Bloomberg Barely Wins; Pays $161.59 Per Vote!
Consider the facts of Bloomberg's lackluster victory tonight in NYC; from a business standpoint:
Bloomberg far outspent his rival, shelling out a whopping $90 million of his own money in advertising and promotion.
Slightly over a million people voted (an extremely poor turnout), and slightly more than half of these people voted for the winner.
Divide 90 million by the 556,946 Bloomberg votes (99% reported) and that means he paid $161.59 per voter.
The map of his support is a map of the class structure in NYC.
Not that any of this is very surprising. But if he extends term limits again next time may I offer a suggestion? Send a check for half that amount to a million New Yorkers with the note "vote for me." Might be a better strategy for a landslide.
Guess Giuliani didn't have enough paper to buy his third term...just as well. Mayor Richie Rich shouldn't gloat too much since it was hardly a landslide victory.
I'm going to try to forget about Bloomy's "win" and think about President Obama's victory one year ago today -- that always puts a smile on my face.
November 4, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right? Next blog I'll suggest making 100 New Yorkers (at random) millionares... should get him better turnout for 100 million (that's the revised figure).
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guprzksWjVpCpUbzFs3IejsMatgw
Now we're at roughly $200 PER VOTE.
November 4, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, once again I'd like to apologize for my borough, the last refuge of the GOP in New York. But we did elect Staten Island's first black city council rep so making baby steps towards progress.
November 4, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think people really care how much money he spent. I certainly don't care - he's the better candidate. Even if they had limits on spending, I bet he still would have won.
He got plenty of people to vote for him across different skin colors and different wallet sizes.
There's plenty of poor and middle class folks in Manhattan, Staten Island and Queens. It wasn't just the "rich" who voted for him, like you assert.
November 4, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right and the map of Manhattan conforms almost exactly to the neighborhoods. The poor ones didn't vote for Bloomberg, hate to "assert" that, but it's the truth.
I never said that only the rich voted for him (yet you feel free to misrepresent me as saying so), I said the votes correspond almost exactly to the neighborhoods.
A lot of people (including me) care about the obscene amount of money he spent... one of the reasons many people polled gave for not voting for him, IN SPITE of approving of his performance.
Maybe you should read up on the election and why the Bloomberg camp was so surprised that this was a squeaker. Basically all the stuff you are saying turned out to NOT be true. If there was better turnout he could have lost.
So, yeah I didn't say that and your still all wrong. 100 million now on negative advertising. Some people find that disgusting.
November 4, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not misrepresenting you - here's what you said - "The rich people voted for him; the poor and REAL middle class did not. "
If you split up the city into three classes - rich, middle class and poor and then say that the rich voted for him and the poor/middle class did not, then you are definitely saying that only the rich voted for him.
November 5, 2009 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please...that was SO two days ago.
In the future, kindly include a link to the blog post you are quoting from since the comment you're referring to is nowhere to be found on THIS post.
Cheers.
November 5, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred remembers what he said, sorry if I didn't leave a bread crumb trail for you.
November 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, it seems as though I've spoken out of turn. Silly me...I didn't realize that this was a private conversation, I thought it was a public site. I'll go back to the kitchen now where I belong.
You are a fowl man (pun intended).
November 5, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you had commented on the other blog as well, I'm surprised that you needed a reference.
November 5, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said that in a comment on a previous blog BEFORE looking at this stuff. Please pay attention. It even says "I might write a blog on this".
Sorry you need a babysitter. It was a hyperbolic remark. Now feel free to keep requoting it as you clearly have no real argument here other than:
"but you said only the RICH voted for him"
PS. by the rest of the countries standards, these folks ARE rich. Put that in your "middle class" pipe and smoke it on the Upper East Side. If you live in manhattan and aren't in a housing project, or have twenty roomates, your making serious money.
But you already know that because you live here and fake being middle class.
Being able to shrug off 100 MILLION dollars as "no one cares how much he spent" = being rich. People who actually struggle with money see that as an insult.
You see it as a high-five.
Go with your strengths.
November 5, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you admit it was an exaggeration. Like I said, plenty of middle class and poor people in all of the 5 boroughs that voted for Bloomberg.
November 5, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right and plenty MORE voted against him, that's what the map shows.
You do know the blue parts voted against him right?
November 5, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I know that. I didn't appreciate that your original comment that middleclass/poor didn't vote for him was just hyperbole. Hard to know when you're serious and when you're exaggerating.
November 5, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Statistically the middle class and poor didn't vote for him. Sorry maps are so confusing.
November 12, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink