Harwell Scrabblepound

Unfortunately, she's demonstrably wrong on the point she's fighting back on. The annual payments of the lease ARE capped at a max lifetime total of $105M like Cranley said. The language in the lease is perfectly clear on that point.

Quinlivan has been jonesing to cut police and fire for YEARS, unlike Simpson and Seelbach. How could you possibly miss that?

No, because transit isn't the number 1 issue for the majority of voters. He could get elected for any number of reasons. A vote for a candidate isn't an endorsement for 100% of their opinions/platform. Again, just to play Devil's Advocate: To John and Jane Q. Public, aren't the only real two issues in the race the streetcar and the parking plan? If so, it would seem difficult to argue a Cranley win isn't a rejection of the streetcar.

If he gets elected with that promise then doesn't that mean the public wants/is cool with killing it? /Devil's advocate

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kIbEj1CIpuU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/05/new-cranley-ad-fires-back-at-qualls/ And it begins, Cranley has now tarred her as the one with false ads. Such an obvious and predictable response, as I noted above. Good job ceding the moral high ground and one of your better arguments.

Um, no, this ad is pretty offensive and blatantly distorts the facts. That ad has pissed a lot of people off, no matter how emotionally satisfying it is to those of us who support Roxanne. Literally snatching money from a baby's hands? Having a dog pee on Cranley's sign? That's just juvenile and amateur. It also rings hollow when the main thrust of our campaign is how Cranley is dishonest. Well, you just torpedoed that argument, because the chair of the ethics committee called it a 'cheap shot' three YEARS before you ran the damn ad. This is some Mickey Mouse bullshit and it has and will cost Roxanne votes. It's also timed piss-poorly, why the fuck would you run this before the primary? And less than a week before it, at that? This isn't going to turn voters out, and those voting in the primary probably are set in their decision before they enter the poll booth. This is just pathetically amateur with no strategy or tactic backing it up.

I think going negative is risky for Qualls. She has built up a reputation over many years by playing clean and being above the fray. Yeah, the ad is NOT going over well with the softly engaged voters on my facebook timeline, the vast majority of whom would otherwise be predisposed to vote for Qualls.

Don't forget Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston, Andrew Johnson, FDR, etc.. Christ, our ENTIRE country was stolen from other peoples and their cultures were effectively purged from local history and the landscape. Also, hyperventilating and comparing opponents to Stalin and Mao isn't going to win over many people. It's just shameless rhetoric masquerading as an argument.

OK, did he do what they asked? Or did they just ask? Did he reply to them? Just curious, cause I have no idea.

Actually it had more to do with the Gettler family (big Republicans) owning the bus company. The city only passed a tax (and the county had it on the ballot) to bail the Gettlers out when they ran it into the ground and preserve bus transit for those who rely on it. Basically city/county didn't want to compete, but then were forced to take it over when the "free market" destroyed public transit. I suspect this is also why we never jumped on the light rail band wagon back in the 1960/70s. Oddly enough, Tom Luken was a big opponent of Gettler and actually fought to make the system more accessible.

Really? You really believe that? Well, OK, then. ::drops mic, walks off::

It doesn't reduce the value of the labor, it merely increases the efficiency of that labor. If capital would actually share the productivity gains instead of hoarding it we could probably have something approaching a post-scarcity economy within a century. They misperceive surplus labor as worthless, when really it is surplus and untapped wealth. /Anyway, this is a pretty big thread-jack since there are no Communist or Socialist candidates for Council

You know, back when people weren't a disposable commodity.

Relevant: http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/gov-detroit-streetcar-moving-forward.html Streetcar is so enticing that private enterprise is chipping in to get it built in Detroit.

Seriously, you must have never worked in politics because your post is suffused with bromides that miss the nuances of this race. There are NO state/federal issues on the ballot this year! Ergo, they logically CANNOT affect this race. Therefore, local issues will affect this race. Moreover, you're overlooking the fact that Cincy races rarely are affected by such state or federal issues because they are in odd numbered years. Senate Bill 5 in 2011 was by far the exception. Consequently, voters in Cincinnati elections generally are full of HIGH information voters compared to your typical election. Also, I didn't say fundraising was going to shift, rather that few would give to Qualls, while Cranley can go double-up from his original supporters post-primary due to how election law works. Which means Cranley will have the cash to bash her on TV, while Qualls won't be able to keep up. But, anyway, time will tell whether I'm off my nut or not.

The nice thing about debating elections is there are clear winners and losers. Let's check up on this debate come the day after the (general) election and see which theory is supported by results. EDIT: For the record, I predict that Cranley will beat Qualls in the primary by 1-2 points then beat her in the general by 4-6. Main driving factor will be the parking lease in the primary. Post-primary Cranley will double-up his fundraising and play TV, while no one wants to offend the heir-apparent so Qualls' fundraising dries up and has very little TV. This is not my preferred outcome, but it is what I think WILL happen bar some huge change.

Exceptionally unlikely, as the 2005 primary had three strong black candidates and Pepper. As you would expect, post-primary the support of the other two black candidates largely lined up behind the remaining black candidate: Mallory. There will be no similar dynamic in play this time for a variety of reasons: 1. only two credible candidates, 2. no legitimate black candidate, 3. fundraising and other support will wilt for the candidate who loses the primary because it was already head-to-head, 4. Qualls' organizational capacity is inferior to Mallory's in 2005 and much weaker than Cranley at present. This election is very touch and go, and I expect whomever wins the primary will win the general.

Talk to me in two months when Cranley hands Qualls her ass in the primary due in large part to the parking lease. Fact of the matter is Qualls is the better candidate, but this issue is at least 2-1 against in the city and that is destroying her support right now. Maybe I'm wrong, but time will tell.

Because even a broken clock is right twice a day?

It's a bad deal for the city. Port is presently just a pass-through entity that gets a small annual payment. Better something than nothing. But as Marmer, the vice chair of the port board, pointed out: the city is over the barrel, why can't we extract more value from them? I.e. make the deal worse for the city and better for the port. From the perspective of the public, if it's bad for the city then it is bad for the public. The port getting $300K per annum isn't going to make much of a difference.

1. The Port thinks it's a shitty deal for the city. 2. The Port is trying to go forward with the deal while making it shittier for the city. 3. These backroom machinations are undercutting the credibility of the city. 4. Despite being a terrible deal, the good leaders won't back away from it and are giving excessive ammunition to bad politicians. Stop the unforced errors! 5. Literally every other city that has done a parking deal has been bent over and rammed six ways from Sunday. 6. Every city that has done due diligence has refused to go forward. See NYC. 7. I have no confidence the city will be the exception. 8. The people of the city are overwhelming against the deal. It's getting pretty hard to apply Hanlon's razor and come to the conclusion this deal is the simple result of idiocy rather than malicious intent.

Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure. http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/Port-Authority-wants-27M-from-Cincinnatis-parking-lease

Maybe, but she does say "step-back" and re-assess in the memo, I read that as slowing down or at least requiring it. http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/14/read-qualls-streetcar-memo/

What a god-awful abortion of a response. We got to cut costs, but, at the same time, accelerate the schedule so it's open 6-8 months earlier than currently planned so we have it for the ASG. But first let's slow-down to figure out how. Just terrible, flat terrible. This is shaping up to be like '98 when she got wiped by non-entity Chabot.