Friday, September 13, 2013

Odd Mentality in the City of Rochester since Primary

All we learned this week is that registered Dems voted for a certain slate of candidates to represent them in the November election.

What we don't know is how the WFP's, I's, R's, G's and Blanks are going to vote. Anyone suggesting that candidates should drop out, who lost the Democrat primary and appear on another party line, only shows that they are worried their candidate can't pull it off in the BIG election this fall. Any Democrat with another party line who drops out only shows they were never concerned with representing city voters; they were only willing to run on the path of least resistance. If these candidates drop out, they're essentially telling their supporters: You wasted your time.


Istvan Bathory said...

David Gantt wants Tom Richards to withdraw from the race because Richards could probably win in November.
The Sienna Polls lulled Richards' supporters into a state of carelessness and laziness, so they didn't bother to go out and vote in the Democratic primary.
David Gantt concentrated his campaign heavily in the black community ( neighborhoods, events, churches and ministers ) and his people made it clear that they were going to get out the vote.
Just look at the campaign literature and campaign photos taken for Lovely Warren. They give a distinct racial ( if not racist ) tone to Gantt's campaign.
Look at the election results on a map of Rochester.
But the Democratic primary had the worst turnout ever. Gantt's candidate won it with about 8,000 votes. That's about 12.5 % of the registered Democratic voters in Rochester.
And it doesn't include the Independents, blanks and Republicans. They will get to vote in November, if there is a viable alternative to David Gantt's candidate.
The Republicans are the wild card here, even if they no longer run candidates of their own in Rochester.
There is no love lost between David Gantt and the Republicans. Gantt knows he cannot expect them to vote for his candidate.
And the Republicans will certainly not vote for Alex White.
Gantt also knows that Richards would probably carry his Democratic supporters from the primary with him. Combining them with the Republicans and some Independents, Richards could easily win in November.
That's why Gantt and his people want Richards out of the race.
As much as I dislike Richards, he shouldn't withdraw. Richards should stay in until the end and let the majority of Rochester's voters have their say.

Istvan Bathory

Anonymous said...

Mr. Tyson, you demonstrate a real naivete if you truly believe the November election is the Big election in the City.

Your party has largely abandoned the City and has left the September Democratic Primary as the Big One.

Andreas Rau said...

Rich, that is exactly what is meant: You wasted your time, money and efforts.
And yes, Richards was trodding the path of what he presumed was the least resistance.
Only he should have known, or at least suspected, better.
In 2010, Richards demanded a "special election" hoping to avoid a Democratic Primary and run as an "only" candidate.
That didn't work out quite as he expected when ex-mayor Bill Johnson and Alex White jumped into the race.
Richards won with less than 50% of the vote.
It was to avoid a Primary Election again that ex-mayor Duffy tried to warn Lovely off from running this year, hoping to provide his proxy on Rochester's mayoral throne with an unchallenged election.
That didn't work, either, which says plenty about the decline of Duffy's influence in Rochester's politics.
But then, Duffy never accomplished anything positive for Rochester, either as mayor or lieutenant governor.
Richards' people got sloppy and over confident because of the Siena polls, and promptly lost the Primary Election, where Lovely's people knew how to get out the vote.
While Richards may have stated that he is no longer actively campaigning in this race, he still remains on the Working Families and Independent lines.
Richards, therefore, still remains in the campaign.
Ostensibly, he could be elected if his own people in the Democratic Party and the other parties choose to vote for him.
And, if elected by that route, do you seriously think he would stand down?
He would say that, since "the people" have spoken, he would continue as mayor.
That is also an example of following the path of least resistance.
The odds against winning the election by such means are not insurmountable.
But that is yet to be seen.
And what such a victory would do is continue to reveal how badly fractured the Democratic Party is in Rochester.
But, does it really matter, since the Democrats are the only real game in Rochester?
And city council will continue to happily and mindlessly rubber stamp anything put in front of them by whoever occupies Rochester's mayoral throne.
That is clear enough.