Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm...Thompkins lost by just a few points, and if he had any platform at all he would have won. He has already indicated he will run again and is already preparing. It is entirely possible that he won't win, but he will run. I don't know enough about CQ to comment...but at this point I will take anyone other than Thompkins.
Hmm...Thompkins lost by just a few points, and if he had any platform at all he would have won. He has already indicated he will run again and is already preparing. It is entirely possible that he won't win, but he will run. I don't know enough about CQ to comment...but at this point I will take anyone other than Thompkins.
He only came close because the Bloomberg backlash was already beginning and he was only on the ballot because nobody serious wanted to run against Bloomberg.Unfortunately,if the race were today between Bloomberg and Thompkins,Thopmpkins would definitely win because the Bloomberg backlash has only grown and his popularity is down around 25%.
Better candidates will emerge next time and Thompkins will be lost.
Watch CQ.I have seen her engaged with Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn,Italians and Albanians on Arthur Ave,Yuppies in Park Slope,Irish in Woodlawn,Upper East Side Wall Streeters,Gays in Chelsea and other groups.She has a way that people seem to like.She might even be able to charm the likes of you despite the fact that she'll have a D after her name.
I can't agree that if Thompkins was running today he would win. If he continued with his same platform of "Vote for me at least I am not Bloomberg" then no, I don't think he would win despite Bloomberg's recent flubs.
And the fact that nobody "better" than Thompkins ran b/c they didn't want to run against Bloomberg only means they were not fit to be Mayor if they couldn't even challenge Bloomberg. We learned what happened between Obama (David) and Hillary (Goliath)....so if you can't even man-up from the beginning, you were in fact not fit to be Mayor in the first place, had no confidence in your abilities, and self-defeatist. That's not the Mayor you want, so it reminds me how glad I am that we do have Bloomberg.
If the "better" candidates emerge who bowed out against Bloomberg (like Wiener), they will not have my vote! You can't challenge Bloomberg, how are you gonna run NYC, challenge the Unions and every other well funded special interest?
I will formulate my opinion on CQ when she starts to unroll her platform, and I hear her talk and her experiences. Until then...we shall see.
Can you tell me what other city in the country builds reduced rent housing exclusively for teachers? NYC did..thanks to Bloomberg.
Are you nuts? Start reading more before you make stupid posts. What affordable housing for teachers? A potential apartment building in an undesirable section of the Bronx? There is no affordable housing for teachers in NYC!
I think a total revamping of the code and increase in property taxes is in order before any service cuts.The NYC property tax code is the other half of the problem that must be addressed with equal urgency.It's just not realistic the way it is.
I have posted this hundreds of times....let's see how much less of a deficit NYC is in when the property tax system is revamped....Brownstones on sale in Bed-Stuy for $900K and the property tax is $6K a year....a whopping 500 a month. get real.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Mediumrare, it is unfortunate that you poo-poo the opportunity to have affordable housing, but other teachers are happy to have it. Clearly you are "too good" to live where you can afford.....
Bloomberg builds affordable housing for teachers, and people complain because it is not on the UES or their favorite neighborhood...and when he doesn't do "enough" to accomodate teachers or other middle class residents, he is called "elitist." See a trend here? Complain complain complain....you can't win.
Bloomberg did not win a 3rd term because of his money, Bloomberg won a 3rd term because:
A. There were a bunch of no-confidence, insecure, self-defeatists who bowed out...if you can't run for Mayor, how can you expect to govern NYC?????
B. The one person who chose to run against him had no platform, was a total dummy, ran a horrendous campaign, used race/class warfare, and kept repeating "Vote for me, at least I am not Bloomberg."
So why would anyone be surprised Bloomberg won? I don't want a Mayor who is too afriad to run against anyone...are they gonna be too afraid to go against special interest groups too? And I don't want a Mayor who simply says "Vote for me at least I am not the other guy." WTF!
Bloomberg barely won because he was a billionaire. He spent more money than anyone in NY history I think, ( I might be wrong) but a substantial portion of money was Spent on re-election.
Why? Because of fear. And due to his previous policies.
Hmm...Thompkins lost by just a few points, and if he had any platform at all he would have won. He has already indicated he will run again and is already preparing. It is entirely possible that he won't win, but he will run. I don't know enough about CQ to comment...but at this point I will take anyone other than Thompkins.
I assume you're talking about Bill Thompson? The real reason he lost is because a shade more than 25% of the electorate showed up on Election Day. When three quarters of the population stays home (and the city's small but definitely active Republican community turns out to vote as a bloc), well, just see what happens!
Even given the pathetic turnout, the margin of Bloomberg's victory was only about 5,000 votes. That's less than a neighborhood. The merest of additional voters in one or two neighborhoods anywhere in the city would have spelled Bloomberg's defeat.
HA! Yes Thompson...thanks for the correction. I think my brain is trying to block him. Voter apathy is notorious, so I don't know whether voter turnout in 2008 was lower, avg, or higher than normal for a Mayoral election.
If it was higher than usual or normal, then the margin of victory means NYers did not want Thompson. If it was lower than normal, it means A: People felt Bloomberg was "inevitable" (which is why so many candidates bowed out...LOSERS!), and/or B: Thompson did not inspire anyone to do anything. And if you watched the debates, heard his platform (or lackthereof), and his mantra of "At least I'm not Bloomberg", it should be no surprise.
MONEY had nothing to do with it..it was ultimately Thompsons non-platform/At least I'm not Bloomberg nonsense that sunk him. Hillary had the same PERCEIVED inevitability, but a smart, well spoken Obama inspired people, laid out a platform, and executed an almost flawless campaign. Thompson did none of this, and to pretend he lost because Bloomie is rich is dumb..and if he runs on a campaign in 2012 of "Vote for me because I should have won in 2008"..well you know how that will turn out. And it wouldn't surprise me if that's exactly what he does!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.