[WertyNtont]

How'd you vote on the Mayoral line?

[cialviagra]

Where is the choice "Did not vote"?

[lopesmili]

Hmmm... I assumed that all of us would vote. Bad assumption.

Okay....If you didn't vote, say so. This way we to tell you to shut up if you start criticizing the mayor this year. A vote earns you the right to whine, complain, criticize and point fingers. Without voting, you can still do that but ::sticks fingers in ears:: I can't hear you!

I couldn't vote for Bloomberg because of his record on civil rights abuses. I couldn't vote for Ferrer because his resume is nothing but public office - which, in the end, equates to no experience. I couldn't vote Libertarian because they have no conscience. So, I voted for the socialist - whise name I can't remember. When you all see that he got 321 votes in this election. I was that "1".

[bug_user]

I cast a lonely and pointless vote for Ferrer, so my right to bitch and moan about Bloomberg is intact, though I really think he's the least evil Republican I've ever voted against...

[machpamb]

I have major beef with Bloomberg and cast an unexcited vote for Ferrer.

[Reatclaplen]

Hmmm... I assumed that all of us would vote. Bad assumption.

Some of us are not US citizens and hence are not allowed to vote.

[styhorporry]

I winced, held my nose and reluctantly pulled the lever for Ferrer.

If this is the best the Dems can do, well I just don't know what to say

[Escamsrasiush]

I have major beef with Bloomberg and cast an unexcited vote for Ferrer.

I have beef, don't get me wrong (like I'd be married right now if it weren't for him) but it could be a lot worse. He could be Pataki.

[zoppiklonikaa]

Or Giuliani. Wait, even Giuliani was more tolerable on some issues than Bloomberg.

I'm actually really tired of the whole, "He's not REALLY a Republican" tripe. Yes, he is.

[Anypeny]

a guy who increased property and all tax, is pro-choice, against the death penalty, has created affordable housing, and made the city government bigger, if thats not a Democrat, WHAT IS.

[ResuNezily]

Maybe someone who doesn't oppose equal rights and labor unions?

It doesn't matter two hoots what Bloomberg thinks about the death penalty or abortion. As far as I know, he's not a candidate for the Supreme Court.

[Ztcgtqvb]

I have beef, don't get me wrong (like I'd be married right now if it weren't for him) but it could be a lot worse. He could be Pataki.

The gay marriage thing last year I blame mostly on his precarious position as a GOP darling as opposed to his actual social views. I think that since this election is in the bag for him, he'll change his mind sometime during the next term since he has nothing to lose.

In any case, despite Gavin Newsom's best efforts in San Francisco, the marriages that he approved were eventually all declared null and void anyway. Also, marriages in Massachusetts, Canada and Connecticut are already recognized here; not to mention that domestic partners share almost all of the same benefits as spouses; so I predict it won't be much longer before the real deal is legalized in this state.

In any case, what's the state of that case in the Court of Appeals?

[ZwHRoTTn]

http://ny1.com/ny/Election/2005elect..._name=citywide

[Njxatsbf]

The gay marriage thing last year I blame mostly on his precarious position as a GOP darling as opposed to his actual social views. I think that since this election is in the bag for him, he'll change his mind sometime during the next term since he has nothing to lose.

I don't care why he acted as he did, but appealing the (amato?) decision was cheap politics to appeal to homophobic voters. Sickened me that a) he went to a pride agenda event that night and talked about how pro-gay he is, and that the appeal will speed up gay marriage in NYS (it won't) and b) how many people lapped up the spin lip-service. If he had done nothing, the issue would have been resolved years faster, but he actively threw a wrench into it just for political gain, then told people he was helping them. Slick, slimy and, sadly, effective.

Nothing like the other mayors who acted unilaterally - especially in CA where they have a anti-gay marriage ballot initiative on the books. Any marriages that would have been performed would have been entirely legal, and given the neutral marriage law on the books here (only pronouns make it heterosexist) they likely would have been permanent.

[Triiooman]

I voted for everything but mayor.

[Avaindimik]

This is probably the only poll where a Republican wins anything. Bloomberg won yesterday because most voters did not see him as a real Republican. I know a lot of people who voted for Kerry last year who supported Bloomberg. I actually think that the city is better off with Bloomberg in charge than with Ferrer, and it pains me to say that.
BTW, here's my prediction, my early prediction, for 2009: Anthony Weiner defeats Vito Fossella (who I think wants to run, and will do so because there is no moderate heir to Bloomberg, so a conservative will run) and becomes the first Democratic Mayor elected in 20 years.
I think that the NYC Democrats in 2009 will be in a position that national Democrats were in in 1992: the voters see them as soft, not tough on crime, a party that has lost their way. What Bill Clinton did that year was run as a "New Democrat" and managed to gain the confidence of voters (Perot was not as big a factor in that race as people think. He gave Clinton a few close states but not his overall lead.) While I do not approve of the "New Democratic" policy as it stands today - ie, the Bush-appeasing Democratic Leadership Council - I feel that Clinton's triangulation approach was what was needed in 1992. Weiner can be Bill Clinton in that sense. Ideologically he's basically Bloomberg but with a D next to his name and he doesn't support Bush.