Qualls hits the little screen

Seems like a reasonable strategy. She's staying positive, while debunking Cranley's charges that she doesn't care about the neighborhoods outside Greater Downtown. She won't be winning any parochial-school-attending west side families with her emphasis on preschool programs, but they're in Cranley's column regardless.

Has everyone on here already voted? If Qualls wins the primary by 5-8 points Cranley loses a ton of support.

Here we go!

 

Roxanne takes off the gloves!

 

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/04/qualls-ad-cranley-left-public-service-for-ethics-reasons/

 

Luken comes to the rescue in the comments to try and save cranley

Get out and vote, people.  I did my duty at the BOE today

I thought she would be taking the high road the whole campaign. Guess not. Well, there's plenty of ammunition for her to draw from.

Has everyone on here already voted? If Qualls wins the primary by 5-8 points Cranley loses a ton of support.

 

How do I vote in the primary? 

Has everyone on here already voted? If Qualls wins the primary by 5-8 points Cranley loses a ton of support.

 

How do I vote in the primary?

 

Stop by the Hamilton County BOE. Office Hours for Voting In-Person Monday-Friday, August 6th- September 9th, 8am-4pm; Extended Hours: Monday, August 12th, 8am-9pm, and Saturday, September 7th, 8am-noon.

 

Or wait until Election Day, Tuesday September 10th and go to your local polling location.

Another question.  Is it clear who is in the lead?  Is there any polling data?

(I apologize if this is a dumb question) 

 

But I plan on voting in the primary this coming Saturday, does that count in my vote during the general election as well? Or do I then vote again in November?

 

thanks!

To my knowledge the only poll done has been done by Cranley's team. It showed the race as a dead heat, though I believe he refused to release specifics about how the poll was administered, so it could be skewed.

hoerstw, the vote in November is the important one but, yes, you are supposed to vote twice. September will just eliminate Berns & Noble.

 

In the last financial reports, Qualls appeared to have more donors even tho Canley had more money.

I thought she would be taking the high road the whole campaign. Guess not. Well, there's plenty of ammunition for her to draw from.

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.

I thought she would be taking the high road the whole campaign. Guess not. Well, there's plenty of ammunition for her to draw from.

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.

The ad is lighthearted, Qualls' image, voice & logo are not in the ad.

The ad is lighthearted

 

The Cranley stand-in LITERALLY steals money out of a baby's hand. That is hardcore.

I thought she would be taking the high road the whole campaign. Guess not. Well, there's plenty of ammunition for her to draw from.

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, that's why I am surprised by it. I though she'd rely on proxies to make the case against Cranley, and keep her own hands clean and focused on the case for Qualls.

 

The ad is lighthearted

 

The Cranley stand-in LITERALLY steals money out of a baby's hand. That is hardcore.

 

It's obviously a joke, but it definitely is a powerful image. I'm sure some people will just think it's funny, light-hearted, and entertaining, while others will be left going "oh no she didn't!" Part of why, as JSkinner said, it's risky.

 

Could this be the start of a rough-and-tumble battle? Cranley's been negative from day 1, but now that Qualls stepped into the mud pit things could get pretty ugly.

No one else was going to run an ad against Cranley.  If people wanted it, she had to do it herself. 

I thought she would be taking the high road the whole campaign. Guess not. Well, there's plenty of ammunition for her to draw from.

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.

If she wants John cranley to win the election then by all means sit back, let cranley continue to control the message,and be the nice candidate above the fray

 

The people "upset" are likely cranley voters to begin with.

 

Shifting the attention from cranleys outrageous claims on the pension, parking and streetcar to his own less than stellar record is a good gameplan

 

That said, cranley signs are EVERYWHERE in Hyde park and mt lookout.

Heard a Berns ad on the radio this morning.  Yawn. 

If she wants John cranley to win the election then by all means sit back, let cranley continue to control the message,and be the nice candidate above the fray

 

The people "upset" are likely cranley voters to begin with.

 

Shifting the attention from cranleys outrageous claims on the pension, parking and streetcar to his own less than stellar record is a good gameplan

 

That said, cranley signs are EVERYWHERE in Hyde park and mt lookout.

 

Probably the same dolts that had PG-13 signs everywhere (and probably will again). People in those neighborhoods love voting for candidates with the biggest wallets for some reason.

Because they've dealt with them in person. Just like every other city in Ohio, Cincinnati is just a big small town.

If she wants John cranley to win the election then by all means sit back, let cranley continue to control the message,and be the nice candidate above the fray

 

The people "upset" are likely cranley voters to begin with.

 

Shifting the attention from cranleys outrageous claims on the pension, parking and streetcar to his own less than stellar record is a good gameplan

 

That said, cranley signs are EVERYWHERE in Hyde park and mt lookout.

 

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.

If she wants John cranley to win the election then by all means sit back, let cranley continue to control the message,and be the nice candidate above the fray

 

The people "upset" are likely cranley voters to begin with.

 

Shifting the attention from cranleys outrageous claims on the pension, parking and streetcar to his own less than stellar record is a good gameplan

 

That said, cranley signs are EVERYWHERE in Hyde park and mt lookout.

 

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 bullsh!t and it has and will cost Roxanne votes.  It's also timed piss-poorly, why the f$&k 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 disagree. Politics is a dirty game.  The mayoral race was bound to get ugly anyways

 

For the small amount of people it turns off(Who were probably voting Cranley anyways), it also fires up her base.  She has been quiet for the last 2 months and letting Cranley dictate where the debate goes.  She's sat back and let him spout off hyperbole time and time again.  Now he is on the defensive. 

 

 

Chabot beat both Cranley and Qualls with these sort of ads.

 

Obama had some 'offensive' ads and won. 

 

Every politician does it.  Some win, some lose.  To not go after your opponent and take the 'high ground' in a highly contested election is political suicide.  Especially when he's attacking you and misrepresenting you everyday .

 

Derek Bauman put it best:

 

"Comical that none of the pro-Cranley commenters here can point out even one aspect of the ad that is not true. Because it is true. Check the sources that are listed on the youtube page: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B528kPCnbni4Qk9iY1ZPM2J5VW8/edit?pli=1"

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. 

As someone on the fence, I’d say the Qualls ad comes off “dirtier” if that matters, but has substance - it’s based on what I always thought was a pretty crappy move by Cranley.  Resigning from elected office to take a cash hand out doesn’t exactly scream of integrity, it always seemed to me like he was putting his personal gain ahead of his responsibility to his electorate. The Cranley ad just seems like a whiny response.

Cranley has 3 ads - all negative, Qualls has 2 ads - one negative.

Hers is, at least, amusing.

She could have used a dwarf...

If she wants John cranley to win the election then by all means sit back, let cranley continue to control the message,and be the nice candidate above the fray

 

The people "upset" are likely cranley voters to begin with.

 

Shifting the attention from cranleys outrageous claims on the pension, parking and streetcar to his own less than stellar record is a good gameplan

 

That said, cranley signs are EVERYWHERE in Hyde park and mt lookout.

 

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 bullsh!t and it has and will cost Roxanne votes.  It's also timed piss-poorly, why the f$&k 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.

 

Sorry, but the Qualls ad does not offend me at all.  As a Q supporter, it fires me up.  I feel like my candidate has some fight in her.  I was beginning to wonder if there was any.  This ad answers that question for me. 

Here's a real offensive ad script:

 

 

 

Steve Chabot attack ad script.  October 11, 2006:

 

Male announcer: "Cincinnati riots. April 9, 2001. The Enquirer said John Cranley 'lost control' of the Law & Public Safety Committee at the start of the riots. Cranley admitted he didn't know what to do. So Cranley turned his back on the police and voted to pay off riot sympathizers with millions of our tax dollars. The result: almost 400 murders, and a 16 percent increase in violent crime. John Cranley lost control, and we're still paying the price." Chabot: "I'm Steve Chabot, and I approved this message."

 

 

Cranley response:

 

"It's pathetic that Steve Chabot is viciously attacking Mr. Cranley's proven crime-fighting record," Cranley spokesman Elliott Ruther said in a written statement. "Chabot's attack cites a unanimous vote of City Council that was endorsed by the police and the FOP. To blame Mr. Cranley for the crime in our city - which Chabot has represented for over 20 years - is a cheap shot and underscores how desperate Chabot is to hold onto power at any cost."

 

 

 

ENQUIRER ARTICLE:

 

"The footage of that fateful committee meeting will haunt Cranley for his political career, and he knows it. He had been on City Council exactly four months when the police shooting of Timothy Thomas led to bedlam in City Council chambers. Things only got uglier when an angry mob - getting no satisfaction from city officials - poured out into the streets and started riots that lasted four nights.

 

The 2001 quote from The Enquirer that John Cranley "lost control" of the committee meeting is accurate. But it came in an editorial endorsing him for election to City Council. The full passage, in context, said: "Democrat John Cranley, appointed last year to succeed Todd Portune, also has been a strong consensus builder. He has proposed hiring 75 more police officers and curtailing the development of new subsidized housing projects within the city. Mr. Cranley has made some beginner's mistakes, most notably when he lost control of the Law and Public Safety Committee at the start of the April riots. But he has since regained his feet and shows promise of real leadership in the years to come."

 

The police-reform agreements, passed unanimously by City Council in 2002, were supported by politicians across the political spectrum, including two Republican councilmen (Pat DeWine and Chris Monzel) and former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. The Fraternal Order of Police was also a signatory to the agreement, and the national president was present at the signing ceremony. Cranley was endorsed by the FOP for City Council twice after he supposedly "turned his back" on them.

 

It's not entirely clear who the "riot sympathizers" are that Cranley voted to pay off. The vote for the Collaborative Agreement, which settled a federal class-action lawsuit alleging racial profiling, called for changes in the Police Department and outside monitoring. The reforms cost taxpayers millions, but none of that money went to "riot sympathizers." The plaintiffs had their legal bills paid for through private contributions.

 

Although no one has scientifically proved a causal relationship, it's well documented that arrests declined and violent crime soared after the riots. But to imply that Cranley is personally responsible for 400 murders is a hyperbolic quantum leap."

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20061011/NEWS01/610110376/What-did-Cranley-do-during-2001-riots-

 

 

Here is the complete 13 part video series of Cranley running the city council meeting that got crazy during the riots.  Somewhere between parts 3 to 14 are what Chabot and the Enquirer were supposedly referring to.

 

Click on the youtube button and then the user name for the full playlist

^I rewatched the footage a couple weeks ago. It is by no means damning.

No one could have controlled that meeting.

 

The only funny part about those clips, is the perfect placement of Cranley's Diet Coke as if it is a subtle product placement for the brand that went horribly wrong.

^I rewatched the footage a couple weeks ago. It is by no means damning.

 

I'm not implying that its damning.  I'm using it to say Steve Chabot's attack ad was truly offensive and vile.  Not Roxanne Qualls

^I rewatched the footage a couple weeks ago. It is by no means damning.

 

I'm not implying that its damning.  I'm using it to say Steve Chabot's attack ad was truly offensive and vile.  Not Roxanne Qualls

 

It has been implied by cincyblog and others so I thought the contrary was worth noting. I agree that Chabot's ad was worse than Roxanne's. I also agree that Cranley's move of leaving council and then taking a subsidy from the city opens him up to criticism. However, the ad falsely implies that the action was unethical. Furthermore, council unanimously approved the subsidy and Roxanne praised Cranley on his way out. Maybe that is too much inside baseball for the voting public, or maybe Roxanne will come across as a hypocrite. It made me laugh, but I was surprised by the imagery of Cranley taking money from the baby's hands. Will it move the needle in either direction? No idea.

interesting piece from WKRC. They say the mayoral primary winners have lost the general elections 100% of the time so far. I'd forgotten.

http://www.local12.com/news/features/featured/stories/low-turnout-expected-cincinnati-mayoral-primary-1354.shtml?fb_action_ids=10151587522446854&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.Ui9X24As0Uk.like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582#.Ui-1GeDvMUh

 

Other than poll workers, I was the only person at my polling place in balmy College Hill today...

interesting piece from WKRC. They say the mayoral primary winners have lost the general elections 100% of the time so far. I'd forgotten.

http://www.local12.com/news/features/featured/stories/low-turnout-expected-cincinnati-mayoral-primary-1354.shtml?fb_action_ids=10151587522446854&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.Ui9X24As0Uk.like&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582#.Ui-1GeDvMUh

 

Other than poll workers, I was the only person at my polling place in balmy College Hill today...

 

I did early voting at the BOE on Monday. I was the only person voting at that time.

 

I've heard lot of reports on Twitter similar to this one from CincyCapell: "My Wife just made it to St Williams in Price Hill and voted as the polls closed. They told her she was their 26th voter all day."

 

I did early voting at the BOE on Monday. I was the only person voting at that time.

 

I've heard lot of reports on Twitter similar to this one from CincyCapell: "My Wife just made it to St Williams in Price Hill and voted as the polls closed. They told her she was their 26th voter all day."

 

I strongly considered abstaining from my vote today.  What is the point of a non-partisan runoff?  Why can't we just have four candidates on the ballot in November?

162 of 175 precincts reporting:

 

http://local.cincinnati.com/Elections/county/hamilton/1

Good grief. Lets hope this isn't too indicative of what happens in November...

blargh. on the other hand, my guess is that neither campaign threw any real resources into the primary, so again, drawing conclusions from this is a fool's errand.

^Probably true. Cranley did have about 2000 more people come out for him than Qualls. I would equate these votes to yard signs. Indicative of support but not necessarily a way to calculate who will win the election.

Turnout was so low that this doesn't mean much.  I was the only person at my polling place when I went right after work. 

Doom! Gloom!

Turnout was so low that this doesn't mean much.  I was the only person at my polling place when I went right after work. 

If this was a survey, the pollsters would have probably asked even fewer people.

If this was a survey, the pollsters would have probably asked even fewer people.

 

True, but if this was a survey, it'd be weighted to be representative of the populace that will actually be voting in November.  The electorate for a one-position primary where the top two votegetters are a foregone conclusion may differ significantly from the electorate for a November city election. I'm willing to bet that voters in this primary are whiter and richer than the November election.

 

that being said, definitely donate to the Qualls campaign and consider volunteering. We can't lose this one.

"

If this was a survey, the pollsters would have probably asked even fewer people.

 

True, but if this was a survey, it'd be weighted to be representative of the populace that will actually be voting in November.  The electorate for a one-position primary where the top two votegetters are a foregone conclusion may differ significantly from the electorate for a November city election. I'm willing to bet that voters in this primary are whiter and richer than the November election.

 

that being said, definitely donate to the Qualls campaign and consider volunteering. We can't lose this one.

 

Long-time lurker and first time poster here. I'm a transplant to the Cincinnati area and love it here. I'm also pleased with the progress the city has made the past few years and would like to see this progress continue.

 

Yesterday I was waiting on the bus with a few people (neither white nor rich) who lived in or near Avondale and the mayoral primary become a topic of discussion. IMO, these are people who have no reason to vote for John Cranley, but were strongly supportive of him and are horribly mis-informed.

 

Here are a few tidbits from the conversation and some of their reasons for supporting Cranley:

-- The new changes to Metro bus service and route changes aren't favorable and they blame Qualls and her current city council.

-- Cranley is "a man of the people" and truly has their best interests in mind. One person argued this point because he was willing to invest real money into rehabbing buildings in 'real' neighborhoods.

-- The streetcar is a waste of money and won't help people. They think letting the buses serve the routes are better. This was interesting as they were earlier complaining about the current changes to bus routes. One guy also thought the streetcar went from Covington to OTR and was helping NKY more than Cincinnati.

-- The parking lease is a bad deal because a private company can charge as much as they want and the city won't see a dime of it.

-- One lady strongly argued (and the others seemed to agree) that Cranley was a liberal democrat and had no associations nor anything in common with the Tea Party or COAST.

 

Given the results of the primary, I sincerely hope these beliefs aren't too widespread among this demographic. As it has seemed far too often lately, the largest hurdle to be overcome is ignorance among the voters and the spread of misinformation.

^yeah, I just saw somebody on FB who is convinced the city has laid off police.

it is unfortunate that this race could easily be decided by people not knowing the difference between candidates.

I strongly considered abstaining from my vote today.  What is the point of a non-partisan runoff?  Why can't we just have four candidates on the ballot in November?

 

Actually I'm a big fan of that system, it helps give minor parties a bigger voice (I feel something like this should exist on the national level), while this year Cincinnati didn't have any credible 3rd party candidates, if there were it would level the playing field quite a bit for them to have a chance at winning while protecting the city from getting a fringe candidate in that a majority would not want (see the Le Pen incident in France a few years back).  Its a much more fair system than 1st past the post.