Swapping Winburn for Dennard is significant and should make it harder for Cranley to pocket veto so much.

 

To me, it's more like swapping Winburn for Pastor, Dennard for Simpson, and Landsman for Flynn.   

 

I'm really sorry to lose Yvette Simpson on Council.  While I criticized her mayoral campaign, I nevertheless really like her.  I hope Tamaya Dennard can fill her shoes.

 

Right. The makeup of council is virtually unchanged. The only difference for the next 4 years is that I bet some council members are going to step down starting around 2020, and appointing hand-picked replacements to their seat. I am still amazed that no one elected in 2013 stepped down before their term was over.

 

Idk Travis, I know how big a booster of urban Cincinnati you are, like all of us here, really. But I think you are taking this too much like the fire Urban Meyer crowd after they lost to a good team.

 

This Council is MUCH better than before, Landsmann will be a big progressive upgrade over Flynn who was mostly non-communal on anything real substantial though nicely independent. Pastor would be an upgrade over Winburn progressively though I don't understand why people voted for him, not certain what his stances were really, but really seems more like a John Cranley clone but is a Republican instead of a DINO.

 

I think progressives can get a lot done here.

 

Am I really I "booster" of urban Cincinnati?  ;)

 

 

I think I'm a pretty realistic person. The unfortunate reality is that we have a mayor that does not support on-street bike lanes, signal priority for transit vehicles, or studying future phases of rail transit. I don't think that we have enough progressive council members to overrule Cranley's veto on these issues, but I guess we will see. I have some hope for Landsman and think that he might be willing to stand up to Cranley on some issues.

 

I keep seeing people say that Pastor is an upgrade over Winburn and I just don't get why. Winburn was harmless. Every time he tried to run for another office he lost, because no one outside of his bubble knows who he is. While he voted against things I supported, but he wasn't constantly on 700 WLW badmouthing the city. On the other hand, Pastor is out there repeating Smitherman's 2009 era lies, like "we should be hiring more police and firefighters instead of wasting money on the trolley" ...

Once again, I see the ineptitude of the Hamilton County Democratic Party at play here.

 

In 2013 they endorsed 10 council candidates. That lead to people splitting their vote and Laure Quinlivan losing out to Amy Murray by a slim margin. Undoubtedly, if they had dropped Pam Thomas, Shawn Butler, or Michelle Dillingham that year, Laure Quinlivan would have won the election over Amy Murray. Arguably you could have also seen Greg Landsman oust Kevin Flynn as well. Now we are going to have 8 years with Amy Murray because Tim Burke failed at his position. The bottom of the table that year was:

 

8 - Kevin Flynn ©: +80

9 - Amy Murray (R,C): +0

10 - Laure Quinlivan (D): -900

11 - Greg Landsman (D): -2,360

12 - Michelle Dillingham (D): -2,836

13 - Pam Thomas (D): -3,480

17 - Shawn Butler (D): -12,191

 

In 2017 they endorsed two newcomers (Ozie Davis and Lesley Jones) instead of candidates with better ground game and name recognition (Laure Quinlivan and Derek Bauman). I can see the argument for Ozie Davis over Laure Quinlivan since she lost as an endorsed incumbent in 2013 (though partially to the fault of the Democratic Party), but Lesley Jones barely had a campaign. I supported her message, but unless you were looking for her specifically, you never heard her name. I'm sure 90%+ of her votes came specifically because her name was on the Democratic endorsement list. Bauman could have sailed into election IMO if he would have been an endorsed Democrat. Not to mention the number of people who didn't vote for Dillingham this year in order to vote for Bauman. Here's how the race shook out this year.

 

8 - Amy Murray (R,C): +1,982

9 - Jeff Pastor ®: +0

10 - Michelle Dillingham (D): -317

11 - Ozie Davis (D): -3,320

12 - Lesley Jones (D): -3,683

13 - Laure Quinlivan (I*): -5,031

14 - Derek Bauman (I*): -5,182

 

Two elections in a row the Hamilton County Democratic Party allowed a non-incumbent Republican win a council seat. I'm sure we are going to have 8 years of Pastor. He barely collected any money in this race. Now that he's an incumbent, the Republicans are going to throw a lot of money at him in 2021. The Democratic Party did this to themselves by not endorsing Bauman this year, and by endorsing 10 candidates in 2013. Tim Burke should be run out of town.

^ Tim Burke sent out an email a few days ago saying he's retiring.

I know Flynn had pressure to do so when he said he would not run again

 

The one thing I will say for Flynn is that he doesn't really do that stuff. He hates the politics of city government, so I couldn't see him doing that.

 

I also thought there was pressure on Wendell Young to step down and let his wife take his seat.

 

Because we saw how well that worked for Pam Thomas in 2013.

 

I think I was confusing Young with Pam Thomas. Sorry about that.

^ Tim Burke sent out an email a few days ago saying he's retiring.

 

I know that. He's done so much damage to the local party. He should have left after that embarrassing 2013 performance. He's screwed over the party for over a decade.

Hasn't he been in charge of the local party since the 80's?

 

From a numbers standpoint, he has definitely increased the amount of local dems in office over the last 35 years but much of this was probably going to happen naturally anyway with the concentration of more liberal voters in the cities becoming more pronounced.

 

The funny thing about statistics is that they can tell whatever narrative you desire to tell. The same stats can show that Tim was the biggest failure yet also show he was a huge success, depending on who is doing the spinning.

^He's been in charge since I've been paying attention. And yes, the county has trended blue for a long time.

 

The fact that Clinton won the City of Cincinnati with 77.8% of the vote, and the dems can only get 6 seats on council is embarrassing.

^ There needs to a be a push to change the city elections to line up with presidential elections. Gets more voters out and saves money.

I disagree. I wouldn't be opposed, but that's not needed. If we had competent leadership in the County Party we would have had 4 years of Quinlivan instead of Murray and would be looking at 4 years of Bauman and/or Dillingham instead of Pastor/Murray.

 

 

It's a failure of the Democratic Party. It also doesn't save money, because there would still be elections happening right now. We would have just voted on Issues 1, 2, and tax renewals and had a 20% turnout.

^ True, I forgot about those issues and I agree Burke and the county party have been awful. But from a purely political sense having the city elections on presidential years would help liberal candidates. Think of all the city voters who will turn out in 2020 to vote against Trump. I can't imagine Pastor finishes 9th with all those voters.

I would be in favor of moving the mayoral/council elections to line up with presidential elections, but the even bigger change that needs to be made is staggering the council races. If we could have mayor + 4 council members elected in the presidential election year, then the remaining 5 elected at midterms, that would be great for balance of power.

^ Is this about getting Dem candidates elected or good candidates who represent a wide swath of the city and their interests. It is a good thing to have people like Murray on council. It helps create diversity and limit groupthink. You never want a council that is all liberal dems or all staunch conservatives. Lets have some diversity.

My statement is about aligning the elections with the years that people actually show up to vote, so that the elected officials represent the political makeup of the people. Again, don't forget that when SB5 was put on the ballot, it brought out more liberals than usual in an off-year election, and council was shifted more liberal for that council term. Staggering council elections also reduces this likelihood of radical swings since you can only elect half of council at once.

Pastor is frightening. 

^Just wrote this on the Mayoral thread, but I really don't understand how he appealed to anyone...

I don't view Sittenfeld or Mann as progressive.

 

Starting next year we'll have 4 progressives (Landsman*, Dennard, Young, Seelbach). We'll have 3 conservatives (Pastor, Murray, Smitherman). And we'll have 2 wishy-washy goes-as-the-wind-blows Democrats (Sittenfeld and Mann).

 

Since our mayor doesn't believe in bike lanes, form-based code, rail transit, strong historic preservation, etc, we'll need both Sittenfeld and Mann to support a progressive agenda to get anything past Cranley's veto. They have done this exactly once: to resume the streetcar construction. Which I would argue is a common-sense stance, not a progressive one since the alternative was to spend tens of millions of dollars in litigation for abandoning a signed contract. I have little hope for anything substantial getting accomplished.

 

*Landsman is still TBD, but this is my belief.

 

I don't view Sittenfeld or Mann as progressive.

 

 

Starting next year we'll have 4 progressives (Landsman*, Dennard, Young, Seelbach). We'll have 3 conservatives (Pastor, Murray, Smitherman). And we'll have 2 wishy-washy goes-as-the-wind-blows Democrats (Sittenfeld and Mann).

 

 

Since our mayor doesn't believe in bike lanes, form-based code, rail transit, strong historic preservation, etc, we'll need both Sittenfeld and Mann to support a progressive agenda to get anything past Cranley's veto. They have done this exactly once: to resume the streetcar construction. Which I would argue is a common-sense stance, not a progressive one since the alternative was to spend tens of millions of dollars in litigation for abandoning a signed contract. I have little hope for anything substantial getting accomplished.

 

 

*Landsman is still TBD, but this is my belief.

 

 

 

I still think this is a better make up than before, maybe by 10%, but obviously not what we all wanted.

 

 

I also agree with everything you say there.  My hope is that the progressives can put together plans for bike lanes, form based codes, etc. that are solid plans then push Mann and Sittenfeld on their side.  Before, it was tougher to push Flynn around to get that 6th vote.  We traded him for Landsman.

 

 

I could never understand Sittenfeld, I don't understand why people vote him in, with such high numbers.  He never has done anything substantial in my opinion.  I'm not jealous of the guy, he just really peeves me off on radio when he says stuff like, "I did my homework on the streetcar, I figured it out!" and blah blah blah like he is some sort of genius when literally anyone who actually read the details could have figured it out.

 

 

Lastly, maybe Cranley will give a bit more now that he is term limited and can't run for Mayor again.  I don't think we would have ever moved forward with rail transit these next four years with our current president, but maybe we could have commissioned a study.

 

 

My hope for Cincinnati next four years:

 

 

Implement bike lane plans

Implement BRT (real BRT with real plan, at least one line in the center city area and out to Westwood and Oakley) and overhaul of Bus Routes in general

Continue to infill downtown, OTR, Uptown and NBD's

Get some big wins on jobs including manufacturing through the Port (funding source)

 

 

 

 

Chris Wetterich made a great point on Twitter today. Remember how anti-streetcar people complained that Sittenfeld and Mann ran as anti-streetcar but then "flip flopped" to support it*, and would be punished by voters in 2017? In fact, both Sittenfeld and Mann gained votes in 2017 compared to 2013. Sittenfeld remained the #1 vote getter and Mann rose from #3 to #2. Wendell Young also gained 4,000 votes since 2013, rising from #7 to #4.

 

(*Of course, the narrative that they "flop flopped" is bogus to begin with. While neither one was a strong supporter, they both said they'd need to look at the facts and decide whether it made sense for construction to continue or the project to be cancelled. The both made the common sense decision to continue with construction, and angry anti-streetcar people somehow tried to spin this as "flip flopping".)

I also agree with everything you say there.  My hope is that the progressives can put together plans for bike lanes, form based codes, etc. that are solid plans then push Mann and Sittenfeld on their side.  Before, it was tougher to push Flynn around to get that 6th vote.  We traded him for Landsman.

 

It is very hard for the legislative branch to tell the executive branch to do something when the executive branch has the power to either not do it, or do it incompetently.

 

For example, we have already passed a citywide bike plan based on public input from meetings that were held across the city. The mayor is choosing not to implement it. City Council can pass a motion saying "follow the bike plan" but motions carry no legal weight. Or they could pass an ordinance, but it would have to be something very specific, like "every road that is repaved as part of the Capital Acceleration Plan must include Complete Streets provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians." However, that ordinance could be pocket vetoed by the mayor so council never even gets the chance to vote on it. Even if council does pass it and overrules the mayoral veto, DOTE can still half-$$ it and say "we'll just add some sharrows and one mediocre crosswalk, that's good enough".

 

Sorry, not trying to be all doom and gloom, but I just find the idea that council will hold Cranley's feet to the fire mostly unrealistic. There are a few areas where this can happen, specifically with the budget. But for the most part it's pushing on a string.

From what I understand there are ballots yet to be counted -- some absentees that arrived after the count but are legit because their postmarks met requirements, plus provisional ballots that haven't been sorted through.  With the narrow margin of 317 votes between Pastor and Dillingham, there's a slim chance she could overtake his position.

I also agree with everything you say there.  My hope is that the progressives can put together plans for bike lanes, form based codes, etc. that are solid plans then push Mann and Sittenfeld on their side.  Before, it was tougher to push Flynn around to get that 6th vote.  We traded him for Landsman.

 

It is very hard for the legislative branch to tell the executive branch to do something when the executive branch has the power to either not do it, or do it incompetently.

 

For example, we have already passed a citywide bike plan based on public input from meetings that were held across the city. The mayor is choosing not to implement it. City Council can pass a motion saying "follow the bike plan" but motions carry no legal weight. Or they could pass an ordinance, but it would have to be something very specific, like "every road that is repaved as part of the Capital Acceleration Plan must include Complete Streets provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians." However, that ordinance could be pocket vetoed by the mayor so council never even gets the chance to vote on it. Even if council does pass it and overrules the mayoral veto, DOTE can still half-$$ it and say "we'll just add some sharrows and one mediocre crosswalk, that's good enough".

 

Sorry, not trying to be all doom and gloom, but I just find the idea that council will hold Cranley's feet to the fire mostly unrealistic. There are a few areas where this can happen, specifically with the budget. But for the most part it's pushing on a string.

 

Understood on that, but just my thinking if the council was able to get some ordinances like you mentioned which are very specific.  How can then the mayor pocket veto it after an ordinance is passed?

 

Sorry I know we have talked about this before but just wondering how that all works now.

 

^The mayor has no deadline to put legislation in front of council. Essentially a pocket veto by never having to deal with the matter.

OK thanks.  For some reason I thought that had gotten eliminated at some point by an ordinance, but it was just talk of an ordinance.

Landsman is not super progressive, but worse, he won't be standing up to John Cranley at all. They are pretty tight. There will be zero mayoral veto overrides from this Council. Landsman is much like PG - Switzerland not looking to rock the boat.

 

 

You could argue it is smart politics to not get on John's bad side because he is so vindictive and will make life at City Hall very difficult for anyone that does. But if six council members had any spine they could anything they wanted, whether Cranley agrees or not, including introducing any legislation John decides to "pocket veto."

 

 

Anyway, the next four years will be much the same as the last four. Don't expect much progressive policy out of City Hall. But your roads will continue to get paved (as if they weren't before).

^I noticed during the campaign that Landsman talked a lot but said very little of actual substance.  His performance on "Newsmakers" with Dan Hurley was totally uninspiring, perhaps the worst of any of the candidates I saw on the show.  I get it that those who have yet to win public office, especially after having failed in the past like he has, would maybe choose to be more cautious in order to increase their chances of victory.  But it's my fear that he'll be the weasel on council that he was as a candidate.  Your comment seems to support my fear!  Again, I'm truly hoping he'll prove me wrong though.  We'll see...

OK thanks.  For some reason I thought that had gotten eliminated at some point by an ordinance, but it was just talk of an ordinance.

 

In order to get rid of the pocket veto, we need to modify the City Charter to put a time limit on the amount of time that it takes for a Mayor to refer a piece of legislation to a Committee. The Charter Committee wanted to put this issue on the ballot along with several other changes to the City Charter (which all passed, if I recall correctly) but it didn't happen.

 

But if six council members had any spine they could anything they wanted, whether Cranley agrees or not, including introducing any legislation John decides to "pocket veto."

 

I think you are confusing the pocket veto with the actual veto. Yes, six council members can overrule a mayoral veto. But if the mayor does a pocket veto, he can keep any legislation he wants from ever being voted on in the first place. Basically, under our current system, the mayor alone has the ability to filibuster any piece of legislation he or she doesn't like. It's really quite an incredible power and it could really be abused if we got a Trumpian style mayor at some point down the road.

Yea Pastor walked around my neighborhood (Kennedy heights) and I was out watering my plants and met him. He struck me as basically a political parrot, pretty sure he said jobs, education, roads and back to our roots all in the same sentence. I was like yeah he clearly is just saying what he needs to get elected, who knows what his real opinions are.

This is why I have never liked the guy. He as a jacka$$ 15 years ago when I knew him and it is safe to say he has never grown up and matured. No different than the president only he has less power. #stilladouche

 

https://twitter.com/ChrisSeelbach?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I am not on twitter but I just looked at that link.  His response to Seth Maney was hilarious. 

 

Here are the winners and their respective numbers.  Seelbach is #3, which is pretty impressive. 

 

P.G. Sittenfeld (D): 38,594

David Mann (C,D): 34,741

Chris Seelbach (D): 29,666

Wendell Young (D): 27,353

Christopher Smitherman (I) 26,501

Tamaya Dennard (C,D): 25,145

Greg Landsman (D): 24,356

Amy Murray (C,R): 23,321

Jeff Pastor ®: 21,339

 

 

Here are the losers:

 

Michelle Dillingham (D): 21,022

Ozie Davis (D): 18,019

Lesley Jones (D): 17,656

Laure Quinlivan (I): 16,308

Derek Bauman ©: 16,157

Henry Frondorf ©: 10,389

Seth Maney ®: 9,891

Brian Garry (I): 8,792

Kelli Prather (I): 6,882

Tamie Sullivan (I): 6,023

Tonya Dumas (I): 5,913

Erica L. Black-Johnson (I): 5,306

Cristina Burcica (I): 3,973

Manuel Foggie (I): 3,402

Dadrien Washington (I): 123

 

 

Pretty impressive figures from Bauman, who was a first-time candidate, didn't have a lot of money, and didn't win the D endorsement since he challenged Cranley (huge dropoff between the 15,000-20,000 crowd and then 10,000 and under).  Same with Laure Q -- she dared to cross the Great Cranholio and paid the price. 

 

 

 

 

It is akin to Trump going after the gold star family. There is nothing to gain from spiking the football here. A dignified person does not need to respond especially because he won. Just shows pettiness and just being a jerk (which he is).

 

The sad thing about Seelbach is that he stirs things up and whenever people attempt to fight back against him, he runs back behind his shield and claims he is a victim. He has been playing this card for over 20 years now.

Pretty impressive figures from Bauman, who was a first-time candidate, didn't have a lot of money, and didn't win the D endorsement since he challenged Cranley (huge dropoff between the 15,000-20,000 crowd and then 10,000 and under).  Same with Laure Q -- she dared to cross the Great Cranholio and paid the price.

 

Bauman raised over $100,000. Cranley had nothing to do with him and LQ missing the Dem endorsement. LQ missed it because she virtually disappeared from politics after losing and there was probably some resentment around that. Bauman definitely should have gotten the endorsement. Like it or not, the party wanted a ticket that reflects the diversity of the city and he was behind PG, Mann, Seelbach, and Landsman in the white male line. There is no question that if he wants it, he will get the endorsement in 4 years and likely win one of the 6 open spots. 

People who are outraged over Seelbach's quip seem to be missing the fact that Maney singled out Seelbach during the campaign for unknown reasons, even challenging him to a one-on-one debate at one point. Which is, like, not a thing that council candidates do. Seelbach ignored Maney during the entire campaign and when all was said and done, made a little a joke about it. Was Seelbach's comment immature and inappropriate? Absolutely. But Maney playing the victim card here is a little rich.

I saw on Dillingham's FB page that provisional ballot totals won't be included in the final/official results for 2 weeks.

Bauman definitely should have gotten the endorsement. Like it or not, the party wanted a ticket that reflects the diversity of the city and he was behind PG, Mann, Seelbach, and Landsman in the white male line. There is no question that if he wants it, he will get the endorsement in 4 years and likely win one of the 6 open spots.

 

Would you have heard the same line though if Bauman was supportive of Cranley?  I'm not so sure...

 

I do hope he wins next time, he's everything you guys need, plus I think he has crossover support from people who normally won't vote for someone with his politics due to his ability to talk plainly (even about sophisticated issues), his personal one-on-one style of selling himself and his background as a cop/son of a preacher.  I see him as future mayor material if he can get his vote totals up / not screw up when in office.

People who are outraged over Seelbach's quip seem to be missing the fact that Maney singled out Seelbach during the campaign for unknown reasons, even challenging him to a one-on-one debate at one point. Which is, like, not a thing that council candidates do. Seelbach ignored Maney during the entire campaign and when all was said and done, made a little a joke about it. Was Seelbach's comment immature and inappropriate? Absolutely. But Maney playing the victim card here is a little rich.

 

Maney was a first time candidate with little name recognition and a small amount of fundraising. He went on the attack against Seelbach as an attempt to earn free media time. It worked pretty well. Agree or disagree with his positions or the action itself, at the very least it's undeniable that there was a practical reason for the behavior - to get more attention during a political campaign flooded with a record number of candidates. Seelbach's response, on the other hand, had no reason or justification other than pure pettiness. It's an embarrassing look for him - it instantly reminded me of that hilarious 911 call - "I am punched!" I liked Alex Triantafilou's response to the tweet (most responses,  btw, seem to be lambasting Seelbach) - I'd love to see what's in their dossier (I'm sure plenty of us on here have at least a few ideas).

Maney's tactic backfired for what I would assume to be his urban base. Many people refused to vote for him who would otherwise have likely campaigned on his behalf. He burned a lot of bridges with his petty attacks on Seelbach. Seelbach didn't handle the situation with grace and should have continued to ignore him. No excuse for his lack of professionalism.

Just knowing Seelbach from many years ago, it is par for the course with him. I have always found him to be completely full of himself and a jerk. I don't say this lightly around people I have met face to face

Bauman definitely should have gotten the endorsement. Like it or not, the party wanted a ticket that reflects the diversity of the city and he was behind PG, Mann, Seelbach, and Landsman in the white male line. There is no question that if he wants it, he will get the endorsement in 4 years and likely win one of the 6 open spots.

 

Would you have heard the same line though if Bauman was supportive of Cranley?  I'm not so sure...

 

I do hope he wins next time, he's everything you guys need, plus I think he has crossover support from people who normally won't vote for someone with his politics due to his ability to talk plainly (even about sophisticated issues), his personal one-on-one style of selling himself and his background as a cop/son of a preacher.  I see him as future mayor material if he can get his vote totals up / not screw up when in office.

 

He's abrasive as hell. I think he's highly unlikable, though I do agree with most of the policies he supports. 

Would you have heard the same line though if Bauman was supportive of Cranley?  I'm not so sure...

 

Since that is completely hypothetical, it is hard to say. If Bauman was an avid Cranley supporter, then I suppose Cranley might have lobbied on his behalf. That said, I don't recall hearing about Cranley inserting himself into the process or making any comments on the nature of the slate. Probably did not want to draw attention to the fact that none of the non-incumbents (that I can think of - correct me if I am forgetting someone) officially endorsed him.

Cranley is closely aligned with state party leadership.  One call to David Pepper and he could work the whole chain down to the local level.

Cranley is closely aligned with state party leadership.  One call to David Pepper and he could work the whole chain down to the local level.

 

David Pepper was beaten by Mallory back in 2005 and so anyone affiliated even loosely with him or any of his allies (Qualls, Quinlivan, Seelbach, etc.) will be barred from the inner sanctum.  That's why Bauman failed to get the FOP or D endorsement and that's why he didn't win despite putting in 100X more work than, say, Sittenfeld.  Quinlivan, similarly, was left out in the wilderness. 

 

At this point it's pretty obvious that Sittenfeld, Mann, and now Seelbach are winning reelection based on name recollection alone.  It's kind of amazing thinking back to Quinlivan's light questioning of the police contracts back around 2012-2013...if she hadn't done that, she would have easily beaten Amy Murray in 2013 and been reelected easily once again in 2017. 

 

When a city is just basic services, and 50% of those employees are in police/fire unions, you can't tick them off under ANY circumstances. 

Just knowing Seelbach from many years ago, it is par for the course with him. I have always found him to be completely full of himself and a jerk. I don't say this lightly around people I have met face to face

 

So basically you are to Seelbach as Jake is to Cranley.  Mortal enemies.

Not quite. I knew him as an acquaintance many years ago. Always thought he was completely full of himself and a giant A$$.  I may not agree with his politics, that is true, but I also do not think much of him as a person. Contrast that with Yvette Simpson, while I do not necessarily agree with her politically on many things, I think she is a heck of a good person and truly cares about more than herself

Quinlivan's light questioning of the police contracts back around 2012-2013...if she hadn't done that, she would have easily beaten Amy Murray in 2013 and been reelected easily once again in 2017. 

 

Technically Quinlivan wouldn't have been eligible for reelection in 2017 since she had served 4 full years before the 4 year terms were put in place. So 2013 would have been her last year.

Not quite. I knew him as an acquaintance many years ago. Always thought he was completely full of himself and a giant A$$.  I may not agree with his politics, that is true, but I also do not think much of him as a person.

 

So, again, you are to Seelbach as Jake is to Cranley.  Personal reasons aka "full of himself and a giant a$$."

All votes have been counted and the results are in. Jeff Pastor received 223 more votes than Michelle Dillingham, giving him the ninth seat on City Council.

Kristen Wiig is starring in a new sit-com based on a book written by Council Member PG Sittenfeld's sister:

 

Apple Orders Comedy Series Starring Kristen Wiig

 

Apple has placed an order for a 10-episode half-hour comedy show starring Kristen Wiig, reports Variety. The show is said to be based on the upcoming "You Think It, I'll Say It" short story collection by Curtis Sittenfeld.

 

Curtis Sittenfeld's book features 10 stories that "upend assumptions about class, relationships, and gender roles in a nation that feels both adrift and viscerally divided," according to its description on Amazon. It was created by Colleen McGuinness, who worked on "30 Rock," "Mercy," and "About a Boy."

Jeff Pastor and Chris Seelbach got into it on Twitter yesterday:

 

https://twitter.com/votePASTOR

 

https://twitter.com/ChrisSeelbach

 

The short version: Seelbach tried to call out Murray and Pastor for missing a meeting because they attended the president's visit. Pastor called Seelbach out for his "Hipster Liberal Racism." A Business Courier reporter chimed in mentioning that the committee meeting in question only needs a quorum of 5 to vote, so 3 other people were absent as well. Seelbach walked right into this one, I'm not sure why he bothered with picking this fight.

Both Seelbach and Pastor look really bad coming out of this. It's embarrassing on all sides. No one wins, and it just sets the next 4 years up to be miserable for all of us.