Tuesday's Election Results (local)

Nov 05, 2009 11:43

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 ( Read more... )

politics, new york city

Leave a comment

Comments 2

jayspec November 5 2009, 18:47:38 UTC
I voted against Bloomberg (and not so much for Thompson) specifically because of his self-dealing of a third term, and the massive, massive amount of money he spent trying to destroy Thompson. I don't know if you saw this when I posted it on Facebook, but every time I saw yet another anti-Thompson ad, especially in a ridiculously expensive spot like during the World Series, It reminded me of a wealthy man continually kicking a puppy just because he can.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of politics becoming entirely the province of wealthy people extending their power. Bloomberg spent more on this campaign than John McCain did to get the Republican nomination for president. While being able to completely and utterly drown out your opponent's message isn't a guarantee of success (see: Golisano, Tom) it sure helps an awful lot. This is also why I'm not entirely upset that Corzine lost, either.

Anthony Weiner is a pretty great guy, isn't he? Too bad he didn't run this year because he knew he'd be massively outspent by Bloomberg ( ... )

Reply

ceebeegee November 5 2009, 19:02:12 UTC
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. 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 ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up