Bloomberg Beats Green

November 6, 2001 10:48 PM

Bloomberg Beats Green While I'm not a big fan, I think Mike was definitely the better choice here. It's always nice to see a super-slimy career politician like Green get sent to the showers. Just hope he keeps up Rudy's good work and doesn't follow the new bad example.
posted by nobody_knose (39 comments total)

Yah, its heartening when a sexist, tyrant billionaire who has no idea how city government works can buy an election.
posted by malphigian at 10:56 PM on November 6, 2001

don't kid yourself about the others, and don't belive everything you hear.

sexist? maybe.
tyrant? on waht grounds?
billionaire? guilty, che.

and, please, come down off yr high horse about the "no experience in govt" bs. that is so, so tired.

I think the fact that he created and operates an company that delivers a useful service used by thousands that provides livelihoods for hundreds of families is qualification enough to run a large organization like NYC.

by your standard, the assistant dog catcher is a better candidate to run the city than the head of a multi-million dollar company.
posted by nobody_knose at 11:08 PM on November 6, 2001

Either you're a greedy business guy who has no experience to run a city government or you're an insulated career politician with no knowledge and work experience of your average Joe Blow constituent.

Spin either way, someone's always gonna be pissed off.
posted by Tacodog at 11:22 PM on November 6, 2001

and, please, come down off yr high horse about the "no experience in govt" bs. that is so, so tired.

No more tired than the "slimy career politician" comment.

Tyrant on the grounds that I know a bunch of people who worked for him, and he ran his company by fiat (rightly so in the corporate world), but which makes for a shitty mayor.

Then again, you think rudy was a good mayor. You're right, I'm sure bloomberg won't do shit for the inevitable exploding homeless population, and low income workers slipping under the poverty line. But he'll bring more companies into Wall Street, and it'll all trickle down from the suits, right?
posted by malphigian at 11:31 PM on November 6, 2001

Damn it, I wanted Green purely out of self-interest — I'm a rent-stabilized tenant and Green's our bitch.

Also, a couple of cop friends of mine were going to have really good hooks if Green brought Bratton or Timoney back to run the PD.
posted by nicwolff at 11:35 PM on November 6, 2001

You're right, I'm sure bloomberg won't do shit for the inevitable exploding homeless population, and low income workers slipping under the poverty line.

So what, people have the freedom to fail. It's their responsibility to succeed in life
posted by rabbit at 11:38 PM on November 6, 2001

Bloomberg completely bought the election. His posters are all over the city. The ratio of Bloomberg posters to Green posters...maybe 5:1. And I didn't see a single Mark Green ad, but a billion for ol' Mike.

Oh well, if I had Bloombergs money and an endorsment from Rudy I'd be Mayor right now. Such is politics, I suppose.
posted by Doug at 12:06 AM on November 7, 2001

So what, people have the freedom to fail. It's their responsibility to succeed in life

True, but it's government's responsibility to define how far those people can fall. Trickle-down economics work to an extent, but there is also a trickle-up economy of misery. I'd rather pay more in taxes if it means I won't have to step over a passed out addict on my front steps. I'm not especially proud that the United States allows so many mentally ill people to beg and starve on our streets. It's not as if these people would be able to function on their own.

We can be a better society, part of that will be defining a humane bottom for failure.

As for Bloomberg, the Democratic party self-destructed (again). Green and Ferrer gave this election to Bloomberg weeks ago. Government is not a business and Bloomberg will be faced with a nearly impossible situation. He's good with his image and knows how to bend a story to his favor, but I hope he doesn't screw things up too badly or for too long. (I could have said the same for Green).

Doug: Bloomberg's adds are probably 12:1 or higher down near my apartment in the East Village. I got four automated calls from Bloomberg this past week and probably 20+ mailings.
posted by joemaller at 12:28 AM on November 7, 2001

Jesus christ. SF is spending $200 million on 2 thousand street people? They are spending a hundred thousand dolars a year on each homeless person?


Thats enough to buy each homeless person a nice house in the midwest!
posted by delmoi at 1:57 AM on November 7, 2001

Damn it, I wanted Green purely out of self-interest — I'm a rent-stabilized tenant and Green's our bitch.

Also, a couple of cop friends of mine were going to have really good hooks if Green brought Bratton or Timoney back to run the PD.

Gee, thanks for being part of the problem.
posted by marknau at 2:49 AM on November 7, 2001

So what, people have the freedom to fail.

Ok, when you do I'll flip you a dime. No state aid though, alright?
posted by walrus at 3:34 AM on November 7, 2001

Rudy is getting too much credit. He totally fucked NYC nightlife.
posted by brian at 3:55 AM on November 7, 2001

Hell, at least there's still Ken.
posted by Romios at 4:03 AM on November 7, 2001

Yep, Ken alone.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:32 AM on November 7, 2001

The day before the election, Green portrayed Bloomberg as a "rich elitist," attacked his past membership in four all-white clubs and ran ads detailing a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a woman who once worked for Bloomberg. The lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed sum with the woman agreeing not to make any public comment.

Why wait until "the day before the election" to expose Bloomberg's behavior toward women? Green's campaign fell down on the job!
posted by Carol Anne at 4:43 AM on November 7, 2001

This isn't a GOP victory. Its simply a reflection that many Democrats didn't like Green. Just, didn't like him. Probably better off not having to defend somebody that you dont like whose reflecting on your party every day.
posted by brucec at 4:44 AM on November 7, 2001

It will be worthwhile to four years hence to see what corporate management skills have done for the quality of life of everyone in NYC as well as to the ability to deal with the types of human crises uncommon in the corporate world. I wonder if Merill Lynch is going to have a field day with the issuance of municipal bonds...
posted by mmarcos at 5:04 AM on November 7, 2001

Green made me sick. Bloomberg was a Democrat until recently; he's hardly conservative.

Running your own company is not being Mayor, but that whole "no experience" thing is super stupid: did Rudy have experience? Did President Bush have "real experience? Most of what you "learn" can be learned in a few weeks; the rest is having character and being honest. Besides, he'll have advisers. America is intended to be the place where "civilians" can become political leaders.

The old stupid Democratic Party mentality in New York is GONE.

PS: Rent stabilization and control is not going away.

Build the darn Second Ave. Subway, already!
posted by ParisParamus at 5:14 AM on November 7, 2001

1. I think the fact that he created and operates an company that delivers a useful service used by thousands that provides livelihoods for hundreds of families is qualification enough to run a large organization like NYC. The New York City budget, employee rolls, infrastrastructure and other factors make it a larger government than every single other city government in the country, larger than most state governments, and larger than that of several, separate entire nations. Bloomberg's company is a tiny blip on the economic horizon of New York, billionaire or not. Mike Bloomberg doesn't have any experience in government, tired statement or no, and he has no experience in running a government (or business) that is this immense. The question is whether it matters.

2. Running your own company is not being Mayor, but that whole "no experience" thing is super stupid: did Rudy have experience? Did President Bush have "real experience? Most of what you "learn" can be learned in a few weeks. I hope that's a joke, Paris. President Bush's lack of experience has been painfully obvious since the election, including, from where I sit, his handling of the terrorist attack aftermath. I think even those who support his actions in general would agree that some of his specific behaviors have been mortifyingly amateurish. Rudy Giuliani at least, unlike Bloomberg, had been in government, as US Attorney General for New York, and was a fixture of sorts here. Plus, you're kindly forgetting or forgiving Giuliani's autocratic behavior that made him among certain groups one of the most hated men in the city.

3. Rudy is getting too much credit. He totally fucked NYC nightlife. Yes to the first part, I don't know to the second. Rudy Giuliani is always proclaimed as the guy who brought crime down in New York City and cleaned up Times Square. But what I want to know is, if that is true, why did crime drop all over the country during the same period? Why did it begin dropping under Dinkins? That's all supposed to be Giuliani's doing?

4. Why wait until "the day before the election" to expose Bloomberg's behavior toward women? Green's campaign fell down on the job! This story was broken by the Village Voice last week and covered in the New York Times and other media.

5. So what, people have the freedom to fail. It's their responsibility to succeed in life. Rabbit, I better never see your name on the welfare rolls, on a bread line, receiving charity of any sort, etc. In fact, I suggest you never drive on taxpayer funded roads, never send your kids to tax-funded schools where they better never eat a subsidized meal, and never attend sporting event at a tax-subsidized stadium.

6. Bloomberg spent more than $47 million more than Green, for a total of about $60 million dollars, nearly all of it from his own pocket. By the way, I was wrong.

7. This isn't a GOP victory. Right. There is no real GOP in New York City. There are only social and fiscal conservatives.

8. Bloomberg was a Democrat until recently; he's hardly conservative. Right. He and Green were spreading the exact same messages throughout the campaign, which is why the election came down to near slander.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:51 AM on November 7, 2001

Green lost because he race-baited to win the primary run-off against Freddy Ferrer, and hence, huge numbers of black and hispanic voters stayed home, and significant numbers voted for Bloomberg.

Had Green not race-baited, Ferrer would have won the nomination ... and would have proceeded to be swamped in the election by Bloomberg as all of the white liberals who so happily voted for Green would have been too in fear of their property values to vote for Ferrer's campaign for the "other New York."

Bottom line, I think, is that Ferrer, who has always been a moderate and amassed a reasonably impressive record of reconstruction in the Bronx, made a serious mistake in going left earlier this year. If he'd run as a moderate, he'd still probably have gotten almost all of minority vote he ended up with, and would have been able to completely pre-empt Green's race baiting ... and thus collected the crucial 5%-10% of the outer borough white Catholic vote he didn't get. (After all, the outer borough Catholic candidate, Peter Vallone, ended up endorsing Ferrer in the runoff despite all of Ferrer's earlier lefty talk.)

Moderate-to-conservative black and hispanic candidates are the wave of the future ... they are doing quite well all throughout the South, and I think their day is about to come in New York.
posted by MattD at 5:56 AM on November 7, 2001

I hope that's a joke, Paris.

No it's not. Experience is way overrated in politics; it's not brain surgery. As for GWB, I don't discern any obvious blunders attributable to his thin resumé. To bio-terrorism thing hasn't gone especially well, but it's not clear someone with "more experience" would have done better in a meaningful way.

Don't get me wrong: I don't love Mike Bloomberg. I just think Green would have been an extremely mediocre mayor in which few people would have had confidence. Also, it will be fun to see Sharpton and Company shut out. Especially the Ferrer guy.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:05 AM on November 7, 2001

The notion that's there's a strong institututional GOP -- or even conservative movement -- in NYC is questionable. The hometown political organization has not in recent history produced its own candidate -- Giuliani was a Reagan Justice Department official, Bloomberg an entrepreneur (and a registered Democrat until quite recently).

Also, of 51 seats on the City Council, only 7 were held by Republicans through last night. Democrats gained 3 of those seats last night from term-limited Republicans, so Republicans are now down to 4 of 51 City Council seats (two in Staten Island, and one each in Brooklyn and Queens.) Of the four they won, the two Staten Island seats are in the two districts in all the City which have a numeric Republican plurality, the one in Brooklyn held by an incumbent (an incumbents never lose in NY City Council races) and the one in Queens was won against a 23-year old candidate whose only claim to office was to be the cousin of the Congressman in the area.
posted by MattD at 6:08 AM on November 7, 2001

I'm concerned that this win might encourage many other billionaires to run for office.
posted by panopticon at 6:36 AM on November 7, 2001

Where are these moderate to conservative blacks doing so darn well in the South? Harold Ford, Jr. representative from Memphis? He's moderate, but wants to be a national political someday and we're talking huge name recognition, via his father, which gives him the ability to win consistently at home. I can't think of any other well-known person you're talking about, and certainly can't think of any black conservatives -- especially not in the Deep South. The creation of majority black districts most certainly does not encourage this. Methinks this represents wishful thinking on your part, rather than reality. (And no, I don't count whathisface from Oklahoma.)
posted by raysmj at 6:47 AM on November 7, 2001

paris: As for GWB, I don't discern any obvious blunders attributable to his thin resumé.

Use of the word "crusade," for starters.
posted by raysmj at 7:04 AM on November 7, 2001

Note I said blacks and hispanics -- in addition to the Florida Cubans (whom some choose to leave out of the "blacks and hispanics" piece of the political equation), there are a number of fast-rising moderate Democrat and Republican hispanic politicians in Texas.

In addition to Harold Ford, I can think of Sandy Bishop and Mel Watt ... among the moderate black southern members of the congress.
posted by MattD at 7:58 AM on November 7, 2001

Apparently the cost to become NYC mayor is a mere $50 million dollars. That's just shy of $40 million more than the Green campaign spent.

Plus Bloomberg had the Ferrer campaign going after Green for two of the last 4 weeks leading up to the election. And there was much less media scrutiny of the campaign then there otherwise would have been, because, well, we're in the midst of a F#%ing war! That had a much larger impact on Green, who didn't have ads running on tv every other commercial than on Bloomberg. The Bloomberg campaign capitalized on all these factors well. And of course, the Guiliani endorsement was the key. The ads with everyone's newly-favorite dictator mayor were the single biggest help. Plus having Guiliani, Pataki, Ed Koch and John McCain stumping for Bloomberg helped. It was an exciting election!

As for experience, I don't doubt that Bloomberg is a sharp guy, but experience at building and running your own company, organized in your image is very different than coming in to lead a very large, very entrenched bureaucracy and making it able to get things done.

Build the darn Second Ave. Subway, already!

Agreed!
posted by andrewraff at 8:16 AM on November 7, 2001

I'm concerned that this win might encourage many other billionaires to run for office

and why would this be a bad thing? i find it enormously ironic that in a prosperous capitalist society that so many people consider making money a vice rather than a virtue. (in New York, no less!) bloomberg's background is very modest. He's as Horatio Algier as they get. It should be encouraging to have a public figure that epitomizes the "American dream" of working hard and having it pay off.

part of the beauty of American democracy is that theoretically, anyone can be President. i agree that bloomberg's lack of political experience is going to make things very difficult for him, but he's surrounding himself with people who have political experience in spades, and while i'm concerned that he'll be frustrated in dealing with gov't bureacracy - the red tape, the mind-numbingly slow process - i think it's a good thing. A little impatience for things like red tape and slow processes may be just what's needed.
posted by lizs at 8:36 AM on November 7, 2001

a survey by Edison New Media Research that appeared in the New York Post today:

"Regardless of how you voted today, how concerned are you about the large amount of his own money that Bloomberg spent on his campaign?"

25% very concerned
18% somewhat concerned
22% not very concerned
35% not concerned at all
posted by lizs at 8:43 AM on November 7, 2001

I, for one, am so sick of the "Besides, he'll have advisers" argument. It's OK if the guy we elect sucks, because there will be plenty of unelected officials actually running the show.
posted by jpoulos at 8:55 AM on November 7, 2001

I'm concerned that this win might encourage many other billionaires to run for office

lizs, I think he was joking. I found it funny, guess you didn't!
posted by Rastafari at 9:06 AM on November 7, 2001

jpoulos: I don't think the advisor argument necessarily means that the candidate sucks, just that they know how to delegate.

do you think that the head of GE, arguably a larger and more complex organization that NYC, needs to know how every part of the organization works?

unless you're Bill Clinton, that kinda micro-managing is usually a recipe for disaster.
posted by nobody_knose at 9:10 AM on November 7, 2001

i would have thought he was joking too if i hadn't heard that exact criticism from people i know here in New York. maybe panopticon was joking, but there are definitely people out there who feel that way, and i think it's a little scary.
posted by lizs at 9:12 AM on November 7, 2001

MattD: Mel Watt, more significant than Harold Ford though not with as many years ahead of him, has yet to enter the Blue Dog Coalition and his voting record is more moderate to liberal. Sanford Bishop is no one's rising star, although he is a member of the caucus mentioned above. I believe his district changed its demographics, as a consequence of Supreme Court rulings, so he had to change with it. But he had name recognition going for him, as an incumbent.

Miami Cuban-Americans? People knew they were conservative before. This isn't new, or a big flashy wave of the future. Back to the drawing board.
posted by raysmj at 2:06 PM on November 7, 2001

Apparently the cost to become NYC mayor is a mere $50 million dollars.

Surprisingly enough, that's about $10 million less than you need to become a Senator for New Jersey. I guess it's NOT always cheaper in Jersey after all.

posted by clevershark at 11:36 PM on November 7, 2001

As for GWB, I don't discern any obvious blunders attributable to his thin resumé.

What kind of blunders would you recognize? His monumentally idiotic use of the word "crusade" to describe the U.S. response to Sept. 11 continues to harm us in the Arab world.
posted by rcade at 6:08 AM on November 8, 2001

clevershark: Despite the perceptions one might get via media outlets, so many of which are either based or have offices in New York, being a United States senator is a much bigger deal than being the mayor of any city.
posted by raysmj at 7:12 AM on November 8, 2001

I'm just relieved to see New Yorkers getting worked up and pissed off about something--anything--again. I was starting to get a little worried.
posted by Skot at 7:42 AM on November 8, 2001

Don't those of you who say that Bloomberg "bought the election" realize that all you're doing is insulting the electorate? You're making a value judgement not of the man himself, but of the people who voted him in to office, calling them, essentially, unwitting dupes.

In my opinion, we New Yorkers saw through the 5-to-1 Bloomberg-to-Green ad ratio, as well as Green's shameless attempt to slander Bloomberg with a last-minute negative ad that reached a new low in NYC politics (and that I think really backfired on him, turning off people to Green more than it helped him), and elected the best choice (of the two of them, that is) for the job.
posted by verdezza at 8:56 AM on November 8, 2001