^ I am sure there is more on both sides that meets the eye. But the point is, she was facing the giant and allowed herself to be painted into a corner rhetorically by her opponent and the hospital. They had much more means than her and a much larger communications staff so it is inevitable that they would control the message. She was naïve for not realizing this.  Save your fight for battles you can win. THis was not it.

The fact that everyone is talking so much about it is worrying. It's just like Clinton's email saga. Can we get back to real issues please, like public transportation policy and urbanist policy?

I don't sense that many people heard about or even care about the Children's Hospital incident.  Of course 700WLW is going to go nuts with it because that's all they have.  700 is growing less influential every day.  They can't throw elections anymore like they did back in 1996 on the stadium tax.  Anyone who remembers that knows that 700 was out there cheering on the anti-tax movement and reporting on the signature drive, but then Joe Nuxhall appeared out of nowhere with an endorsement for the tax and so the tax passed. 

 

Back in 2013 Cranley had the streetcar and the parking issue.  Those are gone now.  Nobody is talking about the existing streetcar or non-existent expansion plans.  All he has is this effort to frame Simpson as a Hillary Clinton (yes, Cranley of course hosted a Clinton fundraiser at his house, but 700 doesn't care).  Cranley basically doesn't have an issue.  It's a repeat of the parks tax -- tons of money, tons of endorsements, but nobody cares about him.  Nobody is going to wake up on November 7 skipping to the polls to put a check next to Cranley. 

Sheesh, is Yvette Simpson TRYING to lose the election?  In addition to the Children's Hospital issue, now we have the truly stoopid Indigenous Peoples' Day proposal to replace Columbus Day.  SMFH...

 

I've voted for her and given her money and I'd planned to vote for her for mayor.  I've never voted for Cranley EVER or given him money.  I STILL won't vote for him but Yvette's giving me pause because I truly wonder if she's ready for primetime. 

The whole indigenous peoples day thing is a national movement. Los Angeles just swapped Columbus Day for IP Day a month or so ago. Denver did it a while ago, and my buddy from Berkeley said he only knew the holiday as IP Day, as I guess that city made the change a long time ago.

 

I think it makes sense in cities that have large Hispanic populations, as that is normally the group that initiates these things (at least in LA and Denver). Yvette is just trying to get on the ultra progressive bandwagon. I think it will backfire in a conservative city like Cincinnati. Personally, this is the type of shit that makes me hesistate to identify as a progressive. This ultra sensitivity to things that don't really matter is annoying and divisive.

It's like people already forgot that Cranley declared Cincinnati a "sanctuary city" ...

The whole indigenous peoples day thing is a national movement. Los Angeles just swapped Columbus Day for IP Day a month or so ago. Denver did it a while ago, and my buddy from Berkeley said he only knew the holiday as IP Day, as I guess that city made the change a long time ago.

 

I think it makes sense in cities that have large Hispanic populations, as that is normally the group that initiates these things (at least in LA and Denver). Yvette is just trying to get on the ultra progressive bandwagon. I think it will backfire in a conservative city like Cincinnati. Personally, this is the type of S**t that makes me hesistate to identify as a progressive. This ultra sensitivity to things that don't really matter is annoying and divisive.

 

This intersectionalism thing is divisive and causing people to hate each other. Teaching people to notice small slights and take offense to them by recognizing micro aggressions may seem "woke" but in reality just gets people to hate each other more. Instead of getting angry at each other over some perceived slight, people should focus on what brings us together and connects us as a people.

The whole indigenous peoples day thing is a national movement. Los Angeles just swapped Columbus Day for IP Day a month or so ago. Denver did it a while ago, and my buddy from Berkeley said he only knew the holiday as IP Day, as I guess that city made the change a long time ago.

 

I think it makes sense in cities that have large Hispanic populations, as that is normally the group that initiates these things (at least in LA and Denver). Yvette is just trying to get on the ultra progressive bandwagon. I think it will backfire in a conservative city like Cincinnati. Personally, this is the type of S**t that makes me hesistate to identify as a progressive. This ultra sensitivity to things that don't really matter is annoying and divisive.

 

Yeah not a good move for someone running in Cincinnati (though it would be great here in Chicago).  Though IMO with the way things seem to work give it 10 years, Cincinnatians might adjust a bit more to that idea...

Is this even something people debate anymore? Columbus was a raving sadistic asshole, even the show blackish talked about it on their first episode this season. When it has made it to network television I think it's no longer 'ultra progressive'.

 

 

^ The most recent South Park addresses this issue too. Stan Marsh starts calling random people in Columbus, OH and telling them they're racist for living in a city named after Christopher Columbus. With the whole confederate statue removal issue, my general feeling is if you are remembered for something unjust, wrong, negative, then you should not be commemorated. If you are remembered for something positive, but had transgressions or are known to have also done something unjust, I think that it's ok to commemorate. MLK was a known serial adulterer, Washington and Jefferson had slaves, Lincoln has some pretty nasty quotes about black people, Gandhi was racist against blacks...no one is perfect. Now is Columbus more scenario 1 or 2, that's probably up for debate.

I am not looking forward to the day when, here in Cleveland, somebody wants to take down the statue of Columbus that sits in the park in Little Italy. Not because I necessarily care about Columbus one way or the other (haven't done the research on him tbh. Obviously he did a lot of bad stuff with natives but is he not being singled out? What about Indian slayer Mad Anthony Wayne whose name is all over Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan?), but because I know that many of my fellow Italian-Americans do view him as something like our founding father, and there will be an ugly debate that will frankly split my loyalties. I don't care about honoring the man Columbus but I do appreciate a day to honor our heritage and contribution to the country and so forth and that was the original idea of it. Filippo Mazzei Day anybody? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Mazzei

 

A Columbus day debate happened at Akron city council several weeks ago, very ugly. Meanwhile I'm surprised that they don't yet want to rename our state capital.

We can argue semantics and tone and 'woke' or not woke, but regarding the actual issue at hand, Yvette is correct. Indigenous rights should be given more prominence in society. Here in Australia, no stranger to egregious acts against indigenous populations, the aboriginal flag flies next to every state or military flag. You must proclaim the land and its 'original owners' at every public meeting. Lands have been given back to aboriginals in increasingly large numbers more recently. The list goes on. And it's nice, incredibly important, respectful and more needs to be done. There is a debate here to change 'Australia Day' to another day as it currently falls on the day Captain Cook landed in Sydney Harbour and the "invasion" of European settlers occurred. I am not sure where I stand on that but we shouldn't forget or whitewash the atrocities it took to fortify Australia and America into what they are today and the immense sacrifice indigenous populations have suffered for it to happen.

A model for appropriate integration of indigenous populations is New Zealand, where Maori and European populations exist better along side each other as compared to Australia and America. There is still significant issues and disparities but there is more respect given to the original custodians of the land than elsewhere.

It's this kind of idiocy that hurts Cincinnati's reputation. Make's us look like a backwater. Columbus was a terrible human who did one of the most text book examples of genocide ever known to history on the island of Hispaniola. Columbus Day is a joke and the man should not be honored for going to an island, thinking he was in India and then killing all the natives. It just reminds me why I'm not voting for Mann this time around. At the very least it should called Leif Erikson Day.

 

Like seriously....

^ We all know Columbus is not a sympathetic character, but none of our founders or leaders were when you boil it down. Show me someone who is truly pure.

 

People need to get perspective here. You can celebrate (if you want to call it that because I don't think anyone outside of bankers and postal workers celebrate it) Columbus day or (recognize it with a collective yawn like most of the country) without feeling guilty about what Columbus as a man personally stood for. You have to quit holding him to modern standards and recognize that it is not necessarily Columbus that is being recognized here but rather the Western World becoming enlightened to a new land, a new way of thinking, the founding of a modern era. Columbus really had very little to do with this but out of ease, his name is on the day. It is not that big of deal. People who get their panties in such a tizzy over these micro slights really should take a deep breath and do something productive with their lives. Bitching and complaining about micro aggressions and the like is no way to go through life.

^ Systematically killing off an entire island off people compared to say George Washington owning slaves is completely different. George Washington is famous for many things while Columbus is famous for getting lost and starting a genocide - that's it. If it's not that big of a deal then it shouldn't be a big deal to change the holiday to Indigenous Peoples Day. You can choose to honor the people that lived here for thousands of years or honor man who's only famous for getting lost and starting a genocide. The "new world" was already known to Europeans. Leif Erickson and the Vikings landed in modern Canada 500 years earlier.

^ The whitewashing of names and people because history has a changed view of them is not a good idea. I am not saying Columbus should be honored, but instead use the day to educate and remember who he was both good, bad and ugly. Yes, we need to teach out kids about Columbus but make it age appropriate. Telling your first grader or kindergartner is a murderous loon is not age appropriate.

 

I find the people who want to change the name to indigenous people day just as bad as those who celebrate Columbus. There is nothing monumental about what the Native Americans did either. They were also responsible for a lot of blood shed and killing of other native tribes in the region throughout their history. In many ways, they were not much different than Columbus. So changing the name to indigenous people's day out of some sort of intellectual purity is flawed too. 

Even if you get past any identity politics or genocidal history, the guy is famous for getting lost and naming an entire race of people incorrectly as "Indians". We shouldn't celebrate a guy who got somewhere hundreds of years after the vikings, didn't realize where he was, misnamed people (and killed them), and was arrested by his own country on arrival home for his atrocities.

 

Oh yeah, and Yvette is still the better choice for improving the downtown and urban core areas. She doesn't divide neighborhoods vs the core as enemies. I also believe she will try and fix the issues with the streetcar instead of cheering it's failures.

^ The whitewashing of names and people because history has a changed view of them is not a good idea. I am not saying Columbus should be honored, but instead use the day to educate and remember who he was both good, bad and ugly. Yes, we need to teach out kids about Columbus but make it age appropriate. Telling your first grader or kindergartner is a murderous loon is not age appropriate.

 

I find the people who want to change the name to indigenous people day just as bad as those who celebrate Columbus. There is nothing monumental about what the Native Americans did either. They were also responsible for a lot of blood shed and killing of other native tribes in the region throughout their history. In many ways, they were not much different than Columbus. So changing the name to indigenous people's day out of some sort of intellectual purity is flawed too.

 

You really think Native Americans did nothing monumental? Wow. For starters you need to read 1491 by Charles Mann, a landmark book on this history of the Americas, while you wait for the book to arrive from Amazon you scroll through these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_contributions and http://xpatnation.com/magnificent-contributions-of-native-americans/ . Never mind the epic cities, cultures and histories of the Aztec, Maya and Inca.

 

Anyways this thread is not about honoring a man who got lost, started a genocide and was arrested after returning to Europe for his crimes against humanities vs honoring centuries of human history and culture. It's about Yvette being the superior candidate.

Getting back to the mayoral race... If her support of Indigenous Peoples' Day over Columbus Day is threatening your vote away from Simpson, I want to remind you that there are real issues that separate Cranley and Simpson. This is such a non-issue - especially considering Simpson didn't even introduce an ordinance this year! People showed up and shamed council for abstaining from voting (cowards), but she knew it wouldn't pass, so she simply said she was sympathetic and maybe next year it would pass. She expected the ordinance to fly through council last year, but 5 council members abstained. At least have the courage to vote no on the ordinance.

 

Let's get back to the real subject at hand.

^ I was always going to vote for Cranley. I like what he has done with the business community and feel he has done a good job overall. Personally, I know Yvette and think she is a good person and I like her a lot as a person, but I am and have always been more of a Cranley person. Will I be disappointed if Yvette wins, no, because she is a good person.

^And that's you're right. I'm more talking to the people who are now questioning their vote for Yvette because of this "issue". If this is what throws your vote a different way, you need to reevaluate your priorities. I think we can both agree this is very much a non-issue for the mayoral race.

agreed

Getting back to the mayoral race... If her support of Indigenous Peoples' Day over Columbus Day is threatening your vote away from Simpson, I want to remind you that there are real issues that separate Cranley and Simpson. This is such a non-issue - especially considering Simpson didn't even introduce an ordinance this year! People showed up and shamed council for abstaining from voting (cowards), but she knew it wouldn't pass, so she simply said she was sympathetic and maybe next year it would pass. She expected the ordinance to fly through council last year, but 5 council members abstained. At least have the courage to vote no on the ordinance.

 

Let's get back to the real subject at hand.

 

 

then what is her stance on The Flag?

Just from following this board over the years, Cranley seems horribly ignorant on urbanism at best, and at worst to have an active grudge against it. And he seems to exploit neighborhood divisions for political gain on the regular (i.e., pitting long-time bus riders against the streetcar). Not sure how he is on other issues, maybe he is the type of pro-business Dem I'd be attracted to otherwise. I'll be pulling for Simpson - but I hope she isn't too naive.

^-I think you'd like someone like Rahm Emanuel who has a lot of Cranley's negatives on personality but is actually pretty good on urbanist issues and is still very pro business...

I'm in general not a big fan of the yelling-and-screaming management style (and I haven't followed his tenure in Chicago), but in spite of that, yeah, I think Rahmbo is smart and effective.

Yvette has routinely let her campaign get bogged down in nonsensical situations, which to me illustrate a complete lack of awareness, experience, and leadership. Be it the “Stale Pale Male” debacle, the Bockfest Body Shaming, Columbus Day, Children’s Hospital, etc. These are topics that reflect poorly on her and they should not, and would not be issues if she hadn’t made the mistakes that created them.  These are attempts to virtue signal / appeal to subsets of her base but each time she alienates more people than she appeals to, and she gives her opposition easy headlines.

 

I think the Children’s issue is probably the single biggest item, at this point, to come out of an otherwise uneventful campaign that has no major point of contention like the streetcar in 2013. Cranley and Simpson each have their platform and talking points, but none of that is grabbing any headlines and we all already knew what those platforms were. It’s pretty obvious to me that Simpson’s last second motion was an attempted political stunt, but it went terribly awry. She might as well have walked into the hospital and ate the pudding cups off of sick kids' lunch trays. She’s lucky it happened early enough that some people may forget it by November, but if no other headline grabbing story comes up between now and then people are going to remember it.

 

Are there any projections on what the voter turn out will be?

 

Simpson being black and female will surely win quite a few votes with the large black population Cincinnati has.

 

Also, the urban progressive voters who are currently abiding in the cbd and otr will probably favor Simpson as well.

 

Those are 2 big things going for her honestly. Especially if turn out is low, I feel like she has captured a larger audience just based off her race, geneder and progressiveness.

 

 

I would be surprised if we had a higher turnout than 2013, which is unfortunate.

 

No real big issue this year like the parking deal and streetcar last election year had. And turnout during those issues was abysmal. Cincinnati politics also has a pretty low number of polls to even determine what the turnout will look like. It's just candidate polls for the most part, which are rarely fully released.

Yvette has routinely let her campaign get bogged down in nonsensical situations, which to me illustrate a complete lack of awareness, experience, and leadership.

 

I agree, but she does not have the corporate media behind her.  Cranley does and they're not afraid to play dirty.  The corporations desperately want Cranley to stay there to keep the zero-tax and free city land gravy train. 

^I'd add that Cranley's terrible Mick Jagger karaoke would be all over the place if the tables were turned.  Neither are particularly good-humored life-of-the-party people. 

Does anyone know of any polls that indicate where things stand?

Does anyone know of any polls that indicate where things stand?

 

The fact that we haven't heard anything of Cranley's internal polling indicates it's not looking good.  He was furious on primary night.  He knows he's at risk of blowing millions of his country club donors' cash...AGAIN. 

Does anyone know of any polls that indicate where things stand?

 

Got a call from a survey company the other night, it asked if the election were held today who would you vote for.

 

Then it asked SEVERAL questions relating to the Children’s Deal. All seemed framed in a way to support Cranlyb(I.e. children’s helps sick children, did it look like Simpson was trying to shake them down?).

 

 

Yep. Cranley has the budget to do push polling, but I doubt Simpson does. Cranley is testing out which arguments hurt Simpson more so he can use those talking points going forward.

Does anyone know of any polls that indicate where things stand?

 

The fact that we haven't heard anything of Cranley's internal polling indicates it's not looking good.  He was furious on primary night.  He knows he's at risk of blowing millions of his country club donors' cash...AGAIN. 

 

I don't think the polls favored him in 2012 either

IMO this is going to be a tough race, and as I've said before it will hinge on the African American vote.

Yep. Cranley has the budget to do push polling, but I doubt Simpson does. Cranley is testing out which arguments hurt Simpson more so he can use those talking points going forward.

 

Which means old ladies steer the rhetoric due to cell phone bias.

From what I've heard through the grapevine Cranley has a slight lead :-(, but I don't know for sure exactly who else has done polling besides the candidates themselves.  BTW I'm pretty certain he led the polls last time as well (no surprise, as he badly beat Qualls in the primary, plus her campaign manager wasn't very experienced) but I suspect demographics help to make this race closer.  Turnout was so poor the last time and I can only hope Simpson's camp will do a much better job to GOTV.

Just from following this board over the years, Cranley seems horribly ignorant on urbanism at best, and at worst to have an active grudge against it. And he seems to exploit neighborhood divisions for political gain on the regular (i.e., pitting long-time bus riders against the streetcar). Not sure how he is on other issues, maybe he is the type of pro-business Dem I'd be attracted to otherwise. I'll be pulling for Simpson - but I hope she isn't too naive.

 

Spot on about Cranley. He doesn't understand cities or urbanism. It seems like he's never read Jane Jacobs or Jeff Speck, or at least never internalized their message, and made the observations about our own city that show how right they are. Doesn't seem to have read Jarrett Walker, Ben Ross, Donald Shoup or Andres Duany. He doesn't seem at all curious about the entire field. He does seem to pick up that some of the ideas and principles they offer are politically unpopular with reactionary status quo types and takes advantage of that however.

 

From what I've seen and heard of Yvette in city council committee (neighborhoods and transportation) meetings she DOES understand these things and takes them to heart. She is the candidate for urbanism this election cycle.

 

 

Led by Cranley, 2017 mayor's race shatters fundraising records; see which execs have given the most

 

 

Mayor John Cranley has topped $2.3 million in fundraising for his re-election, obliterating the record for most money ever raised by a candidate for the Cincinnati mayor's race.

 

 

Fundraising in the 2017 mayor’s race likely will reach $3 million, which is also a new record. Cranley’s opponent, Yvette Simpson, has raised $576,408 for the race.

 

 

The previous record was $1.2 million raised by David Pepper in his unsuccessful contest against Mark Mallory in 2005, when Mallory raised $380,000. The total cost of that race was about $1.9 million when the primary candidates' totals from that year are added in. In 2013, Cranley and then-Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls raised a combined $1.7 million.

 

 

Cont

 

 

 

 

Cranley          Simpson

Chavez family ,"$16,500"          Members of the Congressional Black Caucus,"$5,750"

Tom Williams,"$15,000"          Uptown/Schimberg,"$5,500"

SFA Architects,"$11,875"          SFA Architects,"$4,400"

Dan Neyer,"$11,000"          Ulmer,"$3,760"

Ron Joseph and family,"$10,700"          Frost Brown Todd/PAC + members,"$3,765"

Towne Properties and Construction,"$10,650"          Cindy/Kyle/Matt Williams,"$3,300"

Cushman Wakefield,"$10,050"          Castellinis,"$3,300"

Anchor Properties,"$10,000"          Anchor/Hemberger,"$3,000"

Michael Zicka,"$9,900"          HamCo Dems,"$3,000"

Dan Schimberg,"$9,400"          Emily's List ,"$2,850"

Bobby Maly/Model Group,"$8,800"          Rumpke,"$2,200"

Birkla,"$8,800"          Prus,"$2,200"

Medpace,"$7,900"          Michael (Stough),"$2,200"

Al. Neyer,"$7,800"          BrandiCorp,"$2,200"

Messer,"$7,500"          Phillip Holloman (Cintas president and spouse),"$2,200"

Jeff Woodward,"$6,600"          Chinedum Ndukwe,"$2,000"

Flaherty Collins,"$6,000"          Thomas Hankinson,"$1,100"

Ackermann Group,"$5,500"          Michael Shuster,"$1,100"

Michael Schweitzer (Longworth Hall),"$5,500"          Matthew Korte,"$1,100"

Wallick Hendry,"$5,500"          Towne,"$1,100"

Chinedum Ndukwe,"$5,500"          Diane Rosenberg,"$1,100"

Joe Mayermik,"$5,500"          RCF/Carl Satterwhite,"$1,100"

Axcess Financial,"$5,000"          UC Health CEO Rick Lofgren,"$1,100"

Peter Klekamp,"$5,000"          Scott Nelson (comey),"$1,100"

Milhaus Development,"$5,000"          Smyjunas,"$1,100"

Novare/Thompson,"$5,000"          James Stapleton FRCH Design,"$1,100"

Jonathan Holtzman,"$5,000"          Milhaus,"$1,090"

Prus Construction,"$4,900"          Blackburn/Bengals,"$1,000"

Kroger ,"$4,900"          Taft,"$1,000"

Taft,"$4,800"          Rookwood Properties,$500

Incline Public House,"$4,440"          Other congressional campaigns,$500

Wylers,"$4,400"          Jake Warm,$500

Ben Klopp,"$4,400"          Qualls,$250

Shree Kulkarni,"$4,400"          North American Properties/Joseph Willaims,$250

Total Quality Logistics,"$4,400"          Al. Neyer,$200

Jim Jurgensen,"$4,400"          ,67915

Farmer Family,"$4,400"         

Graydon Head,"$4,200"         

Mosure Group,"$4,000"         

Core Redevelopment/John Watson,"$4,000"         

Bill Kreutzjans,"$4,000"         

Pure Romance,"$3,900"         

Stagnaro Distribution,"$3,300"         

NRD,"$3,300"         

TJ Ackermann,"$3,300"         

Urban Sites/Greg Olson,"$3,300"         

Bengals/Brown family,"$3,300"         

Barry Rosenberg,"$3,300"         

Peter Scantland,"$3,300"         

Bret Caller,"$3,300"         

Michael Cioffi,"$3,300"         

Larry Bergman,"$3,000"         

Tony Sansalone,"$3,000"         

Andrew and Amy DeWitt,"$2,200"         

JDL Warm,"$2,200"         

Lindner,"$2,200"         

Rumpke,"$2,200"         

Woda Homes,"$2,000"         

Cinti Works CEO Peggy Zink ,"$1,100"         

Jeff Ruby,"$1,100"         

David Falk,"$1,100"         

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto,"$1,100"         

84.51 CEO Stuart Aiken,"$1,100"         

Ohio Democratic Chairman David Pepper,"$1,100"         

Children's Hospital CEO Michael Fisher,"$1,100"         

Why the hell did Pittsburgh's mayor donate to Cranley? All the developers and companies that got incentives or subsidies (Medpace) are big time donors for Cranley, too. What a transparent pay to play system we have in Cincinnati, though I assume this is the case just about everywhere, sadly.

Has anyone seen any polls or had any indications as to where they think this race is going to go? I've got a bad feeling we're about to get four more years of Cranley.

 

I'm not too enthused about Simpson, but do see her as a better alternative to what's been happening these past four years. Nevertheless, her campaign seems to have been run rather poorly.

Polling is pretty much never done externally. Internal polls by campaigns are almost never released.

 

 

As long as there is a strong council that can override a mayoral veto, the mayor's position is less important. But I still hope Simpson can pull it off.

So someone is spreading around flyers painting Cranley as a racist:

 

Anonymous flyers accuse Cranley of racism, mismanagement

 

Simpson's campaign's response is strange. It leads me to believe that someone in her campaign, or someone close to is, knows what's up with the flyers. I don't particularly like either candidate, but this type of stuff out of Simpson's campaign is really getting old (I'm talking specifically about her response, not the ad itself). She really should have just said they have no involvement and admonished the flyers instead of deflecting.

 

Isn't this what you were asking for?

 

"We have now been asked to respond to negative ads directed at our opponent. These ads are in no way associated with our campaign, and we have no knowledge who is behind them."

^ No, I don't see anything in her statement that admonishes the content of the flyers, indicating she's fine with it. And while that one sentence is a denial of involvement, but it's preceded by an entire paragraph that's a big deflection - a classic "whataboutism" - claiming she's the real victim of attack ads. That's what's most suspicious, her campaign could have just denied involvement but instead they wrote a whole paragraph that essentially spelled out their potential motive for going dirty.

Both of the candidates sounded weak yesterday on WVXU's debate.  It doesn't help when the moderators ask baited questions about what "they'll do to reduce gun violence, homelessness, etc.".  A local government can't do much with issues that are symptomatic of regional and national phenomena. 

I've gone from being excited about the possibility of having Yvette be the mayor to being sort of lukewarm to her.  Even with taking that into consideration, I still think she's 10x better than Cranley, so I still hope Yvette wins.

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Cranley wins next Tuesday.  I think it'll be closer than 2013 (when Cranley got 55% of votes compared with 37% for Qualls) but I don't think it'll be a nailbiter either.