He garnered 100,000 fewer votes this year than four years ago.

People said they were going to vote for him when pollsters called.

Then they stayed home.

He won because a) his “aura of invincibility” as spun by his campaign people and their shills in the media, along with his fortune, scared more competent opponents out of the race (i.e., Weiner) b) the Clinton people and other Dems he hired made sure Dem money dried up for any potential opponent of Bloomberg – Thompson’s fund raising was anemic even compared to Ferrer standards c) Thompson sucked – his campaign was amateurish, unfocused and had one (negative) message – Bloomberg is a dictator. Hell, I loath Bloomberg and I still didn’t want to vote for Thompson.

It’s difficult to lose a race when you’re an incumbent and it’s especially difficult to lose when you’ve got a 14-1 financial advantage and an incompetent opponent, and yet Bloomberg almost managed to do it.

Whatever political cache and juice he once had was lost last night when NBC retracted it’s declaration of a Bloomberg victory after 10 PM. The stories of Bloomberg aides glumly looking at their Blackberries as the race got tighter after 10 PM are delightful to read – there is nothing like seeing a bunch of bullies get a little come-uppance.

It’s true that in the end they won. But by a laughable margin, all things considered.

Thompson’s platform on education was comprehensive. Other than the PR blitz, Bloomberg’s was a powerpoint re charters.

I’m surprised — after $85M of junk mail and robocalls — you’d think Thompson ran the more negative campaign. How could that even be possible given the spending disparity and the content of the Bloomberg mailers?

There was no mention of concern over his actual policies, or the way he’s run the city. I’ll bet the more experienced political prognosticators out there would say, given the way Thompson ran his campaign (with a lot of hot air, little substance to offer, and lots of negative, pessimistic attacks on the incumbent), if he had equal resources he’d dig himself a bigger hole than he was able to. Remember, another of the NYT stories said that voters still didn’t really know Thompson. Are you so sure more votes would have gone his way if they got to know him?

By the way, it’s interesting that the mayor was roundly criticized for his treatment of term limits, but he had willing co-conspirators in the City Council, and all of them were voted back in with landslide numbers. (I have to admit, I voted for my incumbent City Councilmember…)

Moreover, in that light, what could possibly be the justification for dismantling that system, replacing big chunks of it with charters, or any other reorg?

They spent $100M ($2,000 per marginal vote) declaring victory on the education front. Now they want to change direction? Uhgain?

More like flush with embarrassment.

He won by a little more than 50,000 votes.

Last night was a repudiation of Mayor Moneybags.

He outspent a really bad candidate 14-1, said really bad candidate was abandoned by his own party and his party’s traditional power base (i.e., the unions), said bad candidate’s fellow Dem, President Obushma, offered a tepid public endorsement for him while working for Bloomberg behind the scenes, and Bloomberg still only won by 50,000 votes.

Now it’s true the shills at this website and other ed websites and foundations will be licking their lips at a third Bloomberg term and all the possible changes and deforms that will bring.

But given history, when third terms have most members of mayoral administrations being carted out in handcuffs, and given the inauspicious start to the Mayor of Money’s third term last night, people know he’s already a wounded lame duck with absolutely no mandate or juice to do anything.

He may not see it that way; it is incumbent upon the political leaders and union leaders in this city not bought and sold by him already to let him no HE’S GOT NOTHING ANYMORE.

He won by 50,000 votes – he spent well over a $100 million to “win.”

That’s truly laughable.