Looks like Non-Partisan Elections (and Bloomberg) are losing big in NYC

[BurtWorm]

Last I heard, Bloomberg would have to gain 30 points to catch up. Just before the preliminary results were announced, pundits were making me ill talking about how if he won, he'd really shown he could stand up to the party bosses.

[aquart]

1. It was an idiot rich-guy idea.

Sometimes Bloomberg is so sensible, and sometimes it's like the money ate his brain.

[Doctor_J]

2. Will Bloomberg ever jump back?

he was a dem until he needed Rudy's endorsement. Maybe he'll come to his senses before the next election.

[BurtWorm]

3. I doubt it.

I doubt we'd want him back.

[WillyBrandt]

4. NY Times confirms defeat of non-partisan elections

go to nyt.com

[Cha]

5. Could you explain the issues a little more for

me, please? :)

[BurtWorm]

6. It was basically payback to the Independence Party

for supporting Bloomberg in 2001. It was their idea. Bloomberg just got it on the ballot and bankrolled it. The idea was to eliminate partisan primaries, in which Democrats or Republicans get to choose their nominees to run for mayor, council, etc. The supporters said this would make the field broader and give less well-known candidates a better chance. Opponents said (and I agree with them) that it would make the field shallower, favoring the wealthy and well-known. (It would eliminate campaign funds coming from the party.)

The major reason to oppose it, in my view, is the dishonest way it was sold. I received a leaflet with a banner that read (something like) "Strengthening the Democratic Party" that was actually put out by Bloomberg and made no mention that the Democratic Party had nothing to do with it, in fact opposed everything in it. Furthermore, the proposal is based on promises about benefits for which there is no evidence, based on cities that have similar ballots in place now. There is no evidence that it increases voter participation, increases minority representation, and empowers disenfranchised voters or third parties. And voters were not well-educated on the pros and cons, but were expected to make a decision on this important issue in the voting booth? The whole thing smelled like a cheap gimmick.

[lcordero]

7. bottom line is that Bloomberg was better than Giuliani

Bloomberg is paying us back under the table:evilgrin:

He is bringing the GOP convention here to NYC so that we can protest the hell out of it:evilgrin:

Also, as much as I hate to compliment a Republican, Bloomberg doesn't get as much credit as he should.

[BurtWorm]

8. A ham sandwich would be better than Giuliani!

(Apologies to Will Pitt.) ;)