After all, Christine Quinn got only 16% of the vote-just 11% more than Anthony Weiner, and this must have been what the Mayor intended when he said this:
"Bloomberg also praised Quinn, whose work with the mayor has been a liability in a year when many Democrats want a new direction for the city."
"Bloomberg also praised Quinn, whose work with the mayor has been a liability in a year when many Democrats want a new direction for the city."
“She did a very good job for 7 and 1/2 years of keeping legislation that never should have made it to the
floor, that would have been damaging to the city, from ever getting there. And she deserves a lot of the credit
for what’s gone on in the city in the last 71/2 years,” Bloomberg said.
I mean clearly he was playing reverse psychology here right? Surely he knew very well that praising her
for killing liberal legislation for him for 7 and 1/2 years to take the heat off of him is not the way to the heart
of New York primary Democrats-right? After all, this is what Claire McCaskill had done in Missouri so
effectively-and other Dems replicated elsewhere-in 2012 in building up Tod Akin as her primary opponent
by attacking him as too conservative thereby goading the Republicans to select him in the primary-as
they weren't going to let Claire McCasill tell them what to do; indeed, lately even President Obama as used
this strategy in praising GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for working with him-in this case
the President is taking some license to say the least.
While I'm not surprised that Quinn lost it's amazing how poorly she did; this clearly shows this election is
all about a new direction away from the-very long-Bloomberg years. The Mayor;s chiding of Blasio might
as well be an endorsement at this point.
Speaking of Blasio, the latest returns suggest we may get what-to my mind-is good news: according to
the latest at the Washington Post, Blasio now has over 40% with 98% of NYC precincts reporting.
Meanwhile I'd like to take credit for voting the vote that secured Thomas Suozzi's victory over Adam
Haber. After all, as I admitted yesterday I voted for Suozzi.
"Though of course I have the right to privacy on whom I voted for in today's Democratic primary for Nassau County executive between Tom Souzzi and his challenger Adam Haber I'm going to go ahead and waive it and tell you I voted for Souzzi because I always tell you as much as I can about anything. I liked what I was hearing about Haber but at the end of the day it's the guy with the best chance of winning it for the Democratic party."
The reason I did is while I kind of liked Haber I worried that if I voted for him this could suggest that many other Democrats like me did and I figured that could be a real problem as maybe Suozzi is the only one who has a chance in the general election. So I figured that-if it turned out I was a representative voter-I had to vote the right way; if I voted the wrong way and it hurt the parties chances this made it more likely that other Democrats would vote the same way.
In other words, while you've heard of the representative agent in economics, I was concerned that maybe I would turn out to be a representative voter and so better vote the right way. Who knows maybe this is why a lot of people voted for Suozzi.
No comments:
Post a Comment