Bloomberg in a Squeaker

Jay Newton-Small:
.
Bloomberg's carpet-bombing negative ad campaign was scurrilous and revolting to many of us here.
.
...But we also know a Democratic City machine pol when we see one, and Bill Thompson is machine incarnate.
.
The machine is dedicated to its own preservation, which does not, unfortunately, necessarily depend on good governance.
.
Bloomberg's win translates into one thing above all: voters know that in these difficult times, the incompetence and game-playing of machine politics as usual is a luxury this city can't afford right now.

If we include NY-23, it looks to me like the theme of this election was voters voting against Global Capitalism (Corzine, Bloomberg) and the Club For Growth.

And that's a hint for President Obama to get off the pot and demand real accountability and re-regulation of Wall Street.

He can start by making Elizabeth Warren Secretary of the Treasury.

"Democratic City machine"
.
That is the saddest "machine" I have ever seen. When was the last time they elected a mayor? Dinkins?

So what are the Dems going to do with all these newly arriving sane Republicans now that the purity uber alles wing of the GOP has once again officially shot itself in the foot?

Does Bloomberg have long-term political plans – Gov., even Pres.? Or would he definitely return to his biz? (since it's in trust and not sold, is why I'm asking). A little Elliot Carver-like direction from the Man himself would help, yes? If Bloomberg TV is going to make a serious run at CNBC they need to step it up. Hiring gorgeous Margaret Brennan is a big first step but they need more. After all, CNBC has raided them often (poaching Erin Burnett, among others).

OK, I can't let this go by:

"After all, the man was so insanely popular amongst the five boroughs that the city actually repealed its two-term limit so he could extend his reign."

That is NOT what happened. Twice during Bloomberg's time in office, a repeal of term limits was put to a popular vote, and twice the citizens of New York voted against it. So last fall, Bloomberg got together with city council and put it to a city council vote. Of course, with 35 of the council's 51 members barred at the time from running for re-election due to term limits, it was easy to see how that vote was gonna go.

What's funny is that Bloomberg called Rudy Giuliani his favorite pejorative term, "disgraceful," when he tried the same thing in 2001. Just a reminder to all of us that Bloomberg lives by a separate set of rules than the rest of us.

There's definitely a lot of fault to be laid at the feet of the Democrats for not coming up with a credible candidate to run against Bloomberg. But the fact that the guy basically pulled a dictator move and changed the law to keep himself in power, ran all but unopposed, and still had to spend nearly $100 million to win proves that he's earned a lot of ill will with his recent actions.

But hey, who cares? The guy's going to be mayor for the rest of his life, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Jay - you were very good (but wordy!) on Hardball in the wee hours. I think you're right about this being the surprise - but I also think it's likely to have been significantly about voters angry with his deciding he got another term and having the term limit changed. That's a dangerous kind of power.

But I bet the people of New York would have been really shocked if their protest vote ended up electing the Democrat.

Nate Silver over at 538 has more on this.

This initiative received 80,000 NYC signatures and still it was kept off the ballot:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/make-it-happen-on-purpose/

How would New Yorkers have answered that question?

Uncredited sarcasm? Or cluelessness. Hard to know.
.
Bloomberg's reversing term limits had nothing to do with his insane popularity. It had to do with the City Council's agreeing with him on subverting the electorate's clear (TWO referenda) direction that terms be limited.
.
I voted for Thompson. Not because I thought he would be a better mayor, but because process matters, a lot. Especially when the process rules have been clearly stated by the electorate.

Putting another log on the fire, do you think if he actually was insanely popular, running against an awful candidate, that he would have spent all that money?
.
As someone said to me this morning, HE knew it would be close, even if the media didn't.

That Thompson did so well is really a shocker. Honestly, I only learned who Bloomberg's opponent was because Bloomberg kept mentioning him in mailers, TV ads and internet ads. I never once saw a Thompson ad. Not one. And still Bloomberg barely squeaks by? I don't think you can call Bloomberg popular. Just rich and savvy.

That he bought this third term for himself should be proof enough to anyone that we need publicly financed elections with real spending limits and some measure of equal media access for all legitimate candidates.

[...] will Democratic candidates face in 2010? What does New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's narrower-than-expected victory say about the perils of incumbency in today's [...]

Most New Yorkers I know are massively depressed today. It was NOT his 'insane popularity" that got him re-elected-- or got term limits over-ruled. Others have already explained how he hijacked the City Council. But what REALLY hurts, is that the pundits he owns convinced most people that Thompson didnt have a chance, so they either voted for Bloomie as a 'what the h*ll' vote, or stayed home. I KNEW Thompson could win, but the media lied to people about the double digit lead....

Sad, sad day here in NYC. Not that I think Thompson is a hero, but I think he's a decent guy who could have led with the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. And with his crooked, entitled ways and the way he just changes statistics (or the tests!) to serve himself (ie the latest school test scores) at this point, the Emperor has found ways to insult ALL of our intelligence.