Why Did Obama Not Help Dems Win the NY Mayor's Office? It Was Probably Bloomberg's Money, Stupid

To feed the Punditburo's appetite for fact-free speculation and polemic, the Beltway press and the political activist class often manufactures elaborate rationales for fairly simple events. These professional prognosticators refuse to accept obvious explanations, either because they feel the need to produce overdramatized entertainment or because the 24-7 news cycle they create requires them to guru-ize politicians and their minions so as to fill time. And so our political discourse teems with fantastical tales of super-secret pony plans and Rasputin-like geniuses brilliantly playing 57-dimensional chess.

The latest of these tales is that of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Obama. With Bloomberg barely hanging on in his bid to buy a third term, progressives are rightfully asking why Obama didn't more forcefully endorse this plutocrat's Democratic challenger, William Thompson, considering the fact that a more forceful Obama endorsement easily could have moved a decisive amount of votes to Thompson in the overwhelmingly Democratic city.

Attempting to answer this question, the New York Times gives us the standard hackneyed mythology about "a dramatic effort, unfolding behind the scenes" -- a hagiography about supposedly super-sharp Bloomberg and his even more strategically masterful aides brilliantly creating (deceptively, as the election results now prove) an aura of inevitability and simultaneously cajoling a reluctantly compliant White House into keeping quiet.

Incredibly, left out of this labyrinthine mythmaking is an examination of a much more plausible reason for Obama's silence: Bloomberg's billions.

Here you have one of the richest people on the planet running for mayor in a city that is already safely in Democratic hands, in terms of presidential, congressional and New York state elections. This billionaire is desperate to retain his vanity platform as New York's public face.

Thus, what was most likely going on here was something pretty simple: The Democratic Party wanted to avoid antagonizing this billionaire for fear of retribution (ie. campaign contributions to the Republican Party, a vote-splitting third-party run for president, etc.) -- and in fact, the Democratic Party probably aims to court this billionaire for future campaign contributions. And so the Obama White House via Rahm Emanuel (a guy who got his start as a big donor political fundraiser) kept the president quiet and hence appeased this billionaire in a race that doesn't matter a whole lot to the national Democratic Party (even as it matters a whole helluva lot to New York City voters).

Put another way, the Bloomberg campaign to silence Obama wasn't any act of tactical genius or some sort of "sophisticated strategy," as the New York Times insists. It was a basic financial transaction. His billions not only bought the election, but they effectively created a disincentive for national Democrats to try to beat him. If there was any "genius" at all, it was merely that Bloomberg is such an empty suit and such a narcissistic opportunist that he's been happy to flirt with any party willing to sell its soul to him, (and he's made sure not to take any positions that make it impossible for Democratic elites to even tacitly support). That flirting has preserved both the perception of a potential carrot and stick that ultimately backed off Obama -- the potential carrot being future campaign contributions to Democrats, the potential stick being possible campaign contributions to Republicans/anti-Democratic initiatives.

But, then, being willing to align oneself with any party that serves one's short-term purpose isn't really "genius," now is it? Really, it's just a lack of scruples and core convictions. Mix that with billions of dollars, and you get exactly what happened yesterday: Plutocrat Republican-lite Mike Bloomberg winning reelection thanks, in part, to a Democratic president refusing to seriously back the Democratic candidate.

Indeed, it all goes back to the Power of Big Money. Sure, Obama and national Democrats fetishize "bipartisanship" and they've tried to cite their cordial relationship with Bloomberg as proof of their "bipartisan" credentials. And sure, Bloomberg isn't as odious a Republican as, say, Rudy Giuliani. But those were most likely secondary considerations in the Obama-Bloomberg detente in comparison to the influence of cold, hard cash. It's a simple explanation of that electorally decisive alliance -- an explanation that may not be as sexy as glamorizing the "smarts" of Bloomberg, but it's almost surely the dynamic really at play.

 

Comments

[koozy14]

Nice try, but the real answer is one of the following threads:

Bloomberg-­-Quandrang­le--Ratner­--Geitner-­-Obama--De­mocratic Party

Bloomberg-­-Quandrang­le--Ratner­'s wife---Hillary Clinton--Democratic Party

Either way, the Democratics helped Democracy lose in NYC. Whether Thompson was weak or not, Democracy was sold out.

[Tilden]

And you think other people's theories are "labyrinthine?" Oh, they didn't want to win the seat because they might offend a billionaire who might be induced to spend money against them instead of give them money... Right. And everyone ELSE is crazy?

How about this:

1. He had no reason to believe Thompson was viable (nobody did - including many on Thompson's staff and in his inner circle.)

2. The election of Thompson over Bloomberg was of no use or concern to his agenda. Unlike Congressional seats and Governors (who will impact redistricting) the matter of who is Mayor of NYC is pretty much academic to the occupant of the White House.

3. Need another reason? How about the fact that Bloomberg's agenda is loser to Obama's than Thompson's? It has been very handy to have a famous Republican­/Independe­nt in lock-step with the administration on just about everything. What did Thompson offer? Well, in his campaign he said his solution to NYC deficit woes was to press the Feds for a bailout. Yeah, that the kind of idea to get Team Obama excited about helping.

[pc13]

Mr. Sirota is just stating the obvious. Obama's White House saw Bloomberg dollar signs. The Mayor's obscene money kept other candidates out of the race (i.e. Anthony Weiner) that MIGHT have been perceived by the New York Times as a more viable candidate than Mr. Thompson. The Times pretty much ignored Thompson's campaign then complained about it (and also ridiculed the Thompson camp's assertion right before election day that their inside polling saw the race much much closer than the major polls proclaimed).

[OnReflection]

Bloomberg started out as a Democrat then switched to the republican party, solely out of pragmatism, then switched again, as an independent, which he still is, So why keep refering to him as a Republican?

Bloomberg is well known for funding Republican candidates if it suits his plans, What makes you think he will stop doing so?

Bloomberg will continue to fund Republicans, he always has, this analysis is taking to much liberty on assumptions, when facts and history indicate otherwise!

[Nommo]

Let's see. 30 pieces, adjusted for inflation and COLAs, that would be...

[hutom]

I wonder that if New York Times is guilty of over-analyzing something as simple as what David Sirota says, is David Sirota guilty of under-analyzing a certain democratic primary candidate called Barak Obama? Remember all the grandstanding for Obama and Clinton-bashing - them being in the pocket of DLC donors? I remember quite a few dissenters on Huff Po regular readers to tried to point out that God is also human, and a politician at that, though his heart is in the right place, probably like Bill Clinton's. Only Sam Stein and a few others from HuffPo showed some degree of impartiality. Everyone else including Sirota was in tank with hope and change.

[capitalismisntamoral]

I've been reading Sirota for quite a while. I don't recall him being smitten with Obama at all, even during the national campaign last year.

I think Sirota's been fairly consistent in criticizing Obama when he disagrees with his positions or politics.
"In the tank"? Hardly.

[allonfla]

Thompson sucked man, he sucked, sucked. Practically all the papers in NYC endorsed bloomberg - the NYT, the NY daily news, the NY post - 60 newspaper endorsements. I live here and people were holding their nose to vote for thompson in order to get rid of bloomberg. Thompson sucked. So this sudden defense of Thompson is beyond ridiculous.

And apparently you don't know NY. We had Rudy and bloomberg (twice before) - Democrats aren't guaranteed anything here.

Did I say Thompson sucked?

[americanboi]

Honestly here, how "sucky" is a candidate who was outspent by at least 91 million dollars, did not have the support of the local black clergy, business endorsements etc., lukewarm support from the president, and STILL managed to come within 4 points of winning which is rougly the same margin in the hotly contested NJ race?

Sucky?

Really?

[laurenc]

David, you have more guts than a thousand other commentors!

For people who appreciate David's honesty, I would recommend Jane Hamsher, Digby, Glenn Greenwald, Marcy Wheeler, and Norman Solomon. We have the smartest people in the world in the netroots....and they consistently put what Digby calls "the Village" to shame.

[allonfla]

Nice list of conspiracy theorists.

[leah32]

I think it's obvious what needs to happen. Huffington, Sirotta, Greenwald, Hamsher and all those critics content to hide behind their computers and accept the $$ and accolades of their sycophants need to run for office.

[ksyellowdog]

From Merriam Webster's online:
Main Entry: sy·co·phant
Pronunciation: -fənt also -ˌfant
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin sycophanta slanderer, swindler, from Greek sykophantēs slanderer, from sykon fig + phainein to show —

Again, the obvious is sycophant are those whose give you the false sense of world domination. Quit watching the reichtag media called Faux Nuts Conspiracy channel and maybe your sense of where you need to be in the real world would be better.