democratic party delivers the working class white vote in the outer boroughs to the Republicans in mayoral elections.  Pick up enough of the Manhattan elite and upwardly mobile latinos, and you have a winning coalition.  This is what has carried the past 3 mayoral elections, and probably a fourth.

[AuH2O]

I don't think Weiner could pull off a switch to the GOP. Before switching, Bloomberg had actually donated money (significant quantities) to the NY state GOP, Chris Shays, John McCain, and Matt Fong (1998 Boxer opponent). Post switch he gave $300,000 to the RNC, money to state and local GOP, and made contributions to George W Bush, more to John McCain, Richard Shelby, Peter King, and various GOP-related PACs, in addition of course to hosting the RNC itself in 2004.

There is no doubt Bloomberg is very liberal socially, but by the late '90s at least he was openly supporting various 'moderate' Republicans, and he has actively aided the GOP across the country since the switch. Ideologically, he's not conservative, but practically, he's bought himself a spot in the tent. His record actually is superior to Lincoln Chafee, who many Republicans support without hesitation.

[dazzleman]

I don't think Weiner could pull off a switch to the GOP. Before switching, Bloomberg had actually donated money (significant quantities) to the NY state GOP, Chris Shays, John McCain, and Matt Fong (1998 Boxer opponent). Post switch he gave $300,000 to the RNC, money to state and local GOP, and made contributions to George W Bush, more to John McCain, Richard Shelby, Peter King, and various GOP-related PACs, in addition of course to hosting the RNC itself in 2004.

There is no doubt Bloomberg is very liberal socially, but by the late '90s at least he was openly supporting various 'moderate' Republicans, and he has actively aided the GOP across the country since the switch. Ideologically, he's not conservative, but practically, he's bought himself a spot in the tent. His record actually is superior to Lincoln Chafee, who many Republicans support without hesitation.

Weiner may be able to pull off a switch to the GOP if he laid the right groundwork.  But that would probably mean giving up his seat in Congress.  Bloomberg was not burdened by public office when he was making his moves.  Weiner not only has to be re-elected in a heavily Democratic district, but he has to take positions on national issues as a congressman.

Still, my original point remains.  I have growing doubts that a white Democrat can win the mayoral election.  There will inevitably be some black or Puerto Rican candidate he/she would have to beat to get the nomination, and a white candidate beating a minority candidate within the same party has now been added to the definition of racism.  Mark Green committed the sin of beating Ferrer in a 2001 runoff, and as a result enough blacks and hispanics either switched to Bloomberg or stayed home to give Bloomberg a victory.  Ruth Messinger was severely damaged in 1997 by, among other things, her campaign against Al Sharpton.

On the other hand, if the Democrats nominate a minority candidate who bases his/her appeal on race/ethnicity (and in New York, minority candidates know no other way to appeal for votes), working class whites will turn out in droves to vote against that candidate.  In this sense, Dinkins spoiled it for any minority candidate for a long time.  White voters deeply fear having a mayor who is going to effectively put the concerns of one ethnic community above the good of the city and the maintenance of order, as Dinkins did.  There is no reason to believe that candidates like Ferrer would be any better.

[© tweed]

A poll by Marist College has Bloomberg up 50-37% on Ferrer.

http://www.qgazette.com/news/2005/1005/Political_Page/

I also think Bloomberg is outspending Ferrer by a longshot.  I hear/see 2-3 Bloomberg ads a day and haven't seen a Ferrer ad since the primaries.

[Frodo]

Poll: Bloomberg extends lead in NYC race

By SARA KUGLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

NEW YORK -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg, elected in 2001 to succeed Rudolph Giuliani as fires still raged in the World Trade Center ruins, has taken a commanding lead over his Democratic challenger, at least in part because of his handling last week of an alleged terrorist plot to bomb the subways.

Two new polls indicate the mayor's response to the terror threat helped him nearly double his lead over Fernando Ferrer. And an overwhelming majority of voters said they believe Bloomberg is stronger on security than his opponent.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday showed Bloomberg with a 28-point lead over Ferrer, 60 percent to 32 percent, among likely voters. The survey was being conducted last week when the mayor appeared with the police commissioner and FBI officials to announce the potential al-Qaida attack and a tightening of subway security.

source

[Moooooo]

If anyone cares there is a new NYC poll out today...

Quinnipiac
Bloomberg 59
Ferrer 31

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11370.xml?ReleaseID=843

[nini2287]

If anyone cares there is a new NYC poll out today...

Quinnipiac
Bloomberg 59
Ferrer 31

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11370.xml?ReleaseID=843

This one's been over.  Let's focus on VA instead.

[Defarge]

Ferrer is being outspent 17 to 1.

It's hilarious and sad at the same time.

[dazzleman]

Ferrer is being outspent 17 to 1.

It's hilarious and sad at the same time.

I think some of Bloomberg's spending is overkill.  Beyond a certain amount, spending on ads doesn't buy more votes.

Ferrer is just an idiot who would take the city back to the bad old days of the late 1980s and early 1990s if elected.  I can't stand his way of appealing to people on a purely ethnic basis.  I hope he loses big, even though I have my differences with Bloomberg.

[Beet]

While there's no doubt Giuliani did some great things for NYC during his tenure as mayor, it should be remembered

1) that the crime rate actually peaked in the city a little bit before he came into office. Though only possible to see in retrospect, there were broader forces going on in the country as a whole in around 1992-94 that was working against crime.

2) even while almost all US cities experienced a resurgence in the 1990s, NYC was much better off than other Northeastern cities to begin with, even before the start of the 1990s. For example, between 1950 and 1990, Chicago's population dropped from 3.6 million to 2.8 million; Boston's from 800k to 575k, Philadelphia from 2 million to 1.6 million. These were hardly middle-of-the-rust-belt cities. Detriot, Cleveland and Pittsburgh of course all did worse. Yet even during this much earlier period, New York City only went from 7.9 million to 7.3 million, proportionally a much smaller loss than any other big Northeastern city.

The are numerous possible reasons for this: obviously, the cultural attraction of NYC, the institutions of NYC, including as a lesser magnet for immigrants, the presence of Wall Street and the Manhattan business district in NYC... all of these insulated the city from the fate of other major Northeastern cities of 1950.

Hence, the other cities were on the verge of an upturn in the early 1990s, and NYC had extra advantages on top of what the other cities had... it's pretty clear in retrospect that Giuliani or no Giuliani, the situation in NYC was on the verge of a major improvement just as he took office.

[dazzleman]

When Dinkins was mayor, police were under orders to be non-confrontational with criminals.  Dinkins did nothing for 3 days while Crown Heights erupted in violence by blacks against Hasidic Jews in 1991.

Dinkins talked about the "beautiful mosaic" but the only color in his mosaic was black.  Two incidents that took place the same weekend highlight this.  In an incident that turned out to be a hoax, a black girl claim that she was accosted by a group of whites who put white shoe polish on her face.  Dinkins strongly condemned this "attack," which was later found to be fabricated.  That exact same weekend, a woman getting off a subway train was attacked and stabbed by a group of black men shouting anti-white slurs.  This was a real attack, not a hoax.  Dinkins had no comment on it.

I fear a return to this same thing if Ferrer or someone of his ilk were ever to be elected.  Ferrer has been endorsed by New York's premier racial arsonist, the Rev. Al Sharpton.  There's no way a mayor dependent on the support of Sharpton could sustain a strong anti-crime policy.  People like Sharpton don't care about how many people get robbed, beaten, murdered, etc., as long as it isn't white-on-black violence, which is probably about 2% of all the cases.

[Joe Republic]

I tried to tell you what was going on.  I really tried.  This looks like a landslide, folks.

Bloomberg is going down.