Election Aftermath

It's really hard to know where to begin in analyzing yesterday's election. There was some good news but mostly it was bad. And trying to make sense of it all will be difficult. But I shall try.

First, the bad news: it was a bummer to see Mayor Bloomberg win a third term that, if the real will of the voters had been respected, he wouldn't have been able to run for. And it was also unsettling that a couple of Republicans out in Queens won City Council races using vile tactics.

Bloomberg proved that lots of money and negative ads work. He so distorted and corrupted the playing field that it was impossible to have an honest debate on the issues. Also, Republicans Dan Halloran and Peter Koo won city council seats by a) in Halloran's case, whipping up anti-Asian sentiment and having his campaign thugs go around intimidating voters, and b) in Koo's case, spreading lies and rumors among Jewish voters that his Democratic opponent Yen Chou was an anti-Semite. These races were close but, still, the typical divisive, dishonest, nasty modus operandi of the Republican party was on full display this campaign season. It's depressing that it worked its evil magic once again. Nauseating. But ultimately the Democrats ran poor campaigns so they have only themselves to blame. Bullies and bad people will be get away with it if the good guys let them.

Second, the good news. John Liu was elected City Comptroller and is now the first Asian American citywide elected official. He won more votes than any other candidate, even Bloomberg. I supported him from the start so I'm glad to see that he won. But the REALLY good news is that Bloomberg margin of victory was an embarrassing five percent. FIVE PERCENT! He spent nearly $100 million on this race against a broke, unknown opponent and that's all he came up with! He spent almost $200 per vote. Wow.

Here's my analysis: a win is a win. Can't spin that. But usually incumbents are re-elected in landslides. In 2005, Bloomberg won with 59% of the vote -- so he suffered an eight percent swing against him this year. That does not bode well for his new term. It's not like he's going to be a new mayor who can win over the people who voted against him (which he did during his first term, after he had won with only 50% of the vote in 2001). The people of NYC today know what kind of Mayor Bloomberg is; that 49% is hardened against him, pissed that he won. Barring another 9/11-like event or something that calls upon him to use his superior skills, that 49% is gone. They won't forgive him for any mistakes he might make in his third, dubiously acquired term. And that 51% that voted for him is vulnerable to getting pissed off he does make any mistakes. They might end up regretting their vote. Then he he'll have no support left.

The result? Mike Bloomberg risks leaving office in four years a despised mayor -- like his third term brethren LaGuardia, Wagner, and Koch did. By the end of their third terms, New Yorkers were totally sick of them. They had outstayed their welcome. Then the city voted for mayors (O'Dwyer, Lindsay, Dinkens) who were totally different from them. And based on the results of last night, that's the direction Bloomberg is going in. His successor could be 180 degrees different from him, elected out of disgust and exhaustion with him -- and that will be a stain on his legacy, a legacy that up until now seemed unassailable.

Now I could be wrong, but I don't think so. And if I'm right, just tell folks that you heard it here first.

So for Mr NYC, election 2009 ends with a sigh, a shrug, and fingers crossed for a better future for his city.