mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Of Mandates
The Real Reason De Blasio is in Trouble
Features Icon
show comments
  • jeburke

    Thank you, I posted a comment today at the Politico story making the same point. Only I think even the 18% of registered voters greatly exaggerates his actual support. De Blasio was elected for all practical purposes by winning the Democratic primary at a moment featuring the total collapse of the NYC GOP. In that multi-candidate primary, also low turnout, he barely hit 40% winning 272,000 votes, or a little over 3% of the city’s population. Many November voters knew next to nothing about de Blasio beyond his being the Democrat.

    What’s more, in that decisive primary, de Blasio won precious few Black, Hispanic or Asian voters, as his opponents included an African American and others who also appealed to those voting groups. De Blasio’s “base” was overwhelmingly left-wing gentry “progressives.”

  • wigwag

    Lies, damn lies and statistics, Professor Mead. De Blasio did as well or better than Mike Bloomberg did in his successful 2009 run for a third time. The turnout in that election was only 29 percent and Bloomberg managed to eek out a victory with less than 51 percent of the vote despite outspending his opponent, Bill Thomson by more than 5 to 1.

    Your post deceives your readers in another way. Yes turnout in during the last New York City mayoral election was remarkably low, but the reason for that is simple; De Blasio’s GOP opponent was a nobody (former head of the MTA) that nobody thought had a chance. Turnout is always suppressed when an election is sure to be a blow out. Even I didn’t bother voting and I always vote.

    Turnout was higher in 2009 when Bloomberg ran because Thompson was actually a credible opponent who a lot of voters liked.

    Despite Bloomberg’s narrow victory he didn’t slow down his education agenda, his stop and frisk policy or his tendency to coddle New York’s jet set. Why you think De Blasio should be held to a different standard than Bloomberg is anyone’s guess.

  • Anthony

    Why de Blasio attacks? What’s motive (what’s really behind indignation)? Inquiring minds want to know. Law and order as an issue brings to mind subliminal messaging from Nixon 68 campaign – we can’t project the future from the past but the way we honor those who defend our liberties with their lives is certainly to identify personal grandstanding at expense of city (NY) enduring police/administration antagonisms. “Shaming and blaming is a lot easier than addressing legitimate claims.” Is de Blasio representative of something different?

    • Curious Mayhem

      1968 was a long time ago, and Nixon’s been dead for, what, 20 years? Let it go.

      • Anthony

        It not about Nixon; it’s about the idea and history for me is always relevant. Obviously, you think you know what New York’s Mayor intent is I don’t.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    De Blasio clearly made statements that can be characterized as “Incitement to Murder”, which is illegal and he and others like him (Obama, Sharpton, etc…) should be charged and face prosecution.

  • FriendlyGoat

    The events of Ferguson and Staten Island inspired a troubled gunman to basically execute two NYPD officers. This is not a reason for conservatives and libertarians to pile on either Mayor de Blasio, the circumstances of his election, or the entire agenda of all liberals in NYC or “anywhere”.

    TAI and every other tax-cut advocate can’t wait for “law and order” to eclipse everything else an an issue. So predictable.

  • Corlyss

    Com’on, NYers! Show us the mettle you had in 2001! Recall de Blasio now!

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service