BREAKING: Freddy's Not Going To Win
.Fernando Ferrer has failed to galvanize fellow Democrats behind his bid to unseat Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Nov. 8, and is trailing among liberals, blacks, women and most other demographic groups, according to the latest New York Times Poll.
More voters have an unfavorable impression of Mr. Ferrer than a favorable one, though 52 percent could not even offer an opinion of him, despite his decades in public life and two previous campaigns for mayor.
That stands in stark contrast to Mr. Bloomberg, the Republican incumbent, who enjoys his strongest approval rating ever in a Times poll, 67 percent, a gigantic shift upward from the 25 percent who approved of his handling of his job as mayor about two years ago. . . .
Leadership appears to be the crucial issue for voters - a problem for the Ferrer camp, which has believed all along that a fight over issues like housing, jobs and school dropout rates would tip the election its way. More than two-thirds of voters said a candidate's ability to govern was more important than his position on major issues. . . .
There are bits of reassuring news for Mr. Ferrer, though no surprises in which to take heart. He appears slightly more popular with voters in the Bronx, where he was once borough president, and with two parts of the electorate he has courted, Hispanics and those who earn less than $30,000. Housing and education are the top concerns of voters looking to the future, and he speaks about these issues virtually every day. . . .
Even more troubling for Mr. Ferrer, he has not gained decisive support from traditional Democratic groups that his advisers describe as critical to electoral success.
The poll found that 42 percent of likely black voters are supporting Mr. Bloomberg, who won only 25 percent of their votes in 2001.
Almost half of liberals plan to vote for the mayor. Mr. Ferrer is favored by 56 percent of likely Hispanic voters, and a third support Mr. Bloomberg; Ferrer advisers are aiming for at least 80 percent of the Hispanic vote. . . .
While most voters saw no risk for the city in changing mayors right now, 54 percent were worried that Mr. Ferrer would make serious mistakes in office, compared with 34 percent who feared that Mr. Bloomberg would. Forty-six percent of voters said Mr. Ferrer showed strong leadership qualities, while 82 percent saw those qualities in the mayor. . . .
The intensity of support appeared to favor the mayor, too: Fifty-seven percent of likely Bloomberg supporters said they strongly favored their candidate, compared with 34 percent of likely Ferrer voters. And Mr. Bloomberg has an edge in the expectations game: 81 percent of all likely voters expect him to win, and even 59 percent of likely Ferrer voters expect their candidate to lose.
Yeah, I'm one of those 59% who know I'm voting for the losing candidate.
Hmmm. Now, earlier in the week, I made an angry post about this race and it ended up getting lost. As I have nothing else to do, I am going to deal with some of the main issues, but this time intertexually.
Okay, here I go.Well-regarded progressive blog MyDD deigned to cover a local election
The opening post looks like this:From the diaries, jerome
This is for those Democrats who have forgotten this. NY Democrats supporting Bloomberg should be ashamed:
The link shows Bloomberg at the Republican Convention. Twenty-three comments follow. Here are some highlights:Amen, Brother ...
I don't live in New York and have no idea what Bloomberg has done for the city. But the mere fact that he supported Bush in 2004 is reason enough to oppose his re-election. I don't care how much of a "liberal" Republican he claims to be. You just don't do that!! . . .
by Paul Hogarth on Mon Oct 24th, 2005 at 02:39:43 AM EDT
That made me wonder: is
the fact that Bloomberg supported Bush in 04 indeed reason enough to oppose his re-election? It's reason enough for me not to be his friend, but does his support for Bush really mean he is doing his job poorly overall? Is it his job to support the candidate that his constituents most want or to enact the municipal reforms his constituents most want? And, is there any point at which the interests of New York City and the national interests conflict?
Let's say, for the sake of argument (and many have made this argument) that Bloomberg supported Bush in the 2004 election (and let's admit that his support was not exactly strong) for the following reasons:
1. Thought it would get the Republican Convention here in NYC, which despite its utter vulgarity, was an economic boon to a struggling city.
2. Thought it would assist in the future of federal Homeland Security funding making its way to NYC, where we really need it.
3. Thought Pataki and others at the state level where Republicans have power would be more likely to pass the $ that is rightfully ours to NYC if he cooperated.
Does this mean I'm glad he did it? Absolutely not! But, if he truly
believed that his choice was in the best interest of New Yorkers, wouldn't he be making the ethical choice according to his primary duty as mayor to support New York?
And finally, Paul, thanks so much for your uneducated input on a city that's not yours! It's interesting how everyone feels this ownership of New York City and they can fret about our mayor and our development, etc, etc, etc, without ever living here, just because they're American. Interesting, but irritating as hell.
I like this answer:The convention
New York didn't bid to host the Republican convention because of any desire by Bloomberg to support the national Republican party politically. The rationale was exclusively economic development: Bloomberg and his advisors thought the convention would make money for the city.
In fact, the Bloomberg administration bid for both the Democratic and Republican conventions, and put an equal amount of effort into both bids. The Democrats just decided to go in a different direction
by Hoover on Wed Oct 26th, 2005 at 04:25:58 PM EDT
Now, to move in a slightly different direction:People
like Bloomberg because he's results oriented and, except for the convention, decidedly apolitical in his governing style. He's more a results oriented manager. It's hard to fight against this style of governance, and, if the rest of the Republicans were like this, we would have less difference with them than we do. I will still vote for Ferrer, but I won't fall apart if Blomberg wins either.
by bruh21 on Mon Oct 24th, 2005 at 02:52:59 AM EDT
When you pay taxes to the federal government, it is a lot more difficult to see that money in action. It is more abstract. It could be building a bridge in Idaho or shoestring levees on the Gulf Coast or paying for rations to be sent to Iraq. In one's own city, one can observe more closely where and how one's tax money is being spent. As such, we want our city run effectively, like a business. We want to be treated like stockholders, as Bloomberg once described his relationship to NYC residents. Investing in Freddy Ferrer is like investing in some new out-there company. It might follow through on its potential, but, more likely, it'll sink like a stone and you'll have simply financed someone else's childhood dream. Bloomberg is like investing in an old, solid, slowly-but-steadily-rising stock. You know you'll probably make money, but, at least, you won't lose money.Bloomberg much better Mayor than Rudy (none / 0)
Personally, Bloomberg has been a much better Mayor than Rudy Guiliani. The results of his leadership is evident by the the support he is getting from a cross section of democrats.
When you see such a diverse group of Democrats, from grassroots, activists, liberal elites, Black Ministers, even atheletes & Liberal actors-IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT defeating this man.
As a Democrat, I personally support Ferrer. But when you have support from both White & Black NY Democratic leaders like Peter Vallone ( Former Dem. Mayor Candidate) & Charles Hynes, to Rev, Calvin Butts, Former Dem Mayor Ed Koch, to even prominent Liberal Democrats like Actress Whoopi Goldberg & prominent african american NBA stars- HE IS GOING TO BE VERY HARD TO BEAT.
What's s shame is Polls showed Ferrer had a Good Shot in the early stages of his campaign. But he made several MAJOR ERRORS such as his Stupid comment on Police Brutality in his attempt to pander to White voters which cost him dearly
among Black Democratic voters.
You have to remember. Mike Bloomberg was a Lifelong Pro-Choice Jewish Democrat who ONLY switched parties in order to enhance his chances of being Mayor since there was such a CROWDED FIELD of Career Democrats in NYC who all wanted to be Mayor.
He saw how Guliani masterfully won the NYC Mayoral race as a republican in a Dem city & pretty much copied the blue print for success.
by labanman on Mon Oct 24th, 2005 at 03:46:27 AM EDT
Maybe it shouldn't matter that Bloomberg was a Democrat once. In fact, maybe it should show what an opportunist he is that he didn't mind changing to a party that was less in keeping with his own political ideology in order to win. On the other hand, maybe it means that he is practical enough to think strategically. And that he's not a sexist, homophobic jerk. Depressed NY Dem
Thanks for the post. I won't vote for Bloomberg b/c of the Repub convention but I can't vote for Ferrer which means I am not voting for Mayor. Ferrer is a product of the Bronx machine, was handed both his council seat and Borough President's job without a fight, and has never run a tough race. It shows - he is running an awful campaign. Of all the bad nominees the Dems have put up in the past 12 years, he may actually be the worst and that says a lot. I am a pretty loyal Dem but you have to earn my support. Ferrer has not and makes me depressed.
by mets2005 on Mon Oct 24th, 2005 at 10:54:40 AM EDT
Let this be a lesson to the idiotic Democrats who made the mistake of voting Ferrer in the primary.
This also raises an interesting question: Has Ferrer really earned anyone's
vote? If so, how? He's been a lackluster public servant, reliant on the innovations and initiatives of others (see: Koch) and machined into every position he's held. After that, the Drum Major Institute? And then . . . this campaign? Stock transfer tax? Amadou Diallo? That doesn't even address all the intimations of corruption in connection to his various platforms and offices.NY Dem
When the New York Democrats stop nominating machine politicians, I will gladly vote for him. Bloomberg isn't perfect, and since he is now a nominal "Republican," it means he has to sell out every so often and support Bush. Nonetheless, Bloomberg has been a very good mayor, and there's no way I could support a tiny man like Ferrer against a guy who's doing a good job.
by alhill on Mon Oct 24th, 2005 at 11:17:01 AM EDT
He is tiny, isn't he?Bloomberg Is Not The Problem
I'm a very loyal democrat and I can't vote in the NYC election because I live just north of the city, but I work here everyday. As much as I hate W, I don't think the mayor's lame and fleeting support of him should be the only reason to vote or not vote for any candidate. One should vote for the best person for the job. Bloomberg is actually a good mayor and a much better candidate than Ferrer. Almost all of the people in my office are democrats and very few will be voting for Ferrer, who is viewed as a do nothing polititian and a product of the "machine." If the democratic machine were not so broken in NYC, Bloomberg would be running as a democrat, but they froze him out and he switched parties just a few months before his first election.
by ItsHardWork on Mon Oct 24th, 2005 at 12:35:06 PM EDT
ItsHardWork points out an issue that I feel very strongly about. Perhaps local elections are not only construable in terms of national elections. Perhaps Hilary would be a good senator, even if you don't want her to be President (I do, but that's another matter). Re: Bloomberg Is Not The Problem- I Agree
I agree. The NYC Democratic Bosses have NO ONE TO BLAME but themselves!
Bloomberg waited until the last 3 months before deciding to switch parties. Unfortunately, the "Old Dem Party Bosses" wanted to ANNOINT one of their own & felt that an "Outsider" CANNOT SIMPLY MOVE IN & try to win the Dem Nomination.
Obviously, it has been a HARD lesson for these Democratic Political Bosses. Today, And Bloomberg is on his way to a almost sure reelection landslide.
THIS IS A VERY SIMILAR "Old Democratic Party Boss Mentality" of trying to ANNOINT their own "boys" in the Jersey City case & it backfired.
In my opinion, the SAME " Old Boss Mentality" is happening today in Ohio. Where the Democratic Machinery has Annointed Sherrod Brown as their candidate & want Paul Hackett to back-off.
These Party bosses NEVER LEARN!
by labanman on Mon Oct 24th, 2005 at 12:51:37 PM EDT
But cronyism is okay in New York City!NYC voters are a sophisticated Bunch
You have to remember that NYC voters are much more sophisticated than your average city or town.
Even with a 5 to 1 Democratic Party registration advantage, a significant enough number of Dems would NOT just BLINDLY support a Mayoral candidate just for having a D next to his name.
By most accounts, Bloomberg is doing an excellent job as Mayor. That explains why a significant number of NYC dem voters are crossing party lines.
If a politician is showing results, his party ID almost becomes insignificant. I don't think you can call Democrats who are supporting a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Rights, Pro-Affrimative action - going to the Right?
As for Ferrer, he is a career politician who has had a spotty track record in some of the decisions his made as the Bronx Big Boss.
Besides, where else can you find a Republican who is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-affirmative action ? As I've said, Bloomberg was a Lifelong Jewish Democrat who switched parties in order to enhance his chances of becoming Mayor in a crowded field of Democrats? It was a strategic move that obviously worked magnificently.
This reminds me of another successful Republican Mayor who DID THE EXACT SAME thing as Bloomberg. Former Jersey City Mayor Republican Bret Schundler was a lifelong Democrat. He ran for Mayor in a city ( I believe 1991) that had a 4 to 1 Democratic registration advantage.
While 8 Democrats slugged it out, he was the lone Republican candidate & pulled an upset victory.
During his reelection campaign, he again won this time in a landslide as many Jersey City Democrats crossed party line to vote for him.
Bloomberg, Schundler also can call Republican Sen. Coleman of MN as part of their Former Democrats Club. Coleman was a Lifelong Jewish Democrat who obviously switched party for personal political ambition.
And for all 3, it just happened to be a successful political move.
by labanman on Mon Oct 24th, 2005 at 12:43:08 PM EDT
Though I very much wish that labanman had found more ways of using the word "sophisticated" in the above post (because we are
sophisticated here in New York!), I agree very much with what he had to say. If a person is against most of the pillars of their Party's platform, is that person really well-defined as a member of that party?
Now, no disrespect to MyDD
, which does a tremendous job of covering national politics and state races too, but why are we focusing so hard on national politics as liberals?
Let's take abortion as one example. Liberals are obsessed with the overturn of Roe
by the Supreme Court. Now, I am too. But get real. The overturn of Roe
would do what exactly? It would just be another step on the erosion of abortion rights, it would say that we don't respect women as equal, etc. But it wouldn't directly do much to effect the availability of abortion. Women in New York City would still be able to get abortions and women in rural Alabama still wouldn't be able to get abortions. That is an issue of local politics. This is not
to say that I only care that urban blue-state women can access legal abortion, but that, as things stand now, we are already pretty close to that situation. In addition to obsessing about Bush's new nominee to the Supreme Court, we should be obsessing about how our local officials would handle it if Roe
were overturned and they had the power to make these decisions. I don't want to be that practical, but Bush is President people! He is going to have to nominate a raging social conservative after Miers and we're not going to like her/him. We have to start planning now, like the Republicans have, so we don't end up scrambling.
Now, here's something that drives me crazy. On Feministing, Ann's profile
:She lives in Brooklyn, but is holding on to her Iowa voter ID card so she can continue to cancel out at least one family member’s Republican vote.
She says this with pride in her complete disengagement with her community. Now, I love her posts on the blog and think she and the others on there are awesome (the same is true with MyDD), but why is someone who is so politically savvy on other fronts outright flaunting her rather low level of electoral participation as a voter? In 2004, I understood this phenomenon of NY-residing, swing-state-bred people staying registered on the shakier (for Dems) ground. But now? All it says is that you don't care about the place you live and those that live around you.
I don't want to scapegoat those two blogs because they are far from the guiltiest on this count; I just want to point out what I think is a very dangerous mistake to avoid examining. The Republicans built a movement. One part was the Clinton-hatred that re-mobilized folks, but an equally crucial element was the local grassroots organizations, propelling people like Tom DeLay from Texas on up.
Since this week has been so seriously bad for the Bush administration, everyone and their sister is trying to figure out what the Democrats can do to take advantage of this moment. And what we can do is make sure that sympathetic people don't simply sigh and regret November 2004 but see how they can be involved now to make their lives better.