MARK Green won last night because, in the campaign’s final days, he succeeded in turning the Democratic mayoral runoff into a referendum on Freddy Ferrer.
There seems little doubt that Green’s last-minute burst of “negative” campaigning – centered on ads with the ominous theme, “Can we afford to take a chance?” – did just what it was meant to do: Raise fears among wavering voters about Ferrer’s extremism and suitability for the job.
It was too late to make voters actually like Mark Green. But it wasn’t too late to make them fear a Mayor Ferrer.
The lesson: If you can drive up your opponent’s negative ratings, even support that’s a mile wide and an inch deep (like Green’s) is enough to win.
Exit-poll data make it unmistakable: This was not a vote for Green – it was a vote against Ferrer.
Consider: Ferrer won overwhelmingly – 62 percent to 38 percent – among voters who said they felt strongly about their candidate. Among those who said they liked their candidate but had reservations, Green won by 66 to 34.
Most significant: Those who said their vote was motivated mainly by dislike for the other candidate went for Green by an astonishing 78 to 22.
Seven out of 10 Ferrer voters said they strongly supported their man; fewer than four in 10 Green voters felt the same way.
Moreover, Green’s ads got the message across on specific issues: The commercials hammered home the theme that Ferrer’s post-Sept. 11 recovery plan was blatantly irresponsible. And those who said their top priority is rebuilding lower Manhattan went for Green by 85 to 15.
The anti-Ferrer barrage was so successful that it convinced fully 80 percent of those who voted for Peter Vallone in the first round to back Green in the second – even though both Vallone and his marquee backer, Ed Koch, endorsed Ferrer.
Meanwhile, it turns out that the key political decision by each candidate had precisely the opposite effect than conventional wisdom had predicted.
Green’s decision to endorse a three-month term extension for Mayor Giuliani – the sole reason cited by Koch for his Ferrer endorsement – helped far more than it hurt. Fewer than three out of 10 voters say Green’s supposed “cave-in” to Giuliani made them less likely to support him.
And those who wanted Giuliani to stay on or even run for a third term – a third of the turnout – went for Green by up to 83 percent.
Meanwhile, Ferrer’s public groveling for the blessing of Al Sharpton cost him – big time. Nearly 40 percent of the voters said Sharpton’s endorsement made them view Ferrer more negatively – and they went for Green by an astounding 9 to 1.
Green, of course, is now the heavy favorite against Mike Bloomberg in an overwhelmingly Democratic city. But don’t count the Republican out entirely – remember, these voters don’t necessarily like Green all that much. And Bloomberg, with his megamillions, can use the airwaves to drive up Green’s negatives as Green just did to Ferrer’s.
But you’ve got to figure that Mark Green is most likely our next mayor – even if he didn’t win the way he’d like.
In fact, Green is probably more than a tad embarrassed about the way he overcame Ferrer’s late primary surge – down and dirty negative politics is not his natural bent.
He shouldn’t be – that’s what politics is all about, especially in this town. And the issues he raised were entirely legitimate: No matter what Hazel Dukes and Ruth Messinger may suggest, there were no cheap shots here.
Let’s hope that Green isn’t so abashed that he feels the need to bend over backward to make people forget those ads. He’s shown that he can speak the language of moderation, even if many voters aren’t sure he really means it.
If Green is to continue his success of last night, he needs to make sure he doesn’t forget it.