whitecolonialism asked: Is there any New York City major candidate that you'd like to see elected?
The short answer is that I don’t have any reason to prefer one candidate over another. In fact, if not for the seemingly-unending nonsense involving Anthony Weiner, I’m not sure I’d even know the names of any of the candidates. I tend to skip the local politics stories when I open my New York Times every morning.
The longer answer is that this is a local election and it isn’t clear to me why so many people outside New York are spending time on it. My suspicion is that the broader interest generated by this election is largely prurient. If there wasn’t a well-known sexting politician involved, in other words, I’m not sure anyone would be paying a whole lot attention.
I live in Nebraska and I don’t have a voice in the NYC mayoral election, nor should I. The activities of the NYC mayor’s office don’t impact me in any way and I don’t have the faintest idea of the major policy issues facing citizens in New York. Based on the stories in national news outlets, my presumption is that the most important issues facing New York today are performance enhancing drugs, giant soda containers, and sexting politicians. Presumably, though, New Yorkers are actually more interested in other matters that, again presumably, the candidates are discussing. I’m not following those issues because they don’t have anything to do with life here in Nebraska. I don’t think a single policy that Michael Bloomberg put into effect touched my life in any way.
As far as I know, no one has ever asked New Yorkers about Omaha mayoral races and I’m guessing they’d be absolutely baffled if anyone did. So I’m taking the same tack with their election. If they prefer one candidate to another, I presume they have good reason to do so based on the policy platforms of the candidates. If they don’t, they ought to. It’s their local election and local elections are important.