Showing posts with label Cheryl Kagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cheryl Kagan. Show all posts
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, October 08, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Cheryl Kagan's Concession Statement
District 17 Senate challenger Cheryl Kagan has sent the following email to her supporters after losing a very close race to Senator Jennie Forehand.
Dear Friends:
Now that the Primary Election is behind us, I want to thank you for your support throughout this campaign and for your kind words in the past few days. Both have meant the world to me.
I congratulate Jennie Forehand for her 32 years of service to our district and her victory on Tuesday. I wish her well in these next four years. Surely, they will be challenging ones for the State… and therefore for Montgomery County’s fiscal stake in it.
I continue to be proud to be a Democrat… and a democrat. I am proud of the progressive ideals of our Democratic Party. We stand for justice, equality, compassion, economic opportunity, common sense fiscal solutions, and a commitment to protecting our environment and the people who live in it.
I am also proud that we live in a democracy, where open debate, dissent, and dynamic elections are expected and encouraged.
Thanks to over 1,000 donors and volunteers, we communicated our message to every corner of District 17. The voters in Gaithersburg, Rockville, and Garrett Park were warm and welcoming when I knocked on their doors. They shared their concerns and their hopes for the future. I met so many active, engaged citizens and was always inspired by their stories.
Election Day fell this year in the midst of the Jewish High Holy Days, which are a time to look back to evaluate our behavior and to look forward with hope. This confluence of events was both a challenge and an opportunity. As a candidate it is hard to put aside worldly considerations four days from Election Day. But it was also fitting, because in elections we review history and chart future directions.
My sincerest thanks go out to everyone who contributed their time, money and ideas to our effort. We pulled together a dynamic and diverse community that believed that tough times call for tough choices, hard work, and the effective advocacy needed to bring about change. I hope that each of you will continue to stay engaged in the political process. Our democracy depends on the involvement of talented, thoughtful and caring people like you. And I hope that you will see the extraordinary challenges we face as opportunities for the creative solutions that can result from a fresh look at what is possible and a renewed energy to bring it to fruition.
I will continue to be active in the Party and in our community. Right now, however, I am looking forward to taking some time to relax with my wonderful husband and address a lengthy to-do list that has grown during the months I was on the campaign trail.
I am humbled by the kindness and generosity I have received from so many. Even though we didn’t achieve the result we were hoping for, this is truly one of those efforts in which the journey is an end in itself.
Political campaigns are busy, noisy, exhausting and sometimes bewildering, but in a certain, special way, they are quietly enlightening. Even if you’ve lived there for years, you get to know your district better than you ever did before. Though you’ve studied them in theory, you understand the issues better and in a deeper, more concrete way. And you get to know the people you’re working with-- often during 14 hour days, often in difficult circumstances-- in a way that’s revealing and endearing and fascinating. For all of that, I am grateful.
Best wishes to you all,
Cheryl
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Absentee Ballot Counts
One of our informants forwarded the following absentee ballot counts by legislative district. These counts have implications for a number of close races.
Democratic Absentee Ballots, as of 10am this morning...
D14: 636 requested -- 320 returned so far
D15: 692 requested -- 312 returned so far
D16: 1735 requested -- 868 returned so far
D17: 814 requested -- 461 returned so far
D18: 1266 requested -- 599 returned so far
D19: 925 requested -- 528 returned so far
D20: 731 requested -- 297 returned so far
D39: 430 requested -- 208 returned so far
The spy notes, "If the absentees returned don't increase dramatically, Rona Kramer would have to take 60% of them, Kyle Lierman would need 65% and Cheryl Kagan would need 80%."
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
.jpg)
.jpg)
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Personal Perspective on the District 17 Senate Race
By Sima Osdoby.
It is no secret that I am supporting Cheryl Kagan in the District 17 Senate race, since my husband and I hosted her kick off fundraiser.
I have a long history with both Cheryl Kagan and Jennie Forehand and consider both of them friends. I respect Jennie and appreciate her 32-years of service, but believe strongly that the focused and activist leadership that Cheryl offers is very much needed right now as we face tough choices in the worst economic environment in generations.
This race is wonderful in some ways because the voters of District 17 are choosing between two fine candidates, and they also happen to be women. But this race has presented me, and others, with a choice that we wish we did not have to make. It raises issues about tenure, how campaigns are conducted, and more recently, what standards of conduct should be respected in campaigning.
Anna Quindlen’s last regular column for Newsweek in May 2009 captured some of what for me was at issue regarding tenure. In it she states "Throughout the country there seems to be an understanding that this is and ought to be a time of reinvention, in the economy, in education, in the office. But no one seems eager to reinvent on an individual level. Yet never has there been a time when fresh perspective and new ideas were more necessary." Beyond this quote, the column also examines the difficulty of knowing when it is time to let go and move on.
Businesses, nonprofits and even government agencies face similar issues such as deciding when founders or long-time staff should leave, if there should be mandatory retirement, or how to implement the now accepted best practice of term limits to insure turnover in nonprofit governing boards.
But in politics, tenure is what is at stake. Being an “insider” can be good in terms of “bringing home the bacon” but it also can have a downside if and when incumbents lose touch with their constituents. More often than not, in elections, incumbency presents an overwhelming advantage. If incumbents vote “right” on the issues, the default or general rule is that they get support from political allies and PACs. Senate President Mike Miller’s support for Senator Forehand was completely expected. It would have been a surprise if he had not supported a loyal incumbent of his own party.
As this campaign progressed, Cheryl Kagan, the challenger, amassed increasingly more endorsements and support from community leaders; current and former elected officials; labor, business, and advocacy organizations. As people began to take sides, some people were annoyed that Kagan was challenging the incumbent, was too assertive and should wait her turn, but discontent with the incumbent also surfaced more openly. Neighbors abutting the new District Court building were angry with Senator Forehand because they felt that she had not done enough to address concerns about the impact of its overwhelming size and mass on a fragile historic district – an important part of her base.
There were also those who hoped that Jennie would take the opportunity to leave on a high note. I was among them. The prospect of the kind of campaign that a challenger would have to wage against a long-term incumbent was not inviting. Jennie did not step aside, and, inevitably, “The Classiest Race in MoCo” turned negative.
Even in this most competitive and ambitious of places, our campaigns have generally focused on issues. Putting aside some of the more contested municipal races, District 17 has not seen a competitive, vigorous one-on-one primary race since 1990, when then-Delegate Mary Boergers defeated incumbent Senator Frank Shore with 71% of the vote. For 20 years, legislative succession has occurred when open seats were filled in generally polite competition.
But in competitive races, candidates have to make their case before the voters, draw a contrast and give reasons to vote for them and not their opponent. Like them or not, the negative mailers that began arriving in mid-August were what one might expect in a competitive race.
But last week I received a mailer that I found so disturbing that I shared it with MPW and wrote that “I was really upset when today’s mailer came from Jennie. It really crossed a line for me.” In what MPW calls “The Tobacco Mailer” I found the visual images, references to a personal relationship and the implications of the text sleazy and loaded with innuendo.
With apologies to Justice Potter Stewart, I cannot define where the boundary is between vigorous campaigning and being nasty, but I know it when I see it. This was nasty. Personal and nasty. I was disappointed and concerned. I still am.
This, and the previous “gift” mailer from Senator Forehand, seemed more like a Machiavellian tactic out of Karl Rove's book, mischaracterizing and distorting opponents' strengths. Even more troubling was its arrival a few hours before Rosh Hashanah, the beginning of the most solemn time of year for the many Jews in District 17. A Robocall the next day, in the midst of this religious holiday in which even area public schools are closed, made me wonder even more, not only about whose advice she was taking, but if this courteous and thoughtful woman whom I have known for more than two decades had lost touch with the sensitivities of her district.
I hope not.
I am not a pundit and cannot predict how this election will turn out. When it is over, I hope that there is some discussion and agreement about what is and what is not acceptable in our campaigns, and at least some exploration of where to draw lines where vigorous campaigning ends and nastiness begins.
A 36-year Montgomery County resident, Sima Osdoby has been active in civic affairs and politics. In 1990, she managed the Democratic slate that included Jennie Forehand.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Forehand Responds to Kagan on Tobacco Vote
Senator Jennie Forehand's campaign manager sent us the following statement in response to challenger Cheryl Kagan's criticism of Forehand's mailer on tobacco.
FOREHAND RESPONSE TO CANDIDATE KAGAN
So, let's see if we have this right. Kagan was RIGHT to vote with Republicans, pro-tobacco Conservative Democrats and the tobacco industry? And the rest of the Montgomery County Delegation (including the late liberal GOP Delegate Jean Cryor), anti-tobacco activists and Governor Parris Glendening were wrong? See the attached vote tally.
Her vote was bad on the grounds of tobacco policy, that much has been proved by subsequent (non-job killing) tobacco tax increases. But what was especially bad is that Kagan cast these votes knowing full well that her stance would endanger funding for Garrett Park and possibly Rockville.
Take a look at the attached vote tally sheet. What should we believe, spin from the Kagan campaign to distract us from the real issue, or our own eyes?
Charlotte Davis
Campaign Manager
Senator Jennie Forehand Re-Election Campaign
(240) 426-8741
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Tobacco Tussle
Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) is hitting challenger Cheryl Kagan for allegedly being in the pocket of Big Tobacco and Kagan is burning over it. Take a deep breath, folks, and read on!
Here’s Forehand’s negative mailer on tobacco.
And here’s Kagan’s response.
PRESS ADVISORY
For more information, contact:
Will Rice at will@cherylkagan.org
FOREHAND DISTORTS KAGAN RECORD AGAIN; STILL WON’T REVEAL SOURCES OF CAMPAIGN CASH
(Rockville MD, September 8, 2010)—In what’s becoming a sad pattern of desperation, 32-year incumbent Jennie Forehand today again smeared State Senate challenger Cheryl Kagan with a gross distortion of the facts. Ironically, Forehand’s latest wild charge involved child heath-- a cause Forehand abandoned when she sided with commercial property interests against our kids over lead paint testing. Meanwhile, Kagan’s hand-delivered request that Forehand reveal the sources of $36,351 in anonymous campaign donations went unanswered for a third day.
Forehand’s latest outrageous accusation-- that Kagan was influenced by tobacco lobbyists-- is easily dispelled by the facts. Cheryl co-sponsored a bill to raise the tobacco tax by 139% (http://mlis.state.md.us/1998rs/billfile/hb1073.htm), and when that failed to pass, supported an 83% hike (http://mlis.state.md.us/1999rs/votes/house/1309.htm). The Washington Post has called her “a strong supporter of limiting tobacco use.” (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-586341.html) Cheryl doesn’t smoke, never has, and has never taken a dime from the tobacco industry.
That record of financial independence from interests endangering our kids is not matched by Forehand, who voted against simple, life-saving lead-paint regulations while receiving over $16,000 in campaign contributions from apartment building owners and others who would just as soon keep tenants in the dark about the lead paint on their walls. (http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/votes/senate/1124.htm) Of course, since Forehand continues to hide the sources of more than one-fifth of her campaign contributions, she may well have received even more from lead-paint interests.
“What’s disappointing about these personal attacks is that Jennie knows the truth, since she was there,” said Kagan, who served for eight years with Forehand as a member of the Montgomery County legislative delegation. “It shows that she and the Annapolis insiders will do anything to keep her in office.”
Kagan did oppose a whopping 278% tobacco tax hike because of the devastating effect it would have had on Maryland’s small business. If that increase had passed, Maryland’s tax would have been over double D.C.’s rate, and over 50 times what Virginia charged. Family-owned markets and filling stations would have lost millions of dollars in sales of other products like groceries and gas as smokers avoided Maryland retail outlets.
Kagan noted at the time of the proposed job-killing tax that Maryland was about to receive over $2 billion for smoking cessation programs from the tobacco industry as part of the national tobacco settlement. (www.gao.gov/new.items/d01851.pdf)
# # # #
NOTE: Forehand’s misleading reference to accepting $2,000 in gifts from lobbyists refers to a personal romantic relationship with a guy who happened to be a lobbyist. (Among his clients is the American Lung Association!) All the details can be found at www.CherylKagan.org/facts.
Cheryl C. Kagan
Democrat for State Senate!
Citizens Helping Elect Cheryl Kagan (C.H.E.C.K.)
www.CherylKagan.org
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Kagan Calls on Forehand to Reveal Hidden Contributions
District 17 challenger Cheryl Kagan is calling on Senator Jennie Forehand to disclose the identity of all of her campaign contributors, a practice that Forehand has not always followed in the past. Kagan's challenge is based on our research last November, in which we found that Forehand was the biggest user of "lump sums" - a campaign finance reporting technique used to avoid disclosing donors - in the county, and the third-biggest user in the entire state. Following is Kagan's press release.
PRESS ADVISORY
For more information, contact:
Will Rice at will@cherylkagan.org
KAGAN CALLS ON FOREHAND TO FINALLY REVEAL IDENTITY OF “LUMP SUM” DONATIONS
(ROCKVILLE, September 6, 2010) Former Delegate and State Senate challenger Cheryl Kagan today hand-delivered a letter to Jennie Forehand, calling her bluff on her willingness to disclose the identities of $36,351 in bundled contributions. Not only is this required by law, but Senator Forehand has stated publicly that she is willing to do so. Despite that, she has not yet complied with Kagan’s repeated requests.
The letter to the 32-year incumbent is below.
September 6, 2010
Dear Jennie:
As you know, I have been concerned for some time with your unwillingness to release the names of all your campaign contributors. At a time of increasing public cynicism with politics and government, it is important for everyone in public service to follow the law and make it clear who is funding our campaigns. I’ve always gone above and beyond what the law requires, most recently with my “Clean Seventeen” pledge to voluntarily close the “LLC Loophole” and accept contributions of not more than half the legal limit.
I’m particularly concerned about your repeated use of the “lump sum” category in campaign finance reports. These anonymous conglomerations of what are supposed to be small donations are meant to be used sparingly. But over the past 10 years, you have reported one-fifth of your total contributions, or $36,351, as lump sums. That’s four times more than any other Montgomery County officeholder or candidate. One lump sum, of $14,085 on 8/2/02, was described by the respected Maryland Politics Watch blog as “remarkable.” MPW went on to say: “...[W]hen a candidate employs [lump sums] to shield one-tenth, one-fifth or more of his or her donor base from identification, that creates the possibility of abuse.”
As you know, the donations that make up lump sums are meant to be under $51; anyone who donates more than that-- whether once or cumulatively-- is supposed to be reported by name. To reach this total in donations in increments of $51 or less would mean you have over 700 donors you are refusing to name. (As reported in Maryland Politics Watch 11/20/09)
In recent months, it looked as though you had finally broken your “lump sum” habit. But in your latest financial report just posted, it’s clear you abused the system again, listing what appears to be a single donation as a lump sum! The only explanation is that you wish to hide the identity of this mysterious donor.
There is a simple way to resolve this situation. At our last debate, I called on you to disclose all of your campaign contributors. You said you could, since you still had photocopies of all the checks (as required by law), and would do it if you “ever have the time.” If you don’t have the time, I offer the services of my campaign to do the job.
We will come to any convenient place you name, bring a photocopier, and at our expense and under the dual supervision of our respective campaigns’ treasurers, make copies of each of the checks that have comprised your lump sum amounts. This information can then be made available to the press and public.
Because of the importance of this issue and short time before Election Day, I am making this letter available to the media so they can judge the adequacy and timeliness of your response.
If you fail to agree to this proposal today, I will assume your claim that you have nothing to hide is insincere and allow the voters of District 17 to draw their own conclusions.
Sincerely,
Cheryl
Cheryl C. Kagan
Monday, September 06, 2010
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Forehand: "I Didn't Quit When You Needed Me"
In a blast email sent out yesterday, District 17 Senator Jennie Forehand condemned challenger Cheryl Kagan for using "some truly twisted facts" in her mailers and walking away from her constituents after two terms. Following is the email.
I'll Stand by You
Dear Friends:
As a parent and a working woman, I learned that you can't walk away when people are counting on you. Now, I have to count on you for help on primary election day.
In the Democratic race for the District 17 Senate nomination, my opponent got nervous and went on the attack with some truly twisted facts.
I understand why she got the events wrong. She wasn't there when they happened.
That's because my opponent walked away after only two terms while I stayed and fought for my constituents.
I fought to balance the budget in a tough economy, to combat the gang problem, to make sure our schools had adequate funding, to bring jobs to our region, to help those facing foreclosure, and to repeal the death penalty.
But to keep working for you, I need your help. Will you e-mail to volunteer on primary election day?
I was involved in the death penalty repeal from the beginning to the final vote, as the Chairman of the Senate Committee will attest.
And, it was my bill that repealed the computer services tax within months of it becoming law and kept high tech firms from fleeing Maryland. It was through my efforts that this ill-advised tax--passed as part of the State's budget during an emergency special session--was delayed so it could be reconsidered.
Early voting starts today at the Executive Office Building in Rockville. Polls are open 10 am to 8 pm from September 3rd to September 7th (excluding Sunday). By voting early and giving up an extra hour, the time you'd have spent voting on September 14th could be spent at the polls supporting my campaign.
I didn't quit when you needed me. I hope I can count on your help now so I can continue to stand up for you. Please e-mail my campaign and find out how you can assist on primary day, Tuesday, September 14.
Sincerely,
Jennie
P.S. Together with the whole District 17 Team -- Delegates Kumar Barve, Luiz Simmons, and Jim Gilchrist -- hope to see you at the polls on September 14!
Friday, September 03, 2010
Kagan Responds to Forehand's Negative Mailer
District 17 Senate challenger Cheryl Kagan has issued the following response to Senator Jennie Forehand's negative mailer on ethics. Interestingly, Kagan includes a quote from Congressman Chris Van Hollen.
VAN HOLLEN COMMENDS KAGAN FOR “LIMITING EXCESSIVE INFLUENCE OF SPECIAL INTERESTS” IN POLITICS
(ROCKVILLE, September 3, 2010) - U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen today commended District 17 State Senate candidate Cheryl Kagan for her initiatives to “limit the excessive influence of special interests” in politics. Kagan kicked off her campaign last year with a “Clean Seventeen” pledge to accept only half the maximum amount of campaign contributions allowed under law, as well as voluntarily close the so-called “LLC Loophole” that allows wealthy interests to skirt the law entirely. She has since returned money that exceeded her self-imposed limit.
“I commend you for your campaign finance initiatives to limit the excessive influence of special interests in the legislative and political process,” Van Hollen wrote in a letter to Kagan. “It is essential that we take action at the federal, state and local levels to ensure that the people’s interest triumphs over well financed special interests.”
“I’m so gratified by Chris’s kind words about my work on ethics and campaign finance reform,” said Kagan. “We share a desire to reduce the influence of big money in politics. I hope to continue my work to strengthen state campaign financing laws in the State Senate just as Chris is working in Congress to improve the federal system.”
Ironically, Van Hollen’s praise came as Kagan’s opponent, incumbent senator Jennie Forehand, launched a puzzling attack that in essence complained that her challenger was too diligent in following ethics laws 14 years ago.
“Jennie seems confused,” said Kagan, who represented the same district in the House of Delegates for eight years. “The point of the story she’s raised in her attack mailer is that I followed not just the letter of Maryland’s ethics laws, but the spirit of them as well. In fact, I was praised for doing so by the media.”
The basis of Forehand’s distorted charge: long before she met and married her husband, Kagan dated a man who happened to be a lobbyist. All but $40.50 of the total referenced in Forehand’s attack mailer were the expenses of their dates, which Kagan disclosed even though she was not required to do so. She even voted against her then-boyfriend’s top client!
While Kagan was busy assiduously following ethics and campaign finance laws, over the past 10 years Jennie Forehand has hidden the sources of more than one-fifth of her campaign contributions-- over $35,000-- in so-called “lump sum” amounts. Voters have no way of knowing who contributed how much when the money is stashed in these catch-all accounts. Forehand is the “Lump Sum Leader” in Montgomery County, secretly bundling more than four times as much as any other Montgomery County legislator.
Maryland Politics Watch, the respected political blog that reported on Forehand’s abuse of the lump sum system, described her as “on a different level” than any other candidate when it came to squirreling away money. It called her single biggest lump sum report “remarkable.” “...[W]hen a candidate employs [lump sums] to shield one-tenth, one-fifth or more of his or her donor base from identification, that creates the possibility of abuse,” MPW noted (http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2009/11/follow-money-part-six.html).
Lump sum reporting is supposed to represent groups of small donations (less than $51 each), and even so is discouraged by campaign finance authorities because it robs the public of important information as to who funds candidates’ campaigns. Forehand’s use of lump sum reporting doesn’t add up: for all of the individual donations that make up her $36,251 lump sum category to be under $50 each (with no repeat givers), she would need over 700 donors. She’s had fewer than 250.
“I hope Jennie will reveal all the sources of her campaign money, just as I and all accountable and responsible candidates do, and as the law requires,” said Kagan. She made the same request to Forehand directly at a recent Rockville debate.
Kagan has just created a new page on her web site called “Check the Facts!” with more information and links.
# # # #
Forehand Slams Kagan on Lobbyist Gifts
Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) has responded to three negative mailers from challenger Cheryl Kagan with this piece on Kagan's acceptance of lobbyists' gifts and her vote against a 2001 bill on lobbying reform.
Forehand brought up this issue at a recent candidate forum in Rockville. Here is how Kagan answered it.
OK guys, so we are asking you all for a favor. Remember that tragically premature post we wrote calling the District 17 Senate race the "classiest" in MoCo? Can you just forget that we wrote that? Pretty please?
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Forehand vs. Kagan at Rockville Library
Following are the closing statements of Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) and challenger Cheryl Kagan at the 8/31 forum at Rockville Library. See how Forehand compares herself to former West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd(!) and Kagan criticizes her handling of the Rockville Courthouse issue.
Primaries to Watch V, Part Four
By Marc Korman and Adam Pagnucco.
Here are races Four and Three!
4. District 17 State Senate
Previous Rank: #3
Marc
Shortly after Adam christened this race the “classiest” in Montgomery County, fireworks started to fly with Cheryl Kagan aggressively going after incumbent Jennie Forehand over a missed death penalty vote. The issue is a bit of a political trapeze act for Kagan (where exactly does she stand on the death penalty?), but absenteeism is an effective campaign tactic.
Forehand is out working now and if she can remind voters who she is and that they really have no issue with her, she could still be able to beat back a really aggressive challenge by Kagan. One potential twist I have heard, though from Forehand supporters, is that much of Kagan’s effort has been a mirage and she did not have nearly the head start in the field she claimed before the filing deadline. Even if that were true, she was definitely raising funds and meeting with lots of groups and individuals long before July.
Adam
Kagan has rolled the dice by sending out no fewer than three negative mailers hitting Forehand. The issues they discuss are fair game: missed votes and a bad vote to pass the hated computer tax. But Jennie “Grandma” Forehand is a difficult target for negative campaigning and this state legislative district has not seen negative mail before.
Here’s the case made by Forehand’s supporters. The district has no other contests of note – no County Council district race, no Delegate race and no top-of-the-ballot races. That means turnout will be very low and will consist mainly of long-time voters who have been supporting Forehand for decades. That is a bad environment for any challenger and gives Forehand a leg up. I was skeptical of that case given that for many months Forehand was running a non-campaign and Kagan was everywhere.
But Kagan’s negative mail changes the dynamic. She has given Forehand’s supporters a reason to get mad and come out. Whether they can be offset by a wave of new voters demanding the sort of activist representation that could be provided by Kagan is a big question. Kagan is a very bright candidate and she may well have decided to go negative because she had some evidence that Forehand would pull out a positive vs. positive campaign. There is a rumor floating around that a recent poll showed Forehand getting 60% support and perhaps that influenced Kagan’s thinking. One more factor is at play here: Forehand has the Apple Ballot and Kagan has the Post endorsement. Is that a wash or not?
A majority of our informants had been picking Kagan to win, but recent events have changed this race and the turnout argument on behalf of Forehand is a good one. I have changed my position from leaning towards Kagan to favoring her by the most narrow of margins.
3. Council At-Large
Previous Rank: #4
Marc
I think the only options here are for the four incumbents to return or Hans Riemer to knock one of them off. Beating incumbents is difficult and only Riemer seems to have the funds and organization right now to do it.
All of the incumbents, except maybe Marc Elrich, seem to have some block of voters or organized interest working against them. But instead of helping Riemer, that could just lead to all four coming back. The math is hard in a pick four race.
Full disclosure, I have donated to and volunteered for Hans Riemer.
Adam
Here’s an odd fact: since the current council configuration of five district seats and four at-large seats was established in 1990, the four at-large incumbents have never run for reelection. Every race since then has had at least one open seat. Two at-large incumbents have been defeated: freshman Blair Ewing in 2002, who was targeted by Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock slate, and five-term incumbent Mike Subin in 2006, who was excluded from the Apple Ballot and did not campaign. So there is no real precedent for what we are witnessing this year.
I’ve written a lot about this race. My picks are George Leventhal to finish first, Marc Elrich to finish second and Nancy Floreen to finish fourth. The wild cards are Duchy Trachtenberg, who has tons of money, few endorsements and no campaign expertise, and challenger Hans Riemer. Either of them could finish anywhere from third to fifth.
Riemer has a decent chance to win. Look at the ingredients of a successful campaign. Endorsements: he has plenty, including the Post and the Apple. Money: he has plenty. Ground game: his is the best in the field. Name recognition: nope, not yet, and that’s his problem. If low turnout emphasizes incumbent name recognition, then no previously little-known challenger can break through. But if campaign skill, endorsements, money and field operations mean anything, Riemer will go to Rockville.
So if he wins, who would he replace? I don’t think it will be Leventhal or Elrich. Trachtenberg has lots of problems and Floreen has a few of them. And many of our smartest spies are saying all the incumbents will come back.
Putting it all together, I think there is a 50% chance that all the incumbents will be reelected, a 30% chance that Riemer displaces Trachtenberg and a 20% chance that he displaces Floreen. Council at-large races have a history of tight finishes so this could all come down to a couple hundred votes.
We’ll have the Final Two tomorrow!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
