Yeah... its in the city charter. So it would have to go to a ballot vote. Meaning it couldn't be done before the Mayoral Primary. This is pure grandstanding. Idiots.

Jim Berns has challenged city council to abolish the mayoral primary.

"Let’s see if they can do something as easy and sensible as this," he wrote.

Can the council do that? The voters enacted the primary when voting to directly elect the mayor.

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/07/berns-why-spend-so-much-on-mayoral-primary/

 

Doesn't he realize that this runoff style election is a help to minor parties such as his as well as independents?  What a moronic stance to take as a third party candidate.  I kind of wish this reform would be on the national level.

The Enquirer has an "in-depth" piece about there being no black candidate for mayor:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130211/NEWS010601/302110027

 

I wonder if there is a popular sentiment in the black community that there should be a black candidate, or if this is like Fox News and their famous "some people are saying..." tactic, to race-bait and stir controversy. If it is a common sentiment, the paper certainly didn't do the argument justice with their selection of vague quotes missing context.

 

I am fairly happy with the racial mix in city government. (Maybe having a Latino on board would help with immigrant outreach? When was the last time an Asian was on council?) I don't think it does anyone much good to run a black candidate just "because there should be one." After Qualls' 8 years, I wouldn't mind watching Yvette Simpson crush Smitherman in an all-black election. :)

I thought Sandra Queen Noble was going to run. The article ignored Berns who is the only real candidate at this point.

I wonder if there is a popular sentiment in the black community that there should be a black candidate, or if this is like Fox News and their famous "some people are saying..." tactic, to race-bait and stir controversy. If it is a common sentiment, the paper certainly didn't do the argument justice with their selection of vague quotes missing context.

 

It's the Fox News tactic.

^ Couple of things:

 

(1) Cranley isn't going to win. He's already losing some important corporate support because people realize there is nothing there.

 

i'm close friends to several people who are part of the campaign team for roxanne.  Even they don't believe there is no way she loses. Its going to be a very tight race.  No one should assume roxanne is invincible. 

 

(2) Even if he did win, he can't stop it. We've signed a contract with the Feds and won a jointly-directed TIGR grant from DOT, EPA and HUD. So if Cincinnati wants to apply for another grant in the next three years that any of those departments has anything to do with, he won't stop the project.

 

He absolutely can stop it.  He could decide that losing any future grant is "worth the savings by killing this project that will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to operate for the next several decades." Obviously a foolish position but the guy would do it if he thought it was politically advantageous. If he is elected he CANNOT let the project go forward.  Because if it does and works he will have to explain why he is still against it in a second term, his ideologically opposed conservative big money backers will demand it, etc.  By december we will have a frame up for the maintenance building and some track ordered and more utilities moved, etc.  that's likely all.  It could still be cancelled, but he can't cancel it himself. He would need 5 (though more likely 6) councilmembers.  There is a small chance he plays the "it only is working now because I came in and saved it from being a failure" card, but trust me.  If he can stop it in December he would. 

 

Streetcar supporters have been saying for 3 years "yay we got there and passed that hurdle! now it'll be built and there's no way to stop it". many many many people said that exact same thing last february.  We have since had 2 different votes that could have killed the project.  one wrong Elected official and it could have been dead ($15 million more in blue ash money for Duke deal which is only reason why they are working and $17.4 million for bid.).  Subway supporters in 1915 probably thought when they started construction of the tunnels the project was good to go.  They were wrong.  This isn't done until it's operating.

 

(3) We'll complete a construction contract tomorrow that will make the $72 million breakup charge that the City Manager estimated on April 29th much, much larger.

 

I think as Cincinnatians come to understand this, Cranley will seem like he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

i hope that last part is true.

Cranley could stop it if he wins, but he's not going to be king.  He would need the backing and votes of a majority of Council. I agree that we can't rest on our laurels, this is going to be a tough election.

 

Cranley is not getting elected.  Too many people like Qualls whether she supports the streetcar or not.  The Streetcar is happening, so let's enjoy watching it happen instead of wondering if a novice politician can defeat one of the City's most experienced.

I wish I was as confident about the Qualls victory as you guys.  Trust me, it's going to be very very close, and he is going to have a ton more money to spend. 

Cranley is not getting elected.  Too many people like Qualls whether she supports the streetcar or not.  The Streetcar is happening, so let's enjoy watching it happen instead of wondering if a novice politician can defeat one of the City's most experienced.

 

What?? How old are you. Cranley was on council for 8 years, top vote getter in 2005 and second to Roxanne by only 3 votes in 2007. At what point does someone stop being novice?  Only Winburn and Roxanne have served longer.

He also ran as a liberal for all his past elections. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention will notice he's basically the GOP candidate here.

>second to Roxanne by only 3 votes in 2007

 

Except people can't vote for both in the mayoral election. 

 

 

>Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention

 

Well the media isn't.  Not a peep about:

 

1. Cranley's inability to diffuse the crowd that left council chambers and motivated the 2001 riot 

2. Cranley's raiding of the city pension fund to the tune of $50 million

3. Cranley spent the pension fund money even as the pension fund trustees sued the city to have it reinvested in the pension fund

4. Pension fund trustee's office was ransacked

5. Cranley's hiring of 100 additional police officers while refusing to raise the property tax to pay for them, creating an artificial financial crisis

6. Cranley's $750,000 payout to his own development project

7. Speculation that Cranley has returned to politics in order to get out from under that failed project

8. Continues to advertise himself as a folksy west sider, despite having 2 degrees from Harvard and living in a $500,000 home on the east side

 

 

 

4. Pension fund trustee's office was ransacked

 

I don't recall this.

Side note: Do you think Cranley & Friends came out with their anti-parking lease campaign today because they knew the streetcar news was coming out today? And they realize that there is really nothing they can do at this point to stop it?

>Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention

 

Well the media isn't.  Not a peep about:

 

1. Cranley's inability to diffuse the crowd that left council chambers and motivated the 2001 riot 

2. Cranley's raiding of the city pension fund to the tune of $50 million

3. Cranley spent the pension fund money even as the pension fund trustees sued the city to have it reinvested in the pension fund

4. Pension fund trustee's office was ransacked

5. Cranley's hiring of 100 additional police officers while refusing to raise the property tax to pay for them, creating an artificial financial crisis

6. Cranley's $750,000 payout to his own development project

7. Speculation that Cranley has returned to politics in order to get out from under that failed project

8. Continues to advertise himself as a folksy west sider, despite having 2 degrees from Harvard and living in a $500,000 home on the east side

 

I only vaguely recollect the details of these events myself.  If you're not already working on it, some sort of article that details each of these points and cites sources (when available) would make for great reading in mid-to-late October.

I only vaguely recollect the details of these events myself.  If you're not already working on it, some sort of article that details each of these points and cites sources (when available) would make for great reading in mid-to-late October.

The video of Cranky losing control of his committee meeting is on YouTube.

Cranley is not getting elected.  Too many people like Qualls whether she supports the streetcar or not.  The Streetcar is happening, so let's enjoy watching it happen instead of wondering if a novice politician can defeat one of the City's most experienced.

 

What?? How old are you. Cranley was on council for 8 years, top vote getter in 2005 and second to Roxanne by only 3 votes in 2007. At what point does someone stop being novice?  Only Winburn and Roxanne have served longer.

 

Old enough to know the difference between being in office and working towards goals.  The amount of years a politician has sat does not solely determine their value.  Remember Jean Schmidt? 

 

The suave to manage themselves is what makes them a master politician, or at least a competent one.  Those with the skill to present themselves as who they are, true or false, can survive political defeat and regain office again.  Where is Cranley's political career after he loses by four points to Qualls?

 

Your example is bad, too.  Winburn wouldn't get elected in a bunch of towns with the garbage campaigns he puts together.  Maybe it's because Cincinnati expects their council to be clowncil so he fits the mold, but he is a terrible tactician and most of his ideas fall on ears that can't support him politically or financially.

This has been mention recently so I thought I'd dig around.

 

The city of Cincinnati received $50 million back in 2003(or so), their proceeds from Anthem going public(?). It was viewed as quite a windfall and there were lots of discussion on what to do with it.

 

Did Cranley take the lead? I want to guess most of it was spent on neighborhood projects, but is was divided up in a way that each project was relatively small and hence ineffective.

 

Below is all I can find on UO after a quick search.

 

=============================

Quote from: UncleRando on September 26, 2006, 10:24:20 AM

City loan to fix up Glenway Avenue

 

Council member John Cranley, a Price Hill resident who is running against Steve Chabot for Congress, championed the idea. The city would loan the money out of its Anthem Insurance account - a $50 million windfall the city received in 2003 by selling stocks of the insurance company when it transitioned to a for-profit company.

 

"Most of that Anthem cash is gone, but there's still about $3 million left in the bank. Council wants to loan that money to neighborhoods and allow them to pay it back with Tax Increment Financing - a strategy by which taxing districts can borrow money based on future tax revenue that would result from improvements. Price Hill's TIF district along Glenway is 300 acres.

 

E-mail [email protected]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060926/NEWS01/609260376/10

 

===========================

The bit about the Anthem windfall is what I find the most interesting. So it looks like the city has spent $47 million. Where did it all go? I sent an email to writer asking if he could do an accounting of these monies. I have a feeling it won't be pretty. If it went to places like the West End Counsel, it pretty much got pissed away. I hope I'm wrong.

 

Read more: http://urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,333.1050.html#ixzz2Z94zGdnE

>4. Pension fund trustee's office was ransacked

 

Ahem:

http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/ryder-v-city-of-cincinnati-20169573

 

http://enquirer.com/editions/2003/05/13/loc_ryder13.html

 

 

 

Qualls announces endorsements

 

The Cincinnati Women’s Political Caucus

EMILY’s List

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 212

Laborers Local 265

Carpenters Local 2

Ironworkers Local 44

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/07/16/six-groups-endorse-qualls-for-mayor.html

 

4. I don't see this as a bad deal and neither does the City Manager and by the sound of things, the Mayor and future Mayor don't either.

 

 

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.

2-1 against?  Interesting I had not seen that poll.

^^Once again, I suspect that the percentages will play out similarly to the Pepper-Mallory race, but Qualls wins in November with three points more than Mallory in 2005.

Berns on Drug Truth Network

3 minutes

http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/4430

^^Once again, I suspect that the percentages will play out similarly to the Pepper-Mallory race, but Qualls wins in November with three points more than Mallory in 2005.

 

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.

^Well, my analysis is based on the idea that the basic political division you see in the nation ends up playing itself out on the local level, even if the candidates end up being members of the same party.  Point 1 is simply wrong: Pepper polled 13,321 votes in the primary whereas Mallory polled 13,106; the next closest candidate was Winburn, who polled 8,976 votes.  Point 2 and your proceeding sentence implied that black voters naturally vote for black candidates- this presumption is highly questionable (good example is 2010 Alabama gubernatorial  primary where the black candidate, who took a more conservative position in the primary to position himself for the general, got crushed by the more liberal white candidate); even so, it's an absolute fact that black voters vote for white candidates more frequently than white voters vote for black candidates, simply because there are far more white candidates running for offices.  Those Winburn votes were just as likely to go to Pepper as to Mallory.

 

Point 3 implies that local election fundraising is based on momentum, once again, a highly questionable position for which you've offered no facts to support.  It seems to me that local political fundraising is based far more on the candidate's personal set of contacts than anything else.  In addition, city council campaigns talk about momentum in terms of fundraising, as there is no primary or any other objective metric to use as a basis of comparison before the election.  And fundraising prowess translating into votes is mitigated by party affiliation and candidate profile (e.g., Wayne Lippert raised a lot of money but got crushed because he was of the wrong party and was relatively young), which is precisely my point about there being two relatively stable groups of voters in the City.

 

Finally, Point 4 is a conclusory statement for which you again offer no proof.

 

Once again, my thesis is that there are two rather stable groups of voters in the City, which follow the general nation-wide trend of liberal/conservative (even if those terms don't truly apply for local races, they work as a stand in that basically gets the point across), and that trend will play out in this election as well.  Here is the data:

 

2009: Mallory (liberal) 38,645 v. Wenstrup (conserv.) 32,424

2005: Mallory (liberal) 36,200 v. Pepper (conserv.) 33,664

2001: Luken (conser) 47,755 v. Fuller (38,494)

 

Basically 2005 is the tipping point for general liberal dominance in Cincinnati elections.  But that doesn't mean you don't have to work every election!

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.

I can see that.

Dunno how successful Ctanley's last TV ad was. A number of media outlets panned it - who knows what effect it had on the rubes...

If you just keep throwing crap, some of it is going to stick & Cranky has quite an arsenal.

^^It seems like you're basing you're expected outcome on what you fear will happen.  That's really a strange notion.

 

Most local elections aren't decided around local issues.  Local politicians would LOVE IT if they were.  But the fact is voters generally aren't paying a ton of attention (understandably so), and so those sorts of contests end up being contested around personality and higher ballot (read state & federal) issues.

 

Once again, local fundraising doesn't move the way you're implying.  The guys giving Cranley money aren't going to give any to Qualls regardless, and she's probably not even going after it.

 

Finally, Cranley is trying to paint Qualls as the incumbent and himself as the outsider.  It's a questionable position for him to take; he's obviously just as much of an insider as she is, and if you presume that voters pay attention to these sorts of things then you might want to ask yourself why you presume that the majority of voters fall for misrepresentations that you don't.  I'm not trying to be a dick; it really sounds to me like your opinion is based on the idea that you've got some insight that the majority of voters simply can't get.  I think that is a dangerous presupposition to have in any field of analysis.

^^It seems like you're basing you're expected outcome on what you fear will happen.  That's really a strange notion.

 

Most local elections aren't decided around local issues.  Local politicians would LOVE IT if they were.  But the fact is voters generally aren't paying a ton of attention (understandably so), and so those sorts of contests end up being contested around personality and higher ballot (read state & federal) issues.

 

Once again, local fundraising doesn't move the way you're implying.  The guys giving Cranley money aren't going to give any to Qualls regardless, and she's probably not even going after it.

 

Finally, Cranley is trying to paint Qualls as the incumbent and himself as the outsider.  It's a questionable position for him to take; he's obviously just as much of an insider as she is, and if you presume that voters pay attention to these sorts of things then you might want to ask yourself why you presume that the majority of voters fall for misrepresentations that you don't.  I'm not trying to be a dick; it really sounds to me like your opinion is based on the idea that you've got some insight that the majority of voters simply can't get.  I think that is a dangerous presupposition to have in any field of analysis.

 

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. 

Everyone already knows Cranley's gameplan. Attack Qualls on:

 

-Streetcar

-Parking Plan

-Pension

-All 52 neighborhoods

 

Via Enquirer, 700wlw, 55krc...

 

Qualls will have all the rebuttals ready for the big debates.  I think Cranley has tipped his hand too much already and Qualls is saving her best stuff for later. 

 

That said, I believe this will be a tight race.  Word on the street is if Cranley wins, Smitherman will be Vice Mayor....That right there is enough for me to vote for Qualls

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.

 

Maybe I didn't make this clear, but my point was that local issues don't effect local races at all, ever.  The only issues that effect local races are up-ballot issues that have a down-ballot effect on the local races.  If it's just a local election, like this year, "issues" aren't going to matter, at least because you can't boil them down and remove them from candidate personality/likeability or voter demographic profile tendencies.  For example, the typical anti-streetcar voter isn't voting simply on that issue, they also are the typical Republican or anti-liberal voter.  In fact, the only identifiable issue voter in this election is the pro-streetcar voter.

 

Once again, local politicians would love it if getting behind an issue meant they could guarantee votes.  But that's not the case.  In reality, it's all about how much advertising you can throw up on TV.  Why do you think PG did so well his first attempt?  It certainly wasn't because he could be identified with any particular issue.

 

The reason why the TV advertising rules all won't matter in this race is because the candidates are so well known.  Pepper vastly outspent Mallory in 2005 and Pepper is a far more likeable candidate than Cranley in any race.  The liberal/conservative demographic is what decides this.

The liberal/conservative demographic is what decides this.

 

But that's not the whole story. Cincinnati really has 3 distinct voting groups: conservatives, white liberals, african americans. If we assume Cranley gets the vast majority of conservatives, and Qualls gets the vast majority of white liberals, then it will come down to whomever can capture the larger percentage of the african american vote. One thing going for Cranley is that he will probably capture a larger percentage of the white liberal vote than Qualls will of the conservative vote. On the other hand, I've always understood Qualls to have a pretty solid relationship with the African American community, and that has translated into votes for her in the past.

Everyone already knows Cranley's gameplan. Attack Qualls on:

 

-Streetcar

-Parking Plan

-Pension

-All 52 neighborhoods

 

Via Enquirer, 700wlw, 55krc...

 

Qualls will have all the rebuttals ready for the big debates.  I think Cranley has tipped his hand too much already and Qualls is saving her best stuff for later. 

 

That said, I believe this will be a tight race.  Word on the street is if Cranley wins, Smitherman will be Vice Mayor....That right there is enough for me to vote for Qualls

 

Qualls is a horrible debater. The Qualls campaign needs every dollar they can raise and every volunteer they can muster. This will be tough.

The liberal/conservative demographic is what decides this.

 

But that's not the whole story. Cincinnati really has 3 distinct voting groups: conservatives, white liberals, african americans. If we assume Cranley gets the vast majority of conservatives, and Qualls gets the vast majority of white liberals, then it will come down to whomever can capture the larger percentage of the african american vote. One thing going for Cranley is that he will probably capture a larger percentage of the white liberal vote than Qualls will of the conservative vote. On the other hand, I've always understood Qualls to have a pretty solid relationship with the African American community, and that has translated into votes for her in the past.

 

 

This is all very correct. However: Cranley has hired several formerly prominent African American local leaders (Laketa Cole, etc) and is really working hard in the African American community. Because that's the only way he wins. The African American population will likely decide the race but there are other factors. Conservatives should expect a surprisingly decent turnout, especially after the lack of conservative turnout in 2011, due to the fact that there is a conservative candidate on the ballot who has a viable chance at becoming mayor For the first time in eight years. Turnout is why the GOP won in 2010, lost in 2012 and why SB5 lost in 2011. Turnout by voting group varies election to election for a myriad of factors. Talking about parking constantly in the media is an attempt to rally the conservative base to boost turnout.

Maybe I didn't make this clear, but my point was that local issues don't effect local races at all, ever. 

 

Really? You really believe that?  Well, OK, then.

 

::drops mic, walks off::

For poops & grins, here's a chart of council endorsements from 2011

Qualls was not endorsed by the NAATP nor by the Herald, altho the Herald did endorse Murray.

Anyway, half the population of the city is hardly a "community" that would vote in a block.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq6YmAeVa1HZdEJfTV96SXVkQmlJUDVMemxqM2JWeWc#gid=0

Any idea on who Roxanne would pick as Vice-Mayor if she is elected in November? We've already heard rumors that Cranley would appoint *shudders* Smitherman if he is elected Mayor. I assume it would be a current councilmember and not someone new to council.

 

I can pretty much rule out Sittenfeld, Winburn, and Smitherman because they are constantly at odds with each other. I also highly doubt Pamula Thomas would be selected since she was just appointed and will be serving her first full term if reelected.

 

That leaves incumbents of Seelbach, Quinlivan, Young, and Simpson. My gut would be Quinlivan, Young, or Simpson.

 

Of those three, I don't think Quinlivan will be seeking higher office (like mayor), and I think Qualls would prefer to give it to someone who might aspire to be mayor after her. That leaves Wendell Young and Yvette Simpson as my top two guesses for Vice-Mayor in a Qualls administration. I think they both have the ability to do it and I would be happy with either, personally.

^ I really like Simpson, and I think Qualls has already sort of taken her under her wing. She seems really bright and committed to progressive causes. Almost like a younger, blacker Qualls, LOL.

 

Not that Young would be a bad choice.

Any idea on who Roxanne would pick as Vice-Mayor if she is elected in November? We've already heard rumors that Cranley would appoint *shudders* Smitherman if he is elected Mayor. I assume it would be a current councilmember and not someone new to council.

 

I can pretty much rule out Sittenfeld, Winburn, and Smitherman because they are constantly at odds with each other. I also highly doubt Pamula Thomas would be selected since she was just appointed and will be serving her first full term if reelected.

 

That leaves incumbents of Seelbach, Quinlivan, Young, and Simpson. My gut would be Quinlivan, Young, or Simpson.

 

Of those three, I don't think Quinlivan will be seeking higher office (like mayor), and I think Qualls would prefer to give it to someone who might aspire to be mayor after her. That leaves Wendell Young and Yvette Simpson as my top two guesses for Vice-Mayor in a Qualls administration. I think they both have the ability to do it and I would be happy with either, personally.

 

I've heard Yvette Simpson(Just rumors)

 

Can the race for mayor have 3 candidates on the official ballot or does it have to be narrowed to 2?  If Berns is still on the ballot, I imagine that he would draw some conservative votes away from Cranley

 

Berns: Libertarian

Cranley: Democrat

Qualls: Charterite

...like a younger, blacker Qualls...

 

Funniest shit I've read today.

 

But also so true. I've met her a few times. She is the nicest, most genuine person.

Can the race for mayor have 3 candidates on the official ballot or does it have to be narrowed to 2?  If Berns is still on the ballot, I imagine that he would draw some conservative votes away from Cranley

The primary gets it down to 2

The primary will pit Berns, Noble, Cranley & Qualls against onee another. The Republican didn't get enough signatures.

CO    is currently backing Berns.

Can the race for mayor have 3 candidates on the official ballot or does it have to be narrowed to 2?

 

I believe the mayoral election requires only 2 candidates after the primary. If only two candidates run, there is no primary (like 2009). If 3+ run, the top two vote-getters face off in the November election regardless of how close the 3rd place candidate is. In event of a tie for second, I imagine all three candidates would advance to the November ballot (though lawsuits would probably be filed to eliminate the opposing 2nd place candidate on both sides and it would likely get really messy because they both know they wouldn't win without the other out of the race).

Can the race for mayor have 3 candidates on the official ballot or does it have to be narrowed to 2?  If Berns is still on the ballot, I imagine that he would draw some conservative votes away from Cranley

 

Berns: Libertarian

Cranley: Democrat

Qualls: Charterite

 

The primary will narrow the election down to two candidates.

 

On a side note, how will party line voters vote? I'd imagine Republicans might vote Qualls just because she is (technically) a third party candidate.  Cranley may be trying to appeal to conservatives, but he is still a Democrat.

^ Qualls is a Democrat. No Republican thinks she isn't. Whether Charter will endorse her for mayor remains to be seen.

Can the race for mayor have 3 candidates on the official ballot or does it have to be narrowed to 2?  If Berns is still on the ballot, I imagine that he would draw some conservative votes away from Cranley

 

Berns: Libertarian

Cranley: Democrat

Qualls: Charterite

 

The primary will narrow the election down to two candidates.

 

On a side note, how will party line voters vote? I'd imagine Republicans might vote Qualls just because she is (technically) a third party candidate.  Cranley may be trying to appeal to conservatives, but he is still a Democrat.

 

GOP(Triantiflou I believe) has said publicly they are backing Berns, but when he's out of the race they will go to Cranley.  Cranley has pandered to them tremendously over the last 3 months and gone to numerous GOP fundraisers in Indian Hill, Hyde Park, etc. 

 

Kudos to Cranley on his political strategy so far.  I don't think he'd be a great mayor by any means but He's playing the game.  He's pandering to:

 

- GOP/tea party/COAST with parking plan/streetcar opposition

- 700wlw/55krc crowd with regular appearances

- Smitherman and him are using the NAACP to get out the African American vote

 

Now what he's trying to do is shore up his democratic base

 

Roxanne knows his gameplan.  If she really is as bad of a debater as someone said on here, it could be tough.  There is a ton of information out there that can really damage Cranley she can use, but will she use it effectively?

I've only heard her debate once, and it was a debate about the streetcar against Mark Miller. She definitely won the debate and helped shape my views on the streetcar before I really had much of an opinion on it in 2009. I think she is a strong debater from what I saw, but she isn't as aggressive outside of debating, which Cranley is doing well right now with ads and media attention.

Berns was on 55KRC at 7AM Tuesday and went after Cranley more so than Qualls. His main rant:

 

"...Brian, you know I'm here to contrast myself from the other council candidates, especially John Cranley. As late as 2007 when he was on the finance committee, he signed off on money to continue the streetcar project. John Cranley only became a fiscal conservative a couple years ago when he decided to run for Cincinnati City Council (I believe he meant Mayor). He's been really bad on gun right issues. And he makes his living by selling bonds to the cites. That's borrowing money. I think he does not have the resume which would indicate that he is a fiscal conservative and going to take the city in the direction of a leaner meaner City of Cincinnati".

 

He also mentioned that Cranley was in support of creating the Port Authority, which without it, we wouldn't have the parking lease lease "biting us in the ass".

 

Interestingly enough, Berns gives out his personal mobile number out at the end.

GOP(Triantiflou I believe) has said publicly they are backing Berns

 

I doubt that. If a party wants to "back" a candidate, they endorse the candidate.

CO    said they were going to endorse Berns.