Dave Weigel disagrees with my characterization of the Democratic mayoral candidates:
Yes, Green nearly blew the primary election and gave it to Fernando Ferrer, an absolute special interest candidate and a puppet of Al Sharpton. He still had a 40-point lead over Michael Bloomberg and the numbers didn't really move until 9/11. That started a huge swing to Bloomberg which Green aided by freaking out and saying he would have done as good a job on 9/11 as Rudy. (This seems less offensive six years on.) Giuliani endorsed Bloomberg and his post-9/11 Midas touch gave him the election, narrowly.Obviously McArdle (and a few million other people) lived through this, but so soon after Karl Rove's adieu it seems worthwhile to point it out. The GOP's lock on Gracie Mansion has less to do with New York's one-party interest group-driven politics than the political serendipity of 9/11, just like Bush's 2002 and 2004 election wins obviously owed more to his "bullhorn moment" and al Qaeda fears than Rove's Shaolin realignment-fu.
Mmmm . . . maybe. I concede that 9/11 had a big impact, but it's more complicated than that. The Democratic primary was supposed to be held on September 11th; one of my friends saw the towers hit as she came out of the voting booth. The primary ended up being held on September 25th, and Green's ultimate win may plausibly be attributed to a rightward shift post-9/11. The nomination in 2005 went to . . . Fernando Ferrer.
Actually, it's pretty important to remember that Ferrer got MORE votes than Green on the rescheduled primary in 2001 (9/25), but because no candidate received more than 40%, a runoff was held two weeks later, in which Green beat Ferrer, 51-49 (with around 15,000 votes separating the two). Green's runoff victory has mainly been attributed to borrowing Mike Bloomberg's November democrats for an anti-Ferrer vote in October. Exit polls showed a high number of Green's October voters ended up voting for Bloomberg a month later. (And yes, I'm biased, but the facts are the facts.)
He still had a 40-point lead over Michael Bloomberg and the numbers didn't really move until 9/11
Um, it wasn't a 40-point lead. Maybe in the mid 20s, tops.
But Kalman Yeger's point above in important. But there's more to the story than that. To beat Ferrer, Green supporters printed up fliers attacking Al Sharpton, who was Ferrer's patron. This had the effect of getting Green the primary victory (by getting white ethnics to turn out for Green and against Ferrer), but really screwed Green for the General election, becuase BOTH Ferrer's hispanic supporters AND Sharpton's black supporters never really forgave Green. (Indeed, both ethnic groups gave Bloomberg far more support than a Republican otherwise gets.)
And that was the whole point of Megan's original post! Green had to navigate all kind of interest group politics but then lost the general as a result of those interest group politics.
Green lost to Bloomberg because he was is and will always be an arrogant ass. In 2005, Bloomberg bought up everyone. End Of Story.
Um, it wasn't a 40-point lead. Maybe in the mid 20s, tops.
I provided a link to the June Quinnipiac poll that had Green leading Bloomberg 62-20.
http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass