I have to partially disagree with my esteemed colleague Howard Fineman. Howard writes that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's surprisingly narrow re-election victory shows that Americans "are still mad at the Big Boys, whether they are in Washington or on Wall Street." He concludes that "this is a warning to the president: you better shake things up—give us real reform—or your presidency may go from coronation to condemnation."

Howard is certainly right that there is a general anti-incumbent, anti-status quo sentiment in the country. The 2006 and 2008 elections were largely about that, and it is indeed possible for the disgust with corporate welfare and public corruption to turn against the Democrats in 2010. That's why Holly Bailey and I have argued before that Democrats in Congress ignore the financial and ethical improprieties of their prominent members at their own peril.

But overall, Hizzoner's narrow escape is not bad news for President Obama. Bill Thompson was the candidate of Obama's party, so his strong showing against Bloomberg can hardly be interpreted as anti-Obama sentiment. Thompson tried to associate himself with Obama: the fliers on my subway stop's steps showed Thompson and Obama shaking hands. And since Thompson, an uninspiring candidate who was outspent almost 10–1, did better than expected, that clearly was not a bad strategy for him. A black Democrat overperforms against a rich white Republican? If you see anything in your 2012 crystal ball because of this, it should not be that this augurs badly for Obama against Mitt Romney or Haley Barbour.

You shouldn't really read too much of anything into the New York mayoral at all, though. New York is always an outlier in American politics. It is overwhelmingly Democratic, and far more diverse than the country as a whole. Republicans always face a structural disadvantage when running for citywide office. Despite all of Bloomberg's millions in campaign spending in 2001, he was set to lose handily to Democrat Mark Green until September 11 canonized Rudy Giuliani and made his subsequent endorsement of Bloomberg all powerful.

Mayors and governors do not often win third terms, and they seldom win fourth ones. Making the hard choices that being an executive requires, especially in a weak economy that constricts budgets, sets most executive officeholders up for political failure. Just ask outgoing New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, who—Matt Bai convincingly argued in The New York Times Magazine—was largely a victim of circumstance. It is especially difficult if you are as uncharismatic as Bloomberg or Corzine. Their lack of affability is probably a more salient common trait between them than their Wall Street backgrounds, in terms of how most voters subconsciously view them.

Then consider that Bloomberg executed an extraordinary power grab to run for reelection, of the sort that gets would-be Latin American despots deposed, when he overruled the twice-expressed will of New York voters to enact and maintain a two-term limit on citywide officials. Despite his largely successful record as mayor, Bloomberg would have been expected to lose under all of these circumstances, were it not for the fact that he was willing to buy City Hall at almost any cost.

Bloomberg spent roughly $100 million and snatched up top Democratic talent, including former staffers for his previous opponents, maybe just so that Thompson could not hire them. Other political leaders who could be expected to support Thompson, such as prominent members of the city's black clergy, were bought off with donations to their charities and churches from Bloomberg's personal fortune. Bloomberg aired copious commercials and inundated New Yorkers with direct mail. His focus on Thompson was relentlessly negative—ironic for a man who professed to deplore politics as usual.

So that was enough to put Bloomberg over the top. But his victory should not be seen as a positive bellwether for Republicans either. His spending advantage is unique. And Bloomberg's record, and political profile, bear almost no resemblance to national Republicans. Bloomberg has governed as a centrist technocrat, appointing numerous veterans of Democratic administrations to key posts. New York's liberal politics means that it is one of the last bastion's of moderate Republicanism. New York State elected pro-choice Republican George Pataki in 1994 to the first of three terms as governor, but it still went for Bill Clinton in 1996. (As Andrew Romano points out, Christie Whitman's contemporaneous victory in neighboring New Jersey did not mean that national Democrats had anything to fear there either.)

Take it from me, a lifelong New Yorker: our politics are just too weird to mean anything nationally.