If you want an example of candidates who spend all their time campaigning, look at PG Sittenfeld. He has accomplished absolutely nothing during his time on council, and yet he has managed to convince people that he's "on the move" (whatever that means). He finished in first place, with 10,000 more votes than the next person.

 

Not exactly a response to what I wrote, but I have to ask, Travis, do you really think that P.G. is going to change his perpetual campaign to one where he shows "leadership" for the next three years?  I'm serious, I actually want to know if you believe he's going to conduct his presently very successful political differently now that he has a four year term.

 

I'd love to hear your response.  I find it hard to believe that he will, because he clearly defines "success" as getting the most votes.  I think his career is an enormous failure, because he's wasted two years where he could exercise political power. But these people who use these things as stepping stones can't be taught to take the job seriously.  That guy is in the game to get laid and to show off at his Princeton reunions.  Four year terms won't change a thing.

No, I don't think PG will ever stop being in campaign mode because his goal is to run for a higher office. But I do think that longer terms will cause other council members to take bolder positions. For example, Seelbach.

No, I don't think PG will ever stop being in campaign mode because his goal is to run for a higher office. But I do think that longer terms will cause other council members to take bolder positions. For example, Seelbach.

 

Thanks for your honesty.  Like I said earlier though, given that the constituency didn't change, I think that premise is based on some serious wishful thinking.

PAlexander, I am using my phone, so this won't be long. When that was put forth by one of the most progressive Democrats around here, it was to get away from the influence of groups like the police and fire unions (not progressive at all) and allow people to vote for real budget changes without fear of a huge money bomb being dropped against you.

 

The election didn't go the way I hoped, and we now have the leadership of NO running our town, but if it had gone the other way, I certainly wouldn't be complaining, and neither would you.

PAlexander, I am using my phone, so this won't be long. When that was put forth by one of the most progressive Democrats around here, it was to get away from the influence of groups like the police and fire unions (not progressive at all) and allow people to vote for real budget changes without fear of a huge money bomb being dropped against you.

 

The election didn't go the way I hoped, and we now have the leadership of NO running our town, but if it had gone the other way, I certainly wouldn't be complaining, and neither would you.

 

I complained at the time and I specifically said after the 2011 council election that no one would be happy with the four year terms if the 2009 winners had been elected.  And that came to pass, except that this group is worse.  So you're wrong about what I would be complaining about.

 

The police and fire unions give jack squat in terms of money.  No donor gives money based on police & fire endorsements.  It's all about turnout.  You simply don't understand how these council races work, and that's made the system worse.

Personal attacks. Great. Maybe this board can be like an election.

 

Money isn't what I'm talking about, it's more about influence. The police and fire unions talked and pushed the idea that council people wanted to cut safety, and that would result in deaths. That doesn't take a ton of money. Council fears looking weak on those issues, after all, Police and fire are our heroes! Look how much they sacrifice! So, yeah, that's all a big deal. Look at Winburn's campaign.

 

I would suggest lobbying Mann and Sittenfeld, and trying to make the best of this.

Personal attacks. Great. Maybe this board can be like an election.

Why is what I said worse than you claiming to know what I did or would have done?

 

Money isn't what I'm talking about, it's more about influence. The police and fire unions talked and pushed the idea that council people wanted to cut safety, and that would result in deaths. That doesn't take a ton of money. Council fears looking weak on those issues, after all, Police and fire are our heroes! Look how much they sacrifice! So, yeah, that's all a big deal. Look at Winburn's campaign.

 

I would suggest lobbying Mann and Sittenfeld, and trying to make the best of this.

The reason I said that I don't think you know what you are talking about is because this notion of "council fears looking weak" is simply a way of saying that council did something you didn't agree with.  These people are politicians, they are supposed to take the concerns of their constituents seriously.  Also, liberal/progressives were elected in 2011, the streetcar project has made real progress since then, so it was possible under the previous 2 year term system.  I simply don't understand how your notions connect to what actually occured in the empirical world.

Because the world exists outside of the Streetcar. The budget has real concerns and answers need to be found outside of just "no cuts to safety departments."

 

The no cuts to safety pledge is essentially the Grover Norquist pledge, and the 4 year term was meant to be a buffer, at least in part.

 

Blaming me for supporting that, isn't going to change anything. Don't discount the effect of the emotional comparisons between household budgets and the city.

Because the world exists outside of the Streetcar. The budget has real concerns and answers need to be found outside of just "no cuts to safety departments."

I'm sorry, I don't understand this.

 

The no cuts to safety pledge is essentially the Grover Norquist pledge, and the 4 year term was meant to be a buffer, at least in part.

A buffer from what?  The voters who these politicians represent?  taestall seemed to imply something similar, that candidates could get real work done in the extra years without worrying to have to campaign, but when I asked for an example of how that might work, he suggested one council member who may be more liberal/progressive because of it.

 

Blaming me for supporting that, isn't going to change anything. Don't discount the effect of the emotional comparisons between household budgets and the city.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means.  I simply can't think of a single place where moving from frequent elections to less frequent elections led to a more liberal/progressive outcomes.  If you have a real world example, I'd be happy to consider it.  Otherwise, I don't think anyone should be expected to believe a policy is liberal/progressive simply because a generally liberal/progressive politician suggested it.  I mean, your very theory about why frequent campaigning is bad is premised on the notion that candidates make a bunch of unserious suggestions simply to be popular.

Ram I agree with you on all points.  Flynn was stunning to me, after having run so many times unsuccessfully.  He also was a prime opponent of the 4-year terms; now he gets to benefit from them.  I think a rift formed between him and Shawn Baker (former active charter committee member) over this issue, and now Shawn is out in the cold with the Dillingham loss. 

Technology limitations, I apologize for a short response.

 

Why do more frequent elections cause more progressivism? Populism, yes. But as is seen from the tea party, Populism is no guarantee for progressive ideas.

Yeah I don't see how more elections = more progressive policies. It could be argued that you have to do a lot very quickly to prove yourself in 2-year elections, but that was just turned on its head by Smitherman, Winburn, and Sittenfeld winning easily. None of them have accomplished a thing on council yet do amazing in the election.

 

I am all for (and this was my initial suggestion) 4 year terms where 4 council seats are up for election during the mayoral race and 5 are up for election on odd years without a mayoral race. That allows people to be heard and also gives some stability to the job and a long-term vision for the city.

Just merged the 4-year term discussion from the mayor race to the council thread. Now it's on topic

I think PAlexander is arguing that favoring republicanism to populism is not progressive. Which is agnostic to the policies that result.

I'm arguing that the solution (4 year terms) to the problem (frequent campaigning results in bad/non liberal-progressive policies) was completely misdiagnosed, and the results (the newly elected council with a majority completely hostile to progressive policies) were completely predictable.  The results were predictable because we had plenty of council anti-progressive council majorities in the past.

 

Here's the thing: a representative is going to reflect his constituency.  If the constituency is geographically and demographically large, you're going to get a candidate who needs to raise a lot of money in order to get himself and his message in front of the voters (think Barack Obama running for president in 2008).  If you have a constituency that is geographically & demographically small, you're going to get a candidate who can hustle his way to victory (think Joe Biden running for Delaware Senate as 29 year old Wilimington City Councilor).

 

Cincinnati is a big area and the best way to get yourself and your message in front of the voters is to (1) not have to work and (2) be able to raise enough money for TV ads.  That means you've got to have money yourself (particularly if you are young); that PG wins big because he hustles and knows a ton of rich people who max out to him when he makes one call.  Two year term, four year term, his structural advantages won't change because of the constituency.  The best way to get a d-bag like that out of office is simply to have more shots at him- that's why two year elections are better given the present system, because it gives the informed voter more shots at the bastards.

 

If you want to get rid of the bastards entirely- sorry, you can't they'll always be out there.  But increasing the number of constituencies (say to 50, like they have in Chicago or New York; or even the 26 they had in Cincinnati a hundred plus years ago) reduces both the need to be rich and have access to rich donors; in addition, it (likely) reduces the bastard factor because when you're one of 26 or 50 rather than one of 9 using the office simply as a stepping stone makes it a lot less attractive (you'd reduce the salary as well, if possible).

 

In short, the problem that the pro-4 year term folks identified required a lot more analysis than was ever given in justification.  The fact that the biggest proponent of it (Laure Quinlivan) thought she would directly benefit from the change (because she didn't enjoy campaigning; also, Oops!) should have been at least given one pause before supporting it (that's not to say I didn't like Laure on Council.  It's simply to say what was said).

 

 

The problem with these council elections is that they're too much of a crap shoot.  There are usually 3-5 who everyone can assume will make it, but sometimes even they lose (Bortz, Ghiz).  Then the range of votes between 6 and 12 is often within just 1,000-2,000 votes.  It's way too capricious. 

 

And as has been mentioned, it favors people from wealthy families (PG, etc.) who do not have student loan debt and don't have to work.  They can spend a full year preparing for these runs.  Seelbach is on council because he campaigned like hell for the 2011 election starting in 2010.  I have a picture of him in the pouring rain waving at the 2011 Bockfest parade. 

 

 

Also, the math totally doesn't make sense to attempt to self-finance one of these campaigns.  Say you have $100,000 in residual annual income from paid-for rental properties.  You would need to save $300,000 to be competitive with a PG Sittenfeld and *make sure* that you get on council.  The $60,000 X 4 in earnings while on council doesn't come close to breaking even.  It's of course way worse with the mayor's seat. 

 

So, who got on council this time with the least money raised?

 

 

^Your plan is pretty sound for self-financing, and more actionable that there are 4 year terms:  $150,000 in net profits, live on the $50,000 and save the $100,000 each year for a race every four.

 

So, who got on council this time with the least money raised?

 

 

While there are no official numbers out I would suspect it was Kevin Flynn who loaned his own campaign over $168,000.

I thought I heard Yvette Simpson on the radio saying she only raised $60k

Thank God Laure is gone.

Thank God Laure is gone.

I think you're looking at the wrong deity. If God had been involved, Smithermn, Winburn & Sittenfeld would be gone.

Electing the Prince of Lies mayor seriously indicates other forces at work.

^Your plan is pretty sound for self-financing, and more actionable that there are 4 year terms:  $150,000 in net profits, live on the $50,000 and save the $100,000 each year for a race every four.

 

So PG are you going to change your stance on the streetcar? and keep your promise of going with the will of the people? inquiring minds would like to know

I'm not PG.  Have you read any of my other posts which mention him?

^The problem with my plan is that it takes almost an entire career on middle-class income to get to the point where you can have $100,000 in annual residual income.  So if I were to run on my own plan, the earliest I could do it is when I'm 60 or 65. 

Thank God Laure is gone.

I think you're looking at the wrong deity. If God had been involved, Smithermn, Winburn & Sittenfeld would be gone.

Electing the Prince of Lies mayor seriously indicates other forces at work.

 

Nope, Laure was a joke and the worst member of council. It is good she is gone, my dog would do a better job than her on council

A word of advice to everyone, let's not feed trolls. Combative, insulting language is not going to sway minds and you won't sway those peoples' minds.

 

It will be interesting to see if PG takes a slightly more progressive stance on issues now that there is increased pressure on him to do so. Also, since he likes to fight against the tide of most of council, he might naturally move in that direction.

Thank God Laure is gone.

I think you're looking at the wrong deity. If God had been involved, Smithermn, Winburn & Sittenfeld would be gone.

Electing the Prince of Lies mayor seriously indicates other forces at work.

 

Nope, Laure was a joke and the worst member of council. It is good she is gone, my dog would do a better job than her on council

 

Worse than Smitherman? Pam Thomas? Hardly.

 

Sounds like you have a personal issue with Quinlivan.

I really know nothing about Pam Thomas to make an opinion on her, she has only be there such a short time. While I disagree with Smitherman in many cases, he at least presents an argument from a financial perspective with numbers and figures. While I tend to disagree with his figures, at least I can see his logic and where it is coming from, you can at least debate that.

 

My problem with Laure is that she just seems like a flake to me, based on the interviews she has given. She is not someone I trust with my tax dollars. Everything is about art and beautification of the city, paint more murals, etc. While I agree with her on these issues, there are more important priorities that need to be taken care of before you can get to the "would nice to have" part of the list. She cannot quantify the return on any of her initiatives. For example, use Seelbach and the bathroom issue. He had a quantifiable number that he was able to project to the voters, whether you agree with him or not, he at least had facts to stand behind. Simpson is able to do the same thing (whether or not you agree with her numbers, she has them) Laure, cannot project these figures. If I am going to trust her with my tax dollars I want to hear something besides, "because it will look pretty, and it makes people feel good"

I don't trust anyone who trusts Smitherman with anything. Yvette Simpson was on WLW the other day, and said that he put one motion in council. ONE MOTION! And it was for ethics training for city staff. He doesn't believe in anything and votes NO on just about anything. He doesn't show up to council debates, and abuses his power in other positions to gain popularity from the lowest information voters. Also, Pam Thomas has done pretty much nothing on council.

 

I remember Laure trying to get 1% of casino tax revenue to start a public art fund. Have you ever seen Laure Quinlivan talk during the budget discussions? She has so many numbers and figures about how much spending the city has cut from other departments, and yet police/fire budgets remain at the same level, untouched.

While I agree with her on these issues, there are more important priorities that need to be taken care of before you can get to the "would nice to have" part of the list.

 

Like, say, right-sizing public safety spending? She is the only councilmember advocating for this, and it's the only logical way to get the city's financial house in order. This more than makes up for any flakiness.

I can tell you from first-hand experience of seeing numerous city council candidates traipse through my workplace giving presentations--Laure had BY FAR the most detail regarding the financial condition of the city and what needed to be done.  I am sure that in her talk she went through more figures than every other candidate we saw combined. 

While I agree with her on these issues, there are more important priorities that need to be taken care of before you can get to the "would nice to have" part of the list.

 

Like, say, right-sizing public safety spending? She is the only councilmember advocating for this, and it's the only logical way to get the city's financial house in order. This more than makes up for any flakiness.

 

This is why I supported Quinlivan.  She was the only one brave enough to fight this issue.  And it probably ultimately led to her not winning re-election this week.

People who are good at math? BORING. People who flip out in the media and get caught up in wreckless rhetoric? LEADERS.

Brutus, you are not familiar enough with Laure Quinlivan to understand what her political strategy was.  Her "flakiness" was an act as much as is Sittenfeld's.  She was not reelected because she didn't raise enough money. 

 

Her greatest moment was the time when she left Bill Cunningham speechless.  She came right at him and said that she knew he was secretly a streetcar supporter and the airwaves of 700 went silent for a solid 3 seconds.  He was stunned that he called her out on it.  I've been listening to Bill Cunningham since about 1989 and it's the only time I've ever heard him at a loss for words. 

 

Her support of arts organizations turned out to be a failed political strategy.  I think she took the advice of someone who wanted her gone.  She became bogged down with her association with that stuff and her frontal attack on overspending on core services was ignored. 

 

^Laure's flakiness was real, in that she hated campaigning.  She wasn't bad at it, but she hated doing it.  That's the main reason she wanted the four year terms.  And that's the problem with the liberal politicians in this town.  They really seem to think that going out there and talking to folks is beneath them.  Whereas the conservative ones (generally) think the people are beneath them but they like playing games so they are better at getting into that mindset.

 

^Laure's flakiness was real, in that she hated campaigning.  She wasn't bad at it, but she hated doing it.  That's the main reason she wanted the four year terms.  And that's the problem with the liberal politicians in this town.  They really seem to think that going out there and talking to folks is beneath them.  Whereas the conservative ones (generally) think the people are beneath them but they like playing games so they are better at getting into that mindset.

 

I'm sorry.  This sounds like a ridiculous generalization.

^Yeah, I'm pretty sure that PG is the only person who ENJOYS campaigning. Most probably despise it because you are constantly on your feet talking politics with people for extremely long days. Nothing about that sounds good

and it costs a fortune.

 

^Laure's flakiness was real, in that she hated campaigning.  She wasn't bad at it, but she hated doing it.  That's the main reason she wanted the four year terms.  And that's the problem with the liberal politicians in this town.  They really seem to think that going out there and talking to folks is beneath them.  Whereas the conservative ones (generally) think the people are beneath them but they like playing games so they are better at getting into that mindset.

 

I'm sorry.  This sounds like a ridiculous generalization.

The part about Laure wasn't a generalization, as I mentioned her specifically.  My opinion about her and campaigning was based on my experiences with her; I can't remember if she outright said to me that she disliked it, but that was certainly how I took it.  While I understood the sentiment, I found it surprising, as I thought she was pretty good at it and I generally like doing things I'm good at.

 

The part about the liberal politicians was certainly a generalization, but given Qualls' & Mallory's performance in getting the streetcar to be more popular after nearly 4 years, I stand by it.  Same thing with the conservative politicians.  Cranley's statements that we can just shift the streetcar funding always were obvious bullshit.  Every argument marshalled against the streetcar can be used with equal validity against the MLK interchange.  If you don't demonstrate any intellectual integrity with your constituents, then you clearly don't have any respect for them, and consequently I argue you demonstrate you think they are beneath you.

 

Ridiculous?  Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion; only some bother to explain why they hold them.

^Yeah, I'm pretty sure that PG is the only person who ENJOYS campaigning. Most probably despise it because you are constantly on your feet talking politics with people for extremely long days. Nothing about that sounds good

 

Ugh, having to hear people say ignorant things with facts completely wrong all day. Ignorant things and wrong facts that directly, negatively affect your personal livelihood and sense of self-worth.

 

It's sickening when constituents have to suffer because people conflated hand-kissing and baby-shaking skills with good decision-making ability.

Ugh, having to hear people say ignorant things with facts completely wrong all day. Ignorant things and wrong facts that directly, negatively affect your personal livelihood and sense of self-worth.

 

It's sickening when constituents have to suffer because people conflated hand-kissing and baby-shaking skills with good decision-making ability.

Yeah--but, in the end, don't you just wanna hug PG?  After all, he's so young, handsome, well-heeled and connected.  Therefore, presto, right in front of your very eyes--the consummate "clown"!  He can be whomever or whatever he thinks you need/want him to be!  Really now, what's there not to like about PG?

I want to hug Shawn Butler.  That man is a fox!

dunno about hugging him, but his enthusiasm on his Newsmakers appearance was infective.

>Laure's flakiness was real, in that she hated campaigning.

 

I'm telling you right now, as someone who has known her personally since her TV days, that she is definitely and positively not a flake in real life and that was her attempt to appear inoffensive.  She benefited from name recognition and so she never had to campaign as hard as the others.  She was the *only* local politician since the financial crisis with the guts to suggest downsizing the police department.  In fact she was back on Cunningham's show early this week, even after having been knocked off, still calling for the police department budget to be hacked.  She's much more of a financial conservative than ANY of the so-called conservatives who now hold office, certainly including Cranley.

 

Qulinlivan, like Qualls, was a good person for at-large council elections but would not win in head-to-head county commissioner or congressional races.

 

 

>She wasn't bad at it, but she hated doing it.  That's the main reason she wanted the four year terms.  And that's the problem with the liberal politicians in this town.  They really seem to think that going out there and talking to folks is beneath them.  Whereas the conservative ones (generally) think the people are beneath them but they like playing games so they are better at getting into that mindset.

 

Look, campaigning truly SUCKS.  As someone just mentioned, you're having the same conversations over and over again with people who literally cannot understand how processes actually work.  They can't remember facts, dates, and have no concept of which governmental body does what.  They can be easily convinced that the city runs the county jail or that the city built the stadiums or that the city does dog licensing. 

 

The people who are effective politicians are those who love to campaign.  By all accounts John Cranley *loves* to campaign, and that's part of the reason why the Democrat party has been behind him for so long.  So what I'm saying is that Cranley loves to go around to community events, hear semi-educated people get emotional over something trivial (only one trash can!), then he identifies a boogeyman and frames that framing so as to cast himself as a voice of reason, as the one with common sense. 

 

 

 

 

^Laure's flakiness was real, in that she hated campaigning.  She wasn't bad at it, but she hated doing it.  That's the main reason she wanted the four year terms.  And that's the problem with the liberal politicians in this town.  They really seem to think that going out there and talking to folks is beneath them.  Whereas the conservative ones (generally) think the people are beneath them but they like playing games so they are better at getting into that mindset.

 

I'm sorry.  This sounds like a ridiculous generalization.

The part about Laure wasn't a generalization, as I mentioned her specifically.  My opinion about her and campaigning was based on my experiences with her; I can't remember if she outright said to me that she disliked it, but that was certainly how I took it.  While I understood the sentiment, I found it surprising, as I thought she was pretty good at it and I generally like doing things I'm good at.

 

The part about the liberal politicians was certainly a generalization, but given Qualls' & Mallory's performance in getting the streetcar to be more popular after nearly 4 years, I stand by it.  Same thing with the conservative politicians.  Cranley's statements that we can just shift the streetcar funding always were obvious bullshit.  Every argument marshalled against the streetcar can be used with equal validity against the MLK interchange.  If you don't demonstrate any intellectual integrity with your constituents, then you clearly don't have any respect for them, and consequently I argue you demonstrate you think they are beneath you.

 

Ridiculous?  Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion; only some bother to explain why they hold them.

 

On second/third reading, I think I agree with you.  Retracting.  Thanks for the explanation.

I generally agree with PAlexanders post.

 

Also, both Laure & Seelbach had adds playing on radio attacking them on the Buzz, the Whiz, and a country radio station. Plus a mail piece that went city wide attacking them too. If you're not campaigning hard to fight against those things you're in trouble.

Seelbach campaigned harder but was also luckier to have won a seat in 2011. I think the republicans saw those two as easy targets for the very reason that they're not good at defending themselves.  Neither are particularly strong on talk radio.

It's bullshit that talk radio gets to make the rules like that.

SEELBACH WAS RELATIVELY ON FIRE AT THE GREEN FORUM @ NORTHSIDE TAVERN

oops