Streams

Bloomberg: Looking Back, Looking Ahead

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Joyce Purnick, long-time New York Times political writer and the author of Mike Bloomberg: Money, Power, Politics, talks about New York City races. Then, Bill de Blasio was elected Public Advocate last night - he discusses how he plans to work with the Bloomberg administration.

Guests:

Bill de Blasio and Joyce Purnick

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [58]

Nick from Oakwood, Staten Island

A big chunk of Bloomberg's victory was due to the Staten Island vote. Bloomberg won by 29,553 votes on S.I. I've haven't seen the other boroughs vote totals yet.

Bloomberg: 52,219 69.73%
Thompson: 22,666 30.27%

Nov. 15 2009 02:18 PM
Kaonohi from Brooklyn

voter from brooklyn #53:

just like in afghanistan, my vote -- like that of millions -- was worth nothing. democracy was annulled in NYC, it was sold to the highest bidder. only one voted mattered: that of king bloomie.

Nov. 05 2009 02:19 PM
Jennifer

I wasn't in the least surprised by the outcome. There is mass disaffection from Bloomberg, and it has less to do with the way he handled the term limits issue than it does with his actual record and his distorted spending policies. How he can continue to run on education reform, when the recent release of national scores showed how mamipulated the numbers for standardized tests in the city have been? Our streets, especially in the outer boroughs, are dirtier, crime is up, unemployment is up, and it's very hard for the middle class to survive here.

Nov. 04 2009 07:02 PM
Voter from Brooklyn

The short answers would be these hjs:
NYC is undoubtedly “blue” voting overwhelmingly Democratic in statewide and national elections. This is a benefit for Thompson.
I’m black and let’s be honest… just like some NYrs likely didn’t vote for Thompson because of race, a lot did… look at the NY Times electoral maps, or is that just a coincidence? Sharpton has gone so far as to blame BLACK churches for not pushing harder to get Thompson elected and people are finding fault with Obama’s (who it seems only horse in this race is stumping for a black politician) reluctant endorsement.
Did you pay attention to Thompson’s advertisements and debate lines? Every ad not based on term limits was about the out of touch billionaire ("prince Mike" as you say), Bloomberg’s campaign spending, or rich versus everyone else. Bloomberg worked hard for his money too, he just had a better idea than the most of us. (BTW, that money for the banks came from the federal government and not the NYC budget… the same with car manufacturers concentrated in Detroit)
The Whitehouse should have stayed out of it but got in to save face. That said, what business does Obama, Cuomo, Patterson, or Quinn for that matter have endorsing a candidate. Patterson, Cuomo, and Quinn will have to work with whomever wins and are just creating bad blood.
I don’t think Bloomberg is the only one who can save us, but Democrats need to stop running candidates thinking simply them being Democrats is enough. In my opinion, Ferrer and Thompson were both jokes.
And yes, we can still be friends :)

Nov. 04 2009 06:00 PM
hjs from 11211


I didn't want to got through your list but you seem to really want me to
"Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in the city 6:1. " irrelevant! registered dems are not obligated to vote the party line! I'm a registered dem because I want to participate in the only vote that counts, the primary, but I almost never voter for a democrat.
"Thompson got minority votes because he is one. proven by Sharpton’s appearance" WHAT!
"Thompson stoked the class-warfare fires and that got people’s hackles up " & "Money vs hate-baiting " how? by saying the city is becoming unlivable? a city for the very rich. that's not class warfare that's just the facts. money matters it always will just look who has got the most help during the recession, the big banks.
"Thompson got an endorsement, albeit reluctant, from the Obama Whitehouse" and "city council speaker. " you said it reluctantly. I would add barely and so what. do u vote for who the White House (dem or rep) tells u to.
but Democracy IS fine you're right there. "If Thompson would have come out on ANY issue... He chose to run on term limits and classicism. " as brian said if only he would have reached out to the middle class. I also think If the press hadn't report prince mike's poll number where so high, thompson would have gotten more votes. but he lost me with the bike lanes
any way MB is good enough but he has over stayed his welcome. it's a foolish claim that he's the only one who can save us. history will not be kind to him.
hope we can still be friend but don't rant

Nov. 04 2009 04:49 PM
Voter from Brooklyn

Yes, Kaonohi, Bloomberg is exactly like Karzai… He was installed by the US government. He will cede territory over which he has no real control to religious extremist. Women will be forced to wear burkas and be subject to “honor” killings. He will take money from the US government while crime runs rampant. He will shelter terrorist. And growing drug crops will become the only source of income for the city.
Next week… a plague of locusts

Nov. 04 2009 02:31 PM
Voter from Brooklyn

What I’m still not clear on, hjs, is how pointing out that Thompson had every advantage except a major daily endorsement, money, and a cakewalk race against a likely unknown Republican or Independent in a Democratic stronghold like NYC—without which he still did a very respectable 46%--makes me like a birther? His lack of vision for the city, lack of (pertinent) message on the issues, lack of spell check, and lack of class (come on, did anyone think that Star Wars-like Napoleonic Bloomberg Bloomberg-Town ad was anything but childish) made this Thompson’s race to lose.

Nov. 04 2009 02:19 PM
Kaonohi from Brooklyn

i find it amazing that just like afghanistan, we have a monarchy in NYC, rather than a democracy.

long live king bloomie (and king karzai).

Nov. 04 2009 01:47 PM
hjs from 11211

voter
you are right on with comment 45. wrong on 40. thanks for clearing it up for me.

Nov. 04 2009 01:42 PM
Michael D. D. White from Brooklyn

For an extensive article just about the conflicts of interest between Bloomberg’s corporate operations and his role as mayor see:

Bloomberg Keeps His Billions Separate From His Mayoral Obligations? Yeah, Right! By Wayne Barrett, Tuesday, September 1st 2009 in The Village Voice.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-09-01/news/bloomberg-keeps-his-billions-separate-from-his-mayoral-obligations-yeah-right/

Michael D. D. White
Noticing New York
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/

Nov. 04 2009 01:35 PM
Michael D. D. White from Brooklyn

For more on the “never before in history” aspects of the wealthy Bloomberg as mayor see:

Sunday, November 1, 2009, Bloomberg vs. Thomson (54% to 29%?): It’s Not What You Think. (For Instance the “P” is Missing and What Might “P” Stand For?)
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2009/11/bloomberg-vs-thomson-54-to-29-its-not.html

“ Using just the direct $250 million expenditure the Times uses in making its determination, the Times concludes that Bloomberg spent more than the $130 million his next runner-up, Jon Corzine, spent of his three races (two for governor and one for senate) and more than the $114 million, the next runner-up, Steve Forbes spent on his two races for president. Notice, not only did Bloomberg surpass the two runners-up, his spending figure exceeds the total of both their expenditure sums combined. It should therefore be obvious that Bloomberg didn’t set the United States historical record just recently. He must have set it a long time ago. What he has done recently is to compound the “achievement” by almost double.”

and Thursday, October 22, 2009, This Is Rich! Looks Like Bloomberg is Making History.
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2009/10/this-is-rich-looks-like-bloomberg-is.html

Michael D. D. White
Noticing New York
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/

Nov. 04 2009 01:35 PM
Michael D. D. White from Brooklyn

For more on the “never before in history” aspects of the wealthy Bloomberg as mayor see:

Sunday, November 1, 2009, Bloomberg vs. Thomson (54% to 29%?): It’s Not What You Think. (For Instance the “P” is Missing and What Might “P” Stand For?)
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2009/11/bloomberg-vs-thomson-54-to-29-its-not.html

“ Using just the direct $250 million expenditure the Times uses in making its determination, the Times concludes that Bloomberg spent more than the $130 million his next runner-up, Jon Corzine, spent of his three races (two for governor and one for senate) and more than the $114 million, the next runner-up, Steve Forbes spent on his two races for president. Notice, not only did Bloomberg surpass the two runners-up, his spending figure exceeds the total of both their expenditure sums combined. It should therefore be obvious that Bloomberg didn’t set the United States historical record just recently. He must have set it a long time ago. What he has done recently is to compound the “achievement” by almost double.”

and Thursday, October 22, 2009, This Is Rich! Looks Like Bloomberg is Making History.
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2009/10/this-is-rich-looks-like-bloomberg-is.html

Michael D. D. White
Noticing New York
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/

Nov. 04 2009 01:33 PM
Michael D. D. White from Brooklyn

More and more people are realizing the difficulty and need to put Bloomberg’s unprecedented wealth, spending and power in context and are looking back in history to realize that we have never seen this before. For instance, yesterday, on All Thing’s Considered’s election coverage (with Mara Liasson and Robert Siegel) it was stated the “if” Bloomberg wins the election for a third term as mayor it will have been “the most expensive self-financed campaign in American history.” Bloomberg did win, (obviously by a much thinner margin than expected) but whether he won or not he set the spending record some time ago.

We are having difficulty catching up with the historical precedents Bloomberg is setting. For instance, here is a first in New York City history: Bloomberg is not only a billionaire, he is the also city’s richest individual, something he became (with a tremendous increase in wealth) while in office. His Bloomberg, L.P. business also presents huge conflicts of interest with is role as mayor for which there is no historical precedent.

Michael D. D. White
Noticing New York
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/

Nov. 04 2009 01:24 PM
Voter from Brooklyn

The simple truth is this, hjs: If Thompson would have come out on ANY issue effecting the post-election lives of the average New Yorker, he would be the new major of NYC. He chose to run on term limits and classicism. You get more flies with honey, ya know?
(And, for someone with no issues to run on and lackluster performance in his last two city-wide offices, to give the current mayor a “generous D” letter grade for the last 8 years is hubris in the highest)

Nov. 04 2009 12:43 PM
anonyme

Mark in Bklyn - I didn't make any "principled stand" - I voted for Mike while holding my nose because I don't see Bill Thompson stopping the natural gas operations that will poison the drinking water for us and much of "upstate."

Nov. 04 2009 12:43 PM
Michael D. D. White from Brooklyn

Regarding comment #21 and whether Bloomberg is a good mayor for the environment, we believe Bloomberg’s claims about being “green” need to be viewed with considerable skepticism. Bloomberg came to his environmentalism late, only in his second term and only after Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth” had been out for some time. There are those that think that Gore’s worthy film itself was a rather late summing of what informed individuals had known for some time.

For more about Bloomberg and his so-called environmental credentials, see:

Monday, November 2, 2009,On Your Way Vote, We Quizzically Ask: How “Green” Is Our Bloomberg?

http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-your-way-vote-we-quizzically-ask-how.html

Michael D. D. White
Noticing New York
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/

Nov. 04 2009 12:35 PM
Voter from Brooklyn

Is any of what fair, hjs? Bloomberg running on issues that matter to the electorate fueled by endless cash and the three major dailies’ endorsement or Thompson running on hate-baiting with nary an issue or plan of action to back him up fueled by class resentment, voter anger over term limits, and the (reluctant) endorsement of the Whitehouse and endorsements from the State’s and City’s top politicians?
Which one of the candidates shouldn’t have had the advantages they had in the race? (and exactly how does pointing out simple facts make me sound like a birther?)
Other than just having something to mindlessly blather on about, I don’t see how this race could be called close by anyone when single digit victories between major party candidates are the norm these days and anything over 4% points, especially when capturing the plurality of the vote, is considered comfortable.

Nov. 04 2009 12:28 PM
hjs from 11211

Voter 40
is any of that fair? u sound like a birther

Nov. 04 2009 11:56 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

The NYC mayoral race wasn’t close by a long shot if you take an honest look at the numbers
Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in the city 6:1.
Thompson got minority votes because he is one proven by Sharpton’s appearance (Bloomberg probably got white votes because he is as well)
Thompson stoked the class-warfare fires and that got people’s hackles up
Thompson got an endorsement, albeit reluctant, from the Obama Whitehouse
Thompson got the anti-term-limit repeal vote
Thompson was endorsed by the governor and attorney general
Thompson was endorsed by the city council speaker.

So… outnumbered 6:1 by party registration, hated because he worked for a living and made money, hated because the Ronald Lauder term limits were reversed, shunned by the Whitehouse, and not receiving the support of the top state nor city officials Bloomberg won by 4.6% That’s impressive to me.
And yes, he did outspend Thompson 10:1, but Thompson still got 46% of the vote… Sounds like Thompson supporters were crying wolf, the sky is falling, and dictatorship all in one. Money vs hate-baiting; Democracy is fine.

Nov. 04 2009 11:31 AM
Kevin from Brooklyn

Bloomberg paid for an add during Game 5 of the world series. What do you think that cost?

Nov. 04 2009 11:30 AM
hjs from 11211

prince mike helps the local economy with his print ad spending!

Nov. 04 2009 11:30 AM
David from Manhattan

deBlasio made quite a Freudian slip when he said: "...really hit the mayor -- uh, the nail on the head."

Nov. 04 2009 11:29 AM
adair from brooklyn

I think in many respects Bloomberg has done a good job: ban on smoking in bars, elimination of transfats served in restaurants, inclusion of calorie counts, credit card machines in cabs, the potential of PLANYC.

I voted for Thompson due to Bloomberg's auctioning off of NYC neighborhoods to developers without community input and his questionable ethics with regard to term limits, the amount of money he spent on his campaign and his questionable school test score stats.

Nov. 04 2009 11:28 AM
RLewis from bowery

Hopefully, Bloomberg and Corzine 's spending sends a message that big bucks are no gaurantee of victory, and actually spending more is more harm than good.

Nov. 04 2009 11:28 AM
denise from brooklyn

Brian,
I am a demeocrat and I voted for Bloomberg twice. I think the mayor has done an excellent job (besides housing). However, this time I voted against him because by staying in power for a third term to feed his ego proved that there no difference between us in the US and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or the the Duvaliers of Haiti. The media failed to press the mayor on this issue of dictatorship. GO DEMOCRACY

Nov. 04 2009 11:28 AM
Dale from manhattan

Bloomberg's record on affordable housing is pitiful. If you're low income and living in Manhattan as I am you're well aware that his efforts to build affordable housing is dwarfed by the amount of housing lost due to his development policies. Thompson should have pounded on this issue as much as he did the 3rd term issue.

Nov. 04 2009 11:22 AM
Laura from Staten Island

I think it was a big deal that Obama did not endorse Thompson. I think that would have turned it around.

Nov. 04 2009 11:22 AM
Michael Zullo from Upper Eastside, Manhattan

I believe Mayor Bloomberg is doing a good job but I needed to send him a message by voting against him for 3 reasons. I did not like the relaxing of term limits that he initiated to run for a 3rd term, (2), I did not like the $millions be spent to get re-elected instead of taking campaign financing like his opponent did and thirdly, I can't stand the way he responds to the media when he doesn't like a question -- hei remark "let's get serious," is appalling.

Nov. 04 2009 11:21 AM
Teresa from New York

the way that you stop a wealthy man from buying an election is BY NOT VOTING FOR HIM!

Nov. 04 2009 11:21 AM
Ryan from Fort Greene

In his victory speech last night the mayor said that with hard work and a little bit of luck your greatest dreams can come true. The sad fact is that this election taught us that with if you have enough power, money, and influence you can buy an election. It's a sad day for electoral politics in New York City.

Nov. 04 2009 11:21 AM
Marcos from the Bronx

Mr Lehrer,

What the heck was that!?

Monty Python?

Yes we do want something better than a "benevolent" dictator.

The Romans! The Romans! The Romans!

For one thing they were responsible for expelling Jews from Palestine... Similarly, Mayor Bloomberg has been overseeing the expulsion of the middle and working classes from New York City.

Nov. 04 2009 11:20 AM
hjs from 11211

prince mike is doing a good enough job BUT i've just had enough of him. he's going to wear very thin over the next few years (if he sticks around for the next 4 years) and by the way i would have voted for thomson but for his stupid stand on the bike lanes (plus i did not know it was going to be this close) i voted GREEN!

Nov. 04 2009 11:20 AM
John from Brooklyn

Completely agree with comments of de Blasio and previous caller on Bloomberg's development agenda.

This was a HUGE opening for Thompson that Thompson never walked through.

Had Thompson aggressively challenged Bloomberg on development, he would have gotten my vote.

As it was, Thompson was weak and complacent on development, substituting instead weak platitudes about "affordable housing.'

So I grudgingly pulled the lever for Bloomberg.

Nov. 04 2009 11:20 AM
Nancy from Manhattan

I'm an independent who voted for Bloomberg in the past. Yesterday I voted a straight Democratic ticket -- except for Mayor. I voted for the Green Party candidate as a protest. Although I think Bloomberg has done a good job, I resent that the city & its mayoral job are for sale. Bloomberg doesn't listen to people. Thompson, however, reminded me too much of Dinkins. He didn't connect with me at all

Nov. 04 2009 11:19 AM
Edward from brooklyn

I think that Bloomberg is the best mayor in my lifetime and I didn't vote for him as punishment for his hubris. Apparantly he still hasn't gotten the message.
Bill Thompson has been an excellent controller, but It was all about Bloomberg this time.
PS, I'm African american

Nov. 04 2009 11:18 AM
CBrown from Brooklyn

I am part of the 70% who basically support Bloomberg, but voted for Thompson. My vote was indeed a message to Bloomberg. While I support much of Bloomberg's agenda, the things I don't like, I REALLY don't like. And buying the repeal of term-limits is at the top of that list. The other main item on that list are development. But I was sort of holding my nose when voting for Thompson. He seemed like a decent and competent man, but he failed to deliver a compelling message why I should vote FOR him rather than simply AGAINST Bloomberg.

Unfortunately, I don't think the slim margin of victory will actually send any sort of message to Bloomberg. Public opinion has not made a difference to any of decision-making thus far; why would this election result mean anything to him now?

Nov. 04 2009 11:18 AM
MC from Upper East Side

I would disagree with Bill DeBlasio on one point - that Bloomberg is probably critical of one thing - how much $$$ developers are putting on the table. They have to swing for the fences in order to get his attention, I imagine.

Nov. 04 2009 11:18 AM
Laura from Staten Island

Love that Monty Python skit!

I was undecided this year, and I have never voted for Bloomberg before. I voted for him yesterday because of Al Gore's comments that Bloomberg is a really good mayor for the environment. I think it's funny that he never won my vote until this year, but I was inspired by Gore, and when I thought about it, I do see hybrid buses and cabs, and that is a big issue for me. I gave Thompson a chance, but he never said enough about what he would do for New York. I was happier to stick with the current administration, than risk someone that I wasn't inspired by.

Nov. 04 2009 11:18 AM
Susan from Manhattan

Yes, I think Bloomberg has done a great job BUT I wanted to send him a message that I could not vote for someone who has been so disrespectful of my democratic rights by overruling the will of the people to extend term limits. It's like voting for someone because he's doing a good job even though he raped you.

Nov. 04 2009 11:17 AM
Elaine from Long Island

I don't understand why Bloomberg didn't seem to have anything to say about the looming banking and mortgage crisis if his strong point was his high powered financial saavy. Ny was devasted by this crisis. He didn't look out for us- we got a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

Nov. 04 2009 11:16 AM
A.R.

Please disclose that you stole the idea for that Python clip from this week's New Yorker.

Nov. 04 2009 11:16 AM
Troy from Carroll Gardens

My wife and I totally voted for Bloomberg in 2005, but abstained from voting yesterday. For the most part, we think he does a great job for the city and was the best choice for mayor, we just couldn't bring ourselves to vote for him given his total disregard to the term limits. It may come off as apathetic, but we're happy the mayor won with such a close margin. Maybe it'll send a message... or not.

Nov. 04 2009 11:16 AM
Barbara from Lower East Side

I'm taken aback at the stress the media is putting on Bloomberg's overthrow of term limits vis a vis his margin of victory. No one I know voted for Bloomberg, and term limits did not enter largely into their decision . Bloomberg's stated determination to turn New York into a "luxury brand," the decimation of neighborhood stores, his pandering to the financial industry, his sale of the Donnell library to a crony, and on and on. Term limits ain't even on the charts.

Nov. 04 2009 11:16 AM
Jane from Brooklyn

Brian,
I'm one of those people who approve of Bloomberg's job as a mayor on most fronts, but I just COULDN'T bring myself to vote for him yesterday because of his overturning the term limits in the way that he did it. I didn't like Bill Thompson much, he seemed to me like a bureaucrat. I resolved to vote for Mike yesterday, but at the end I skipped voting altogether first time in many years. I still feel conflicted about it ..

Nov. 04 2009 11:15 AM
JK from Midtown

i think bloomberg did a good job. certainly not d minus as thompson said in his debate. however, the DAILY mailings (almost an "im rich and youre not" in your face reminder) and the term limits impacted my vote.

Nov. 04 2009 11:15 AM
Anon from Ststen Island

Welcome to the era of "enlightened despotism." In the mayor's own words, "you ain't seen nothing yet."

Nov. 04 2009 11:15 AM
Fuva from Harlem

No love for Thompson, necessarily. Bloomberg's dangerous power/ potential power just makes Thompson the lesser of the evils. I unenthusiastically voted for him yesterday, cognizant of that. I'm sure others did too, and so there wouldn't have been "buyers remorse"...

Nov. 04 2009 11:14 AM
zachary from Brooklyn

I voted for the Green Party Candidate, Billy Talon. I am registered as a Democrat, and usually vote that way, but Thompson never made a case for being Mayor. He never said what he would do, other than fire all City Commissioners (as a City employee I know that would effectively stall all City services and disrupt government for a good 6 months). I would have voted for Bloomberg, but honestly his incredibly negative adds were over the top. He was trying to run-up the score on a candidate that really never had a chance. I can't endorse that.

Nov. 04 2009 11:12 AM
Alex

How much did each candidate end up spending per vote received?

Nov. 04 2009 11:10 AM
Mark in Brooklyn

The fact that so many New Yorkers could afford to vote against the mayor based on queasiness about term limits is testimony to the improvements in the city. In times of relative safety and prosperity, we can afford to take principled stands. Thompson's campaign was akin the Ralph Nader's in 2000. People assumed that Bloomberg didn't need their vote. Had Thompson won, the buyer's remorse would have been instantaneous.

Nov. 04 2009 11:09 AM
Patricia from Brooklyn

I had a meeting last night with a group of women in Park Slope. ALL(5 of 5) of us had voted for Thompson! I was suprised but everyone was angry at Bloomberg for buying the election. The outspending and inequality in the election was even more important than term limits.

Nov. 04 2009 11:05 AM
Anon from Ststen Island

I wonder what was in my comment that warranted its removal? I was brief and civil. How truly odd...

Nov. 04 2009 11:04 AM
Lynn

I can't believe how close the election was! I hope that the results humble Bloomberg a little.

Nov. 04 2009 11:00 AM
Voter from Brooklyn

Marcos,
So the media is to blame for your apathy?

Nov. 04 2009 10:52 AM
Marcos from the Bronx

As a loyal listener to and member of WNYC I listened to all of the post election coverage last night. I was very disapointed when you failed to bring us the main news event of that evening: the speech by Bill Thompson. All Mayor Bloomberg really had to talk about was baseball, Bill Thompson and his campaign were the ones who made news and almost made history, on November 5th.

I believe you should apologize for this on air and please broadcast Thompson's speech asap.

Please investigate three other election items:

1)I was forced to file a paper (provisional?) ballot at my polling place in the Bronx. Because, staff said my name was not on the rolls, even though I had voted at the same polling place, from the same address months before in the primary. PLEASE INVESTIGATE: How widespread was this problem in Nov 3rd? Could it possibly have affected the outcome of the election? Why don't haven't we seen reform of the voting system in this city yet? Having lived in other places the voting machines seem unbelieveable backward, no transparency and no paper trail.

2)Please investigate possible media culpability in supressing voter turnout. I didn't get involved in the campaign until the last minute, mainly because I thought it was hopeless. I volunteered extensively for Ferrer yet I thought this time it was just to impossible to beat Bloomberg's spending power.

3) I finally became involved in Thompson's campaign when I saw them calling on tax reform "to have the rich pay their fair share". Please investigate: Was Bloomberg's campaign spending greater or less than the amount he might have been taxed under a Thompson administration? Could his whole 3rd term campaign just be seen as a way to protect his fortune or his interests in an era when a liberal city is throbbing with populist anger?

Nov. 04 2009 09:58 AM
Fuva from Harlem

Add to the above: Many, many shills in the media. Case in point, The New York Times headline last night prematurely announcing a "decisive" victory for Bloomberg...

Nov. 04 2009 09:20 AM
Fuva from Harlem

Seriously, folks: $100 million, incumbency and tacit support from key Democrat constituents, and only a 5 POINT "VICTORY"? His money clearly BOUGHT him over the top...And I'm frankly skeptical of the results. Can't be good for democracy.

Nov. 04 2009 09:17 AM
Bobby Lee from Manhattan

Please address the Mayor's minuses (he tells us all the positives)such as:$40M for wedding chapel and hundreds of Millions for hand scanning are just a few. His unblemished record for the buildings department, etc. I am sure this barely scrapes the surface.

thanks

Bobby

Nov. 04 2009 08:08 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.