Crowded at-large Council race could help Orange win

Politics

Crowded at-large Council race could help Orange win

by Jamie Scott • January 4, 2012 1:15 pm

Last April, Vincent Orange beat a crowded field of candidates to fill Kwame Brown's at-large seat on the DC Council. Facing reelection less than a year later, Orange could be running against 4 other candidates, which could benefit him as the incumbent.

Photo by Phil Romans on Flickr.

5 candidates have picked up petitions for the Democratic at-large nomination. In addition to Orange, Sekou Biddle, E. Gail Anderson Holness, Peter Shapiro, and Edward Wolterbeek have declared their candidacies for the seat.

With a crowded field, it could be difficult for the other candidates to distinguish themselves, particularly as many point to ethics reform as a key issue.

However, tonight is the deadline to file petitions to appear on the ballot, and only 2 Orange challengers have filed so far. If no others do, the race will be significantly different from last spring's.

Although Orange has been in office less than a year, he has name recognition from his previous 2 terms on the Council representing Ward 5 and from city-wide elections for Council Chairman and Mayor.

Biddle has strong name recognition too, however. He won the temporary appointment to Brown's seat last year and spent 4 months on the Council. He also ran in the city-wide special election to finish the term and placed third. Voters know his name, and he is likely the most credible challenger to Orange.

Peter Shapiro served on the Prince George's county council for 6 years, but has not run for elected office in DC. E. Gail Anderson Holness is currently an ANC-1B commissioner, representing ANC-1B11 near Howard University.

Edward Wolterbeek has run in several previous elections without much success, including as a Republican for Ward 5 Representative to the DC State Board of Education, Ward 5 Councilmember, Delegate to the US House of Representatives, and ANC-5A12 commissioner.

Last spring, Orange won 4 of the city's 8 wards, with the other 4 split between Bryan Weaver, Sekou Biddle, and Patrick Mara. If the race continues with 5 candidates, Orange could again benefit from a split vote.

However, today is the final day for candidates to file petitions and only Biddle, Orange, and Holness have done so. Shapiro is the only other candidate with a website, so he likely has a more organized campaign than Wolterbeek, who is a perennial candidate.

If none of the other candidates file by today's deadline, Biddle and Holness would be the only challengers. There is a chance that Biddle and Holness could split votes, but it's unclear how Holness could challenge Orange.

Biddle and Orange know each other from last year's election, which became heated at times. In his campaign announcement in November, Biddle attacked Orange for accepting out-of-state campaign donations and for trying to increase Council salaries.

If either Biddle or Holness can tie Orange to bad leadership, the anti-incumbent vote could propel them to victory. If Shapiro and Wolterbeek file in time, the field of challengers will double.

Part of the reason Orange won last April was that Weaver, Biddle, and Mara split the progressive vote, which may not happen this year. But Orange's competitors may split another constituency this year, the anti-incumbent vote.

Biddle has been strong on education, while Shapiro gained a reputation for economic development in Prince George's, although ethics is sure to play a major role. Once the filing deadline passes, we'll explore where the remaining candidates stand on the issues.

25 comments

Tags: 2012 primary, BOEE, DC, DC Council, ethics, politics, Sekou Biddle, Vincent Orange

The Ward 4 council race is crowded. Will it be competitive? (Nov 14, 2011)
Standard voting creates strategic quandary for at-large race (Apr 14, 2011)
Would Biddle have been better off losing in January? (Apr 27, 2011)
At-large forum Thursday, plus Weaver and Mara live chats (Jan 31, 2011)
GGW, DC4D, DCEN hosting at-large forum Wednesday (Jan 21, 2011)

Jamie Scott is a resident of Ward 3 in DC and a regular Metrobus commuter. He believes in good government, livable communities and quality public transit. Jamie holds a B.A. in Government from Georgetown University and is currently pursuing a Masters in Public Policy at Georgetown.

Comments
Add a comment »

I know Shapiro had paid petition circulators out there, I wouldn't be surprised if he files today.

I'd be curious to see if anyone challenges Holness's petitions.

by Dave Stroup on Jan 4, 2012 1:23 pm • link • report

The combination of Weaver/Biddle/Mara was like the perfect storm to split the Myopic Twittering Tweeter vote, though. Don't know enough about Holness or Shapiro to say if the same dynamics are there.

by oboe on Jan 4, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report

Commissioner E. Gail Anderson Holness has been chair of ANC 1B for some time. The way she ran ANC meetings did not earn her any points with Ward 1 residents. I would say the only bearable and productive meetings were the ones she didn't show up to. Stylistically she'll have more in common with Orange than Biddle, so I don't think Sekou has anything to fear from her.

I agree that it sucked to have to decide between Biddle and Weaver the last time around. As this post suggests, we shouldn't have that problem again.

by Ward 1 Guy on Jan 4, 2012 2:12 pm • link • report

@Oboe, The combination of Weaver/Biddle/Mara was like the perfect storm to split the Myopic Twittering Tweeter vote, though

I absolutely agree. That's always the inherent danger of that sort of advocacy.

Is there an argument as to why Orange shouldn't be reelected? I'm interested in reading it.

WRT Biddle, he's burnt toast and can forget it. He's not going to have that chance again. If I remember correctly, part of the reason it was assumed he lost was because he received the endorsement of the Council's black pols.

by HogWash on Jan 4, 2012 2:16 pm • link • report

less favored pols

by HogWash on Jan 4, 2012 2:18 pm • link • report

@HogWash,

I absolutely agree. That's always the inherent danger of that sort of advocacy.

Not sure I follow you. What "sort of advocacy" do you mean? Assuming you mean the GGW endorsement, or something similar, I think it misses the point. The vote-split wasn't the result of advocacy as much as it was the result of three at-large candidates whose natural constituency largely overlapped.

If we had three candidates whose stronghold of support was largely in Wards 5, 7, and 8, and they all got 23% of the vote, but lost to, say, Brian Weaver with 28%, it wouldn't be due to "advocacy". Just a outcome-distorting, but natural, consequence of winner-take-all voting.

by oboe on Jan 4, 2012 2:36 pm • link • report

My completely uninformed guess is that Wolterbeek will sit this out and run for Ward 5 councilman now that Thomas is resigning.

by tom veil on Jan 4, 2012 3:08 pm • link • report

@Oboe, Not sure I follow you. What "sort of advocacy" do you mean?

I was referring to the advocacy of the Myopic Twittering Tweeters, some of which are found here. No, I didn't particularly have GGW (as a blog) in mind when I responded.

by HogWash on Jan 4, 2012 3:56 pm • link • report

Well, I got that part. I was just curious how you were going to tie the dynamics of the race (three-way vote split among MTT candidates) into "that sort of advocacy". Perhaps GGW was so compelling that it encouraged multiple progressive candidates to run? Still don't follow you.

by oboe on Jan 5, 2012 9:05 am • link • report

The 3 candidates had mass support from the blogosphere (myopic twits), Vince Orange did not. That sort of advocacy found them not rallying behind the candidate with the best chances at winning. Instead (according to election results) they rallied behind any candidate who wasn't Vincent Orange, who ultimately carried 4 of the 8 wards. So the MTT efforts to elect their guy failed.

As I mentioned, I didn't have GGW (the blog) particularly in mind when I responded. However, there were a number of MTT's here who fit the bill and saw their guy lose. I believe the blogosphere encouraged candidates to run - not just GGW.

Remember, we're talking about your play on a phrase made up by Milloy....

by HogWash on Jan 5, 2012 10:24 am • link • report

So "advocacy" encouraged MTTs to run, but a proliferation of people? If there'd been no advocacy whatsoever, we would've had fewer MTT candidates (but hopefully more than zero). Fortunately, no one wanted VO to run, and since he wasn't actually running on a platform (other than "He talks like you!"), he didn't have to worry about splitting his constituency.

I am still confused by your argument.

by oboe on Jan 5, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

I am still confused by your argument.

At least we have that in common because I'm confused by yours as well.

Fortunately, no one wanted VO to run, and since he wasn't actually running on a platform (other than "He talks like you!"), he didn't have to worry about splitting his constituency.

Really? It's odd that you would claim that no one wanted Orange to win when he won in four Wards. How can a candidate, any candidate, win in an election where no one wanted him/her to win?

Ok, let's cut to the chase here. The people in Wards 1, 2, 3, and 6 didn't want Orange to win. That much is vividly clear. No matter how you cut it, those of us in 4, 5, 7 and 8 are "people" and are the "somebody's" who wanted Orange to win, your utter (and not surprising) dismissiveness aside.

Further, I'll be willing to concede that VO ran mostly on a "I talk like you" platform when you concede that the MTT's ran on a, "I care more about you people (my people) in Wards 1, 2, 3 and 6" platform totally ignoring the concerns of we "nobodys" in the other Wards. Fair?

by HogWash on Jan 5, 2012 10:50 am • link • report

Sorry, I was having a little fun with the "no one wanted VO to run".

Here's the bottom line: if you want to make the claim (as you do) that "advocacy" resulted in splitting the progressive vote between three candidates, you need to make a convincing argument that *lack* of advocacy would result in the vote *not* being split among three candidates.

Obviously people wanted Orange to run--otherwise he wouldn't have gotten enough signatures to get on the ballot. Is this evidence of "advocacy"?

I can understand how it might be therapeutic to say, "See where your advocacy has gotten you MTTers! Now you've got *three* candidates who support your agenda! If you'd remained quiet, you might have gotten one (instead of zero)!" But it doesn't make much sense.

I'll be willing to concede that VO ran mostly on a "I talk like you" platform when you concede that the MTT's ran on a, "I care more about you people (my people) in Wards 1, 2, 3 and 6" platform totally ignoring the concerns of we "nobodys" in the other Wards. Fair?

This actually explains a lot, though.

by oboe on Jan 5, 2012 11:42 am • link • report

It will be interesting to see if anyone challenges Orange on his petitions. Last year he was sweating his behind off worried as to whether his petitions would be challenged.

by Anthony on Jan 5, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

HogWash--

The problem with Orange is the fact that one year he wants the "myopic twits" (when running against Kwame), the next year he doesn't. One year he wants the WaPo endorsement, the next year he's picketing them. One year be wants to be the Ed reformers darling, the next year not. One year he's talking about being the one to bring a city together, the next year he's using racial politics. Orange is the Mitt Romney of DC, whatever it takes to be elected.

by Anthony on Jan 5, 2012 1:22 pm • link • report

Sorry, I was having a little fun with the "no one wanted VO to run".

HA! I realized that's what you were doing. But understand, just like many people were downright offended by Milloy "having a little fun" with the myopic twit statement, many others could be equally offended by you "having fun" with the insinuation that those of us who voted for Orange aren't really "people."

A better phrasing of my argument is that as a result of MTT's advocacy (both for and against), three candidates competed against Orange and lost. Had they rallied around "a" candidate, he might not have. This is no different than what happens in W8 when "advocacy" (in this case anti-Barry) results in us not rallying around a winning candidate.

Now you've got *three* candidates who support your agenda! If you'd remained quiet, you might have gotten one (instead of zero)!" But it doesn't make much sense.

Hmmm. I wouldn't say that because Orange supported the same "agenda" as the three candidates and the reverse is also true. Problem is, the media and MTT's failed to acknowledge that. Instead, the helped to create the divide.

This actually explains a lot, though.

What in the heck is going on today. I agree with you on this front too. I thought your statement about Orange winning only because he "looked like" his constituency (who in your previous "funny" statement weren't recognized as people) was very telling as well. :)

by HogWash on Jan 5, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report

@Anthony, the problem with your analysis is that it just isn't supported by facts. What evidence can you point to which shows that Orange didn't/doesn't want the MTT vote? What evidence are you using to conclude that Orange didn't want the ed reformer vote? He won in 4 wards. You aren't suggesting that only those in Wards 1,2,3 and 6 were the only people interested in ed reform? At least I hope you aren't.

Lastly, what "racial politics" did Orange play?

by HogWash on Jan 5, 2012 1:44 pm • link • report

@HogWash makes a fair point. After he was called out for what looked like naked pandering in telling the voters of Ward 8 "I walk an talk like you!" Orange was very clear in saying he walked and talked like everyone in every single ward of the city. :)

by oboe on Jan 5, 2012 8:40 pm • link • report

LOL@Oboe, good one! But to be fair, I don't recall Orange's campaign actually developing that flier.

Obviously, (as I've mentioned before) while I can understand how someone could think that it was truly racial pandering, there was enough ambiguity which could apply to any group. Such as, I walk and bike like you.

But as usual, that was pretty good!

by HogWash on Jan 6, 2012 9:53 am • link • report

I wish that Tommy Wells were running against Orange.

If he wins he knocks out a CM who doesn't really agree with his politics and he sets himself up for running for Mayor or Chair (as he wouldn't have to give up his council seat if he lost that second race). And he can count on getting a friendly Ward 6 CM in his place - one who he'd likely endorsed.

If he lost, he's right where he is, but with a slightly higher profile.

But alas, Wells seems to have less ambition than I have for him.

by David C on Jan 6, 2012 12:03 pm • link • report

@DC, why wouldn't it be better to make the mayoral run (which I do believe is only wishful thinking) as as W6CM rather than as an at-large member?

I don't know enough about the distinctions between their politics.

by HogWash on Jan 6, 2012 1:02 pm • link • report

It's not the position, it's the timing. Ward 6 elects a CM on the same cycle as Mayoral elections. So if Wells wants to run for Mayor he can't run for re-election. It's all or nothing. Running for Orange's at-large seat gets him off cycle. So he can run for Mayor and keep his current seat.

It's a flaw in the system. If left as is, I suspect we'll see more Mayors and Chairs emerge from off-cycle wards then on-cycle wards for the reasons of risk. Ideally we'd offset the Mayor and Chair elections to different cycles. Then a CM would always be off-cycle for one or the other. And once they get Chair they'd be off-cycle for the Mayor.

I hope that makes sense.

by David C on Jan 6, 2012 1:36 pm • link • report

Ohhhhhh, got u. Yeah it does.

by HogWash on Jan 6, 2012 3:18 pm • link • report

Ward 5 it's time for new leadership in 2012.

by George Jackson on Jan 9, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report

Biddle would be a good candidate... new blood, fresh ideas and he did a good job when he served the four months. Don't you think it is time that we get new people on the council.

by Carol on Jan 16, 2012 9:35 pm • link • report