Greater Greater Washington

Silverman-Frumin talks should come as no surprise

A lot of people are shockedshockedthat Ken Archer, volunteer campaign treasurer for Elissa Silverman, met with Matt Frumin and tried to persuade him to drop out of the race.


Photo by rauchdickson on Flickr.

You know who else had a secret meeting with a candidate about dropping out? Whichever Anita Bonds supporters and backers Whoever persuaded Michael Brown to drop out of the race. You know what didn't happen? Michael Brown's disappointed supporters did not talk about it to the press. Surrogates for his and other campaigns did not profess outrage on Twitter at "backroom deals" and "hypocrisy."

After the poll came out showing Silverman far ahead of Frumin, I heard a lot of people say that "someone" should try to push him to drop out. When Silverman first ran, some people volunteering for her told me that if it turned out near the end that her campaign stood little or no chance, they would push her to drop out to avoid vote-splitting.

Heck, I thought about asking Frumin to drop out, too. I wondered whether I could offer to help Frumin in some way in the future as an incentive. I would like to see both Frumin and Silverman on the council; I told him that I really wished there were 2 seats open.

I certainly wouldn't have offered to support him against Mary Cheh, because Mary Cheh has done a good job, but it certainly sprung to my mind as an obvious possible bargaining chip if Frumin's plan were to run in Ward 3 later on, as many people I talked to at the start of the campaign suspected.

(And before the comment thread gets hijacked to be about Ken Archer and the GGW endorsement: He did not vote in our contributor poll. Our endorsements derive from a poll of regular contributors. In this case, that poll came out decisively for Silverman.)

Look at substance, not campaign operations

Clearly, there's also a lot of cynical politicking in some of the protestations of outrage on Twitter and comments. Some of that is coming from the most back-room, non-transparent political operatives who just see this as an opportunity to take an opponent down a peg and distract potential voters.

Don't be distracted. You can disagree with Elissa Silverman on substance. I agree with her on a lot of things and disagree on others. The same goes for most other candidates. Martin Austermuhle, Dan Silverman, and I tried to elucidate the candidates' views using Let's Choose DC. Disappointingly, the information we gleaned about candidate positions didn't get much attention in the press.

No candidate will be perfect on every policy. If there's a candidate you agree with 100% of the time, chances are you're just about the only one and the candidate is polling in the low single digits. The most successful politicians just manage to avoid taking a stance on anything, so every voter can come to believe they're in agreement with the candidate, especially if they aren't paying a lot of attention.

If anything, one of ways Elissa Silverman shows her lack of candidate experience is by being honest about what she thinks. She's been more forthright in many forums about views that might be unpopular. When I have called her to ask about a policy statement, she has told me straight out what she's thinking right then about that policy. Sometimes, I don't agree. We've argued about it. She could simply listen and try to emphasize points of agreement and hide her disagreement, but she doesn't. It can make me frustrated, but I also respect it a lot.

Do you want the slickest candidates?

Papering over disagreements is something that comes with long experience in electoral politics. People gain that experience by repeatedly running for office or make politics a career, working for elected officials and getting positions in the party machine.

Some of those are great people who do excellent work, but there are a lot in it for personal gain and ambition above all. Many don't really hold such strong values on their vision for the city; they just think it would be better if they ran things.

A lot of people want candidates who are "outsiders" and who are running because they believe in change rather than just want to be in charge. Most of the so-called "outsiders" who successfully run for federal offices nationwide are actually insiders who pretend to be outsiders to fool low-information voters.

If you want genuine outsiders, you're not going to get slick political operations. There are ways outsiders can do more to make their operations more professional, like hiring actual professionals, but that's a lot easier for candidates with a lot of moneywhich usually comes from shady sources.

How can vote-splitting stop?

People running as "reformers" and "progressives" have split the vote in the last 2 at-large elections and probably will tomorrow as well. There are 3 ways to stop this from happening:

  1. Let some people with a lot of money and/or political muscle push people out of the race. Then people have to not be shocked and dismayed when someone tries to do that. (Example: Michael Brown; counterexample: Matt Frumin)
  2. Devise some primary-like system that's more open and participatory, but which comes to a single conclusion, and other candidates agree that they're not going to keep running if they don't win, and almost certainly support the winner. (Example: Hillary Clinton; counterexample: Joe Lieberman)
  3. Reform the election laws to some system where the top 2 candidates go to a runoff, or there's some kind of multiple-voting system. (Examples: runoff election in New York City, instant-runoff voting in San Francisco)

Do you want candidates who are good at pushing people out of a race without their fingerprints on it? People who can successfully win while taking few or no positions at all? People with large staffs of highly-paid expert campaign operatives funded with piles of lobbyist money?

If so, by all means be outraged that Ken talked to Matt Frumin about dropping out. Otherwise, make up your mind tomorrow based on actual positions and the available polls, not on this.

Update: Anita Bonds' campaign says in a statement that they had nothing to do with Michael Brown dropping out. I did not say that Bonds' campaign pressured Brown to drop out, as many people are backing her who don't coordinate with the campaign. It seems extremely likely that some people with influence over Brown recognized the likely vote splitting and pushed Brown to get out. However, this is indeed conjecture, so I've reworded the intro to not sound like it is claiming any knowledge or facts that don't exist.

David Alpert is the founder and editor-in-chief of Greater Greater Washington. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He now lives with his wife and daughter in Dupont Circle. 

Comments

Add a comment »

I would like a candidate that's smart enough to not ask her rival to drop out via email.

That's the sort of thing a phone or in person meeting should be for.

by Hillman on Apr 22, 2013 12:39 pm • linkreport

It's not really a big deal. I think people are just reflecting on what allegedly happened in the mayoral race (promises of a city job for dropping out) and wrongly associating that with what happened here. Apples and oranges

by aaa on Apr 22, 2013 12:40 pm • linkreport

Hillman: It was an in-person meeting. I guess there were follow-up emails after.

by David Alpert on Apr 22, 2013 12:50 pm • linkreport

@Hillman

To what end? So that she could lie and say she didn't make the call or have the meeting? I prefer the openness.

by Adam L on Apr 22, 2013 12:51 pm • linkreport

So, look at the (very flawed poll) and then vote? But don't pay attention to process! or horse-trading!

What killed the i70 campaign -- incompetence. What is killing Silverman now -- incompetence.

(I love that Ken Archer is trying to refer to Frumin as a friend, while Frumin is the one who just burned him. Badly. Who do you think talked to Tim Craig?)

Voting for someone becaus you love their policy but don't know if they understand poltiics is what got us Jimmy Carter.

(Some free advice: Silverman should have put out an open letter for Frunim to step down. He wasn't going to do, quid pro quo aside. Also, ask Ken Archer to resign today. You might get some sympathy for your next run in Ward 6.)

by charlie on Apr 22, 2013 12:51 pm • linkreport

charlie: Frumin had been a friend before this happened, I think.

by David Alpert on Apr 22, 2013 12:52 pm • linkreport

The problem isn't the asking - that's perfectly legit. The problem is asking so late, so ineptly and insultingly, when it is clear that the answer cannot help but be "no." But then, these are the sorts of miscues one can expect from 'outsiders' who entrust such sensitive tasks to "Ken Archer, volunteer campaign treasurer."

by Dizzy on Apr 22, 2013 12:54 pm • linkreport

Good analysis, David.
The antithesis of "myopic".

by Mark on Apr 22, 2013 1:02 pm • linkreport

@DavidAlpert, False friends are worse than open enemies.

And it also a problem when you are running on a "no corruption" pledge.

And yes, a real reform move (as opposed to her publicity attempt on corporate money) would be to push for a runoff system -- so that the winner gets more than 1% of the votes.

by charlie on Apr 22, 2013 1:04 pm • linkreport

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by Arkham on Apr 22, 2013 1:06 pm • linkreport

1) The hypocrisy issue is a real issue. I received a mailing from Elissa Silverman promoting her ethics and questioning the ethics of the rest of the candidates. This is an attempt at a backroom deal no matter how you spin it.

2) Elissa Silverman is not far ahead in the poll linked above. She has 13% of the vote and Matt Frumin has 8% of the vote. 43% are undecided. This is a highly fluid result and the election will be determined by Get Out the Vote efforts. I also think many (most?) people supporting one candidate over another are not firm in their support and can be persuadable.

by 202_cyclist on Apr 22, 2013 1:07 pm • linkreport

I think in the no-smoking era, we have to change "smoke-filled rooms" to something like "half-eaten-tray-of-Costco wraps-filled rooms"

If I can distill this down, if you want Silverman to be a councilmember, this election is not it. You must vote for Mara, destroy Bonds' incumbency, and then elect Silverman in 2.5 years when Mara has an uphill battle as an incumbent republican for the seat. Silverman will still have an uphill battle in the primary due to the vote-splitting dynamic of the progressives vis-a-vis the consolidation marshalled by more old-guard politicos, but should she win the primary, no question she beats Mara.

Frumin too could do better in a different election.

WRT the ideas for various runoff electoral systems, that's why we have primaries, and the problem isn't so much that we don't have the mechanisms, its that our political system assumes two competitive political parties, when in reality in DC and many urban cities, you have a strong single party with factions, and a weak opposition party.

The best strategy would be for the opposition party to move toward the center to be more appealing in the general election, which I suspect is what would happen with Mara.

GGW has come a long ways from just saying "vote for the best candidate", which is not a strategy to actually elect progressives, it's a strategy to get progressives to split their votes, thus favoring old guard politicos. Time to take the next step down the game theory road using a "least bad" recommendation/endorsement. It's cynical, but it works!

by will on Apr 22, 2013 1:13 pm • linkreport

Charlie, a runoff system would require a charter amendment, so it would have to start by passing something through the council. You can't do it with a ballot initiative.

by Keith Ivey on Apr 22, 2013 1:13 pm • linkreport

And it also a problem when you are running on a "no corruption" pledge.

This is an attempt at a backroom deal no matter how you spin it.

The candidates don't control how people will choose to vote. There is nothing asked for in trade other than the support of the candidate. I don't see the "corruption" here or anything sneaky about emailing or talking to in person.

The wheeling and dealing that got Anita Bonds into the council seat in the first place is a hell of a lot worse than this non-issue.

by MLD on Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm • linkreport

A "backroom deal" refers to legislation that's done in secret. This is neither legislation, nor, arguably was it done in secret.

Sorry, but campaign strategy is not public policy. There's no obligation whatsoever to be "transparent" in such matters. That's just odd.

Tempest in a teapot. Also kind of funny that the Silverman haters can't seem to make up their mind if the crime was the conversation with the Frumin campaign, or the non-existent "cover-up".

by oboe on Apr 22, 2013 1:15 pm • linkreport

David:

Looks like yes there was in person meeting and also emails.

Leaving a paper trail in something like this makes me really question how smart this candidate is.

I'm not at all surprised that candidates try to get each other to drop out, and offer some sort of tit for tat for doing so.

That's politics.

But leaving a paper trail? That's just flat out incompetence.

by Hillman on Apr 22, 2013 1:18 pm • linkreport

Plus, legislators making deals to pass bills is very common. When you don't have people willing to make deals, or at least one party very averse to deals, you get the current Congress.

by David Alpert on Apr 22, 2013 1:21 pm • linkreport

Ethics is one of my top issues. But making deals isn't a breach of ethics. Making deals is politics.

I don't see anything dishonest about encouraging a candidate to drop out of a race. Nor is there anything dishonest about offering to support someone in a future race if you truly think they would be a good candidate. (As the Let's Choose results clearly showed, on the policies there is a lot of agreement between Elissa and Frumin.)

It's unethical to make deals for campaign cash, or a personal SUV, or a job for an associate. But making deals for political support is the definition of politics. This is a non-issue. It would be malpractice if the campaigns hadn't talked to each other.

by Gavin on Apr 22, 2013 1:22 pm • linkreport

Offering to endorse another candidate is not a backroom deal since there is no hidden benefit. The benefit literally is the public endorsement so no one is getting something under the table. A candidate can't be corrupt until they are elected since corruption is using your position unethically. You could argue that unethical actions as a candidate have a correllation with political corruption but it's hardly the same thing. Since she was predicating the request based on having similar platforms there is no indication that she was offering to change any of her policies in exchange. It was probably a misstep, but if anything it seems rather innocent compared to political tactics these days.

by Alan B. on Apr 22, 2013 1:22 pm • linkreport

Adam:

You have a valid point.

In a perfect world I'd prefer the openness also.

But DC politics ain't that perfect world.

And A DC politician so naive or so careless as to commit things like this, in a DC council race, to email makes me wonder what else they do.

And as Oboe points out this is more in the way of campaign strategy. That's not something we usually expect politicians to divulge to the general public.

If there wasn't an email trail it would have been a far tinier story.

by Hillman on Apr 22, 2013 1:26 pm • linkreport

From the Washington Post article, this is the crux of it:

"If he obliged, Silverman pledged she would help Frumin, who serves on a Ward 3 Advisory Neighborhood Commission, unseat D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) next year, according to sources familiar with the discussion."

What did that offer include? Fund-raising assistance? Access to donors?

by 202_cyclist on Apr 22, 2013 1:28 pm • linkreport

I am not good at math but can someone please explain how leading 13% to 8% is far ahead in the polls when (at least) 43% of the voters are undecided?

by 202_cyclist on Apr 22, 2013 1:31 pm • linkreport

What did that offer include? Fund-raising assistance? Access to donors?

An explicit endorsement? Help canvassing? Advice? An encouraging pat on the back?

by oboe on Apr 22, 2013 1:38 pm • linkreport

I am not good at math but can someone please explain how leading 13% to 8% is far ahead in the polls when (at least) 43% of the voters are undecided?

Well, given that the leader is at 19% and the next closest candidates are at 13%, the margin down to 8% is pretty significant, too. There's a long answer here, but the short version is that well-conducted polling is pretty accurate, and come-from-behind-wins don't really happen often. Undecided voters are likely to vote in the already-established proportions of the race when they do make their decision unless there's some unique demographic very underrepresented in the polling.

Silverman running with no Frumin either wins the seat or makes it really close. You could make the same argument for Frumin without Silverman, but I don't know why you'd bother if you assume that both are flawed but good progressive candidates. Go with the one who's shown better measurables so far.

by worthing on Apr 22, 2013 1:39 pm • linkreport

why don't the dems have a progressive caucus that selects one candidate to run for the progressive vote? This is not rocket science....

by Tom A. on Apr 22, 2013 1:40 pm • linkreport

Silverman = opposite of smart, strategic, positive, transparent, saavy. Sinking ships tend to off load rodent populations. Otherwise the rodents go glub glub. She's shot herself in the foot and no amount of DA's dancing is going to distract from that F.A.C.T. (IMHO) By the way, does anyone have evidence that Bonds' staff or the candidate herself met or offered a deal with Brown? If DA doesn't have the goods on this, he is misleading to suggest it is a proven fact. I suspect LABOR in this community made a suggstion based on their analysis. They did it without fanfare or public attention. DA - What say you? Do you have proof or are you speculating upon speculation? Just because YOUR candidate has shot her foot (again)is far from proof that others are so inclined....

by Tom M on Apr 22, 2013 1:41 pm • linkreport

One observation: the poll was actually conducted by DCMJ, an organization seeking to change DC's marijuana laws. The poll (which was conducted by landline) consisted of registered voters--not likely voters. Most of the "undecideds" are unlikely to vote given the turnout in special elections.

by oboe on Apr 22, 2013 1:43 pm • linkreport

"well-conducted polling is pretty accurate"

Zero evidence this is a well conducted poll.

Landline, robot, and no evidence of what is the voter screen (outside of self ID). And DC is really too small.

We don't even know the margin of error with those, and it is probable that as of last week the difference of Frumin/Silverman was withing the margin of error.

by charlie on Apr 22, 2013 1:45 pm • linkreport

What did that offer include? Fund-raising assistance? Access to donors?

My sources tell me that she may have offered him the designs for the Sacred Tattoo of Swampoodle, which, when inscribed on one's left wrist and dunked in the Anacostia, opens a portal to the dimensionally-shifted headquarters of the Illuminati. And the Illuminati have great half-smokes.

by worthing on Apr 22, 2013 1:45 pm • linkreport

@oboe:

So, the poll only relied on landlines and not cell phones, and it didn't bother asking likely voters. How come we should consider this poll even slightly credible?

by 202_cyclist on Apr 22, 2013 1:47 pm • linkreport

@oboe; and leaked to Silverman's campaign before the public announcement.

by charlie on Apr 22, 2013 1:47 pm • linkreport

@charlie: But within the margin of error means it's as likely that she's 10 points ahead as that she's tied with Frumin. And is there a specific reason to think sampling bias would go in Frumin's direction?

Maybe on the registered vs likely voter thing since upper NW parents are more likely to vote. There was a likely voter screen in the poll though. The cell phone thing would mean something only if Frumin is doing better among younger voters, which I don't think is the case.

I agree, the poll is not extremely reliable. I wish some news or other organization did more polls on these races. Since they don't, we have what we have.

A lot of insiders I talked with had concluded that Matt Frumin was less electable even well before, just by talking with him and asking him questions about his campaign and about issues. Make of that whatever you will.

Oh, also, the newspaper and blog endorsements have all gone to either Mara or Silverman.

by David Alpert on Apr 22, 2013 1:51 pm • linkreport

"Maybe on the registered vs likely voter thing since upper NW parents are more likely to vote. There was a likely voter screen in the poll though. The cell phone thing would mean something only if Frumin is doing better among younger voters, which I don't think is the case."

This is absolutely the case. I think Matt Frumin is doing much better with younger, newer residents than the DC-machine/establishment cadidates were.

David-- since electability seems to be one of the big reasons why GGW endorsed Silverman over Matt Frumin, a proven supporter of smart growth and sustainable transportation, I think it is only fair that you would name some of thees insiders-- especially since some of these insiders turned out to work on Elissa Silverman's campaign.

by 202_cyclist on Apr 22, 2013 1:56 pm • linkreport

*"absolutely not the case..."

by 202_cyclist on Apr 22, 2013 1:57 pm • linkreport

@Dave, well, we dont know the margin of error - just know that has one.

Robot polls tend to downplay more affluent voters -- not at home, don't pick up, don't last through the questions. That might be the same with Silverman voters.

The test for Frumin was to show he could do anything out of upper NW. He didn't.

Mara is doing a better job of attracting liberals (see Post, see Ygelisas) than Silverman is doing attracting Republicans.

by charlie on Apr 22, 2013 1:59 pm • linkreport

If Cheh is so great and, as Keith pointed out, any plan to amend council elections to take place in a run-off format requires action by the city council, how about a concerted effortto begin the process, beginning with lobbying Cheh to sponsor this change? As one of Cheh's constitutents, I plan to contact her ASAP.

by grumpy on Apr 22, 2013 2:00 pm • linkreport

There was a likely voter screen in the poll though.

I didn't see that, but you're right "Among people who say they're 'definite' or 'probable'".

by oboe on Apr 22, 2013 2:13 pm • linkreport

Let's be clear here. What's happening is that people are justifying this because it's Elissa..not that they are so bound to the notion of politicking.

Silverman offered to help Frumin in exchange for him getting out of the race. Yes, it is pay to play but the kind we see (and conveniently abhor) all the time. What this continues to show me is how totally unprepared she is for office. And this all happened a week before the election. I'm fine w/new people on the council. But I'm not ok w/giving people a pass wrt basic campaigning. She was skilled enough to kick people off the ballot. But not skilled enough to start a "progressive coalition" campaign prior to last week?

BTW, I would like to get a concrete answer on whether or not Bonds or her campaign team (not regular supporters) had a meeting w/Brown to urge him to get out. This is the first time I've heard about this but something DAL can clear up rather quickly. Letting it all out that somebody else had a secret meeting w/o any details to back it up is not cool.

by HogWash on Apr 22, 2013 2:23 pm • linkreport

@ oboe; yep, so in reality it again measuring name recognition rather than predicting the election.

So we are talking about an election where whoever gets 1-2% of registered voters to vote for them wins. Any polling breaks down on such low turnout.

by charlie on Apr 22, 2013 2:30 pm • linkreport

Instant runoff voting would be fantastic here. I think it's past time to push that in DC. I would love to be able to vote for who I wanted to, without worrying that I was helping out someone awful.

Honestly, not getting caught in this kind of mess is an important political skill, and she's running for a political job. It's not a serious ethics violation, but it is a serious mistake. I still think she's the best vote for a progressive in this race, but I really hope she's a quick study.

by George on Apr 22, 2013 2:35 pm • linkreport

@David Alpert - leaving aside for a moment the still mysterious fact that Silverman has more support among the GGW insider group and any overlaps with the young crowd why would Silverman do any better with young folks than Frumin??

Having followed this race pretty closely and knowing Matt personally I am pretty confident Elissa would scream at someone to get off her lawn long before Matt would and Matt has 2 kids in their 20's and is pretty dialed in with what is going on with young people.

Frankly I'm not all that concerned about this inside Baseball stuff - Silverman again comes off as being very presumptuous (she could swing votes in Ward 3 - does she really believe that??) but that is hardly breaking news.

What really bothers me is that GGW is again circling the wagons here around Elissa despite the fact that she has made a lot of statements that had they come from Neighbors for Neighborhoods or a Committee of 100 person would be appropriately ridiculed on here - this entire post is really a defense of a candidacy that GGW should be stepping back from not doubling down on.

I'm still waiting for someone among her insider group of supporters on GGW to defend her coming out in support of municipal parking garages because I am hard pressed to think of a policy position that is more in contrast to what GGW stands for than that.

by TomQ on Apr 22, 2013 2:35 pm • linkreport

@TomQ--- very well said.

I would also like to know which group of insiders the GGW editors talked to about electability, since that seems to have been very important in making an endorsement. Instead, we are told that a cabal of insiders think Silverman is more electable.

by 202_cyclist on Apr 22, 2013 2:44 pm • linkreport

Actually mission accomplished:

In all this news, Silverman got out the message Frumin's not going to win and that she's the closest alternative.

The leak may well help Silverman.

by Tom Coumaris on Apr 22, 2013 2:47 pm • linkreport

Michael Brown wasn't pressured out. He had to drop out for purely personal reasons. The fact that no one has seen him around since he dropped out should give you every indication where he is right now.

Brown also didn't endorse. He never wanted to drop out. He's still encouraging black pastors to have their churches vote for him as a "vote of confidence" so that he can run again in the future.

Complete [deleted for violating the comment policy] from David, who presents his own theories as fact in this article without so much as lifting a finger to find out the truth. And I like David.

by Jack Sprat on Apr 22, 2013 2:51 pm • linkreport

Instant runoff voting would be fantastic here. I think it's past time to push that in DC. I would love to be able to vote for who I wanted to, without worrying that I was helping out someone awful.

I'd love to see IRV, but I think it's enough of a political hot potato that no politician is going to go to bat for it. I actually emailed Tommy Wells about IRV a couple of years ago, and his response was lukewarm to say the least.

I think the traditional DC voting bloc knows exactly what IRV is about, and would fight it with everything they had.

by oboe on Apr 22, 2013 2:56 pm • linkreport

I was most fascinated with the report that if Frumin backed out of the special election, Silverman would support him in a challenge to Mary Cheh. I didn't think that Cheh was vulnerable, but maybe her W3 position is more tenuous that I thought. I know that almost four years ago, many of Cheh's constituents were annoyed with her support of Gray, when Fenty was relatively popular in the ward. However, that anger has dissipated as Cheh has taken on Gray on numerous occasions. There's also a perception that Cheh was more pro-growth than she is now and willing to stand up to the neighborhood associations, but now she seems to be more aligned with such groups on development proposals. Does anyone think that Frumin or another challenger could defeat Cheh?

by Ron on Apr 22, 2013 2:59 pm • linkreport

This weekend there were a number of Michael Brown signs in Ward 7 and 8. They looked recently planted. Is Brown making a last-ditch renewed effort or is someone trying to push Brown in the hope of diluting Bonds?

by Ron on Apr 22, 2013 3:03 pm • linkreport

You know who else had a secret meeting with a candidate about dropping out? Whichever Anita Bonds supporters and backers persuaded Michael Brown to drop out of the race.

The theory that something like something like what you describe happened isn't implausible, per se, but as far as I know it's speculation at this point. If this were Wikipedia, I'd have to flag it as [citation needed].

by cminus on Apr 22, 2013 3:06 pm • linkreport

@ David Alpert -- You've made an allegation that you have not provided proof to verify. As "Jack Sprat" (pungently) suggested it currently looks like the droppings from the back end of a horse. Are you going to leave that uncorrected, unchallenged, or will you provide some proof of the first allegation you made in the article above? If not, we should i suppose draw the appropriate conclusions about who is the "butt" of the story....

by Tom M on Apr 22, 2013 3:11 pm • linkreport

Well I suppose I might still fall into the "young" demographic. I like Frumin and Silverman, both are clearly progressive to my mind. I'm sure I could grab a beer with either of them and have a nice conversation. Honestly, I don't think any of the candidates are bad people -- but some would clearly be better at representing who I am. So between Frumin and Silverman both seem like reasonable choices. My concern with Frumin is that he seems very nice and smart, but it's not clear he has the guns to fight positions and interests that are not progressive. Silverman seems a little unpolished, but she might also have the spunk to advocate for unpopular positions that she believes in. My guy feeling is that Silverman has the most youth appeal outside of the people that only care about legalizing pot.

by Alan B. on Apr 22, 2013 3:12 pm • linkreport

Frumin outspokenly supported Gray. If he had supported Fenty, he might have had a chance to beat Cheh. With Gray in common with Cheh, Ward 3 voters would stay with the devil they know.

by Fenty Fan on Apr 22, 2013 3:15 pm • linkreport

@AlanB

Try watching the Zoning Commission proceedings on the Babes site in Tenleytown. He and his fellow ANC Commissioners did a fantastic job of crafting a unanimous resolution that also passed unanimous muster with the Zoning Commission. It is one of the reasons many smart growth proponents are so favorable of Mr. Frumin. He has BTDT and comes out on the right side of the debate.

Meanwhile, Ms. Silverman panders to older thinking by supporting municipal parking garages.

by William on Apr 22, 2013 3:37 pm • linkreport

@ David Albert - -Well the edit still leaves an allegation that there was a secret meeting. You've also implied strongly that the meeting was between Brown and supporters of another candidate. You've edited it. But the allegation still remains just without naming the candidate. Seems you have crawled out on thinner ice than before. Can you substantiate the allegation of a secret meeting or are you ASSUMING a secret meeting that is not proven? You know what they say about ASS-U-ME, don't you?

by Tom M on Apr 22, 2013 3:38 pm • linkreport

What seals the deal for me wrt to Silverman is 1)kicking Settles off the ballot 2)lack of interest in campaigning in W8.

So it's hard for me to consider her the best progressive candidate when she makes sure to limit her appeal to what I'm assuming are WOTR voters. I wanted to wait until the election and give her a chance...even if I didn't plan to vote for her. But she's proven my point. Obviously the streets are littered w/VOTE ANITA BONDS signs. This weekend I walked past three polling places and saw signs from two people, Bonds and Frumin. I received mailers from two people , Bonds (about 50-11) and Frumin.

At a MINIMUM Frumin put signs up and sent out mailers. Yet, Silverman is the one most interested in running a city-wide race? I seriously have a problem when people don't reach out to us over there and then hear complaints from them and others that we keep electing the same people. Ugh....

by HogWash on Apr 22, 2013 3:41 pm • linkreport

why don't the dems have a progressive caucus that selects one candidate to run for the progressive vote? This is not rocket science....

Progressive groups (like DC for Democracy) do. The problem is a lot of Democrats don’t join them.

I should point out that the perception that Elissa is well ahead of Frumin is not just based on one poll. If you look at the recent Ward 2 straw poll where Silverman was far ahead of Frumin, the endorsements from publications (The City Paper, GGW), politicians (Grosso, Patterson, Ambrose), they all show Silverman doing much better. Frumin’s struggling in all metrics other than money (ask Pete Ross about how easy it is to buy a local election). The argument that all available evidence could be misleading isn’t terribly compelling on it’s own.

by Chatham on Apr 22, 2013 4:01 pm • linkreport

Jeff Steele said it better than I could have.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/2013/04/22/vote-splitting

by LouDC on Apr 22, 2013 4:09 pm • linkreport

I'm gonna go ahead and say that blog endorsements have historically not accounted for very much. So the fact that the paper which used to employ Silverman endorsed her isn't saying a lot. I've been asking around about where are her major endorsements and WCP/GGW seems to be the run of it. What that shows is that she's convinced the blogosphere..which could encourage people to vote one way or the other. It just usually hasn't...or at least enough to make a difference.

by HogWash on Apr 22, 2013 4:10 pm • linkreport

I think Bonds is going to win. I'll bet anyone. I can make a lot of money off of deluded Mara supporters.

What I propose is that Frumin, Mara, and Silverman agree now that whichever of them earns the most votes in this election be "nominated" to run against Anita in the next election, with the other two sitting on the sidelines or helping the nominee.

by Ward 1 Guy on Apr 22, 2013 4:14 pm • linkreport

She has an endorsement from a current council member and two former council members (one of which is a volunteer). DFA supported her, and she got the most votes from the Stein club. She got about 70% in the Ward 2 straw poll.

If you think "her major endorsements and WCP/GGW seems to be the run of it" you haven't been paying attention to the race.

by Chatham on Apr 22, 2013 4:18 pm • linkreport

I'm gonna go ahead and say that blog endorsements have historically not accounted for very much.

Blog Influence on Elections 1913-2013

by oboe on Apr 22, 2013 4:20 pm • linkreport

So it's hard for me to consider her the best progressive candidate when she makes sure to limit her appeal to what I'm assuming are WOTR voters.

How are these two things related?

by oboe on Apr 22, 2013 4:22 pm • linkreport

@Chatham:

How many people are in the Stein club or partipated in the Ward 2 straw poll? A couple hundred (is it even that high) votes out of 630,000 DC residents isn't a sign of widespread support.

by 202_cyclist on Apr 22, 2013 4:23 pm • linkreport

LouDC, I agree that Frumin has come out of this campaign the cleanest. If he doesn't win tomorrow, I'll support him much earlier in any future decision to run.

by Dno on Apr 22, 2013 4:23 pm • linkreport

@obone, no y-axis -- is that a joke?

by goldfish on Apr 22, 2013 4:24 pm • linkreport

@Hogwash

You mean one of the newspapers she worked for. The other endorsed Mara.

I am not sure how much these endorsements really matter. Afterall, Mara is chock full of them and it hasn't gotten him very far.

I mean, how many people participated in Lets Choose DC? I would be willing to guess that more participated in that then the entirety of the newspaper and various group and straw poll endorsements.

Maybe David Alpert would be willing to share those numbers?

by William on Apr 22, 2013 4:32 pm • linkreport

You're correct. She has AN endorsement from a relatively unknown CM in addition to the two blogs. The endorsement from former CM's is about as major as a hangnail. The others, as you noted, weren't endorsements although she did win the most votes (39 to be exact) from the Stein club. So yes, I have been paying attention to what's not there.

Good article on the DCMoms/Dads site. Among the leaders, Frumin is the cleanest and has run the most positive campaign so far...

by HogWash on Apr 22, 2013 4:35 pm • linkreport

I mean, how many people participated in Lets Choose DC? I would be willing to guess that more participated in that then the entirety of the newspaper and various group and straw poll endorsements.

Thought I remembered DAl giving an actual tally of the number of votes but could be wrong. But I guess those numbers don't matter as much since the endorsement wasn't based on them.

by HogWash on Apr 22, 2013 4:37 pm • linkreport

If anyone else is wavering, here's some meat to chew: an interview with Frumin by the above-linked Jeff Steele:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/meet-matt-frumin

by LouDC on Apr 22, 2013 4:41 pm • linkreport

@202_cyclist

Again, it’s not that these things give us a great view of the race, it’s that these things give us the best view of the race that’s available. The response to evidence that Silverman is well ahead of Frumin hasn’t been evidence that Frumin is doing well, it’s been arguments that all the evidence is faulty, with the assumption (based on nothing) that all of it is faulty in a way that breaks for Frumin. Not terribly compelling.

by Chatham on Apr 22, 2013 4:43 pm • linkreport

@oboe, no y-axis -- is that a joke?

Y-axis is 'pirates'.

by oboe on Apr 22, 2013 4:55 pm • linkreport

@Goldfish & @Oboe There's a y-axis; it's just unlabelled and has no units (I assume it's Influence, measured in units of I. Scooter Libbys). Still, great point.

@George & (look who again!)@Oboe
YES IRV PLEASE. I know who I want to have the seat but I can't decide where to place my vote to most effectively be ABB (Anyone But Bonds). What's it going to take? The progressives only stand to lose here, splitting the vote and all, allowing the entrenched candidates (see stance above) to continue to win in elections that shouldn't be this close.

Sigh. That's it, I'm voting for Dr. (deGrasse) Tyson. Smartest Man Alive '013.

by David F-H on Apr 22, 2013 4:58 pm • linkreport

I'm opposed to candidates meeting in secret in this manner, period.

The voters deserve as much openness as they can get throughout the process.

Voters are assuming that elections are adversarial, not that candidates are teaming up to limit voter choice on the ballot on Election Day. There are voters out there who prefer Frumin to Silverman: depriving them of that choice for a "grand bargain" does not feel remotely ethical to me. And when you slide an inch in this town with your ethics, you start sliding your first mile.

If anyone proved that Bonds and Brown were in collusion regarding Brown dropping out, I would decry that as well.

by Alan Page on Apr 22, 2013 5:57 pm • linkreport

Settles is supporting Frumin now

by William on Apr 22, 2013 6:45 pm • linkreport

Thank you for this David. I'm so sick of the political catch 22s you outline here. This is politics, enough with the Pollyanna act - we've seen much, much worse in DC very, very recently. No, it isn't always flattering when you see how the sausage is made, but I guarantee every single other candidate in this overcrowded race has been doing the same thing (implicitly or explicitly) to create their best shot at winning. That is what a good campaign is supposed to do. From the conversation here, it seems that this has given people already against Elissa fuel for their fires, but I do not think it will dissuade her supporters. Hopefully it will not distract undecided voters from differences of substance.

by Annie on Apr 22, 2013 6:58 pm • linkreport

Good breakdown of why the poll in question is junk:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/pollster-update-polling-t_n_3134598.html?1366666466&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

Also, how did Silverman get a copy of the poll before it was released?

by charlie on Apr 22, 2013 7:22 pm • linkreport

Cracka cracka cracka.

by bob on Apr 22, 2013 11:07 pm • linkreport

@HogWash: Obviously the streets are littered w/VOTE ANITA BONDS signs. This weekend I walked past three polling places and saw signs from two people, Bonds and Frumin. I received mailers from two people , Bonds (about 50-11) and Frumin.

At a MINIMUM Frumin put signs up and sent out mailers. Yet, Silverman is the one most interested in running a city-wide race? I seriously have a problem when people don't reach out to us over there and then hear complaints from them and others that we keep electing the same people. Ugh....

I have no terribly strong preference for who wins this one, but I'm not so sure that putting up signs and sending you direct mail is "reaching out to [you] over there." Is that all it takes? I would be more interested in policy than in how many "VOTE FOR ME" signs a candidate had his or her volunteers hammer into the ground on your street.

by worthing on Apr 23, 2013 8:22 am • linkreport

David, Do you really think that by drawing a line through "Anita Bonds and her supporters and backers" retracts your unfounded allegation that Bonds had a deal with Brown for him to withdraw? That is the worst kind of journalism. You should publicly apologize to Bonds.

by GB on Apr 23, 2013 8:42 am • linkreport

@GB

No he shouldn't. I certainly feel there was a deal of some sort, and at a minimum, Brown realized he was going to split the vote and withdrew. Even if Bonds did explicitly ask Brown to withdraw, I see nothing wrong with it, just like I have no issues with Silverman asking Frumin to withdraw.

The awesome part about running a blog is just that, you aren't a journalist. He is allowed to give his opinion.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that Bonds had something to do with Brown withdrawing... Who do you think did it? Bill Clinton? Bill Cosby? Michael Jordan?

If the shoe fits...

by Kyle-W on Apr 23, 2013 9:12 am • linkreport

Mr Alpert: "You know what didn't happen? Michael Brown's disappointed supporters did not talk about it to the press. Surrogates for his and other campaigns did not profess outrage on Twitter at backroom deals" and "hypocrisy."

This is all speculation. You do not know if Mr Brown's supporters talked to the press or not; or if the "the press" decided that whatever they learned was newsworthy or not.

by goldfish on Apr 23, 2013 9:21 am • linkreport

"Even if Bonds did explicitly ask Brown to withdraw, I see nothing wrong with it, just like I have no issues with Silverman asking Frumin to withdraw."

Somehow, I suspect that if came out that Bonds asked Brown to withdraw and promised support for a future Ward 4 run all hell would break loose.

by charlie on Apr 23, 2013 9:25 am • linkreport

Option A: Fruman stays in and another dope (Anita Bonds) gets on the council with 20% and no runoff. We complain about Congress not letting us vote and then we have a plurality, no run off system....it's a joke and our own fault.

Option B: Fruman bails and anyone but incumbent may win.

So, Fruman, it's up to you. You going to put your ego down and work for the good of the city. You know you can't win, why not show some actual maturity and concern for the city. Let me repeat: YOU, MR. FRUMAN, WILL NOT WIN THIS RACE. Any questions?

by Mike on Apr 23, 2013 9:25 am • linkreport

Somehow, I suspect that if came out that Bonds asked Brown to withdraw and promised support for a future Ward 4 run all hell would break loose.

Why? This stuff happens all the time.

@Mike, I think it's a little too late since voting is today.

by MLD on Apr 23, 2013 9:27 am • linkreport

When do we start having this same conversation about the Ward 1 race to unseat Jim Graham? Bryan Weaver is going to split the anti-Jim vote with Brianne Nadeau.

by Ward 1 Guy on Apr 23, 2013 9:37 am • linkreport

@Ward 1 Guy.

From what we have seen, the next election day is when we will start.

by Mike on Apr 23, 2013 9:42 am • linkreport

@Mike:
I hope you know that neither will Silverman win. I hope the polls prove you wrong about which of the two should have pulled out.

by LouDC on Apr 23, 2013 9:49 am • linkreport

@Mike

First, you make an assumption that everyone who supports Frumin would have voted for Silverman. I hardly think that is the case.

Second, as others have noted, Frumin entered the race two weeks before Silverman. She could have decided that she would have split the vote and not entered. She entered anyway.

Third, Frumin submitted 6,000 signatures before Elissa submitted her 4000 signatures. She could have pulled out then, realizing she would be splitting the vote. She chose not to.

Fourth, at the first turn, Frumin had outraised Silverman more than 2-1. She could have decided she was going to split the vote and pulled out. She didn't.

Why is the onus on Frumin to have pulled out? If Silverman was so concerned about it, she had plenty of opportunity before the ballots were printed.

by William on Apr 23, 2013 10:37 am • linkreport

@Mike

Well, we shall know at the end of the day who had the greater level of support from the voters. If we lived in a democracy, a run off would certainly keep Anita Bonds out and some others, too.

20% give you a $100,000+ a year job and the chance to represent all the voters? Pathetic.

by Mike on Apr 23, 2013 10:44 am • linkreport

How to get legislation to allow runoffs? I'm all for it. Who wants to lead the charge?

by LouDC on Apr 23, 2013 11:52 am • linkreport

This is an attempt at a backroom deal no matter how you spin it.

What deal exactly? What is being exchanged? Dropping out in exchange from some nebulous idea of support at some undecided future point in time? That's not "a deal".

Here is the real "deal", drop out so I can win and pursue goals we both share. There is nothing backroom or unethical about that.

by David C on Apr 23, 2013 12:39 pm • linkreport

Yes, it is pay to play

No. It is not. No one is paying anything and no one is "playing". You're 100% wrong.

by David C on Apr 23, 2013 12:46 pm • linkreport

No. It is not. No one is paying anything and no one is "playing". You're 100% wrong.

Promises to do A if someone else does B is what most of us would consider pay to play and in some instances is perfectly legal. I don't believe you'll find many who think "money" has to literally be exchanged though.

by HogWash on Apr 23, 2013 2:05 pm • linkreport

Promises to do A if someone else does B is what most of us would consider pay to play

No, the term you're looking for is quid pro quo. Pay to play is specific term of art. It refers to someone having to pay or give services to get "in the game." Silverman is not a gate-keeper who can keep Furmin out of any games (or future races) nor can she honestly offer to get him elected to District Council.

Furthermore, in politics it almost always refers to the requirement that parties give political contributions to get their needs addressed. See this.

So it isn't pay to play. Quid pro quo is waht you're talking about, but really even that is a weak accusation, since the bulk of her attempt to persuade Furmin focuses on the fact that she and Furmin support the same things and that they don't want Bonds to win. The offer of support in the future was an aside, not the central argument.

But my main point is, you're using that term wrong. If you're going to make a weak accusation based on a tortured definition and an uncharitable interpretation of events, at least make the right one.

by David C on Apr 23, 2013 2:34 pm • linkreport

Is DC BOEE going to post any results before the polls close?

by C.C. on Apr 23, 2013 3:49 pm • linkreport

They have a hard enough time posting results hours after the polls close.

Seriously though, no one does that. All results are posted after.

by William on Apr 23, 2013 3:53 pm • linkreport

I am fairly certain they are not allowed to post any results until after the polls close and people are done voting, so that it can't influence the results.

by MLD on Apr 23, 2013 4:15 pm • linkreport

It remains unclear to me why exactly Silverman is considered "progressive." At my polling place in Ward 8 there was only one candidate being represented by a volunteer, and that is who I voted for. If you can't organize to try to get my vote, you will not get it.

by Emm on Apr 23, 2013 4:52 pm • linkreport

The only thing you see before polls close is exit interview polls privately conducted, but no one is doing that for a race this small and anyway the sample size would be low enough that it wouldnt be useful.

by Alan B. on Apr 23, 2013 5:05 pm • linkreport

From wikipedia, should clear up the definition of progressive:

Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform. Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization.

It is left of center in the political spectrum and is to be contrasted with conservatism on the right and the revolutionary left, the former generally resisting changes it advocates and the latter rejecting its gradualism.

by Alan B. on Apr 23, 2013 5:08 pm • linkreport

Alan B.: My question was WHY Silverman is considered progressive, not what is a progressive. And by the way, I teach political philosophy and urban affairs at a DC university so you will have to do better than that. :)

by Emm on Apr 23, 2013 5:42 pm • linkreport

I think she is reform-minded particularly regarding fiscal policy. However I didn't see that reflected in her stance on anything else in the debate I watched, on everything else she said her stance is right in the middle between the extremes. Ironically I went to the forum supporting her but left supporting Frumin.

by LouDC on Apr 23, 2013 6:19 pm • linkreport

LouDC: I agree. I respect the work of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute a great deal and liked the idea of more representation from the east side of the city, but personally she did not impress me. The back room dealing did not worry me much, as it would be nice to have politicking that is not corruption-based. What she did was normal. But I agree with one of the earlier posters that Silverman seemed presumptuous, apparently based on some bad polling? I also liked Frumin. This city needs better options.

by Emm on Apr 23, 2013 7:19 pm • linkreport

"Here is the real "deal", drop out so I can win and pursue goals we both share. There is nothing backroom or unethical about that."

If she said at a debate, publicly, that Frumin should drop out so that progressive issues on the Council could be represented, and stated that she is supportive of his political future, this exchange would be a non-issue.

Instead, she had a third party approach him, then followed up with an email appeal, all outside of the public eye.

If it's not a backroom deal, why not make the offer publicly? The private nature of the deal is what makes it backroom, inherently.

If she believed that her appeal to Frumin's progressive solidarity were enough, she wouldn't have mentioned the "I'll support you in future races" part at all. That's a key part of the deal.

Think of it this way...I want to buy your house. I offer you list price, then also offer to throw in a Rembrandt as well. The Rembrandt is part of the offer. Same here. The future support offer is part of the deal.

by wylie coyote on Apr 23, 2013 8:17 pm • linkreport

Emm, voting for the most organized candidate is certainly one strategy. There might be some overlap between one's ability to campaign and one's ability to legislate. I don't think there is much. It might speak to leadership, but only a little.

Despite my lack of concern with campaigning it falls into my calculations because I only look at candidates who can reasonably win (based on polling and other signaling) and then vote for the one who most shares my values. That's how I landed on Silverman instead of Furmin. So if campaigning matters to you, you're probably looking at Mara, Bonds, Silverman and Furmin. But Mara, Bonds and Silverman/Furmin represent some very different ideas and approaches, so the idea that you could switch from Silverman to Bonds because you think one was more organized is foreign to me. It would be like voting for Romney over Obama because he was richer.

I always say that picking a leader with an election is like picking a quarterback with a jump rope contest. It isn't totally unrelated, but it doesn't necessarily end up with the best choice.

by David C on Apr 23, 2013 8:27 pm • linkreport

Instead, she had a third party approach him, then followed up with an email appeal, all outside of the public eye.

Her treasurer is not a third party, for starters.

And this is rich. Hillman is slamming her for leaving a paper trail (how amateurish!) and you're slamming her for acting discretely. I wish her critics would decide what it was they were upset about.

As someone else put it, this was strategy and campaigns have the right to make strategy decisions in private.

The Rembrandt is part of the offer. Same here. The future support offer is part of the deal.

Except that the future support part has almost no value. Really, what does that buy him? And she probably will support him in future campaigns anyway.

by David C on Apr 23, 2013 8:35 pm • linkreport

And by the way, I teach political philosophy and urban affairs at a DC university so you will have to do better than that. :)

Cool, well I didn't vote for Elissa but I would say that her progressive claim is tied to her background in reform efforts like the ill-fated initiative 70 and support for zoning updates and investment in non-car transportation would be another reason.

My understanding is that that world progressive is generally used to mean left leaning, though in this case you could say that about almost all the candidates.

Why do you think she is not progressive?

by Alan B. on Apr 23, 2013 10:20 pm • linkreport

David C:

1) As a candidate for a city wide, at-large seat I think it is very important to seek out support from all parts of the city if one hopes to represent it. It is a certain kind of patronizing to say one cares about certain issues impacting certain groups without actually doing anything to build relationships with those groups or sections of the city as a candidate for public office.

2) I am not sure working as a journalist/communications professional is the best training for legislating.

3) I was displeased when I learned more about Silverman's team.

4) I had a really wonderful, thoughtful interaction with a volunteer from another campaign. Those things matter...to me (that's right, to be liberal means respecting others' views and rationales, not only expecting them to have the same ones as you).

I could go on.

5) It is Frumin not Furmin.

by Emm on Apr 23, 2013 10:40 pm • linkreport

1. None of the candidates campaigned everywhere. If a candidate came to your ward, it's because they targeted it.

2. Never said it was. Being an officer in the military is. But that wasn't an option. I'll point out that Al Gore is one politician who previously was a journalist, among others. I think our legislature would do better with people from a wider set of backgrounds - too many lawyers and farmers - so I wouldn't eliminate anyone because of their chosen career. It's odd that you particularly single out journalists. Can you identify some journalists-turned-politicians who you didn't care for?

3. OK, well then that's a better reason to not vote for her.

4. And that is a better reason to vote for someone else.

5. Either way, he lost badly. If I can't spell his name, he probably needed more signs.

by David C on Apr 23, 2013 11:17 pm • linkreport

@Matthew the onus on Frumin was that with his massive fundraising advantage, he was still only able to draw a little more than a third of Silverman's total. There isn't really a question who was the more viable candidate at this point.

by Rahul Mereand-Sinha on Apr 23, 2013 11:47 pm • linkreport

Good work Fruman. Nice going man. You did it! Congrats! You elected [deleted for violating the comment policy] Anita Bonds. Woo Hoo.

by Mike on Apr 24, 2013 1:11 am • linkreport

I recall after the last time, people said "If Sekou had run a better campaign, this wouldn't have happened."

So this time it is Frumin's fault? As I posted previously, I do not think Frumin's voters, by a factor of 50%, would have been Silverman supporters. If you look at the poll data, the places where Frumin was strong mirror where Mara was strong last time. If anything, Mara underperformed significantly in Ward 1, which is where Elissa got a huge boost.

Further, At what point should Frumin have dropped out of the race? Brown dropped out weeks ago and still received over 600 votes. Do you think dropping out over the weekend would have made a difference? The time to do it was BEFORE the ballots were printed, not a week before.

It is time for the "progressive" voters to figure this out. Not having Mara in the race in the future will help, but we cannot keep having these split decisions. Hopefully we can get it by the Fall when the circle of challengers for this seat will emerge.

by William on Apr 24, 2013 6:36 am • linkreport

Frumin's not progressive. And he'd invested a lot of his own money and got substantials contributions from extended family elsewhere, as well as from friends and colleagues locally, so there was no chance he'd throw in the towel prior to the actual election.

I understand why he did what he did. I understand why she did what she did. And the results were predictable.

That said, Silverman's better off than when she started this campaign. And Frumin's probably done with politics -- there's only so many times you can go to the well and this is his second well-funded campaign that ended in failure.

Anybody else have a take on whether Mara's done at this point too?

by BTDT on Apr 24, 2013 7:35 am • linkreport

I hadn't realized Frumin submitted 6,000 petition signatures to get on the ballot. Given that he collected fewer than 6,000 votes, that's anti-momentum.

Maybe cyberstalking is the new robo-calling; for the past few weeks, it seemed as if every time I logged on I could count on Frumin's face showing up somewhere. It was annoying. Maybe he was targeting Where's Waldo fans.

by BTDT on Apr 24, 2013 8:00 am • linkreport

This is a good opportunity for liberals and progressives in the city to find a good candidate and start working on viable coalitions. Or perhaps for Silverman to schmooze some rain makers, enhance her public profile, and develop her platform further.

by Emm on Apr 24, 2013 11:12 am • linkreport

Mara's not done. As long as he can make a living off being the pet candidates for the Republicans in town he'll keep running.

by Alan B. on Apr 24, 2013 11:15 am • linkreport

"Can you identify some journalists-turned-politicians who you didn't care for?"

er, Benito Mussolini?

Does ex sportscaster Ronald Reagan count?

by AWalkerInTheCity on Apr 24, 2013 11:20 am • linkreport

Well but the question is whether the Republicans should be shopping for a new pet at this point.

by BTDT on Apr 24, 2013 12:20 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or