Great post, Rob. I agree with this idea that the polls had a “self-correcting effect,” but I don’t think we should understate that the numbers DO say something about Bloomberg’s once-widespread popularity. It’s not a stretch to say that Thompson wasn’t the most formidable candidate in the world and probably a worse option than Ferrer (my opinion, at least). So the fact that Thompson did get more votes than Ferrer can suggest a lot of anti-Bloomberg votes, etc.

Sorry if this is obvious.

@Kenneth, I think NYU Local fucked up by letting you cover the election. No offense, I usually like what you write and think you generally write intelligent and articulate pieces, but considering you admitted in the comments section of the election piece that you support Bloomberg, it absolutely didn’t surprise me that you bought in to the media predictions of a Bloomberg blowout and seemed so shocked that Thompson lost by so little. For you to say that Thompson was “probably a worse option than Ferrer” is difficult to take as a worthwhile opinion from someone who (a) supports Bloomberg, (b) didn’t live in this city in 2005 and likely doesn’t know much about city politics pre-your time at NYU, and (c) has repeatedly fucked up basic details in coverage of the city elections this year (e.g. calling Malcolm Smith a State Senator from Brooklyn (he’s from Queens and is the former majority leader of the Senate). Sorry if it sounds harsh, but NYU Local’s coverage of the city elections was really terrible and did nothing to break the idea that NYU students couldn’t give a fuck about this city outside of Washington Square and the bars they go to in the Village.

ciara
Nov 5, 2009 17:51

Rather than suggesting 2005 Bloomberg supporters were lazy, maybe they didn’t come out on Tuesday for another reason. Clearly there’s a big problem with voter turnout – it’s never as high as it should be, and never as high as predicted. But voters not coming out to vote on an election they presumably care about (like they did in 2005) is not the same thing. Instead, maybe they didn’t come out because on principle they could not vote for Bloomberg. I suspect a lot of people (like me) felt he has done a great job as mayor, yet at the same time oppose his completely undemocratic term extension and extreme financial spending. That doesn’t mean they liked his opposition anymore, but it does mean they didn’t feel comfortable voting for either candidate.

Yeesh.

Ciara: Great comment. But I don’t think it explains why Bloomberg was polling so well in the days just before the election. I find it more plausible that they supported Bloomberg, but not enthusiastically, and didn’t feel compelled to show up.

Pat: Why would Kenneth be wrong in thinking that Bloomberg would defeat Thompson? Every poll showed it happening.

@Rob: Anyone who knows recent city political history knows that the polls were way off in 2005, predicting that Bloomberg would beat Ferrer by roughly twice as much as the final outcome. Many of the polls released over the past few weeks had similar issues regarding an extremely small sample size and an unreliable estimate of “likely voter” (people being polled overestimate how often they have voted in the past and their own likelihood to vote in the current election, and this effect is exaggerated in traditionally low turnout municipal elections). Furthermore, the Thompson campaign released a poll last week that accurately predicted the state of the race (it had Thompson down 3-8 points). Everyone laughed the poll off and dismissed it, failing to notice that internal polls are very often more reliable than outside ones because they can rely on more accurate knowledge of who votes and who doesn’t. So the point is, there was ample evidence that this election wouldn’t be a blowout, and the fact that so many people are claiming to be so surprised by the result displays a laziness and failure to ably report on the election on their part. The media narrative failed to capture the true nature of the race, and NYU Local (like so many other outlets) lazily went along with that narrative.

@Pat if you think that poorly of NYU students, why are you reading an NYU student blog? The students are going to cover current ongoings in the city and the mayoral election happens to be an important one. I don’t know if you are aware, but NYU has 20,000 undergrads that come from everywhere. Obviously they weren’t here in 2005. They aren’t professional reporters. Plus, it seems like you’re slamming Kenny pretty much solely for being a Bloomberg supporter. Believe it or not, everyone in this city has a right to an opinion, no matter how long they’ve been here. This election affects NYU students too, not just people who have been here for over 5 years. Also, your cursing makes you much less credible. If you’re going to attack someone in a public forum, at least be classy about it.

@Dylan: I went to NYU. I read NYU Local because it usually has insightful coverage of events on campus (and often bigger national events as well). And you’re damn right that I think poorly of NYU students when it comes to city politics, because most NYU students utterly lack a basic understanding of the issues facing the city, the dynamics of city politics, and the communities that they are both a part of and outside of. I’m not saying that Kenny is one of these students; for all I know he may be widely read and well-informed on the subject of NYC politics. That’s why I’m not attacking him personally. While everyone has a right to their opinion, and I don’t fault the reporter for supporting Bloomberg, I take issue with the fact that he got his facts wrong numerous times in covering the election and that in his coverage he bought into a fallacy that Bloomberg would win by a blowout, Thompson never had a chance, etc.

However, this media narrative makes one wonder at what angle reporters are coming from. Did Kenny’s support of Bloomberg make him more likely to believe the hype about a blowout and less likely to take a deeper look at the opinion polls? I don’t know. But it raises questions that are worth answering. Just as one must ask if Bloomerg being close personal friends of Arthur Sulzberger and Mort Zuckerman had a role in why the NY Times and Daily News endorsed him or colored the reporting of those outlets. Again, I’m not attacking Kenny personally, but this election raised a lot of really serious and interesting issues for media critics.

Also, fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

Pat: I’m not claiming to be surprised by the result at all. In fact, I’m claiming the exact opposite. I’m saying it should have been predictable that (1) Bloomberg voters would think their candidate was going to win by a large margin, and (2) that they wouldn’t be as motivated as Thompson voters to show up at the polls.

One note on the Thompson internal poll: the NY Times had this to say about it.
“And these kinds of internal polls do not meet the polling standards that The New York Times other news media outlets and other polling groups use when conducting polls.”
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/todays-tip-sheet-thompson-claims-campaign-poll-shows-a-closer-race/

If normal polls aren’t reliable enough, as you say, then certainly Thompson’s poll shouldn’t be taken seriously.

The only problem I have with your analysis is that, if Bloomberg voters thought their candidate would win by a large margin and were, thus, unmotivated to get out and vote, why would Thompson voters be motivated? By the same logic, wouldn’t they have thought their candidate would lose big and, thus, not turn out? Assuming equal percentages of Bloomberg and Thompson voters stayed home as a result of being unmotivated to vote, the polls would have been accurate.

If we take a look at the polls, it doesn’t seem like Bloomberg did better than expected (he was hovering around the 50-53% mark in almost every recent poll.) However, Thompson did do better, but I don’t think motivation had anything to do with it. If we take a look at these polls, it seems that Thompson’s final numbers were really close to the sum of what he got in the polls plus the undecided voters.

Unfortunately, the New York Times exit polls don’t ask the question (when did you make up your mind about who you were going to vote for) so we can’t actually tell if this is what occurred. However, most voters who decide who to vote for late are the least informed voters. And, usually, they decide based on a relatively salient issue – in this case, it could Term Limits, the Economy, or how much Mayor Bloomberg spent.

While I would normally lean towards thinking the economy was the salient issue among undecided voters in this race (considering the financial crisis and what we know about economic voting), I do not believe that is the case here. Those who said the economy was the issue that mattered most when deciding their vote went for Bloomberg 56 to 41%. First, this doesn’t support my thesis and, secondly, I think term limits are an easier issue for uninformed voters to grasp and vote on (and we know that about 70% of NYC voters disapprove of term limits.)

Of the 45% of voters who said term limits made them less likely to vote for Mr. Bloomberg, 76% went for Thompson, which makes sense. Let’s say that all undecided voters didn’t support term limits (because I would think that the few people that do support them knew they were voting for Bloomberg). In Quinnipiac’s last poll, 10% were undecided. If 80% went to Thompson that would give him 8% of the undecided vote plus his original 38% vote share, giving him a total of 46% – pretty close to what he got. This seems to confirm that fact that undecided voters went for Thompson as a result of term limits, which is why the polls underperformed for Thompson but were pretty accurate in predicting Bloomberg’s vote share.

If undecided voters were unhappy over the extension of term limits yet approved of the job Mayor Bloomberg is doing (which it seems like they were) then maybe these voters went to Thompson to send a signal about their displeasure with term limits to Bloomberg knowing that he would win (because polls put him so far ahead.) They got their cake and can eat it too.

As to the question of whether this will have an impact on Bloomberg’s ability to govern, probably not. He still has very high approval ratings and is likely to maintain high approval ratings. In the short run, it may hurt him a little, but in the long run its about what voters think about him – they have liked what he has done and will probably like what he does in the future. Plus, as long as Christine Quinn remains Speaker (pretty likely), he’ll have control of the City Council as well.

As an election-deprived Californian, my attention turned to NYC for evidence of national mood, national trends…for national meaning in general. Alas, I find only Rob’s insightful conclusion that city election results signal only parochial ennui and political attention-deficit disorder. Come to think of it, maybe that IS the national mood.