Talk:2009 New York City mayoral election

Pre-election topics

Campaign finance

You might want to check out the NYC campaign finance board for financial disclosure information on people - it can give a good idea of who might be running. Anthony Weiner has $5million - surely a clear indication that he is running? - 121.208.89.240 (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Filing with the F.E.C.?

The section on announced Democratic candidates says "although these candidates have yet to file with the FEC" (Federal Election Commission, http://www.fec.gov ), but wouldn't they instead file with a state or local agency like the New York Secretary of State or the Board of Elections for the City of New York ? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Acres of white space next to Announced Candidates' pix

I guess this is a matter of aesthetics, but I just don't like all that white space next to the candidates' photos. I know what's coming next, but I think the average, casual reader just looking for info on this election is more likely to get confused and discouraged scrolling down. And as more candidates announce, this problem will just get worse and worse. I think it's worth separating Democrats, Republicans, and others, but I don't see the harm of letting the potential candidates of the same party fill up some of the empty space. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason the large white spaces are on the page is because of the { clear } that is added to the end of some of the sections. The { clear } is used b/c without them, the edit links on the side of the page are completely messed up. MOOOOOPS (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize, because exactly the same problem cropped up in the Demographics/People section of The Bronx when I was trying to fix the maps. There are a couple of ways to mitigate this (although I've forgotten the details), but this seems to be an unsolved glitch in Wikipedia. And you can't easily move the pictures left or right because that long medallion template for NY Elections gets in the way (as it did when I was laying out New York City mayoral election, 1917). Shrinking the thumbnails might (or might not) help, but they seem to be about as small as you can get while giving a clear image of the candidates' faces. Things also look different in different browsers, on different screen sizes and with different text sizes. From my point of view, the best solution would be to run the announced candidates' thumbnail pictures horizontally across the top or bottom of the announced subsection, but I don't know how to do that. Maybe someone else knows the answers to these technical quandaries. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the problem by moving the photos into gallery's on the page. This cleaned up the page, and fixed the edit links. MOOOOOPS (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work. There's no way to avoid some clutter, but this looks far more balanced, clean, navigable and interesting. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Moops,I thank you for editing those white spaces. I was the one who first put the pictures up (I felt people would find it more interesting if there were pictures), but I was disapointed to discoverthe white spaces, and I didn't know how to correct it. Thanks for correcting it, Moops. -Cooman456

Thank you Cooman. I also thank you for adding the photos. I agree that they make the page more interesting. MOOOOOPS (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallery arrangement as of April 2009

As everyone fully expected might well happen over time, the situation has changed noticeably with the addition and loss of more candidates and parties. Now there's one or two pictures at the bottom of over half a dozen different sections, so a different form of the white space question appears. I tend to think at the moment that the best solution (until the situation changes again) might be to consolidate a gallery for all the Democrats (potential & announced) at the bottom of the major subsection for Democrats, all the Republicans (potential, announced & former) at the bottom of the Republican subsection, and all the Others at the bottom of that subsection. However it might be clearer to put them at the top of each subsection before the first minor subsection (e.g. Announced Democrats or Independence Party), to show that the gallery covers all the minor subsections (e.g. Announced and Potential, or Independence, Green, Libertarian, SWP and independent). What do others think? —— Shakescene (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold so that we could see what such a rearrangement would look like. But if others think of a better way of handling the present line-up, I'm certainly open. If there were more public domain pictures available, or fewer 1-2-candidate sub-subsections, the former arrangement would have been better in breaking up the grey text, indicating status, and keeping pictures closer to subjects. As the line-up changes again over time, yet another (or former) arrangement might fit better. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New 2009 mayoral info box: is it needed and where should it go?

New York City mayoral election, 2009

November 3, 2009

Nominee TBD TBD TBD Party Democratic Republican Independent Popular vote 1,217,516 Percentage 29.2%

Mayor before election Michael Bloomberg Independent Elected mayor TBD

User:Historylover9893 added this new information box to the top of the article page. My feeling is that it can't be filled properly until the September primaries, and takes up too much space in the wrong place. How do others feel?

—— Shakescene (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add it in September for the primaries. MOOOOOPS (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources?

Absolutely none of these are sourced, and I will try and find some. But I will remove any that have no source. - Rockyobody (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't just personally announce a blanket deletion for sections of the article that are in need of citations. This is an article that's subject to editing due to it's immediacy as a current event. You shouldn't be making drastic changes by removing content that may be added as time goes on. ShamenWeb (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was doing what I was taught by an administrator. What you are supposed to do is place citation needed tags. After a little while if you cannot find a source, and neither can anyone else, you remove the name. It is done to most election articles to prevent the addition of names for no reason. Some people add names purely out of their own specultation, but these articles are for sourced speculation only. I understand what you are saying, because there are so many names, but I'm going by the rules. See some other election articles, and you'll see most unsourced names are removed. - Rockyobody (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Randy Daniels may or may not be a potential candidate. But we cannot speculate, we need a source. ShamenWeb talk has added him twice. The first source makes absolutely no mention of that. It was apparently a mistake and later fixed. However the second source is a site similar to wikipedia because anyone can edit, and has no source saying he may actually run. I don't think he can be added until there is a legitimate source. But it does look like there are no other problems. Rockyobody (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

minor parties

User:Rockyobody recently removed some possible candidates for the Libertarian, Green and Conservative parties (e.g. Malachy McCourt). I don't think—although I live four hours away from NY and haven't visited in six years—that the 2009 municipal election season has advanced quite so far that we can yet move away totally from informed speculation and logical possibilities into fully-sourced readily-verifiable drafts and trial balloons, especially with minor parties. While the number of Democratic and Republican possibilities will wither away with time and may need winnowing, at least some fourth, fifth and sixth parties will be on the ballot (in what the Republican chairman called "ballot Siberia"), especially since Mayor Bloomberg has had little luck in getting any parties to endorse his re-election. It would be nice to have some idea of the sort of person who might be competing for (say) the Green, Conservative and possibly Independence Party nominations. And since each of the small parties has a smaller universe of plausible possible candidates, any single one of them has a higher possibility of being on September's or November's ballot than any single respondent to the Democratic or Republican cattle calls (referring to mass auditions, not livestock). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Green, Constitution and Libertarian candidates should all be mentioned if validly sourced. I did not remove anyone who was validly sourced, although I may have by accident, I don’t believe I did. - Rockyobody (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Under the philosophy he's undertaken, the third parties don't matter, because they will never be notable enough to receive wide publication. So if it's hard to find sources for them now, since the media doesn't usually follow third parties that closely, under Rockyobody's current vision for this article, they'll never get a mention. I think this does a great disservice to the article and to the voting public who might care to read it. ShamenWeb (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually you can find sources for third parties. I know you don’t agree with the finding sources theory since you keep adding people without sources. But lets all agree with you and speculate. What if Obama resigns as president, moves to New York City and runs on the Green Party Ticket. Maybe George Bush will want to run against Obama on the constitution party. Since they extended term limits, maybe Rudy G will want a third term. I should add all this speculation, right? After all, just because the media doesn’t have a source doesn’t mean they wont run. Well while that’s true, wiki does not allow us to speculate so we need sources. You were upset when I said I would remove all the names, but I actually gave you time to find sources while wikipedia wants us to remove them right on the spot. Beeblebrox told you too check out WP:GRAPEVINE which indicates that unsourced information in such articles should be removed on sight. You apparently didn’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be questioning the current format, but its wiki’s policy not mine. - Rockyobody (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez...leave the drama back in middle school where it belongs. What crawled up your bum? Why are you making it so personal? Jeez...I only added a single name, which was originally there, but removed by you. I added a source and that's it. I didn't see you making any effort to find sources for the vast majority of the names you marked for your deletion. I found sources for almost a dozen of the candidates already listed since you posted that deletion threat. Take a chill pill. We don't need anymore hotheads on this site. ShamenWeb (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand Rockobody's main point, but as a secondary quibble, WP:GRAPEVINE doesn't really pertain to this issue: it's about immediate removal of contentious defamatory allegations in a Biography of a Living Person (and even then by posting to a BLP board). Being considered by others as a possible candidate for the Second Toughest Job in America, while perhaps not always welcomed by everyone, isn't quite the same as having your honesty, family or personal relationships questioned. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to Shakescene, I guess WP:GRAPEVINE doesn’t really pertain, but I thought it had some implications on the current disscussion. In response to Shamen, I didn’t mark anything for deletion, I put citation needed signs on them. I also said I wouldn’t remove anything until I looked for sources, which you did do before me and I acknowledged that. But even after I said its wiki’s policy not to add candidates without sources, you still did anyway. You cant add candidates without sources, because it looks like you are trying to advertise your candidate. I don’t think it can be made any simpler. - Rockyobody (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Litigation and state legislation on City term limits

Currently, the end of the lede (introductory) section reads:

On March 10, 2009, the New York State Legislature in Albany will consider proposed laws that may affect the City Council's extension of term limits.

I haven't followed the details of New York politics very closely, but since March 10th was 3 weeks ago, does anyone have the facts that will allow us to recast this sentence in the past or present tense? (E.g., "the New York State Legislature began considering ..." or "the New York State Senate declined to consider ..." or "on April Z, 2009, the Legislature will consider ..." or "on March Y, 2009, the New York State Assembly sent legislation that might affect the city's term limits to the Committee on XXX.")

Similarly, I haven't yet researched The New York Times’ stories about the legal challenges to the City Council's extension of term limits last year, but I understand that the last appeal may have failed. Does anyone have any information about the progress of the lawsuits? Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Course of the Campaign" section now desirable

I think the campaign has passed the point where parties, candidates, polls and simple background are all that this article needs, and we should start explaining the significant events in the campaign itself. I might just start a blank, empty section, "Course of the campaign" between "Candidates" and "Polling", but it would obviously be far better for someone else—who's following the local politics and media daily—to start a new section with some initial, preliminary content.

Generally speaking, it would probably also be better to start the narrative and sourcing now, in small, manageable (and discussable) pieces, rather than to write a retrospective after the primary or general election has concluded. There will be difficulties of objectivity, distance, detachment, balance and neutrality either way, but it might be easier to tackle them as soon as the most important details have become clear, rather than when one's impressions might be clouded by intervening spin and the final result. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloomberg as of April 15th is not yet a Republican Candidate

I removed Mayor Bloomberg from the Republican candidate section due to his current lack of legal standing to run in the party primary. In order to run in the Republican Party Primary Bloomberg needs to receive written permission from the Republican Party chairs of 3 of the 5 boroughs of the city (New York election laws permit an independent (or a member of another party) to run in a party primary for Mayor of New York City,). Bloomberg has already secured now secured the support of the county chair of the Bronx Borough Republican Party, but has only received the endorsement of the leaders of the Brooklyn and Staten Island Republican Parties. While this is only a matter of paperwork, Bloomberg as of today is not a candidate of the party so he should not be considered one at this time. I have included a source (Ballot Access News) in the article the requirements necessary to be included in the primary are spelled out. Richard Winger the publisher of ballot access news (source) is one of the leading experts in the US on ballot access law/election law (skills not partisan, expert witness and employee of candidates form Rep/Dem/Sev. 3rd), so what he says is almost always right. While the article does not mention whether or not Bloomberg had the necessary paperwork or if the other 2 chairs would only endorse him as a candidate or if they would endorse and provide permission. It is probably only a matter of time till that happens (from the endorsers or from other two) but until the Board of Elections gives the go ahead Bloomberg is not a candidate for the Republican nomination. Highground79 (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloomberg and Walter Iwachiw are included on the list of Republican candidates issued by the Board of Elections as of July 28, 2009, so I've included them both as "Registered Republican candidates". —— Shakescene (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Any news? any polls?

I'd added a "Course of the campaign" section so those who keep closer track of this contest can add significant events as they happen, rather than retrospectively in November or January. But no takers so far. Also, are there any polls more recent than January? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Coenen

The following was posted on my talk page. I live the other side of the water and but for this post I know nothing of the NYC elections and I have no idea whether the correspondent is indeed Kevin Coenan so I thought I'd bring it here for the regular editors of this article.... Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 06:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On the New York City Mayoral election 2009 page you have some inaccurate info and I would like to give the correct information so people can use it. My name is Kevin Coenen an Independent, (NOT DEMOCRATIC AS LISTED) candidate for mayor. My website is www.RUNNING4MAYOR.COM Correct it when you click on my name and at the bottom section as well. Please correct this information because wikipedia drives traffic to my site and that is a good thing. I would appreciate it greatly if you correct this and if you need to contact me then just email me Thank you very much. Please respond.(24.184.92.223 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

¶ I'm a little confused here, myself. This IP's only contribution besides to Nancy's talk page was to the URL for the Coenen campaign site in the main article, so he knows how to edit a page. It makes no difference whether the URL is in capitals or not, because it leads to what seems very much like a genuine campaign page. (On stylistic grounds, I don't like the idea of showing some of our references in ALL CAPITALS and others in lower case, when we have no intention of discriminating between candidates.) However, since this page says nothing about Mr Coenen's party affiliation, and we don't have a way of verifying that the IP is in fact Kevin Coenen's, I'm a little hesitant (living in another state) to move him to the Independent section solely on the basis of this communication. Is Lieut. Coenen a registered candidate at the New York City Board of Elections, and for what primary if any? Can any New Yorkers help out? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Citing campaign web-sites and authors

While we want to be careful about relying on them too much, campaign web sites can be useful, if properly labelled, to the curious reader and also to establish bare facts such as someone's entry into the campaign. Should we be clearer in indicating when a particular URL in a footnote refers to a candidate's or party's own web site or home page? Should we scrap these footnotes and instead start a specific subsection of the External links section for these sites? And, while talking of footnotes, should we enter the writer's name (when given) before a newspaper story we cite? —— Shakescene (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of primary losers

An earlier pre-primary discussion on this page led to the use of the gallery format to allow the convenient lining up of all the candidates' photos for each party. But all the losers' pictures seem to have been removed for various reasons, which makes the gallery format rather awkward and redundant.

My personal feeling is that we're not writing Winner's History here (to see why, look, for example, at New York City mayoral election, 1917), nor are we writing just from today's headlines (since this article will last long after Inauguration Day), and we should keep things like Tony Avella's poll numbers in hypothetical matchups with Mayor Bloomberg. Future readers want to know what the competition looked like in March, as well as the way it looks today.

We should also show the pictures of all candidates, successful or unsuccessful, where we have enough rights to use them. Tony Avella didn't suddenly become an unnotable unperson from Wikipedia's viewpoint on September 16th, no matter how much or how little attention he might get in the New York newspapers of October. If we only use one picture per party, then we don't need the gallery format. This is from general principles. I'm not a New Yorker, I'm not affiliated with any of the campaigns, and I didn't have strong feelings either way about the Avella-Thompson race or follow it that closely. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Who belongs on the top template?

I've never been all that partial to the first template, but it does serve a helpful function. I did try to shrink its width to the same width as the Elections in New York State medallion below it. An IP keeps wanting to add Rev. Billy Talan's (Green) picture, and I'm reverting because Talan's only one of seven third-party candidates, and we don't have room for 9 pictures (including Bloomberg and Thompson). Are the Greens polling significantly in this election? Are they polling noticeably more than the candidates of the Conservative, Libertarian, Rent-is-too-damn-high, Socialist Workers, Socialism & Liberation and New Voice parties?

Is there some other criterion (e.g. availability of fair-use photos, historical importance of the party) that we should apply? How should we handle this? Does anyone visit this Talk Page any more?

(By the way, this has nothing to do with how I might feel about the major candidates or parties, any of the minor ones, or the two-party system in general. I'm not attached to any campaign, nor do I even live in New York. I'd be asking the same question about the SWP or Conservative candidate. In fact most of my editing has been of add-ons by other campaigns.) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the image for the reasons stated above.--Jersey Devil (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree for the reasons listed above. MOOOOOPS (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Post-election clean-up

Republican??

Shouldn't Michael Bloomberg be considered a Republican here? When an Independent has the backing of the Dem or Rep party, they are considered a candidate of that party. Doesnt mean he is a Republican, just means he ran as one 96.245.12.157 (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

He should NOT be considered a Republican. You are a member of that party when you consider yourself to be a member of that party. If you "run as a Republican," you have to run under the "Republican ticket." You can't run "under the Republican ticket" if you, yourself aren't even a declared Republican. Not everything in the world has to be GOP vs. Dem you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.11.22 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New York City mayoral election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007040633/http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/documents/boe/2009PrimaryElection/CandidacyList.pdf to http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/documents/boe/2009PrimaryElection/CandidacyList.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122151212/http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2005/general/Manhattan/Croossover%20Mayor%20Re-Cap%20NYC.pdf to http://vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2005/general/Manhattan/Croossover%20Mayor%20Re-Cap%20NYC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717074120/http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/brawlforthehall/2009/10/new-poll-has-thompson-trailing.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/brawlforthehall/2009/10/new-poll-has-thompson-trailing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)