Why This Year’s Mayoral Race Is Important to Democrats
by Edward A. Hartzog

Some Democrats may say– “Don’t bother, I’m voting for Bloomberg anyway.” Those who express these sentiments reason that, “Bloomberg’s not that offensive, his approval ratings are at an all-time high, things seem to be alright, the West Side Stadium has been defeated and he has a bottomless checkbook.”

Not so fast, there is an alternative to be considered. Indeed, not only is the race worth re-considering and fighting for, it is winnable. Moreover, the race is important, as part of an overarching strategy to stem the Republican tide.

Last year New York was a source of financial and troop support. The 10021 zip code (Upper East Side) was the biggest contributor to Democratic presidential coffers and thousands of New Yorkers volunteered in “battleground” states to phone bank, door knock and generally get out the vote. This year is different.

With mid-term congressional and statewide elections over a year away, local races are the focus. As the largest city and nation’s preeminent media market, it is impossible not to look to New York City on election night. People will want to see if the impressive resources of ’04 can be marshaled successfully at home. What they do will say a lot about their strength.

If Democrats learned anything last year, it is that lasting political change begins at the basic levels of government. Republicans demonstrated the power of grassroots organizing by focusing on mayor, city council, county supervisor, school board and like races.

The seeds of power were sown twenty-five years ago with the “Moral Majority” – which some used to joke was neither. Now they are both to the American people. The Christian Right’s influence over the legislative and executive branches is obvious and the dominance of morality and religion in the ’04 presidential campaign proves it.

Democrats acknowledged Republican success with the emergence of Howard Dean – as a presidential candidate and then as Chairman of the National Democratic Party. The question is whether there will be a continuing Democratic movement at the local level.

Surprisingly, some Democrats are gearing up for the ’06 elections - driven in part by President Bush’s recent troubles with Social Security, the Iraq War and the evolving criminal investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. With pending judicial confirmation hearings in the Senate, people are honing and promoting their message to a national audience. Believing the mayor’s race a foregone conclusion people figure that now is the time to get ready for ’06.

While national issues and several high profile races (Governor, U.S. Senator and Attorney General) are important in ‘06, they are still a distraction from the mayor’s race. Those looking for a battle, look no further than November 8. Democrats need to confront recent Republican dominance this year. Focusing prematurely on next year, Democrats will risk squandering a golden opportunity to lay the groundwork and build support for the elections and battles ahead.

Conventional wisdom essentially says, the mayor’s race is not in doubt and Democratic strongholds in the City Council and other offices are safe, therefore there is no point in really turning out on Election Day. This kind of thinking must be dispelled. Indeed, there are reasons why this race is not a foregone conclusion and most importantly, worth fighting for.

While the mayor’s approval rating was at an all-time high in the latest New York Times poll – it is still only 50%. That’s right, after spending $23 million - three times more than at this point in 2001 - the mayor is only at the break-even point. While he receives a majority of support against each of his potential opponents, poll numbers in July do not reflect people’s sentiments in late October and early November and do not necessarily translate into votes. Moreover, 25% of potential Democratic voters are still undecided about who they will vote for.

Even though the West Side Stadium has been defeated, people still remember the way the mayor tried to circumvent the democratic process in order to achieve his ends. His style of minimal consultation or inclusion of opposing views when it comes to policy and decision-making resembles that of President Bush. Certainly voters should be asked, “If he (Bloomberg) tried to force a West Side Stadium on you in the first term, imagine what he’ll try to do when he isn’t accountable anymore?” However, there is the financial gauntlet awaiting the Democratic nominee.

In 2001, the mayor spent $75 million and won 50.4% to 47% - and this in the aftermath of a bruising and divisive Democratic primary. Remember those 50% approval ratings? For those who argue that Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Jon Corzine are proof that money prevails, there are Michael Huffington and Steve Forbes. It begs the question, “Does good pitching (money) beat good hitting (message and vision), or vice versa.”

Ultimately, the nominee will have to present a vision and plan of their own – indeed, the biggest complaint about Democrats is their inability to provide an alternative message. Nevertheless, 48% of the country agreed with the Democratic message last year. If there is any place that should be ready to embrace those ideas and alternatives, it is New York City. Finally, there are the numbers themselves – simply put, Democrats outnumber Republicans 5 to 1 in the City.

Democrats control both U.S. Senate seats, a majority of the House delegation and the Attorney General’s office. However, the Governor and Mayor are both Republicans, having won these seats in each of the last three elections. If New York is to be a true “blue” state – it must demonstrate it.

The best way is to win back the mayor’s office. To do that, people need to believe it is possible to win. People predisposed to consider the race a foregone conclusion, need to look again. It is a chicken and egg proposition, which one comes first - voter excitement that engages politicians and brings forth a good message, or vice versa? The answer is not important. The point is once they are present they can create a self-perpetuating cycle.

No matter the outcome, the result is good. A win provides a shot in the arm to those still suffering from last year’s defeat and creates momentum going into statewide and congressional races in ’06. A loss sends a message that Democrats are not going to roll over in the face of a challenge. It also provides organizing and fundraising experience on a citywide basis – valuable preparation for the upcoming governor’s race.

These ideas are not new. They need to become a larger part of the public discourse before people choose a Democratic nominee. The general election is not going to be easy. In the end, the mayor’s race is a golden opportunity that should not be easily dismissed.

by Edward A. Hartzog

July 20, 2005