From Chris Seelbach on Facebook:

 

 

As John Cranley says, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

 

Here's some facts:

 

The Enquirer - Cincinnati and Kentucky planned to run a front-page, Sunday edition story today on parking optimization in Cincinnati.

 

The story proves Cranley and his administration have not optimized our parking system, as promised. In fact, only about 30% of it is used, losing tons of revenue that could have helped fill out budget deficit.

 

When Cranley got light of the story, he was furious (being published two days before the Mayoral primary).

 

Given his "temperament issues," he reached out to the Cincinnati Enquirer's leadership...and guess what?

 

They pulled the story. At least until after the election.

 

They let the bully win.

 

These, my friends, are facts.

 

Some are predicting the turnout for Tuesday's primary to be as low at 16%.

 

Can we change that?

 

I'm tired of the games. Lets vote.

 

Yvette Simpson for Mayor.

^ I just noticed Seelbach de-friended me on Facebook. I voted for him twice! I don't think I will vote for him a third time based on that act alone.

I just checked, he's at the limit for facebook. It's completely possible he just needed space for people that he needed to have connections with on social media and cleared out people. I wouldn't take that personally.

Ha. I wouldn't take it personally, because I think FB has a maximum number of friends and he may be approaching that. FB is trying to push politicians/celebrities/etc. to fan pages rather than personal profiles for that reason.

I'm heading to the poll tomorrow and am trying to decide who to vote for. Who is more likely to be able to defeat cranley?

That's the million dollar question. I would urge everyone to think about, not just which candidate they like more, but who would be more likely to defeat Cranley in November.

Here is my prediction for Tuesday:

 

Simpson 6,500 votes

Richardson 6,000 votes

Cranley 5,500 votes

Since it is a non-partisan primary and conservative voters are more likely to show up, I predict Cranley will get a plurality

I had the polling place to myself this morning at 8:30.  The workers said only about 20 people had been there. 

 

Since it is a non-partisan primary and conservative voters are more likely to show up, I predict Cranley will get a plurality

 

Cranley's "supporters" (whoever those people are) are all assuming he's going to win, so most won't bother showing up. 

 

 

Has WLW been reminding them to vote?

I had the polling place to myself this morning at 8:30.  The workers said only about 20 people had been there. 

 

Since it is a non-partisan primary and conservative voters are more likely to show up, I predict Cranley will get a plurality

 

Cranley's "supporters" (whoever those people are) are all assuming he's going to win, so most won't bother showing up. 

 

 

 

I must have been number 19. I think I was there at 8:25 or so, I was also the only person there. It probably doesn't help that about 75% of UC's off campus population moved out/left town this past weekend after graduation.

Here is my prediction for Tuesday:

 

Simpson 6,500 votes

Richardson 6,000 votes

Cranley 5,500 votes

 

Not gonna try number of votes but:

 

Yvette - 40%

John - 40%

Rob - 20%

I'm going to guess Cranley comes out in the #1 spot, but I also think more of the Richardson votes will swing to Yvette in the general. But at this point, I wouldn't be surprised at any combination of candidates in November.

I bet Richardson knows a lot of people around town because of UC. I think I still have his card from when he was on Student Government in the early 2000s. I was on Student Government at SSU at the time. Most of the SGA members from big state schools such as UC had political aspirations but at SSU we just wanted something to do.

Cranley's campaign manager already made some sort of comment about how coming in second place in the primary wouldn't be devastating. So I think they're a little scared that Cranley may not come in first tonight and made that comment to soften the blow if that happens.

Cranley's campaign manager already made some sort of comment about how coming in second place in the primary wouldn't be devastating. So I think they're a little scared that Cranley may not come in first tonight and made that comment to soften the blow if that happens.

 

Dude has so much money to blow he's probably paying someone to do exit polling. 

I voted at the library today and there was no one outside representing any candidates. Then again, I came from the Walnut Street side (from the streetcar stop), so there may have been people over on Vine.

There was a healthy clip of people today at God's Bible School when I voted before work. A few people walking in and a few leaving. Not busy, but I was happy to see others voting. A Cranley and Richardson person were on opposite sides of the entrance by the little American flag campaign boundaries.

From @HowardWilkinson on Twitter:

 

As of 1:15 PM, voting in Cincinnati's mayoral primary was light. Only 8,651 had voted. The city has over 217,000 registered voters.

At least it seems poised to top last mayoral primary, but that's not a lot of people for an actual competitive race.

I just voted in 6B downtown. There was about a 10% turn out.

8.4% turnout (includes absentees) as of 6PM.  :wtf:

lol...

 

Lokita Matthews, of East Price Hill, wasn’t exactly sure Tuesday was Primary Day in Cincinnati. It was her day off, she was taking a walk, and she saw a sign posted near the driveway of her precinct at the Price Hill Recreation Center. “Vote Here,” it read.

 

She bolted inside with her mind already made up, driven by anger over Cincinnati’s street car. “Mark Mallory started the street car and he was supposed to stop it,” Matthews said, referring to Mayor Cranley. “The city is already crowded enough. We have the buses. We have TANK. We did not need a street car.” She volunteered that she voted for Simpson, whom she hopes will "get rid of the street car," she said. (Actually, Simpson is an ardent supporter of the streetcar.)

 

“I’ve seen her issues and she has my vote. It’s not because she is a woman. It’s never about that. This is about issues.” Matthews said. “I’ve been a citizen of Cincinnati all my life, so my opinion matters.”

 

 

Cont: McCauley: Meet the proud, the few, the voters

Absentees:

 

Sounds like a voter who really educated herself about the issues. ?

http://www.cincinnati.com/electionresults/county/hamilton/1

Looking good for Simpson!

Primary results:

 

Simpson 45.14%

Cranley 34.48%

Richardson 20.38%

I really hope Simpson wins the general election in November. With her at the helm I could see an extended street car route to uptown maybe even north side and walnut hills beyond that.

 

I could see a city that truly cares about preservation ensuring that every historic building remaining be converted to either affordable housing or other alternatives.

 

This city has so much potential, its insane. With the right mayor and the right council members, this city can literally be anchoring a true bonafide rennisance period if Simpson claims victory this year.

Are TIGER grants even being distributed? Even with Simpson as mayor, I am doubtful that an extension would receive federal funding with this political climate.

^Agreed. Plus, what should be happening first is all new construction within 3 blocks of either side of the streetcar should be without parking, and empty parking lots in that area should get built on as soon as possible.

 

The problem with the focus on Phase 2 is the same as it has always been- people can't imagine the future without seeing it first.  That's why those trips to Portland were organized.  There's much less animosity to the streetcar now that it exist.  The thing that is needed next is people seeing, "Oh, the densities that are so charming in other cities that I might visit, like New York, or Paris, or even a small European city like Florence, are achievable here so long as there is a good public transit network."  The route to Clifton is less important than increasing density around the existing line.

Let's be very clear about this. The streetcar is not going to be extended in the next four years, no matter who is mayor. Chris Wetterich wrote a great op-ed about this in the Business Courier. Cranley is the only candidate talking about streetcar expansion right now. He has been saying over and over, "Yvette Simpson wants to spend a hundred bajillion dollars to extend the streetcar," and it has actually stuck with a lot of people. Yvette has not made any comment about extending the streetcar, where it would go, or what route it would take. And we don't know how much any particular extension would cost because we haven't studied them yet. And yet people just take it for granted that, "Yvette is going to expand the streetcar."

 

Cranley is trying to make this another campaign about the streetcar because it's his only hope of winning. He doesn't have very many accomplishments to point to because many of his positive ideas have failed (i.e., parks levy). The only real positives that he can point to are accelerating road repaving and giving huge raises to city employees.

 

So, please, let's not let Cranley control the news cycle by making this yet another election about the streetcar. Please share that Business Courier op-ed with anyone that tries to claim it is.

Cranley doesn't have his old wizard power over black seniors this time. He still has it over middle-age West Side salesmen guys who hate the streetcar, so he shouldn't even waste his breath. They're not going to go Yvette. I suppose that falls into the category of base-rallying.

I think the focus of a Yyvette term needs to be on transit in general. Maybe there's a discussion later on about further study for Phase 2 or something similar, but in the meantime there's a lot of good that can be done to help the existing streetcar route:

 

- Transit only lanes (that also help out buses)

- Priority lights/proper signal timing (that also help out buses)

- Coming to a solution on Metro's funding woes.

 

We can continue making the current streetcar even better and rallying support for a potential Phase 2. I believe Simpson has alluded to potentially using the transit center. I'm not sure if that's feasible or provides any real benefit (as has been discussed in that thread), but it would be interesting to pursue and consider. A central bus hub that allowed for Metro/Tank/CTC customers to wait out of the elements would go a long way to making transit in this city somewhat more accommodating. Also allow for ride shares/taxis to use it, maybe even Greyhound/MegaBus/China Bus and we'd truly have a central hub.

 

Plus, the streetcar circulator is right above.

Exactly. I think that we should study where the streetcar should go next, what route it should take, and how much it would cost. Once we have that information, we can make an educated decision about whether and when to move forward with that.

 

What will happen if Yvette becomes the mayor is that these dumb problems we're having with Phase 1 will go away. We can easily add traffic signal priority for the streetcar and buses and make our downtown grid more efficient. We can do a better job of enforcing traffic laws along the route and ticket/tow people who park on the tracks. We can add better signage and pavement markings to prevent people from driving in transit-only lanes and stopping on tracks. There are a million low-cost ways that Phase 1 can be improved that we have thrown around on this forum, but will never get implemented under our current mayor.

^Amen.

 

As a side note: I ride the streetcar almost daily. I've seen a lot of fare checking by CPD, yesterday was the FIRST time though I saw someone not in compliance and watched an officer issue them a citation. The woman who received the citation was pretty upset, gave the cop a lot of attitude, etc.

 

Officer handled it well. "Gotta pay the fare."

 

 

I almost feel as if Richardson would have been a tougher opponent for Cranley than Simpson. This is 2013 all over again. Richardson had a strong bloc of college kids and Union support. Cranley has strong Union support and Richardson would have split that. Those that don't like Cranley for transit were not going to vote for him. I think Richardson actually overlapped more with Cranley's voting blocs than Simpson.

Are TIGER grants even being distributed? Even with Simpson as mayor, I am doubtful that an extension would receive federal funding with this political climate.

 

Not a TIGER grant, but Sacramento got $50M in this congressional budget for their streetcar (http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article147892159.html)

 

You'd think as a Trump state with a powerful Republican Senator and Republican Congressmen we could get money... right? Right?

I almost feel as if Richardson would have been a tougher opponent for Cranley than Simpson. This is 2013 all over again. Richardson had a strong bloc of college kids and Union support. Cranley has strong Union support and Richardson would have split that. Those that don't like Cranley for transit were not going to vote for him. I think Richardson actually overlapped more with Cranley's voting blocs than Simpson.

 

I see your point but not sure I agree with it. If you're a Richardson voter and you've already essentially said "John Cranley isn't my guy" what makes you want to vote for him in November? Rob ran much more as the "anti-incumbent" candidate than he did the "union" candidate. Yvette is obviously far closer to anti-incumbent than John.

Are TIGER grants even being distributed? Even with Simpson as mayor, I am doubtful that an extension would receive federal funding with this political climate.

 

Not a TIGER grant, but Sacramento got $50M in this congressional budget for their streetcar (http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article147892159.html)

 

You'd think as a Trump state with a powerful Republican Senator and Republican Congressmen we could get money... right? Right?

 

But then again, our Republican Governor hates Trump and vice-versa.

^Amen.

 

As a side note: I ride the streetcar almost daily. I've seen a lot of fare checking by CPD, yesterday was the FIRST time though I saw someone not in compliance and watched an officer issue them a citation. The woman who received the citation was pretty upset, gave the cop a lot of attitude, etc.

 

Officer handled it well. "Gotta pay the fare."

 

 

 

A few months ago I saw a police officer call out a teenage boy (well maybe 18 or 19) for having a spiked drink on the streetcar.  He was with his family and the officer took the drink and threw it out at the next station.  He told the boy that he wasn't going to arrest him in front of his family but then incredibly the boy back talked the officer.  Everything got tense on the streetcar because we were all expecting a dramatic scene but the officer just strolled away and went back to where he was standing before the incident began.  I bring this up because in example after example, the problem passengers are the suburban frat types, not the homeless and "velosiraptors" Joe Deters warned us about. 

 

 

 

I almost feel as if Richardson would have been a tougher opponent for Cranley than Simpson. This is 2013 all over again. Richardson had a strong bloc of college kids and Union support. Cranley has strong Union support and Richardson would have split that. Those that don't like Cranley for transit were not going to vote for him. I think Richardson actually overlapped more with Cranley's voting blocs than Simpson.

 

I see your point but not sure I agree with it. If you're a Richardson voter and you've already essentially said "John Cranley isn't my guy" what makes you want to vote for him in November? Rob ran much more as the "anti-incumbent" candidate than he did the "union" candidate. Yvette is obviously far closer to anti-incumbent than John.

If it was Richardson v Cranley, Richardson would have likely won the anti-incumbent vote, along with the streetcar, urbanist downtown voters and college crowd. He did well with the college crowd as is but Simpson obviously was the preferred choice of the urbanist downtown crowd. So Richardson would have got that vote too. Cranley's key strength is his labor ties, and Richardson would have cut into that because he had strong connections to the labor crowd. Simpson is essentially going to be running a turnout race, i.e. can she turn out her supporters more than Cranley, whereas, Richardson would have been able to cut into Cranley loyalists a bit better. Now the downside is Richardson may not have motivated as many Simpson voters to turn out so he may have lost some support on that end, but who knows. It would have been interesting.

I almost feel as if Richardson would have been a tougher opponent for Cranley than Simpson. This is 2013 all over again. Richardson had a strong bloc of college kids and Union support. Cranley has strong Union support and Richardson would have split that. Those that don't like Cranley for transit were not going to vote for him. I think Richardson actually overlapped more with Cranley's voting blocs than Simpson.

 

I see your point but not sure I agree with it. If you're a Richardson voter and you've already essentially said "John Cranley isn't my guy" what makes you want to vote for him in November? Rob ran much more as the "anti-incumbent" candidate than he did the "union" candidate. Yvette is obviously far closer to anti-incumbent than John.

 

Richardson might have a strong following, but he wasn't able to mobilize them to come out and vote yesterday. I think that because Richardson is a political outsider, his followers aren't the same people that usually get involved in local politics or understand the day-to-day of what happens at City Hall. So, many of the people that voted for Richardson yesterday may not have even had a very strong opinion about Cranley or Simpson or know what they support.

 

College kids are a mixed bag because while they can sway things if they show up to vote in big numbers, many of them probably aren't registered to vote in Cincinnati. I'm pretty sure that I stayed registered at my parent's house the first year or two I lived on campus. And if his campaign would've made a big effort to get students registered, it definitely would've caught the attention of the "Ohio Voter Integrity Project", the group that has actively tried to void the voter registrations of college students by finding any little mistake or process error.

I'm surprised Cranley's campaign has thus far focused so heavily on the streetcar. It was his biggest political failure as mayor - his 2013 campaign promised to stop construction, and he failed. Now, he's running a campaign focused on stopping expansion. He's making almost the same promise he failed to deliver on last time. This just reminds everyone of his previous failure, in lieu of focusing on some of the things he's done right. You'd think $600,000+ would buy someone a better campaign strategy. 

I'm surprised Cranley's campaign has thus far focused so heavily on the streetcar. It was his biggest political failure as mayor - his 2013 campaign promised to stop construction, and he failed. Now, he's running a campaign focused on stopping expansion. He's making almost the same promise he failed to deliver on last time. This just reminds everyone of his previous failure, in lieu of focusing on some of the things he's done right. You'd think $600,000+ would buy someone a better campaign strategy. 

 

When talking to my barber today he was happy to say he'll vote against due to his failure to stop the streetcar.  Even though Simpson was a supporter of the project there is a lot of venom towards Cranley for letting it get finished.

I almost feel as if Richardson would have been a tougher opponent for Cranley than Simpson. This is 2013 all over again. Richardson had a strong bloc of college kids and Union support. Cranley has strong Union support and Richardson would have split that. Those that don't like Cranley for transit were not going to vote for him. I think Richardson actually overlapped more with Cranley's voting blocs than Simpson.

 

I see your point but not sure I agree with it. If you're a Richardson voter and you've already essentially said "John Cranley isn't my guy" what makes you want to vote for him in November? Rob ran much more as the "anti-incumbent" candidate than he did the "union" candidate. Yvette is obviously far closer to anti-incumbent than John.

 

Richardson might have a strong following, but he wasn't able to mobilize them to come out and vote yesterday. I think that because Richardson is a political outsider, his followers aren't the same people that usually get involved in local politics or understand the day-to-day of what happens at City Hall. So, many of the people that voted for Richardson yesterday may not have even had a very strong opinion about Cranley or Simpson or know what they support.

 

College kids are a mixed bag because while they can sway things if they show up to vote in big numbers, many of them probably aren't registered to vote in Cincinnati. I'm pretty sure that I stayed registered at my parent's house the first year or two I lived on campus. And if his campaign would've made a big effort to get students registered, it definitely would've caught the attention of the "Ohio Voter Integrity Project", the group that has actively tried to void the voter registrations of college students by finding any little mistake or process error.

 

He certainly capitalized on that but he also had the Union machine behind him along with the NAACP and urban league due to his father's role in leadership of these organizations. While the casual outsider may not have voted for him because they did not want a Cranley or Simpson, political lightweight his is not. He is very well connected amongst many of the power brokers. Almost more so than Simpson. Put it this way, you don't become the director of UC board of trustee's based on your leadership vision, it helps to have friends in high places.

^ But didn't many of the unions endorse Cranley before the primary? Especially police and fire, but some others as well? I think Richardson would've had a hard time convincing members to vote for him when their leadership is telling them to vote for Cranley.

^ many did, but Richardson got in the race late too. Unions also typically demur to the incumbent, but Richardson would have been able to get some strong support if he had advanced and if it would have been a two way race, he would have had considerable labor support.

 

 

Cranley: Why the November election will be different

 

Mayor John Cranley says he believes his path to victory in November over Councilwoman Yvette Simpson rests with increasing voter turnout in areas where he traditionally has done well with voters, particularly Cincinnati’s West Side.

 

“There’s going to be a larger turnout in November,” Cranley said in a phone interview on Thursday. “We believe that can help us.”

 

Simpson finished first in Tuesday’s mayoral primary with 45.1 percent to Cranley’s 34.5 percent. Attorney Rob Richardson Jr. finished third with about 20 percent of the vote.

 

Only 11 percent of the city’s registered voters cast ballots on Tuesday, nearly double the percentage that did so in the 2013 primary. That year’s primary saw Cranley wallop then-Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls, who also predicted at the time that the November results would be different for her because more people would vote.

 

That didn’t happen. In fact, Qualls did worse in the general election than the primary election, losing the general 58 percent to 42 percent compared to 56 percent to 37 percent in the primary with two minor candidates taking the balance.

 

Full article below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/05/04/cranley-why-the-november-election-will-be.html

This is a really good analysis of the sort I missed back in 2013:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/04/what-do-maps-tells-us-cincinnati-mayoral-election/101300600/

 

In short I think Simpson outperformed Qualls among african american voters (as I've said before that's what will determine the election, they united with the conservatives last time), however Richardson's voters remain a wild card for areas like College Hill...

 

Someone on Cranley's social media team just learned how to use Boomerang!