This weeks CityBeat had articles on two non-incumbent City Council candidates:

 

Chris Seelbach

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-23605-seelbach-4-all.html

 

PG Sittenfeld

http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-23592-otr-foundation-and-john-boehner.html

There was talk this week about LQ wanting to change council terms from 2 year terms to staggered 4-year terms. (http://is.gd/8WAGC6 & http://is.gd/Gvslre). I'm personally for the change. I think it would end the constant campaigning by council members and allow them to work on longer-term projects.

Sounds good to me!!! 3 years of work and 1 year of campaigning is a lot better than 1 year of work 1 year of campaigning.

Meet the Candidates

 

Several groups are teaming up to sponsor a forum on Friday for candidates running for Cincinnati City Council.

So far, seven candidates — including one incumbent — have indicated they will attend the session. They are Councilman Wendell Young, a Democrat; Nicholas Hollan, Jason Riveiro, Chris Seelbach and P.G. Sittenfeld, also Democrats; and Kevin Flynn and Yvette Simpson, who are Charterites.

7/29, 4:30-7:30 p.m. at Keys of the Kingdom United Methodist Church, 4400 Reading Road, in Avondale

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-2212-council-forum-set-for-friday.html

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/07/29/sittenfeld-leads-the-pack-in-cincinnati-council-fundraising/

 

REVISED:

 

Totals include:

 

PG Sittenfeld, a democratic challenger: $190,254

 

Charlie Winburn, a Republican incumbent: $158,090

 

Wayne Lippert, a recently-appointed Republican incumbent: $112,640

 

Chris Bortz, an incumbent endorsed by the Charter Committe: $55,769

 

Amy Murray, another appointed Republican incumbent: $56,586

 

Chris Seelbach, a Democratic challenger: $48,891

 

Laure Quinlivan, a Democrat running for a second term: $30,495

 

Catherine Smith Mills, a Republican challenger running for the first time: $23,354

 

Roxanne Qualls, an incumbent running with the endorsements of the Democrat Party and the Charter Committee: $23,323

 

Leslie Ghiz, a Republican incumbent: $20,274

 

Nicholas Hollan, Democratic challenger: $17,135

 

Wendell Young, Democratic incumbent: $13,457

 

Yvette Simpson, challenger with Democratic and Charter endorsements: $12,963

 

Jason Riveiro, a first-time candidate endorsed by the Democratic Party: $1,786.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18957.13950.html#ixzz1ThlUft4r

You forgot Charlie Winburn's $158,090.

It's official:

 

NAACP's Smitherman steps down to run for City Council

 

Cincinnati NAACP President Christopher Smitherman will temporarily give up his office to run for a Cincinnati City Council seat in the November election.

 

Smitherman said he has met the qualifications to run and that, in accordance with NAACP National Board of Directors policy adopted in 1968, he will relinquish his office as president during the period of his candidacy.

Anyone see the YP Candidate forum last night at the University Club.

 

Personal opinion, Seelbach & Simpson were strongest, followed by Hollan & Riveiro, then tied for last Mills, Sittenfeld & Lippert (who wasn't there.. but had Kitt Higgs his campaign manager speak for him). 

 

PG also officially came out against the streetcar.

edit.

Cincinnati Enquirer is going to do a series asking candidates where they stand on issues 1 issue at a time.

Where council candidates stand:

First up is the streetcar.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110904/NEWS0108/109040309/Where-council-candidates-stand-Streetcar

The math of city council voting

HOWARD WILKINSON ON LOCAL POLITICS

 

You, Cincinnati voter, can vote for up to nine candidates for Cincinnati City Council.

 

It's been that way since 1927 - you look at a long list of council contenders (22 on the ballot this year) and can vote for the nine you want to represent you at City Hall.

 

No one can stop you from voting for nine.

 

If you don't vote for nine, don't feel like you have neglected your civic duty. Not that many people do. In the last council election, the average voter voted for 6.4 candidates; and that is typical of most council elections.

 

But, if you are a loyal Republican voter who lives in the city of Cincinnati - which makes you part of a minority group - your party is explicitly telling you not to vote for nine, under any circumstances. Vote for 5 and stop!

 

That is the theme the Hamilton County Republican Party has adopted this year; and they are spreading the word through the social media, through e-mail; and, no doubt, they will use mail pieces and the sample ballots handed out at the polls in Republican precincts on election day to get the message out.

 

Vote for 5 and stop!

 

Cont

That is the theme the Hamilton County Republican Party has adopted this year; and they are spreading the word through the social media, through e-mail; and, no doubt, they will use mail pieces and the sample ballots handed out at the polls in Republican precincts on election day to get the message out.

 

"And we here at the Enquirer will gladly help spread the message"

 

Doh!

I have never voted for 9.  It's sad that out of 20-30 people usually running, I can only find 4, 5, or 6 that I could actually stand to see sit on City Council. 

I have never voted for 9.  It's sad that out of 20-30 people usually running, I can only find 4, 5, or 6 that I could actually stand to see sit on City Council. 

 

The problem is that if you don't vote for 9 then people like Smitherman may squeak in since others are voting almost exclusively for the radicals.  For me, I had chosen 7 good ones and picked a couple of additional individuals that I don't like, but are heads and heels above the others.

^ actually I disagree here-  Voting for 9 doesn't necessarily do anything better than voting for 4 strong candidates you agree with.  Take Nicholas Hollan for example.  Great guy, good ideas, but he has 0% chance of winning- He will probably place 15th, he raised less than almost anyone, has no commercials, minimal yard signs, etc.  Just to make sure you vote for 9, adding a vote for him does not prevent people like Smitherman from squeaking in.  Voting for 4 or 5 strong, competitive candidates who actually have a shot is just as good as voting for 9 candidates, half of which have a shot, half of which have no shot.

^ actually I disagree here-  Voting for 9 doesn't necessarily do anything better than voting for 4 strong candidates you agree with.  Take Nicholas Hollan for example.  Great guy, good ideas, but he has 0% chance of winning- He will probably place 15th, he raised less than almost anyone, has no commercials, minimal yard signs, etc.  Just to make sure you vote for 9, adding a vote for him does not prevent people like Smitherman from squeaking in.  Voting for 4 or 5 strong, competitive candidates who actually have a shot is just as good as voting for 9 candidates, half of which have a shot, half of which have no shot.

 

It could, however, help the 7th, 8th, or 9th person endorsed by a party finish higher and go into the next election as a more viable candidate.  If they finished in 11th, it would be easier to fundraise then if they finished in 17th.

^ actually I disagree here-  Voting for 9 doesn't necessarily do anything better than voting for 4 strong candidates you agree with.  Take Nicholas Hollan for example.  Great guy, good ideas, but he has 0% chance of winning- He will probably place 15th, he raised less than almost anyone, has no commercials, minimal yard signs, etc.  Just to make sure you vote for 9, adding a vote for him does not prevent people like Smitherman from squeaking in.  Voting for 4 or 5 strong, competitive candidates who actually have a shot is just as good as voting for 9 candidates, half of which have a shot, half of which have no shot.

 

I would agree with that if the 4 or 5 aren't individuals like Qualls who are almost guaranteed to win or those like Sandra Queen Noble who are almost guaranteed to lose.  I would agree voting for those individuals is realistically pretty much a waste of time.

...Voting for 4 or 5 strong, competitive candidates who actually have a shot is just as good as voting for 9 candidates, half of which have a shot, half of which have no shot.

 

It could, however, help the 7th, 8th, or 9th person endorsed by a party finish higher and go into the next election as a more viable candidate.  If they finished in 11th, it would be easier to fundraise then if they finished in 17th.

 

One would think! and I think this is the mentality behind the Democrats continuous, foolish endorsement of 9 candidates each time, however history suggests otherwise:

 

In 2005, 4 democrats didn't win, placing 12th, 13th and 14th.  The 12th and 14th placed candidates never ran again, the 13th placed candidate (Wendell Young) ran in 2007.

 

In 2007, 4 democrats didn't win, placing 11th, 15, 17 and 18th.  The 11th placed candidate didn't run again, the 15, 17 and 18 (Harris, Young & Garry) ran again.

 

In 2009, 5 democrats didn't win, placing 10, 11, 14, 15 & 16.  The 10th & 11th placed candidates are not running 2011, the 14 and 16th placed candidates are.

 

As you see, in three consecutive city council elections, the highest placing democrat(s) DON'T run again, but the most out of reach democrats  run again, lose again, but STILL get the party endorsement, and waste money that could go to stronger candidates, use democratic energy, resources, and split the volunteers.  1999 was even worse, where not a single of the 4 losing dems ran again, ever (They placed 12, 13, 14 and 15). 

 

There is no grooming for the next time, there is no standard on electability, feasibility, etc.  They endorse simply on ideals and then say, good luck!

 

I am almost certain there have never been 6 democrats on City Council (certain there haven't been 6 in the last 20 years) and yet the party continues to endorse 9 people. 

 

Very frustrating for democrats in Cincinnati!

They don't need 6, they only need 5...which they had until Berding abandoned the party.

City Beat released their Council endorsements a few days ago.

 

Also, the sidebar in the streetcar article also lists the current campaign contributions for Council. If the top 9 fundraisers get elected there will be a Republican majority on Council.

 

FOP endorsements.

 

And commentary from CincyBlog.

 

Is there a high correlation between fundraising and election results here?

Yes and no.

 

Strong name ID means you need less $$ to win.

Also, lots of money with a bad message doesn't lead to a win. (Pat Fischer-R raised almost $300,000 and lost)

Republicans need way more money than democrats historically.

First time whites need more money than first time blacks historically.

 

 

To see some really interesting trends, check out the "City Council Contribution Summary" reports for the last few elections on the following link.

 

http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/election/public/reports/SearchForm

---

Interesting tactics by the Republicans this weekend.

 

From Jane Prendergast's Twitter feed: "Robo from Berding urging me not to vote for Cecil Thomas. Paid for by the Republican Party."

 

Darryl Parks making fun of Laure Quinlivan's Earl Pitts ad (alouth "Gary Burbank is a good friend of mine")

 

And two mailers yesterday urging to "Vote No" on three current members of City Council:

^ When you only have 5 candidates to try to elect, instead of 9, you can afford to send mailers urging people NOT to vote for the other party. The dems have 0 money to even consider this- some negative mailers on Murray & lippert could easily help knock them off.

Jane Prendergast now has a story out that includes pics of the same literature I received:

 

Republican Party Pays for Lit, Robos

 

 

 

 

^I thought it was interesting those mailers were from the Ohio GOP as opposed to the HamCo GOP.

Dunno who was paying for the anti-Quinlivan robo-calls.

Is it time yet to call Cincinnati a progressive city?

^I thought it was interesting those mailers were from the Ohio GOP as opposed to the HamCo GOP.

 

Good point. What do they find so important in Cincinnati as to divert funds from the SB2 campaign?

Did Smitherman really get elected or is it April Fools?

April Fools. Mike Allen, Amy Murray, Wayne Lippert, Charlie Winburn, Catherine Smith Mills, Leslie Ghiz, and Sandra Queen Noble were the top vote-getters. Issue 48 passed, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway, since there is now a streetcar-proof majority. Suburbanites have decided to move back into the city, determined to revitalize OTR "in West Chester's image".

 

Chris Smitherman was soundly defeated. He is now lobbying to be appointed mayor, when the current Republican-controlled council passes its emergency motion to recall Mallory.

Chris Smitherman is a cancer that, left unchecked or unguarded, will metastasize in the worst possible way.  How COULD Cincinnati voters even think about allowing this fox back into the hen house?  He is a self-serving, two-faced, demagogue who will sow divisiveness, turmoil, and destruction at every opportunity.  (Detroit is his model for Cincinnati.)

I think winburn and smitherman will be pretty marginalized but they clearly have strong constituencies.

 

The only real annoyance for me last night was Ghiz saying that she's putting her house up for sale and had just been waiting for the election to do so. She clearly hasn't been focusing on what's best for the city if she's had one foot out the door.

 

As far as the  new council...I'm happy it's progressive but they'd better do some good.

I'm looking forward to Winburn v. Smitherman, it should at least provide for some amusing antics.

 

What I find most surprising is that having a lot of rich friends is enough to get a newcomer second place, overall.  That's a scary thought.

One thing about Smitherman on council is I think his alliance with COAST will become untenable. If he acts as his constituents would like him to (i.e. NAACP supporters), his voting record will quickly become unpalatable to COAST-types.

 

My gut reaction on the slimmer margin by which 48 failed (seeing precinct results will help confirm or refute):

1) West side whites motivated to turn out to defeat SB5. They largely hate the streetcar.

2) Anti-streetcar blacks turned out because Smitherman was running.

 

A wildcard is if people learned over the past two years that they made a mistake in 2009 by voting "no for no streetcar". Thing is, like Eighth & State said, it's hard to know which side is more affected by this problem (surely some voted "yes for yes on the streetcar" both times). The question, I suppose then, is which constituency is less educated (or has a lower reading comprehension level) -- supporters or opponents? That would determine which side is more affected by the "confusing" language.

 

Edit: Oops, thought this was the streetcar thread for a second. I'll cross-post the part relevant to the streetcar in that thread.

^ Numerous keen observations here, natininja!  Will think about these...  Thanks!

Smitherman is an example of everything bad and wrong in Cincinnati. We must work to contain him or better yet provoke him into showing his true colors and discrediting himself. Maybe he will inspire others on council to maintain unity against him. If there are any big differences on council, smitherman will try to use disagreements to launch his egomaniacal attacks and identity politics. Left to his own devices, Smitherman would turn cincinnati into detroit with hills. He is a tragic and failed human being who should be spending his time in intensive psychotherapy to resolve his intense hatreds before they destroy him, not trying to lash out at others to make them feel as bad as he does and destroying everything he touches. I cannot overstate how horrible smitherman is. You have been warned.

There are some other things different now vs. 2003/4 that might make Smitherman's schtick less effective. The biggest thing, I think, is that blacks hold more positions of power. It's harder to use that for dividing and conquering when blacks have a majority on council, the police chief is black, the mayor is black, etc.

 

On a related note, Streicher is no longer chief of police. The riots, and related strife, are not so fresh in citizens' minds, and the leadership who presided over those days of strife are not around to serve as a punching bag. The new punching bag will be the mayor, who Smitherman will paint as an inappropriate leader for black Cincinnatians. If he aims to ally with Winburn at all, he'll need to be careful the way he goes about this. But I'm not sure he'd gain a lot by allying with Winburn, so he may write that off from the start.

 

One thing is for sure: local politics will be verrrry interesting, and uniquely Cincinnati, for the next two years.

Dunno how many of you guys remember when Tom Luken was on council & Qualls was mayor but it looks like we're in for more of the same.

I think the Enquirer will be keeping an eye on Smitherman. This article from his last term tickles me.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/01/26/loc_loc1asmith.html

In it he is defended by a lawyer who was later disbarred for being stoned for years - including when he made the statement in the article.

The NAACP graded council members on key issues & only 2 got bette than 50%. If Smitherman pursues these issues, his relationship with COA T will probably get interesting.

^ Quimbob, the article cited above illustrates "classic Smitherman."  This incorrigible, treacherous leopard will never change his spots, so we can all expect more-of-same, except possibly on a more sophisticated and covert level.  As Matthew Hall just mentioned, we all have been warned!

That was an interesting article.... but really why ARE there so many Elder/Seton cops on the CPD? That is quite a bit disproportional...

Is P.G Sittenfeld the brother of Curtis Sittenfeld, the author of the book "Prep"?  They look alike.

Is P.G Sittenfeld the brother of Curtis Sittenfeld, the author of the book "Prep"?  They look alike.

yes.

I'll probably read one of her books relatively soon, but they appear to not just be aimed at women, but designed to become an Oprah book, which apparently one of them did.  So I'm doubtful that they are of any real merit. 

Cincinnati voters. Was Chris Smitherman's name on your ballot this past election? He was the first City Council candidate name listed on mine as well as on my sample ballot taken from the BOE website. So what is he talking about here:

I think he's referring to the sample ballots given out by the parties for people to take to the ballot box... idk for sure though

Ah. Now that I can understand. I think it's time to move on to Politics 102.

In 2009 the average Cincinnatian voted for 6.7 candidates for council according to the Enquirer.  I don't think that's a new idea NOT to vote for 9.  Smitherman, on the other hand, was advocating voting for only 1 or 2 people (a stupid idea in my opinion)- I really don't think he can claim success for anything other than being the first independent african american, that is factually a first.  As an aside, I've never voted for 9 (usually only 5-7 candidates).

 

 

I think he's referring to the sample ballots given out by the parties for people to take to the ballot box... idk for sure though

He was certainly on the COA T sample ballot. Guy is just a pathological liar.

Smitherman has made a career out of rewriting history -- he's making this election out to be his Long March.   

 

He was listed right smack dab in the middle of the pack of council candidates.  Then, his issues 47 and 48 comprised the majority of city ballot issues.  Then, his Issue 48 required its own sheet of paper, at least where I voted.  COAST, how much did that additional sheet of paper, X 30,000-odd voters, cost?

 

Map: City Council – Who won where