^yeah, certain candidates do really well in the 9 person field, where each voter has 9 votes to spend, but not as well when there are only two candidates.  ie: Winburn.

 

That said, there are bound to be several more candidates.  Even if PG is exonerated, his reputation is sullied. 

Yeah I don't like voting for candidates who have been in trouble with the law like that while in office and abusing the power of the office. The FBI doesn't just sit there and say "Hey, we're bored. Let's go after some politicians today." I'm not talking about do you smoke weed or did you get busted with a gram of coke when you were 24 -- rather did you do something illegal that made things worse for your constituents and/or take real money (not $642) from where it should have gone. I, and many other Dems expect more from our politicians.

Cecil Thomas was a police officer, which will be a major selling point given the backlash against defund the police which nearly cost Democrats the presidency and their house majority.  Smitherman can say he supports the police but that's not the same as having actually been one.  

15 hours ago, 646empire said:

I’m not sure about that, I think he may run but winds blowing at his back is a bit much I think. He’s not a strong candidate in my opinion.

Sittenfeld was the most formidable candidate with support in the business community and support amongst many of the other power brokers and coalitions in the city (not universal support, but enough to almost have the sense of inevitability in the race before this). 

Now, who really has such a strong voting bloc. Thomas has his core supporters, but he also is polarizing to some. Mann does not capture much attention from really any group. The other potential candidates do not have name recognition. 

Smitherman probably has most name recognition and has a number of key voting consituencies in his corner (not enough to put him over the top) but you would thank he would at least be in a strong position starting out (he did receive the 2nd most votes behind Sittenfeld in the last council race).

 

Who do you think is a potentially more formidable opponent at this point that may step in?

I think someone like Yvette would not win right now if she tried because I think she is going to still be tainted by the Children's hospital deal. Roxanne has been out of the game too long now.  Who else in Democratic circles would be a strong enough name to take on Smitherman? The only other person I can think of would be Mallory again, but would he want to be mayor again? Eric Kearney comes to mind too, but it seems like his wife is taking over the political mantle and it may be a bit of a conflict to have a husband and wife team on council and mayors office. 

Edited December 8, 20204 yr by Brutus_buckeye

13 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Yeah I don't like voting for candidates who have been in trouble with the law like that while in office and abusing the power of the office. The FBI doesn't just sit there and say "Hey, we're bored. Let's go after some politicians today." I'm not talking about do you smoke weed or did you get busted with a gram of coke when you were 24 -- rather did you do something illegal that made things worse for your constituents and/or take real money (not $642) from where it should have gone. I, and many other Dems expect more from our politicians.

In your opinion, what is worse from the optics and standpoint of running for office:   a Sittenfeld who pleads guilty or is convicted of bribery, comes back and runs for mayor as a reformed but convicted felon, or an indicted Sittenfeld, who says he is innocent and fighting it with the cloud over his head?   I would argue he is a much better chance to compete once this is all behind him, even if he is guilty, than he does right now. Even if innocent, just the cloud of indictment is enough to give voters pause in voting for him because he may nto be able to serve if elected, which in one sense is a bigger deal.

How do term limits for mayors work for Cincinnati?  I thought there was a two-term limit, so I'm curious as to how Mallory would be eligible to be mayor again?

I thought it was a limit of 2 consecutive terms. So after being out of office he could come back.

8 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

In your opinion, what is worse from the optics and standpoint of running for office:   a Sittenfeld who pleads guilty or is convicted of bribery, comes back and runs for mayor as a reformed but convicted felon, or an indicted Sittenfeld, who says he is innocent and fighting it with the cloud over his head?   I would argue he is a much better chance to compete once this is all behind him, even if he is guilty, than he does right now. Even if innocent, just the cloud of indictment is enough to give voters pause in voting for him because he may nto be able to serve if elected, which in one sense is a bigger deal.

 

I would not vote for him if found guilty. And serious pause even if innocent. Bill and Hillary used up my tolerance for any funny business. The Rs can get themselves thrown into canoe jail all they want.

 

29 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Sittenfeld was the most formidable candidate with support in the business community and support amongst many of the other power brokers and coalitions in the city (not universal support, but enough to almost have the sense of inevitability in the race before this). 

Now, who really has such a strong voting bloc. Thomas has his core supporters, but he also is polarizing to some. Mann does not capture much attention from really any group. The other potential candidates do not have name recognition. 

Smitherman probably has most name recognition and has a number of key voting consituencies in his corner (not enough to put him over the top) but you would thank he would at least be in a strong position starting out (he did receive the 2nd most votes behind Sittenfeld in the last council race).

 

Who do you think is a potentially more formidable opponent at this point that may step in?

I think someone like Yvette would not win right now if she tried because I think she is going to still be tainted by the Children's hospital deal. Roxanne has been out of the game too long now.  Who else in Democratic circles would be a strong enough name to take on Smitherman? The only other person I can think of would be Mallory again, but would he want to be mayor again? Eric Kearney comes to mind too, but it seems like his wife is taking over the political mantle and it may be a bit of a conflict to have a husband and wife team on council and mayors office. 

Your missing my point tho. I’m not saying that he can’t win and as I said before he may in fact run BUT there is a reason he wasn’t/isn’t in the race to begin with and that is because he isn’t a strong candidate and Sittenfeld would have crushed him (before the FBI). One of the core problems with Smitherman in my OPINION is he’s not generally well liked, people don’t dislike him per se but he’s very flat. Also Ive gotten the sense over the past several years that even the black community (which he needs to carry) is also lukewarm about him, and that tells you a lot.

 

47 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Smitherman probably has most name recognition and has a number of key voting consituencies

Cecil Thomas is extremely well known in Cincinnati just as much as Smitherman and would easily carry any and all Constituencies that Smitherman would

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

Cecil Thomas was a police officer, which will be a major selling point given the backlash against defund the police which nearly cost Democrats the presidency and their house majority.  Smitherman can say he supports the police but that's not the same as having actually been one.  

 

I don't think this is right. Democrats weren't hurt at all in the City of Cincinnati. Joe Biden got exactly the same percentage of votes in the city as Hillary did four years ago. The city was D +57. And despite Chabot trying to paint Kate Schroder as a radical far leftist, she was D +59 in the city. Jaime Castle was +30 against Brad Wenstrup in the more conservative part of the city in the 2nd District, despite having zero name recognition and very little money. 

 

Denise Driehaus was +56 in the city. Alecia Reece was +47. Fanon Rucker was +37 going up against the Deters juggernaut. Charmaine was +48.

 

Defund the police didn't hurt the Democratic brand at all within the city of Cincinnati. The D brand is still strong and the R brand is still toxic. 

Edited December 8, 20204 yr by DEPACincy

15 minutes ago, 646empire said:

Your missing my point tho. I’m not saying that he can’t win and as I said before he may in fact run BUT there is a reason he wasn’t/isn’t in the race to begin with and that is because he isn’t a strong candidate and Sittenfeld would have crushed him (before the FBI). One of the core problems with Smitherman in my OPINION is he’s not generally well liked, people don’t dislike him per se but he’s very flat. Also Ive gotten the sense over the past several years that even the black community (which he needs to carry) is also lukewarm about him, and that tells you a lot.

 

Everybody knows he's a Republican, even if he has an "I" next to his name. And that is enough to tank him.

13 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Everybody knows he's a Republican, even if he has an "I" next to his name. And that is enough to tank him.

Great point too. Even I forget many times that he is an independent, he always registers to me as Republican 

Edited December 8, 20204 yr by 646empire

He's an IINO

23 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

He's an IINO

 

Damn.  You should start an obscure political blog.  

22 minutes ago, taestell said:

I thought it was a limit of 2 consecutive terms. So after being out of office he could come back.

 

Correct. You can't run for a third consecutive term, but you are eligible to run again after sitting out one election.

 

So far we have the following signaling their intent to run:

 

David Mann (D)

Wendell Young (D)

Kelli Prather (I/D)^

PG Sittenfeld (D)*

Cecil Thomas (D)

Raffel Phrophett (I/D)^

 

Unannounced, but possible:
Christopher Smitherman (I/R)

 

*Obviously he could drop out.

^Some news stations have identified them as Democrats, but I don't believe they have ever been endorsed as a Democrat in an election.

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Everybody knows he's a Republican, even if he has an "I" next to his name. And that is enough to tank him.

Not necessarily. You have Charlie Winburn who always runs well as a Republican. There is room for someone like him on the ballot.  I agree, he woudl have been crushed by Sittenfeld, but with Sittenfeld effectively out, there is no one to take up the mantle. Cecil Thomas can certainly command a base, but you cant forget that not too long ago, Smitherman was a pretty powerful head of the NAACP in town and does have respect of a good portion of the African American community. If anyone who is right leaning could make it interesting, it would be Smitherman.

 

18 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Not necessarily. You have Charlie Winburn who always runs well as a Republican. There is room for someone like him on the ballot.  I agree, he woudl have been crushed by Sittenfeld, but with Sittenfeld effectively out, there is no one to take up the mantle. Cecil Thomas can certainly command a base, but you cant forget that not too long ago, Smitherman was a pretty powerful head of the NAACP in town and does have respect of a good portion of the African American community. If anyone who is right leaning could make it interesting, it would be Smitherman.

 

 

Smitherman's name will certainly give him a small boost, maybe (big maybe!) enough to finish in the top two in a crowded primary. But he'd still get killed in the general. 

 

Charlie Winburn is actually a great comparison, but not for the reasons you think. Charlie ran ahead of a lot of the Republican candidates countywide this year, but he still lost. And it was even worse in the city, where he lost to Jill Schiller by 37 points. He got creamed. And his best precincts were in California, Sayler Park, Mt. Washington, and West Price HIll. The same precincts where other Republicans did well. So that doesn't support your African American support theory at all. Charlie or Smitherman might be able to peel off a few black voters because of their visibility in the black community. But black voters aren't dumb. They're not going to vote for someone who doesn't represent their values just because they are black.

 

Bottom line, there are just not enough Republicans in the city to give Smitherman a chance.

34 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Smitherman's name will certainly give him a small boost, maybe (big maybe!) enough to finish in the top two in a crowded primary. But he'd still get killed in the general. 

 

Charlie Winburn is actually a great comparison, but not for the reasons you think. Charlie ran ahead of a lot of the Republican candidates countywide this year, but he still lost. And it was even worse in the city, where he lost to Jill Schiller by 37 points. He got creamed. And his best precincts were in California, Sayler Park, Mt. Washington, and West Price HIll. The same precincts where other Republicans did well. So that doesn't support your African American support theory at all. Charlie or Smitherman might be able to peel off a few black voters because of their visibility in the black community. But black voters aren't dumb. They're not going to vote for someone who doesn't represent their values just because they are black.

 

Bottom line, there are just not enough Republicans in the city to give Smitherman a chance.

I think Smitherman has more support in the black community than you are giving him credit for. He certainly will have support of the moderate GOP crowd who would vote for Cranley. You would have to figure the typical Cranley voter will support Smitherman as those two generally share many of the same platform (Smitherman a bit more to the right on fiscal issues).

I do not think the best comparision for the mayoral election is the countywide races this year. a Presidential election year (and to a more limited extent a Congressional election year) are going to bring out more voters than an off year election. I would probably agree with you more if this were an even year election. If that were the case, we would probably have mayor Simpson or Qualls at this point. However, given that it is an off year election, the turnout is typically very low and therefore the calculus is a bit different in an odd year election. 

40 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Smitherman's name will certainly give him a small boost, maybe (big maybe!) enough to finish in the top two in a crowded primary. But he'd still get killed in the general. 

 

Charlie Winburn is actually a great comparison, but not for the reasons you think. Charlie ran ahead of a lot of the Republican candidates countywide this year, but he still lost. And it was even worse in the city, where he lost to Jill Schiller by 37 points. He got creamed. And his best precincts were in California, Sayler Park, Mt. Washington, and West Price HIll. The same precincts where other Republicans did well. So that doesn't support your African American support theory at all. Charlie or Smitherman might be able to peel off a few black voters because of their visibility in the black community. But black voters aren't dumb. They're not going to vote for someone who doesn't represent their values just because they are black.

 

Bottom line, there are just not enough Republicans in the city to give Smitherman a chance.

Exactly, the black community in Cincinnati is veryyyyyy Anti-Republican, Even if the candidate is black. The Trump Era and the black Republican Kentucky Attorney General who handled The Breonna Taylor case made it even worse.

Edited December 8, 20204 yr by 646empire

5 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think Smitherman has more support in the black community than you are giving him credit for. He certainly will have support of the moderate GOP crowd who would vote for Cranley. You would have to figure the typical Cranley voter will support Smitherman as those two generally share many of the same platform (Smitherman a bit more to the right on fiscal issues).

I do not think the best comparision for the mayoral election is the countywide races this year. a Presidential election year (and to a more limited extent a Congressional election year) are going to bring out more voters than an off year election. I would probably agree with you more if this were an even year election. If that were the case, we would probably have mayor Simpson or Qualls at this point. However, given that it is an off year election, the turnout is typically very low and therefore the calculus is a bit different in an odd year election. 

With Cecil and Others now all jumping in don’t be suprised if Smitherman stays out of the race. We shall see. Smitherman would need some luck and a sprinkle of magic to be mayor but you never know.

 

Let's look at the 2017 City Council winners:

 

 

Smitherman's strength is that he can go on 700 WLW and establish himself as a conservative, appealing to Republicans who live within city limits. But then he can also pretend to be an Independent in other contexts. Even so, he still only collects enough votes to rise to the middle of the pack, behind all 4 of the Democratic incumbents. He got 12k fewer votes than PG and 8k fewer votes than Mann.

 

City Council races are fundamentally different than Mayoral races. City Council is "vote for up to 9 people you like out of this long list". Mayor is "pick your favorite (or 'least bad') from these 2 choices." Even the top vote-getter on City Council is not guaranteed to win in a head-to-head race. Qualls frequently was the #1 vote-getter on City Council but still lost to Cranley.

 

In a head-to-head race, Smitherman would clearly hold on to most of the Republican votes but that alone isn't enough to win. I think he would only win if running against an especially bad candidate. And there's a chance he wouldn't even make it out of the primary.

54 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

Please God noooooo!!!!!

23 hours ago, 646empire said:

Exactly, the black community in Cincinnati is veryyyyyy Anti-Republican, Even if the candidate is black. The Trump Era and the black Republican Kentucky Attorney General who handled The Breonna Taylor case made it even worse.

 

Are they anymore? The trend is going the opposite for many races: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-men-drifted-democrats-toward-trump-record-numbers-polls-show-n1246447

46 minutes ago, seicer said:

 

Are they anymore? The trend is going the opposite for many races: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-men-drifted-democrats-toward-trump-record-numbers-polls-show-n1246447

Are they anymore??? According to that article 80% of Black Men and 91% of black women went to Biden/Democrats.....that’s still verrrry bad (for Republicans). Plus those are actually national numbers so the numbers for instance in city centers like Cincinnati are even higher lol.

 

^ and the perfect example of my point is Georgia and how African Americans in Atlanta was critical in toppling Trump.

Edited December 9, 20204 yr by 646empire

33 minutes ago, taestell said:

In a head-to-head race, Smitherman would clearly hold on to most of the Republican votes but that alone isn't enough to win. I think he would only win if running against an especially bad candidate. And there's a chance he wouldn't even make it out of the primary.

 

If there are no Republicans or other conservative leaning candidates in the primary, I think Smitherman would do extremely well and probably even take the top spot. There will be 4+ established, well known Democrats splitting the liberal vote, but Smitherman will get all of the conservative vote - including a portion of Cincinnati's religious/conservative black citizens.

 

I had to look back at the Cranley/Simpson primary and was shocked to see that only 23,339 people voted. If 2021 has the same turnout, I could see Smitherman taking 8000 of the votes while the other ~16,000 votes get split somewhat evenly between the likes of Mann, Young, Thomas, Seelbach, and some PG holdouts. Whoever comes in second likely wins the general, though.

Seelbach running and winning would be funny to me because of how much the right despises the guy. 

3 minutes ago, cincydave8 said:

Seelbach running and winning would be funny to me because of how much the right despises the guy. 

I dont dislike the guy because of his politics. I disagree with them. 
I dislike the guy because he is a world class a-hole on a personal level. 

15 minutes ago, cincydave8 said:

Seelbach running and winning would be funny to me because of how much the right despises the guy. 

 

The political right are not the only ones who despise him

There are a lot of people who agree with his policies but dislike his behavior. For example Seelbach gloating and making fun of Seth Maney for losing in the 2017 City Council race really turned a lot of people off.

 

The inevitable end to this story is that Jerry Springer is elected Mayor of Cincinnati in the year of lord 2021

 

I think many people have forgotten over the past 8 years that Cincinnati does not have a "Strong Mayor" or "Executive Mayor" form of government. The Mayor is supposed to appoint a City Manager, department heads, and members of various boards and commissions, which Council confirms (or rejects). The City Manager and department heads are supposed to run the city day-to-day. The Mayor and Council are supposed to set policy and provide direction.

 

We need our next mayor to not meddle like Cranley does. Not be the dealmaker. Not fire experienced department heads and replace them with their own yes-men. Not add drama to City Hall.

If Mallory gets in, this race is over. In my opinion he would definitely win.

Edited December 22, 20204 yr by 646empire

^ I also believe Mallory + Biden = Streetcar extension. Probably.

If Mallory does in fact run it'll be all about THE STREETCAR for YET ANOTHER election cycle.  

5 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

If Mallory does in fact run it'll be all about THE STREETCAR for YET ANOTHER election cycle.  

Lol maybe but he would still win easily.  I highly doubt Mallory would run on a streetcar extension tho, I’m sure the right wing anti streetcar people would try to make it a thing but it wouldn’t work, mostly because there isn’t actually an extension being proposed at the moment.

Hopefully WLW has started to forget about the streetcar so they can talk about the Reds more.

1 minute ago, GCrites80s said:

Hopefully WLW has started to forget about the streetcar so they can talk about the Reds more.

 

The virus hoax distracted them the streetcar hoax this year, but it'll be back.  These anti-vaccine people will be drumming for a streetcar vaccine.  

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

If Mallory does in fact run it'll be all about THE STREETCAR for YET ANOTHER election cycle.  

 

Maybe. If it's Smitherman vs. Mallory (again), it will be about the streetcar. It's it's Driehaus vs. Mallory, or Aftab vs. Mallory, or Pepper vs. Mallory (again), it probably won't be.

 

Also, Mallory can pivot and talk about how we need to integrate the streetcar into our larger public transportation network. What can the city do to add bus-only lanes to support the BRT routes that SORTA says they will build? Can any of those improvements benefit both bus and streetcar riders? What can we do to advertise to bus riders that they can transfer to the streetcar for free at Government Square? Will Biden give us money to go up the hill to UC, or over the river to Kentucky? etc. etc. etc.

 

I'm just not convinced that the streetcar is as much of a hot potato as it was before. WLW will continue to whine about it, but their listeners don't live in the city.

On 12/9/2020 at 12:49 PM, 646empire said:

Are they anymore??? According to that article 80% of Black Men and 91% of black women went to Biden/Democrats.....that’s still verrrry bad (for Republicans). Plus those are actually national numbers so the numbers for instance in city centers like Cincinnati are even higher lol.

 

^ and the perfect example of my point is Georgia and how African Americans in Atlanta was critical in toppling Trump.

In South Texas Trump hammered that Democrats could threaten jobs of workers in Oil Fields - this was not expected and against conventional wisdom of dem strategists.  In general he did a lot of work at chipping away at working class Black and Latino voters and while it wasn't large margins the work paid off because the Biden camp took them for granted (listen to Chuck Rocha for a good analysis on this).    Also by putting his name on the stimulus checks some less engaged voters might have associated his name with stimulus payments.   Biden also has big weaknesses in those communities, IMO given his record on a lot of issues, frankly he didn't run a good campaign but coasted to a narrower than expected win due to high emotions over Trump.  IMO if not for COVID he would have lost.

---

 

Overjoyed to see Mallory toss his hat into the race.  It brought me back to this forum after a long hiatus lol.

Edited December 22, 20204 yr by neilworms

If Mallory faces any political backlash, it's more likely to be from his work with FCC, not the streetcar. It's probably not enough to keep him out of the top 2 though.

Correct, Mallory is likely to face some criticism from the left this time around, unlike his previous runs, when he only faced it from the right.

 

The question is, will any of the other mayoral candidates come out explicitly as a "social justice" candidate and say that the FCC stadium deal was an injustice? If they do, the risk having Fourth Street spend tons of money to defeat them.

Mallory takes big step toward mayoral candidacy

 

Former Mayor Mark Mallory has picked up petitions to run for mayor of Cincinnati, but said he has not yet made a final decision on whether or not to run.

 

Mallory's move toward a run is the first from one of the four potential political heavyweights who could enter the 2021 mayor's race and shake it up even more. Also considering a run are David Pepper, the former councilman, Hamilton County commissioner and state Democratic Party chair; Clerk of Courts Aftab Pureval; and Hamilton County Commissioner Denise Driehaus.

 

If one of them enters the race, they will be the instant front runner.

 

"As each day goes on, I think more and more about my skillset and what the city needs," Mallory said. "I’m getting closer and closer to making a decision about whether I’m going to run.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/12/22/mallory-picks-up-petitions-to-run-for-mayor.html

The survey includes questions about both City Council and Mayoral elections, including current preferences

On 12/22/2020 at 1:42 PM, taestell said:

 

Maybe. If it's Smitherman vs. Mallory (again), it will be about the streetcar. It's it's Driehaus vs. Mallory, or Aftab vs. Mallory, or Pepper vs. Mallory (again), it probably won't be.

 

Also, Mallory can pivot and talk about how we need to integrate the streetcar into our larger public transportation network. What can the city do to add bus-only lanes to support the BRT routes that SORTA says they will build? Can any of those improvements benefit both bus and streetcar riders? What can we do to advertise to bus riders that they can transfer to the streetcar for free at Government Square? Will Biden give us money to go up the hill to UC, or over the river to Kentucky? etc. etc. etc.

 

I'm just not convinced that the streetcar is as much of a hot potato as it was before. WLW will continue to whine about it, but their listeners don't live in the city.

Smitherman might be seen as too cozy with the police which would cost him support in the black community.  I agree Mallory could pivot the streetcar into a broader subway/rapid transit system that would be a tangible benefit to the black community. The black community spends an exorbitant amount of their income on car ownership and all the expenses that come along with it.  

Edited January 5, 20214 yr by Coseau

 

The Herald has since deleted their Tweet