Showing posts with label Floyd County Republican Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Floyd County Republican Party. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

ON THE AVENUES: Doc Harris and the Commissioners at the No Clue Corral.

Ah, the foolish delusions of youth.

Displaying the guileless eagerness of a fresh military recruit going into battle for the very first time, I began attending New Albany city council meetings in 2005, concurrently submitting to engagement in all sorts of grassroots public meetings.

After a few months thrashing through this stinking, fetid swamp, my only goal in life became finding a nice, dry branch to hang on to.

My persistence in indulging this gavel-pounding, head-throbbing, BDSM-like fetish for social dysfunction subsequently extended far past the point when most normal people would have been forcibly loaded onto the padded taxi for a no-expenses-paid visit to Fantasy Island.

It’s a testament to my sheer, stubborn cantankerousness that I never became one of the zombie drones, although not unlike formaldehyde, copious quantities of beverage alcohol certainly helped preserve my sanity.

Then in 2019, lest the gateway martinis lead me down a path to heroin, I withdrew from the fray. After 15 years, I finally reached a sensible conclusion that as long as undemocratic Democrats ruled the municipal roost, there’d never be improvement. Rehabilitation proceeds apace. 

But those outlandish nightmares of King Larry Kochert ogling my leotards?

They’ll last forever.

One lesson from this era of trauma and self-harm also stays with me, because whenever Floyd County politicians belonging to either major political party suddenly cite an alarming lack of information as a reason to delay acting, even when the vital information deemed essential has reposed for weeks and maybe months atop a case of Bud Light Kumquat-A-Rita in their dens—in Bob Caesar’s case, immediately adjacent to the “missing” crate containing his Bicentennial Commission financial records—it invariably leads to two closely related outcomes.

Their sleeves are being tugged by self-appointed pillars (read: fixers) of the community … and as a result, an embarrassing retrograde maneuver is in the offing.

Given my pre-retirement history of gleefully exposing the dismal antics of New Albany's DemoDisneyDixiecrats, currently extinct beyond city limits, many heads will be nodding in anticipation of the usual verbiage directed against Adam’s Ants. 

Not this time. 

Instead, let’s take a journey to the other side of the aisle, and consider our information-deprived county commissioners, Republicans all: Shawn Carruthers, John Schellenberger and Tim Kamer. 

---

Dear reader, unless you’re a complete imbecile, you've grasped with clarity and certainty that the COVID-19 pandemic has entered a particularly gruesome stage as the holiday season approaches.

Consider the self-inflicted wounds of Indiana’s governor, Eric Holcomb. After more than seven months of futility spent trying to thread the GOP’s culture-wide needle of pandemic denial, even as his predecessor Mike Pence stood off to the side, maskless, breathing vapid scripture into his eyeglasses, Holcomb opened, then partially closed, and finally conceded his own impotence in declaring a new color-coded system to put COVID mitigation measures into the hands of local county officials.

Just think how much Holcomb’s late autumn devolution might have helped had it been implemented in April. Perhaps he was frightened by the Libertarian insurgency in the gubernatorial race. Pence might have been distracted by the need to find a new job. None of it would matter if not for the potential for a worse pandemic than we already experienced, and presently are witnessing.  

Now, in November, for all intents and purposes, COVID-era devolution means that local unelected county officials are being charged with formulating and enforcing policies pertaining to the pandemic.

There’s the rub.

With the vast majority of Indiana’s elected Republicans, as well as a far larger percentage of minority Democrats than you might imagine, all unwilling to risk leadership during an election-year public health crisis, but yearning to preserve their electoral viability for future pandering, the magical solution is to put unpopular decisions in the hands of folks like Dr. Thomas Harris, chief of the Floyd County Health Department.

Frequent readers will recall the infamous "Pour Gate" scandal in 2013 (see here for a full account), when Dr. Harris sought to exceed his agency’s statutory limitations and was wrestled to the ground and repelled by a holy coalition of Hoosiers. Obviously, Dr. Harris and I are not bosom buddies, and quite likely won’t ever be.

However, 2013 and 2020 are one hundred and seven years apart.

It was reported last week that Dr. Harris has been approved to serve another term by the health department board, a decision customarily "certified" by the three Floyd County Commissioners (as noted, all are Republican).

However, the certification was tabled, with Kamer, the least experienced commissioner, stepping forward as de facto spokesman to cite the telltale absence of critical information. Carruthers and Schellenberger merely confined themselves to disinterested nods, and transparency crawled off to die.

The optics of the unanticipated delay couldn’t be much worse for the commissioners, given that earlier in the week Dr. Harris has announced tighter pandemic restrictions on restaurants and bars, still more timid than those taken in surrounding states, and yet a step in the right direction.

Unless, of course, you’re among the whack-jobs who still deny the efficacy of any pandemic restrictions, or the existence of COVID itself. Whether the three commissioners do or don’t embrace science is a question we can’t answer, although their haste in stalling Dr. Harris’s reappointment seems to me an irrefutable clue. After all, one of them is the Republican Party’s county chairman.

Scuttlebutt meanwhile suggests their arms are being twisted by Republican grandees besotted with lunatic fringe Kool-Aid and evangelical Christianity; perhaps Dr. Harris failed to properly fill out the Right to Life questionnaire, or forgot to put a MAGA sign in his yard.

Or, as my friend Occam suggests, it’s exactly as it seems, and local Republicans are terrified lest they be viewed as surrendering to nasty masked liberals who worship George Soros. 

Freedom! Liberty! Mass infections and an early death to grandma! 

Well, you know, the stock market rules.

---

As many of you are aware, I’m employed part-time by a restaurant, and have another part-time job writing about restaurants. When Dr. Harris usurped his department's power in 2013, I spent two years fighting against him, and winning, because he was wrong—and quite a few Republicans agreed, and did the heavy lifting required.

However, I fully support the measures announced last week by Dr. Harris to address the pandemic’s spread. They’re something, as opposed to nothing, and also necessary, as opposed to Disney World.

In point of fact, Harris’s actions during a single day last week shot this unelected official straight to the top of the local leadership board, seeing as leadership from elected officeholders has been even more AWOL than usual since March.

Yes, city council passed a toothless resolution, and two weeks ago, the mayor attached his name to a ludicrously belated social media pronouncement divulging his lightbulb-above-noggin recognition of the pandemic, and urging citizens to mask up and distance themselves. News travels slowly into the shadowy bowels of the bunker, and it only took hundreds of days, but better late than never.

We needn't elaborate as to what local elected Republicans have done concerning COVID, since as Billy Preston once reminded us, nothing from nothing leaves … nothing.

Dr. Harris exercised a semblance of leadership, and his Republican handlers immediately hung him out to dry. It isn’t a coincidence. They inhabit a political belief system that would have exiled Dr. Anthony Fauci before Memorial Day if not checked. Many of them are entangled in religious superstition that would have been right at home in Spain during the Inquisition. We stream music via weird and mysterious invisible waves; they spin 78-rpm discs coated with shellac. 

Dear reader, if you espouse human reason, and respect the veracity of the scientific method, I suggest you query the commissioners as to what sort of petty game they're playing, and who is issuing their marching orders. Their phone numbers are here, although not their e-mail addresses.

Not surprising, is it?

---


Thursday, August 06, 2020

ON THE AVENUES: Surrender.



There hasn’t been much time to think it over – only six decades – but I’ve concluded that I’m a slow learner and a late bloomer. You need to be patient with me. Things don't always stick the first time -- or the fourteenth.

These observations were first made by a friend more than 25 years ago, and characteristically, it’s taken a whole pandemic for me to concede their accuracy. Better than a nuclear conflagration, I suppose.

In this week of milestones, which has included my 60th birthday, Pints&union’s second anniversary and the 15,000th blog post at NA Confidential, also comes the ideal opportunity to bring to fruition a promise I made all the way back in 2018.

My friends, the clock has expired. The sabbatical continues. Consider this my official withdrawal from active participation in the Resistance … to Mayor Gahan’s cult of personality, not President Trump’s.

Yes, I’ve been guilty of backsliding a time or two, as during the entire municipal election cycle in 2019. In retrospect, it was a last gasp. I made killer arguments, did the research, voluminously rested my case … and came out on the losing end, resoundingly; not once, but twice.

Slow learner, and all that jazz.

There has been a steady de-escalation of public affairs-oriented blogging (a.k.a., resistance programming) ever since, resulting from being busy in other aspects of life, as well as the need to reallocate non-paying writing time toward billable hours. The blog quota has been cut in half over a two-year span, and I’ve made a few farthings in the process.

The first six months of 2020 have seen the blog’s contents move ever further away from the proximity of the local Democratic Party’s movers and shakers. If for no other reason, simple pragmatism explains this shift.

The party’s ironclad commitment to one-way non-dialogue has resulted in my being muted, blocked and otherwise scourged over a period of seven (!) years; given this, it makes little sense to persist in scoring myriad solo debating points, virtually at will, against a AWOL opponent.

Although to be honest, dunking on them multiple times a week has proven to be almost more fun than sex.

---

To summarize, in 2020, with only a few exceptions, I’ve drastically reduced instances of truth-telling with regard to City Hall and its loyal Democratic Party acolytes. Rest assured that “truth-telling” is no idle boast. Just the facts, ma’am. In effect, I’ve written the history. What’s left for me to say?

The truths I’ve told remain just that – true – but these truths never were proprietary to me alone. I was just the one who kept repeating them aloud, imagining truth would eventually matter. No regrets, although I’d have been better off using the time to learn a foreign language.

Well, here’s more truth: My situation is unsustainable. To paraphrase Chief Joseph, I will resist no more forever (or until 2023, whichever comes first). Gahanism is triumphant, at least for the moment.

I no longer have the energy to explicate the absurdities of this city’s “chosen few,” and I’ve come to understand that they’ve cornered me with a bizarre variety of "Reverse Pavlov’s Dog (Park)".

To wit: Whenever I tell the truth about City Hall, certain of its functionaries begin to salivate – and they respond by applying an electric cattle prod to someone standing close to me.

I’m not punished directly, because they know it’s impossible and inadvisable. They don’t even bother trying. Instead, they hit back indirectly, by making life miserable for someone near to me, rendering me responsible for whatever pain ensues. In turn, clearly the only way for the cattle prod to be withheld from use against those close to me who don’t deserve it is for me to muzzle myself.

In the strictest sense of politics, as the accumulation and dispensing of raw power, I must admit this is the single cleverest stratagem the Gahanites have yet mustered. They shrug as I dominate the rhetorical battles, then go full Pavlovian to win the war.

It's a genius-level tactic, one fully deserving of respect and public acknowledgment – and I’m being neither flippant nor sarcastic. Not one single bit. Political power duly amassed, but never deployed, is squandered.

Check, mate; I surrender, dear leader. Send a ordinance enforcement officer to fetch my sword, on a plate.

City Hall wins and I lose, although it’s worth noting that in reality many others are losing, too, because municipal governance in our contemporary era relies on putting a heavy finger on the scales, choosing winners and ditching losers.

You know it, I know it. They know it. Hell, they’re proud of it; so it goes, and that’s life in the Vaseline, every day, all the time. At the age of 60, with 15,000 posts under the bridge and slowly floating downstream, it has become inordinately tiring to fight the power on a daily basis.

Stick a fork in me. I’m done.

On the other hand, there is much consolation. The historical record has been conceded to me, and I’m absolutely confident that posterity will pass a favorable verdict. I’ve proven my points again and again, typically without debate, reply, discussion or justification in return … which of course provides even more reason for raising these points (and their hackles) in the first place.

Truly it’s time to let go, because I’m toast, a sentiment reflected by the eternally witty Mael brothers of Sparks in their new song, “Toast.”



I'm toast
I'm toast
I'm toast
Nothing stays the same as it was

Have I made it plain?
I could not sustain
Any hard won gain
Now the choice is jam or butter

---

Now for the pivot.

It should be clear that a pandemic “trumps” pettiness, and what’s more, it’s a presidential election year. As such, I’ve completed a circle that commenced in 2004, when this blog was founded from the sheer, accumulated exasperation of forever arguing national affairs to the exclusion of local issues.

At the time I barely grasped these grassroots concerns, thus inaugurating a learning curve that first encouraged involvement beyond my comfort zone, then full immersion into the prevailing insanity, and finally the long process of restoring equilibrium, which is the reason for today’s column.

My viewpoint has widened again, far beyond this grubby burg. We’d have been spending much of 2020 talking about the election, anyway, but the arrival of a pandemic upped the ante. After all, COVID is a harmful, global virus.

It’s also the Great Revealer, a truth serum of epic dimension, illustrating that a crisis seldom causes folks to change their minds. It exacerbates what was there already, even if submerged or camouflaged. Humans dislike change. We double down on whatever superstition got us here.

And local Republicans have gone down doubling so far in 2020.

I’ve made many friends with conservative Republicans since my campaign in 2015, and I’m absolutely grateful for them. Granted, I’ve joked that you see me talking politics with Republicans them only because the DemoDisneyDixiecrats anti-socially distanced me years ago. It isn’t true; I enjoy their company, and have no plans to alter this dynamic.

However, it’s also important to recall the words of Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres: “When a friend makes a mistake,” he said, “the friend remains a friend, and the mistake remains a mistake.”

As it pertains to the pandemic – to Trump, Mike Pence, Black Lives Matter, the veracity of science versus religion, bailouts for the wealthy, capital accumulation and a plethora of other current briefs, I disagree with my friends on the Right, in some instances strongly. I think they’re mistaken. When we shared a distaste for the maddeningly dysfunctional local Democratic Party’s megalomania, bigger-ticket differences were easier to ignore.

Presently, not so much, but I never lied to anyone. I’m a leftist, and when it comes to politics in a presidential election year, it means I’ll be found camping in a locale much closer to where the Democrats bivouac, even if I retain my fundamental disdain for the American two-party system and its less salubrious practitioners on all sides of the aisle.

Here we are. On national topics, I can broadly agree with at least some elements of the municipal Democratic Party establishment; otherwise, we share a mutual and understandable loathing.

As for the Republicans, in my view the local cadres have been overtaken, exposed and struck deaf, blind and dumb, first by Trump, then COVID. However, their ongoing efforts to promote fiscal responsibility and governmental transparency are still worthy of my support.

The GOP, overall? It still isn’t me.

Pertaining to NA Confidential moving forward, it’s to be almost entirely a daily personal diary with post titles taken from songs. While not entirely denuded of municipal social commentary, it will be reduced to a size capable of being stuffed into an emptied can of kippers. Where it leads, I can’t yet say.

To prevent my friends and neighbors being punished for my truth-telling, certain topics will remain off-limits. It’s what I must do. Fortunately I’ve studied the lives of dissidents, artists and free-thinkers in the former Soviet Union, and they’ve taught me how to self-censor with dignity.

Yep. It’s impossible to come back without first going away. Vive la résistance!

---

Recent columns:

July 30: ON THE AVENUES: Guys.

July 23: ON THE AVENUES: These overdue mask mandates should help us separate the bad actors from the good.

July 16: ON THE AVENUES: Daniil Kharms, Marina Malich, and writing for the drawer about nothing ... pre-Seinfeld.

July 9: ON THE AVENUES: Mask up, folks. Pints&union is coming back, and we're taking precautions.

Thursday, October 31, 2019

ON THE AVENUES: In which Team Gahan's looming appointment with unemployment is examined.


Many readers have been asking me what I think about the municipal election, which will conclude around 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 5. You're entitled to my opinion, so here goes.

Previously I issued my endorsements:


As for who I think will win the 2019 New Albany municipal election, first consider the results of the last 12 elections.

1971: Democratic challenger Warren Nash defeats Republican incumbent Garnett Inman, 9,097 to 6,180.
Total votes: 15,277
Percentage: 60 - 40

1975: Republican challenger Robert Real defeats Nash, 9,264 to 4,763.
Total votes: 14,027
Percentage: 66 - 34

1979: Real defeats Democratic challenger John Stein, 6,637 to 3,801.
Total votes: 10,438
Percentage: 64 -36

1983: Democratic challenger Charles Hunter defeats Real, 6,148 to 5,888.
Total votes: 12,036
Percentage: 51 - 49

1987: Real defeats Hunter, 6,005 to 5,467.
Total votes: 11,472
Percentage: 52 - 48

1991: Democrat Doug England (4,785) defeats Independent Phyllis Garmon (4,154) and Republican Kenny Keilman (2,344).
Total votes: 11,283
Percentage: 42 – 37 - 21

1995: England defeats Real, 6,573 to 5,628.
Total votes: 12,201
Percentage: 54 - 46

1999: Republican challenger Regina Overton defeats England, 5,512 to 4,205.
Total votes: 9,717
Percentage: 57 - 43

2003: Democratic challenger James Garner defeats Overton, 5,971 to 3,893; 196 votes cast for Melanie Hughes (Libertarian).
Total votes: 10,600
Percentage: 59 – 39 – 2

2007: England defeats Randy Hubbard (Republican), 4,017 to 3,741.
Total votes: 7,758
Percentage: 52 - 48

2011: Democrat Jeff Gahan (4,506) defeats Republican Dale “DM” Bagshaw (1,389), Independent Jack Messer (1,024) and Libertarian Thomas Keister (88).
Total votes: 7,007
Percentage: 64 – 20 – 15 – 1

2015: Democrat Jeff Gahan (3,527) defeats Republican Kevin Zurschmiede (2,695) and Independent Roger A. Baylor (462).
Total votes: 6,684
Percentage: 53 - 40 - 7

The first and most noticeable trend is declining voter participation. In 2015 there were 4,000 fewer voters than in 2003. That’s a precipitous and stunning drop-off. Even if turnout modestly increases in 2019 (in spite of there being little reason to anticipate this), the long-term reality suggests an inexorable decline, with a few hundred more opting out this year.

These vaporized voters may or may not be a bad thing. Ask the 25% of eligible voters who took part in the 2015 election about persistent low turnout and they’d probably cite a civic duty to vote, expressing personal annoyance with low turnout. Then again, half the drivers on Spring Street as I walked to work in a pea soup fog on Monday morning didn’t think it was necessary to activate their car’s head lights.

Probably the only way the decline could be substantively reversed is holding municipal elections in the same years as presidential elections and mid-term congressional elections, which bring out bigger crowds, although this doesn’t appear likely.

Moving along, the historical math is clear.

Mayors in New Albany who run for a third term receive fewer votes than they scored the first two times. There hasn’t been a successful candidacy for a third term in City Hall since C. Pralle Erni, the FDR of New Albany politics, who won four consecutive terms from 1948 through 1963.

It’s unclear why third-term mayoral seekers do badly even as council representatives remain in office for multiple terms. Bob Real barely lost to Charles Hunter in 1983, while Regina Overton hammered Doug England in 1999. Both Real and England were popular enough, and both won second terms decisively (both also were elected mayor a third time, albeit non-consecutively).

Perhaps in a two-party duopoly like ours, eight years is plenty of time for the losing political party to siphon support, work back channels and mount a winning bid the third time out. Fatigue sets in after eight years as voters tire of the incumbent; as such, a new face (any new face) from the opposition is attractive.

This year in Jeffersonville might prove an exception; Mike Moore is seeking a third term and looks strong, but then again the face chosen by Democrats to challenge Moore is Tom Galligan, himself a former mayor and longtime wheeler-dealer, and hardly a breath of fresh air by any definition.

Against this backdrop we see that Gahan dropped 1,000 votes between 2011 and 2015, then hemorrhaged another 300 in the 2019 primary. Some of these departing voters succumbed to low-turnout indifference. Others sided with David White during his two Democratic Party primary insurgencies and did not return in the fall. Some died; some moved.

Some may have found a different religion. Others want to know when they can vote for Trump again. Conversely, perhaps getting to know Gahan better isn't a tremendously positive experience.

Using the 2015 numbers as a yardstick, the decline in Gahan’s support might find him with as few as 3,200 reliable votes for the general election in 2019; recall that around 1,400 Democratic voters opted for White in 2019, as they did in 2015, and it’s a safe assumption that these voters have strong feelings against Gahan and will not return to the party line in November.

(By the way, NA Confidential approves of this thought process.) 

It’s also a safe assumption that few of my 2015 supporters (492) aim to support Gahan in 2019. Combine them with Kevin Zurschmiede’s 2,695 tally in 2015, factor Gahan’s primary drop-off in the primary this year, and the race is a dead heat at around 3,100 votes each for Gahan and Seabrook.

Concurrently, while it would be overly-simplistic to suggest that all of my 2015 general election voters and all of White’s 2019 primary voters will swing to the Republicans, joining Zurschmiede’s supporters to produce an epic beat-down against Gahan, the scenario need be only half accurate for it to be a very bad omen for the incumbent.

New Albany political history in my own lifetime reveals that it is entirely possible for a New Albany mayor to be viciously humiliated in a re-election bid. Witness one Warren Nash, Gahan’s cadaverous and enduringly vacuous mentor, who won 60% of the vote in a winning bid in 1971 but then just 34% in 1975 while suffering a cataclysmic landslide loss.

In short, the electoral math has been favorable for Seabrook from the beginning, which explains (a) Gahan’s crazed drunken sailor's expenditure of $200,000 so far this year, and (b) the Democratic Party’s hair-trigger willingness to lose their minds and go appallingly negative in the campaign’s final days.

Paranoia, the destroyer.

This is the Alamo insofar as the Democratic Party’s privileged upper echelons are concerned, and who better to inspire them to near insanity than Seabrook, their arch enemy. The top dogs grasp fully that Gahan’s complete, unquestioned control of the party brings with it certain negatives, namely that if the mayor suddenly becomes the ex-mayor, their gravy train goes flying from the tracks.

Thus the rabid flailing of Tricky Dickey’s sycophantic stalwarts is understandable; obviously those with the most to lose have turned into yes-men and yes-women of the most odious obsequiousness, and yet just as obviously not every voter leaning Democratic shares this view, or else there wouldn’t have been 1,400 votes cast for David White in the primary.

In effect, these are the swing votes, and Seabrook is uniquely well-positioned to swing them.

Seabrook is the highest-profile Republican candidate for mayor since Regina Overton ran for re-election (and lost) in 2003. He possesses two potent wild cards unavailable to the Democrats, both realities of which are incapable of being gauged (and gouged) by campaign finance alone.

First, Seabrook’s unimpeachable career as a funeral home owner and director is an asset of incalculable value to his reputation, quite apart from his parallel experience in politics. Being helpful to people at their hour of greatest emotional need has a lasting effect far outweighing Gahan’s career in veneer sales or my lifetime spent pushing beer across a bar. What’s more, Seabrook’s legacy in this sense is felt most keenly by older voters – i.e., those most likely to vote.

Second, Seabrook’s campaign has benefited mightily from the grassroots energy generated by the Republican Party's well-chosen roster of city council and city clerk candidates, of whom there’ll be more to say in a moment. While Gahan saturation-bombs with San Francisco-inspired mailers from the skies via his bountiful special interest cash air force, Republican candidates erode shoe leather with enthusiastic and broadly smiling faces in a meticulous ground game led by incumbent at-large councilman Al Knable.

In many respects, Seabrook is wisely leveraging the coattails of his high-quality fellow Republican Party candidates, and his willingness to be part of a team effort like this speaks positively to the prospects for a deep, talented City Hall team once he becomes mayor, as opposed to the ludicrous cult of personality built by Gahan.

Still, there is another wild card in play this year: Dan Coffey, onetime Democrat turned independent, running as a “none of the above” brigand in 2019 just as I did in 2015.

Coffey has been the 1st district councilman for two decades, almost all of it identifying ostensibly as a Democrat, and his core of support lies in the city’s west end, especially at Riverview Towers, the high-rise public housing unit for the elderly currently being depopulated by Gahan for reasons as yet unclear.

As noted previously, I may be the only person in the city who takes Coffey at his word with respect to his motives for seeking the office of mayor. Coffey’s resourceful political arsenal may still be intact, but something has changed with him; health, age or religion, and it doesn’t matter which, except he’s not exactly the same copperhead he used to be.

Sticking to practical terms, will Coffey’s vote total next Tuesday help/hurt Gahan or Seabrook?

You might say that Coffey always has been an old-school conservative Democrat, implying that those choosing him as mayor would otherwise opt for Seabrook. There is some truth in this, although in a city where so few “Democrats” are left of center in any real sense, it’s a muddle defying easy categorization.

I think Coffey will get votes from right-leaning Democrats who have been disillusioned during recent cycles and stopped voting in local races, as with former councilman Steve Price’s core supporters in the 3rd district. Coffey will get a few hundred votes out of his own 1st district, and a handful elsewhere. He’ll surely top my independent tally from 2015, if for no other reason than name recognition (read: persistent notoriety).

However Coffey’s name on the ballot will not sway the mass of committed Democrats or Republicans. He’ll take some away from both, but I disagree with my esteemed colleague the Bookseller and believe Coffey’s candidacy stands to erase far more votes from Gahan’s ledger than Seabrook’s. This may be no more than a net loss of 200 to the Democrats, but in a race this close, that’s a lot, and it means the ultimate winner might not top 3,000 votes.

To summarize, I believe the dustbin of history awaits Team Gahan, and if we're lucky the show trials will begin by Christmas.

---

The at-large council race is quite interesting this year. Barring Russian vodka-bot intervention, incumbent Knable (R) is a lock both to keep his seat and to run for mayor in 2023. Knable is Seabrook’s ground game manager and revels in the exercise. He stands to receive the most votes of any candidate.

Of the remaining aspirants, incumbent David Barksdale (R) and challenger Jason Applegate (D) are in the strongest position to win for precisely the same reason, albeit reversed: Barksdale is a Democrat who pretends to be Republican, and Applegate a Republican now masquerading as a Democrat.

Some hardline Republican voters will punish Barksdale for his pro-Reisz Mahal sell-out, but most won’t; they sense a tsunami coming and will pragmatically vote to encourage it.

Whatever support Barksdale loses on the right will be compensated by quasi-pretend-progressives in and near the Spring and Main Kool Aid Corridors. Meanwhile, Applegate was a lifelong Republican until his ownership of Extol Magazine made a political brand change feasible in 2018.

However, a significant caveat: Democrats Christina Estill and Sam Charbonneau clearly are outworking Applegate on the campaign trail, as noted by Nick Vaughn in his election preview at The Aggregate News. One of them could easily sneak past Applegate, and if this occurs, I favor Estill.

I’d be content to see Republicans sweep the remaining races in a swirling display of rage against the Gahanite machine, but that’s too much to hope for. Remember, my picks reflect who I think will be the winning candidates, not necessarily the ones I support or chose at the polls.

1st Stephanie Griffith (R)
2nd Scott Stewart (R)
3rd Greg Phipps (D)
4th Pat McLaughlin (D)
5th Josh “JT” Turner (R)
6th Scott Blair (I)

This leaves the contest for city clerk, not necessarily a marquee job or a political race (city clerk should be an apolitical position), just an important one. Incumbent Vicki Glotzbach must be considered the favorite, although as the county election cycle in 2018 illustrated, high Republican voter participation could upset the apple cart as it did then in the county clerk's office.

I was undecided until the last minute, but challenger Kelly Feiock’s detailed answers in the special newspaper section displayed a vivid commitment to transparency in keeping with the gist of the entire GOP campaign to date, and I opted for her.

---

This is it: Gahan and the Democrats have built a political patronage system dependent on fat cat donors and padlocked file cabinets, and the Republicans are encouraging Mr. Dickey to tear down that stiflingly corrupt wall. In fact the 30th anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s collapse is coming in November, and I can think of no better analogy for what’s about to happen to local Democrats.

Not only will they be ceding power, but it’s going to be lost to them for a very long time.

Remember, this city belongs to us -- not HWC Engineering, Jorge Lanz or Clark Dietz.

Paybacks are hell, and I’m going to richly enjoy this one.

---

Recent columns:

October 3: ON THE AVENUES: The cold hard truth, or just plain Slick Jeffie-inflicted consequences.

September 26: ON THE AVENUES: Socialists for Seabrook, because we desperately need a new beginning in New Albany.

September 12: ON THE AVENUES: There's no business like no business, and it's none of your business (2016).

Friday, October 11, 2019

Gahan predictably AWOL from Sherman Minton repair meeting as Republicans seek to avoid a total bridge closure.


One.

Only the passive and benumbed yes man, councilman Bob "Bail!" Caesar.

That's the total number of Democratic public officials choosing to attend an important meeting with INDOT officials, with super-duper Supreme Leader Payhan not among them; that's no surprise, because he would not have been allowed to commandeer the meeting to his own small-pond political aims.

Let's be blunt. INDOT's plans for the Sherman Minton repair timetable are the single major issue for New Albany for the next five years -- full stop, or whatever the kids say these days. I wish it weren't so, because I wish we were not almost 100% automobile-centric, but we are, and there it is.

Team Gahan has been almost completely silent about this fact, primarily because it represents the sort of challenge rarely glimpsed by the Wizard of Bling during his 16-year career in municipal politics. Pull back the curtain and behold the beached jellyfish.

As we see local Republican leaders step forward to lead, it's a good time to recall that Gahan's default knee-jerk as mayor these past eight years has been the pursuit of a virtual hermetic sealing-off of our city from GOP-controlled areas of higher governance -- in Indiana's case, this meaning all of them.

Isolationism might be a sound ideological strategy for partisan politics, but it makes no sense whatever as it pertains to efficiency. How much in deferred indebtedness has it cost us to go it alone?

Now watch as the all-powerful DemoDisneyDixiecratic Sultan of Swag sulks in the background as the adults in the room seek to lessen an overall community impact for which there is no good solutions, but maybe a few less awful alternatives.

In Gahan's mind, there is one central expression of petulance, because he almost surely reasons he'll be able to turn future bridge events to his partisan political advantage during an anticipated third term.

Voters can preclude this by denying Slick Jeffie a third term. 

Local representatives urge INDOT not to close Sherman Minton, by Aprile Rickert (That Tom May Show)

Bridge closure could stifle Southern Indiana for a generation, leaders say

NEW ALBANY — Southern Indiana representatives are working to make sure area residents, students and businesses are not forgotten in the decision of whether or not to fully close the Sherman Minton Bridge for repairs.

More than a dozen local and state leaders met Thursday in New Albany to voice their concerns to Joe McGuinness, commissioner for the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT). Among those at the table were representatives from New Albany and Floyd County government, state and federal government, along with local universities and business organizations.

"The purpose of the meeting was to kind of put a human face on all these organizations that have been sending letters, petitions saying 'please don't close us up,'" New Albany City Councilman Al Knable said after the meeting, which was closed to media.

The discussion, just one of many in recent weeks, comes as the decision looms for what will be done with the Sherman Minton Bridge during an estimated $90 million to $105 million in repairs INDOT says are needed.

Options for the Sherman Minton Renewal Project include full closure of the bridge for 15 to 23 months during repairs, or keeping it partially open or alternating open lanes between morning and evening. The latter options could extend the project out as far as three years or more. It's expected to begin in early 2021.

INDOT representatives are expected to whittle down the six options in the coming months, but those who met with commissioner McGuinness Thursday say the area can't afford a full closure for the amount of time that's been discussed ...

... Others in attendance at the meeting were New Albany councilmen Scott Blair and Bob Caesar; Anne Keller of One Southern Indiana; Rob Dunn of Develop New Albany; Dana Wavle, vice chancellor for Administrative Affairs at IU Southeast; Andrew Takami, director of Purdue Polytechnic; Josh Kornberg, director of development at Ivy Tech Community College; Floyd County Commissioner Billy Stewart; Jerry Finn, executive director of Horseshoe Foundation of Floyd County; Brad Segal, general manager of Horseshoe Casino and Sarah Davasher-Wisdom of Greater Louisville, Inc.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

A message to the candidates in the 2019 New Albany municipal election.


My good friend Mark Cassidy made this comment at yesterday's post.

Slick Jeffie knows how to slow the cars, but he won't. Maybe Mark Seabrook will take action where the Democrats have failed.

I know it may be a bit early but getting a bit nervous about the existence of any detailed plans by the city Republicans. After 8 years, we know the city Democrat’s plans: 1. Kick as many poor people out of the city as possible by destroying half the housing. 2. Rake in as much political contributions from outsiders who do business with the city. 3. Plaster Gahan’s name and image everywhere possible. 4. Totally ignore anyone who doesn’t drink the Kool-Aid even though they are citizens of New Albany.

He brings up a very good point, one I intend to address as time permits. I’ve consistently made an argument that goes something like this:

Anyone But Gahan in 2019. 

There’s an irrefutable degree of truth to the conclusion than we'd rather vote for an empty can of light beer or s used prophylactic than the incumbent, but it’s not fair to Mark Seabrook or Dan Coffey to deploy reasoning like this when casting a ballot.

(Of course, as someone who has run for mayor as an Independent, I’m highly qualified to add this: Coffey is a longshot, to put it mildly. However, he deserves a balanced assessment, and he’ll get it.)

And so, back to Mark Seabrook's candidacy. I’ve been joking about “Socialists for Seabrook,” and the funniest part about my doing so is that I’m not joking at all.

In fact, I’m perfectly serious.

However, the Republicans first must make their case and discuss alternatives to Gahan’s cult-of-personality-meets-pay-for play morass of government by cash-engorged clique, both as outlined by Mark C., but also addressing matters like the street grid (walkability, biking, mobility solutions), plans for coping during Sherman Minton Bridge work, economic development v.v. independent small business, reforestation, homelessness, drugs, and the like.

I want Gahan gone more than most. His reign has been appalling. The trials for corruption should begin the moment he’s deposed.

But I’ve been doing this bloggy thing for way too long to offer endorsements sans content. I’m listening – to Seabrook, to the GOP’s city council candidates and even to those rare Democrats willing to break their hideous mutant party chairman’s authoritarian embargo on basic human communications and step forward with ideas and discourse, as opposed to Dickey’s and Gahan’s bling and blindfolds.

(You too, Jason. Just tell Adam to grow a pair and stop censoring me on social media.)

Republicans, give me something to work with, because four more years of the governing clique isn't about to feed the bullfrog, is it?

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Three eyewitness viewpoints as Governor Holcomb stumps for Mark Seabrook.

Photo credit: Kelly Feiock for City Clerk.

Earlier today we earnestly congratulated the News and Tribune for being transparent about Mark Seabrook, identity.

Mark Seabrook's identity is restored in the newspaper as Governor Holcomb comes to New Albany.


See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Following are three perspectives of last night's Mark Seabrook for Mayor fundraiser at the Calumet Club, written by Josh Turner, Dale Bagshaw and Nick Vaughn.

---

Floyd County Republicans The Party For The People, by Josh "JT" Turner, candidate for city council from the 5th district.

Last night, in a room with over 100 people in attendance, mayoral candidate Mark Seabrook along with special guest Governor Eric Holcomb, stressed the importance of getting back into the neighborhoods and putting the people first.

One of the more notable things from last night is the improved health of Mark Seabrook, who stood for the entire event and gave a high quality speech to a very upbeat crowd. During the speech, he mentioned his health scare earlier in the year and that he was cleared by his doctors to continue the campaign.

Mark made the statement “I have planted my flag and will defend it against anyone who wants to attack it.” It’s 2019, and we are witnessing a very focused and energized Republican Party with a group of candidates the likes of which have never been seen before, focused on one thing, the people.

---

This is my take, by Dale Bagshaw, at-large county councilman

The event was well attended, with probably 100-150 people. I have not seen as much enthusiasm at a local political event since I’ve been involved. Mark acknowledged his health issues, but indicated that’s behind him and he’s ready to lead.


Governor Holcomb was well received and hung around to talk and shake hands, and he stood for pictures with all who wanted to. I’m very encouraged by our slate of candidates.

---

The energy in the room was palpable, by Nick Vaughn (The Aggregate)

In a room filled with one hundred or so supporters, Governor Eric Holcomb spoke on behalf of Mark Seabrook and the other candidates for city office in New Albany. Earlier in the month, Holcomb announced his intention to seek reelection as governor, and unveiled his new campaign slogan “Putting People First.” This message, while not always explicitly stated, was felt through the remarks of all of the speakers: Floyd County GOP Treasurer Andrew Takami, City Councilman Al Knable, State Representative Ed Clere, Governor Eric Holcomb, and former Commissioner Mark Seabrook.

Holcomb’s presence at a fundraiser for Seabrook this early is a sign that the state GOP sees the upcoming city elections as very winnable. No doubt, this derives from the strong (and full) slate of candidates us Republicans have put on the ballot this year, beginning with Mark Seabrook and Al Knable. With that being said, the energy in the room was palpable as if everyone could sense just how “different” this campaign feels.

When Seabrook was introduced by the Governor, the room was electric. Seabrook spoke along the same lines as the previous speakers, and offered a nice anecdote about his time at the funeral home where he always ensured the families he worked with were treated fairly. As the campaign heats up, look for the energy derived from this event with Governor Holcomb to propel the GOP towards the finish line.

Mark Seabrook's identity is restored in the newspaper as Governor Holcomb comes to New Albany.


Because of this ...

More News and Tribune gimcrackery: 336 words about the importance of voters listening, two of which are not "Mark Seabrook."

 ... I'm surprised the News and Tribune's editor didn't intervene and correct the coverage -- so I've done it for her.

Indiana Gov. Holcomb visits Clark, Floyd counties, by Chris Morris (Bill Hanson's Pastor's Blog)

Attends fair, fundraiser for Seabrook  the GOP mayoral candidate

 ... Holcomb had plenty of energy left as he made his way to New Albany's Calumet Club after leaving Clark County. He came to give the New Albany Republican candidates for city office an endorsement, especially Seabrook  the GOP mayoral candidate, whom he praised for previously serving three terms each on the New Albany City Council and Floyd County Commissioners.

He said he will be back in Southern Indiana during his re-election campaign.

"I want folks to know it's pedal to the metal," he said.

Floyd County Republican Party Chairman Shawn Carruthers said he was thrilled to have the governor at the fundraiser.

"I will say we are elated," Carruthers said of the governor's appearance. "The governor is paying attention to New Albany for multiple reasons. We have a very good Republican ticket."

Seabrook  the GOP mayoral candidate said he was also pleased and thankful that Holcomb made time to make an appearance at the event.

"He just announced himself so he is killing two birds with one stone," Seabrook  the GOP mayoral candidate said. "He is a very personable guy."

Seabrook  the GOP mayoral candidate estimated that 100 people attended the fundraiser.

Monday, May 20, 2019

Steve Burks is the new Floyd County coroner.

If memory serves, the state of Indiana does not demand medical qualifications to serve as coroner. The job is primarily administrative in nature. Congratulations to Steve Burks for winning the caucus; if Steve is reading, perhaps once he's settled into the position we can chat more about what a coroner does and I'll explain it here. 

Please click through, read the piece and have a look at what The Aggregate is doing.

BREAKING: Floyd County Has New Coroner, by Nick Vaughn (The Aggregate)

The Floyd County Republican Party held a caucus to fill the vacant position on Monday, May 20th. The position was vacated due to the death of Coroner David Moore in late April. Moore was elected Coroner in 2016, but prior to that he had served in the Marine Reserves, as a police officer in Summit County, and as Chaplain to the Greenville Township Volunteer Fire Department ...

 ... On the first ballot, a majority was reached. With 17 votes, Steve Burks was elected Coroner. Burks served on the Floyd County Council and as the New Albany Township Trustee prior to his election. After being announced the winner, Burks had this to say “I am ready to get in office and work with everyone who is already there. I am focused on serving the people. That’s the biggest thing.”

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

2019 Mayoral Race Part 2: Thinking about Dan Coffey's independent bid for mayor.


In the first part of today's digression, mayoral election voting totals and trends since 1971 are examined, with eye toward the potential impact of independent candidates.

2019 Mayoral Race Part 1: Numbers, because "three’s company, two. Or four? Maybe more."

---

Yesterday's column dealt with post-primary middle fingers, black dogs and redemptive day drinking: ON THE AVENUES: Where do we go from here?

In it, I made this observation.

Precipice, meet Wile E. Gahan. Few of David White's supporters will vote for Hizzoner. Some of them may sit out the general election, but most will opt for Mark Seabrook. Combine the corrosive trends of two-term attrition with those 300 votes Gahan lost Tuesday, and Dear Leader’s autumn ceiling is looking like 3,000 votes at most -- and this doesn’t factor the chunk subtracted from the Democrats by Dan Coffey's probable independent candidacy.

Indeed, current 1st district council representative Dan Coffey, for many years a Democrat but more recently unattached politically, is preparing his petition to run for mayor as an upper-case Independent. He finds fault with my analysis.

Roger.

Your math may be off. There are as many disenfranchised Republicans as there are Democrats. I'm not running to fulfill one person's wishes. I'm running to take the politics out of government and giving the government back to the people. If you're looking for a spoiler, look at one of the party candidates.

Dan Coffey

As a onetime independent candidate myself, I take Dan's comment to heart. In looking back at election results since World War II, there were no independent candidates until 1991.

1991: Democrat Doug England (4,785) defeats Independent Phyllis Garmon (4,154) and Republican Kenny Keilman (2,344).
Total votes: 11,283
Percentage: 42 – 37 - 21

If I recall correctly, Garmon identified as a Republican and ran independently owing to some manner of a GOP internecine spat. Perhaps a reader can provide wider background.

Understanding that England, while mildly left-leaning, could hardly be characterized as "progressive" or "liberal" in any contemporary sense, it must have been a very conservative campaign, with the ultimate point being that no independent mayoral candidate in New Albany has ever performed better than Garmon did in 1991.

Garmon's 4,154 votes and 37% are huge, and England took office in 1992 with 58% of the voters having displayed a preference for someone else.

However England (D) rallied for a convincing win in 1995, only to be crushed by Regina Overton (R) in 1999. Overton in turn was swamped by James Garner (D) in 2003, when a Libertarian candidate first appeared on the ballot.

2003: Democratic challenger James Garner defeats Overton, 5,971 to 3,893; 196 votes cast for Melanie Hughes (Libertarian).
Total votes: 10,600
Percentage: 59 – 39 – 2

Garner was toppled from within by a Democratic Party coup during the 2007 primary, from which England emerged to barely beat Randy Hubbard (R) in the fall. This beings us to 2011, and the current mayor's easy win against a divided field, which included an independent candidate as well as a Libertarian.

2011: Democrat Jeff Gahan (4,506) defeats Republican Dale “DM” Bagshaw (1,389), Independent Jack Messer (1,024) and Libertarian Thomas Keister (88).
Total votes: 7,007
Percentage: 64 – 20 – 15 – 1

2015: Democrat Jeff Gahan (3,527) defeats Republican Kevin Zurschmiede (2,695) and Independent Roger A. Baylor (462).
Total votes: 6,684
Percentage: 53 - 40 - 7

In three of the past four mayoral contests, there have been candidates other than Democrats and Republicans. Erstwhile councilman and police officer Jack Messer achieved the highest tally for an independent since Garmon, with 1,024 votes (15%) in 2011. I achieved slightly less than half of Jack's total in 2015, with 462.

This brings us full circle to Dan's thought: "There are as many disenfranchised Republicans as there are Democrats."

Yesterday I gave in to the temptation of looking at the forthcoming mayoral election as an expression of the traditional duopoly, a simple "D" versus "R" equation. However, I contradicted myself to an extent by imagining that most of White's voters in the Democratic primary will identify with the GOP's Seabrook as an expression of anti-Gahan sentiment.

We know the Republican Party is numerically inferior inside city limits, although there's no real way of determining how many of New Albany's voters are "hard" and "soft" when it comes to party affiliation.

What we don't know at present is the level of disaffection within Republican party ranks. The Democrats certainly have left and right wings internally, and I hear rumors to the same effect about the GOP. Recently an insider told me that having a "big tent" is a fine idea until you start inviting people into it.

My guess is that Dan feels he'll draw equally from Democrats, Republicans and whatever remains of the pool of voters who treat municipal elections as a time to vote for the person, not the party.

As I can attest, the biggest problem for an independent candidate is reaching voters. I foresee Dan knocking on quite a few doors in the coming months. Lately he's more visible on social media. When New Albany had a newspaper of its own, there was more coverage of local elections than there is now, which is to say that nowadays he won't get much in the way of media attention without purchasing it.

There's not enough information to judge, at least yet, although as Garmon proved way back in 1991 it's possible for an independent to smash the 30-percentile barrier, potentially reducing any three-way race to the theoretical status of toss-up.

This is Coffey's challenge: get 2,000 votes and a 30-odd percentage share and go into the late innings with a chance of pulling off the indie upset -- and make no mistake; for any independent to win over the power-sharing arrangement perpetuated by both major parties must be considered an upset. The deck's stacked against independent candidates, and the parties act in concert to keep it this way.

Following is a complete essay by Drew Curtis in which he clearly outlines the problems and possibilities for an independent candidate in a nation that has long since surrendered to the two-party duopoly. Much of this applies to Dan or any other local independent candidate. Later this summer I hope to interview Dan about his platform, so please stay tuned.

Op-Ed: Taking Parties Out of Politics

In the 1800s, political parties were candidates' social networks. Drew Curtis, founder of social networking news site Fark.com and Kentucky gubernatorial candidate, now asks if we still need parties in 2015.

Upvoted.com ... Drew Curtis • October 3, 2015

Tonight at 6:45 PM, two candidates will take the stage of Newlin Hall in Danville, Ky., to debate why a Republican or a Democrat should be the next governor of our state. I’m the third guy, running as an Independent, who was not permitted to join them onstage, and I’m here to tell you why our two-party system is outdated.

When George Washington gave his 1796 Farewell Address, he devoted two paragraphs to these new things called “political parties” and the dangers they represented to democracy. He warned that if they were allowed to continue to exist, they’d subvert government to their own ends, make themselves rich, start wars to retain power, and a whole host of other things—all of which actually happened exactly as predicted.

When the Framers wrote the Constitution, America had no political parties. They’re not mentioned anywhere in the entire document.

The Founding Fathers believed in a different style of politician: citizen candidates. They wanted political office to function similar to jury duty. Citizens would serve in government positions for a limited term, transfer the office peacefully to new citizens, and return to private life.

Yet when we register to vote we are required to choose a party. And as I’ve discovered running as an Independent, the parties have made it nearly impossible to attain office without their support.

Note that I said near-impossible. Here’s why it’s possible now:

Political parties exist because they had to—in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, there was no other possible way to get elected. There was no alternative method any normal person could gain enough notoriety and voter support to win an election in the pre-digital age.

In the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, parties built huge power bases run by regional bosses that retained control of votes by providing welfare-like services to individuals that weren’t technically bribes (but actually were). If you were poor and needed blankets for your children, you could go to the local Democrat or Republican office and get them—with the implicit expectation that you would vote for the party in the next election.

Political parties founded nearly all newspapers. Incidentally, this is why many towns had two newspapers—one for each party. They controlled the votes, they controlled the media, and they controlled access to the ballot.

In Kentucky, for example, if you simply run as a Democrat or Republican, you only need two signatures to get listed on the ballot. If you don’t, you need 5,000 valid signatures of registered Kentucky voters. And they check all of them by hand. And if you somehow miss the 5,000 mark, you don’t receive the opportunity to make up the difference, you start completely over at zero. I gathered 10,000 signatures just to be sure. It took months to do this and all our early resources.

So what’s changed that makes Independent runs possible?

Political parties are 19th century social networks. Now we have new social networks, and 21st century social networks transcend the limits of a two-party system.

Social networks are communities built around an atomic raison d’etre at their core. For example, Fark is built around news with a humorous context. Reddit is built around the proliferation of all ideas, news or otherwise. And political parties are built around the goal of getting individuals elected so that parties can retain power, enrich their friends, and maybe—if they get around to it—actually fixing social ills.

Kentucky actually has a surprisingly strong recent history of Independent candidates running for Governor. For the past three decades, Gatewood Galbraith ran for Governor, first as a Democrat, and later as an Independent. Sadly, he passed away in 2012.

In 2011, Galbraith received nine percent of the vote—which is interesting because most of the televised debate criteria for the 2015 election requires 10 percent in a poll. I refer to this as the Gatewood Exclusion Criteria because I don’t think that number is an accident.

I’ve spoken with people who were involved in Galbraith’s previous campaigns before deciding to run for Governor because I wanted to be sure that the problems he encountered were ones that were either out-of-play or problems that I could overcome somehow.

My conclusion was that Galbraith had three main issues that held him back from success at the polls—all of which can now be solved through effective use of social media:

Time Management
This isn’t actually a party-related issue—it’s a logistics issue. I’m fortunate that as an entrepreneur, I am well aware that there is an infinite amount of work to do at my job. It doesn’t matter how much I accomplish in any given day: Work is never finished. The same goes for running for office, but it’s even worse because ideally, if you had the time, you’d personally sit down with each and every voter and talk to them. There’s no way to do this. I have been executing some interesting strategies via social media that go a long way toward solving this. However, that’s a write-up for a different day, post-election. In a nutshell: Simply being busy doesn’t correlate to actual progress. Effective use of time is paramount, and social media can magnify your impact.

Media Coverage and Signal Strength
Galbraith ran for office during a time where newspapers, radio, and television could (and did) function as information-gatekeepers. People involved with his prior campaigns said that local media refused to give him coverage because he didn’t place ad buys with them (incidentally, I’m not having that problem in 2015. Although there is still reluctance for media to acknowledge a third candidate in the race, I think this is due to habit more than anything else).

Galbraith couldn’t afford to advertise—he wasn’t able to raise enough money to buy ads because he didn’t have the media signal strength to reach donors. While there were probably other non-merit-related reasons why media chose to not give him coverage, the main point here is that media-gatekeeping mattered because he had no other available option. There was just no other effective way to get his message to the public.

Today, however, we have social networks. From the beginning, my strategy has been to encourage everyone to boost my signal. If you like what you hear, tell 10 people. Then tell them to do the same. Like Galbraith, I’d absolutely make advertising buys, but it turns out that most political donors give to campaigns to buy influence—and I’m not selling it. Oh, and, by the way: Any US citizen can donate to the campaign at drewcurtis.com/donate (hint, hint).

Framing Damage
As for Galbraith’s third problem, he had no way to counter framing attacks. If you’ve ever noticed how political candidates dodge questions, fail to provide specifics, and spend all their time attacking their opponents, then you’re already wise to the actual point of debates—which is hitting your opponent with negative ways to frame them and their ideas with the hopes that something sticks that changes voters’ minds.

During his first campaign, now-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell won elected office by successfully framing his opponent as someone who never showed up to congressional votes—which was true, by the way. His opponent really did have a terrible congressional attendance record. Voters soon came to perceive the incumbent as a terrible elected official and switched their votes to McConnell instead.

But Galbraith’s most famous issue of choice was the legalization of pot. It’s almost a mainstream concept in politics today, but in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, it was seen as weird and wonky. This made it easy for opponents to brand him as the Crazy Pot Guy. And with no other way to counter the framing in mainstream media, it stuck.

All three of these barriers to success for Galbraith are now possible to overcome via social media. I’ll be writing a book on specific strategies post-election because we’ve still got a month to go in my race.

However, I believe a disruption is coming to electoral politics. If I don’t manage to pull off a disruption this November, it’s clear to me that someone else will manage it very soon. We’re seeing cracks appearing already within the parties themselves—nontraditional candidates are faring far better than traditional ones even within the parties on both sides of the aisle, with Donald Trump wreaking havoc among Republicans and Bernie Sanders steadily disrupting what seemed like a preordained win for Hillary.

I’ve been asked the question, “Do you think it will be possible for someone to get elected solely through social media?”

I would argue that social media has always been the only way to get elected, we just didn’t realize parties were 19th century social networks. What’s different now is we have more than two choices of social networking to use. By 2020 at the latest, I expect to begin witnessing Independent candidates making serious inroads as a result.

Some other useful numbers.

---

1971: Democratic challenger Warren Nash defeats Republican incumbent Garnett Inman, 9,097 to 6,180.
Total votes: 15,277
Percentage: 60 - 40

1975: Republican challenger Robert Real defeats Nash, 9,264 to 4,763.
Total votes: 14,027
Percentage: 66 - 34

1979: Real defeats Democratic challenger John Stein, 6,637 to 3,801.
Total votes: 10,438
Percentage: 64 -36

1983: Democratic challenger Charles Hunter defeats Real, 6,148 to 5,888.
Total votes: 12,036
Percentage: 51 - 49

1987: Real defeats Hunter, 6,005 to 5,467.
Total votes: 11,472
Percentage: 52 - 48

1991: Democrat Doug England (4,785) defeats Independent Phyllis Garmon (4,154) and Republican Kenny Keilman (2,344).
Total votes: 11,283
Percentage: 42 – 37 - 21

1995: England defeats Real, 6,573 to 5,628.
Total votes: 12,201
Percentage: 54 - 46

1999: Republican challenger Regina Overton defeats England, 5,512 to 4,205.
Total votes: 9,717
Percentage: 57 - 43

2003: Democratic challenger James Garner defeats Overton, 5,971 to 3,893; 196 votes cast for Melanie Hughes (Libertarian).
Total votes: 10,600
Percentage: 59 – 39 – 2

2007: England defeats Randy Hubbard (Republican), 4,017 to 3,741.
Total votes: 7,758
Percentage: 52 - 48

2011: Democrat Jeff Gahan (4,506) defeats Republican Dale “DM” Bagshaw (1,389), Independent Jack Messer (1,024) and Libertarian Thomas Keister (88).
Total votes: 7,007
Percentage: 64 – 20 – 15 – 1

2015: Democrat Jeff Gahan (3,527) defeats Republican Kevin Zurschmiede (2,695) and Independent Roger A. Baylor (462).
Total votes: 6,684
Percentage: 53 - 40 - 7

---

New Albany population:

(1970): 38,402
(2010): 36,372
(2017 est): 36,461

2019 Mayoral Race Part 1: Numbers, because "Three’s company, two. Or four? Maybe more."


This is the first part. The next part is here: 

2019 Mayoral Race Part 2: Thinking about Dan Coffey's independent bid for mayor.

---

This ON THE AVENUES column originally was published on May 1, 2014. I'm repeating it today in order to amplify a comment made by independent mayoral candidate Dan Coffey.

There are as many disenfranchised Republicans as there are Democrats. I'm not running to fulfill one person's wishes. I'm running to take the politics out of government and giving the government back to the people. If you're looking for a spoiler, look at one of the party candidates.

ON THE AVENUES: Where do we go from here?


As an addendum to the 2014 column, here are the 2015 mayoral election results.

2015: Democrat Jeff Gahan (3,527) defeats Republican Kevin Zurschmiede (2,695) and Independent Roger A. Baylor (462).
Total votes: 6,684
Percentage: 53 - 40 - 7

Total votes cast for mayor in 2015 fell to 44% compared with the election in 1971. Note New Albany's population count during this 44-year period.

Population (1970): 38,402
Population (2010): 36,372
Population (2017 est): 36,461

All this having been said, let's revisit the 2014 column.

---

ON THE AVENUES: Three’s company, two. Or four? Maybe more.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

The 2014 primary election is next Tuesday. It features drab county races, but I’ve been thinking about the city’s mayoral election in 2015. It’s never too early to begin contemplating the many intriguing possibilities.

In 2011, Jeff Gahan plainly dominated the contest. Not since Bob Real’s second consecutive blowout win in 1975 has there been such a wicked beat-down. It looked like this:

Jeff Gahan (Democrat) … 4,506 votes
Dale “DM” Bagshaw (Republican) … 1,389
Jack Messer (Independent) … 1,024
Thomas Keister (Libertarian) ... 88
Total votes: 7,007
Percentages: 64 – 20 – 15 – 1

On the face of it, Gahan looks unbeatable in 2015 – assuming he chooses to run for a second term. But my guess is that Gahan’s 2011 numbers won’t be repeated, because recent voting history does not support the likelihood of a second consecutive landslide.

For one thing, in 11 mayoral elections held since 1971 (see below), it generally has been the case that the higher the percentage of the vote in one’s first winning campaign, the greater chance of a precipitous drop-off the second time around.

Warren Nash went from 60% in 1971 to 34% in 1975. Regina Overton plunged from 57% in 1999 to 39% four years later. James Garner vanquished Overton with just shy of 60%, only to be defeated in the Democratic primary by Doug England in 2007.

Bob Real is the exception. In both 1975 and 1979, Real topped 60%, but fell to 49% in his third race in 1983 against Chas Hunter. Simply stated, the odds are that a second 60% share of the vote for Gahan will not be forthcoming in 2015.

Of course, much depends on the quality of the opposition, and apart from Overton’s 57% in 1999, a Republican mayoral candidate has not gotten better than 52% of the vote since 1979. Bagshaw’s paltry 20% in 2011 was the lowest GOP share since Kenny Keilman (21%) in 1991, although in both cases, the Republican vote was diluted by an independent insurgency (Phyllis Garmon in 1991 and Jack Messer in 2011).

Interestingly, given an ongoing Democratic advantage in raw numbers throughout the period 1971 – 2011, and conceding the meaningless of party affiliation in New Albany (quite a few Democrats liked Bob Real in the 1970s and Mitt Romney in 2012, didn’t they?), it remains that a credible independent candidacy has never threatened to affect the Democratic share of the vote in like fashion.

Still, Bagshaw’s and Messer’s combined vote total in 2011 is close to what a Republican candidate would expect to get in a down year. The GOP’s problem in the city is that there have been no “up” years in a while. The Democratic Party has managed to retain a measure of its “one-party municipality” election-winning swagger, even without a platform of discernable principle, abetted in no small measure by an urban GOP of such breathtaking ineptitude that it would have more success picking candidates by blind draw than whatever the current method is, if any.

Naturally, there are numerous other factors at play, and I’m hardly Nate Silver. One is the trend toward shrinking overall vote totals. Since 1971, the three poorest turnouts for a mayoral race have come since 1999. The 7,007 votes cast for mayor in 2011 were a sickly 48% of the total when Warren Nash defeated Garnett Inman in 1971. It might be that whatever is left at this late date is fixed and predictable.

Consequently, I’m aware that this analysis is simplistic, but nonetheless, here’s how I read it.

Gahan’s 64% runaway in 2011 remains impressive, and it is just as unlikely to be repeated in 2015. Even the unstoppable Real could not improve on his lopsided 1975 performance in being re-elected in 1979, and the only candidate for re-election since 1975 to do better the second time than the first was Doug England in 1995 – and this owed to it being a two-person race without the presence of Garmon, the 1991 spoiler. If Gahan stands for re-election in 2015, there’ll be both historical precedent and performance erosion, the latter to be expected once a sitting mayor possesses a record to run upon, and for his opponent(s) to run against.

What’s more, in 2011 Messer, although at the time nominally a Democrat (come to think of it, which ones aren’t nominal?) likely took votes away from Bagshaw, the relatively unknown Republican, and not Gahan. Looking over the past three decades, the typical Democratic percentage in a winning mayoral effort is 54%, and it is reasonable to guess that Gahan will drop closer to this level in his 2015 re-election campaign.

If there is but one Republican candidate (Bagshaw is rumored to be considering a second attempt), his or her percentage should at least come closer to the 48% tallied by Hubbard in 2007. In a 2015 two-party mayoral race, this suggests a gap of 10-12 points, not 28 – perhaps 55% for Gahan and 45% for the Republican challenger, and that's still considerable.

But what if it isn’t a two-party race?

As we’ve seen, there have been two credible independent candidates since 1971, one of them (Garmon at 37%) much more credible than the other (Messer with 15%), but both serving to split the numerically inferior opposition to Democratic hegemony. What would happen if there were a strong third-party or independent candidacy capable of siphoning support from the numerically superior side, the Democrats -- one to unite the opposition??

Say, 10% or so, or even Messer’s 15%?

That just might result in a genuine race; if not enough to win (Garmon came tantalizingly close), an independent might have enough to produce an unpredictable scrum, lowering Gahan’s vote total to a level where the GOP, for once, gets lucky.

The platform for such an independent candidacy would be the essence of simplicity: Be a real progressive, and not a Dixiecrat; if only the Democratic Party saw it this way, there’d be no need for this analysis.

Almost surely, there exists a local bloc of left-leaning voters grudgingly tending toward the Democratic candidate as the lesser of two evils – if they’re voting at all. Take them away from the Democratic Party candidate, add them to voters tired of both traditional “sides,” and mobilize some of the thousands of voters who’ve recently been absent. Disseminate the message through the more contemporary mediums whose surfaces have barely been scratched by graying Democratic grandees who (shall we say) obtain their votes in more traditional ways. Shoot out the lights of conventional thinking, and shake … don’t stir.

It could be vastly entertaining, don’t you think? Meanwhile, here are the mayoral tallies, 1971-2007, courtesy of an old cached Tribune article.

1971: Democratic challenger Warren Nash defeats Republican incumbent Garnett Inman, 9,097 to 6,180.
Total votes: 15,277
Percentage: 60 - 40

1975: Republican challenger Robert Real defeats Nash, 9,264 to 4,763.
Total votes: 14,027
Percentage: 66 - 34

1979: Real defeats Democratic challenger John Stein, 6,637 to 3,801.
Total votes: 10,438
Percentage: 64 -36

1983: Democratic challenger Charles Hunter defeats Real, 6,148 to 5,888.
Total votes: 12,036
Percentage: 51 - 49

1987: Real defeats Hunter, 6,005 to 5,467.
Total votes: 11,472
Percentage: 52 - 48

1991: Democrat Doug England (4,785) defeats independent Phyllis Garmon (4,154) and Republican Kenny Keilman (2,344).
Total votes: 11,283
Percentage: 42 – 37 - 21

1995: England defeats Real, 6,573 to 5,628.
Total votes: 12,201
Percentage: 54 - 46

1999: Republican challenger Regina Overton defeats England, 5,512 to 4,205.
Total votes: 9,717
Percentage: 57 - 43

2003: Democratic challenger James Garner defeats Overton, 5,971 to 3,893; 196 votes cast for Melanie Hughes (Libertarian).
Total votes: 10,600
Percentage: 59 – 39 – 2

2007: England defeats Randy Hubbard (R), 4,017 to 3,741.
Total votes: 7,758
Percentage: 52-48

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

ON THE AVENUES: Tender mercies, or why Democratic Party luminaries didn't want to be seen at the "Protect Hoosiers from Hate" rally.


Sunday's rally for an inclusive hate crimes bill took place at Bicentennial Park in the heart of New Albany. We had to scoot home a few minutes before the conclusion, but I can safely say the event was impeccably organized by Indiana Forward and Southern Indiana Pride.

The roster of speakers was balanced in every way one might imagine, and comments were kept brief and incisive. The one-week weather delay may have slowed momentum in terms of the rally's overall turnout, but my guess is all those choosing to be involved deemed it a great success. I agree.

In the aftermath of the rally there have been several comments made about the spirit of bipartisanship on display. Broadly speaking, this seemed to be the case, although with a sprinkling of nuance. In New Gahania, things aren’t always what they seem, and when everyone's carrying a hammer, nuance has all the appearance of a nail.

Progressives will disagree, but in New Albany it cannot be denied that Republicans have taken the initiative on an inclusive hate crimes bill and similar issues such as the refurbishment of New Albany's Human Rights Commission. Bravo to them.

Ranking Floyd County Republicans in attendance on Sunday included Ed Clere, Al Knable, Mark Seabrook and Scott Stewart. Other city council members in attendance apart from Knable were David Barksdale (R-Inanimate Objects), Bob Caesar (D-2nd) and Matt Nash (D-5th). Municipal candidates from both parties were there, too.

Interestingly, while local Republicans turned out their best and brightest, the Floyd Democratic Party's upper echelons were noteworthy only by their glaring absence. This should come as no surprise. Jeff Gahan, Adam Dickey, Warren Nash, $hane Gibson – well, these aren't the sort of conniving backroom functionaries who play well with others.

After all, the clique abides.

I searched the crowd in vain for those reliable yearly Gahan campaign finance donors, for whom checkbook calculations truly must be a lonely, anti-social, narcissistic endeavor. Alas, no Dowell, no Ginkins, no Neace. Couldn't they at least pretend it isn't all about the money?

The galling reality about Sunday is that had the egotistical local Democratic hierarchy attended, they'd have been compelled to share the limelight with Republicans, who in the main have been more progressive than the local Democratic drain trust as it pertains to matters like human rights and freedoms.

As I’ve been pointing out since the Pleistocene, the behavior of local Democrats in an institutional sense reflects an unofficial but very real tactic of “bait and switch.”

"Bait and switch is a sales tactic that tricks consumers into buying something other than an advertised item."

Gahan, Dickey, Nash, Gibson and their chief operatives cultivate a crafted image of heartfelt concern for victims of discrimination and the downtrodden, as though to make common cause with the sort of social justice issues commonly identified with the Democratic Party nationally. They even pay occasional bored lip service to the classic Democratic Party platform’s support for workers and advocacy for the economically disadvantaged.

It’s what they say, but not what they do.

The purely Clintonite party chairman Dickey, who has seldom glimpsed a larger World removed from Disney, only mouths platitudes and mimics the national party’s eagerness to tenderly stroke the very same oligarchic economic concentration that has kept America’s downtrodden perpetually disadvantaged.

In return for talking a good game about social justice and the empowerment of a better local economy, our Floyd County Democratic Party is thus freed to enthusiastically buttress its own New Albany-based pay-to-play political patronage system.

(Albeit only within city limits, seeing as the remainder of Floyd County lying outside New Gahania has been lost to the “other” side, and now functions in the role George Orwell reserved for Eurasia and Eastasia. In short, GOP control outside the city is the “enemy” justifying vigilance and periodic ProMedia propaganda attacks … at taxpayer expense.)

Given that veneer is “a thin decorative covering of fine wood applied to a coarser wood or other material,” it turns out that Gahan’s only real political skill is an ability to suck wads of bulky cash through a garden hose, hoovering money from individuals and companies doing business with the city, and wetting his beak from the millions of tax dollars required to erect bright shiny objects we don’t really need, all the while making them look as uniformly dull as those Formica countertops HWC Engineering grew up idolizing.

Small wonder Ed Jolliffe has funneled so much cash to Gahan. Evidently they bonded over Bud Light Mang-O-Rita and a shared fondness for suburban plastic shrubbery clustered around Ikea tumescence.

I’m digressing a wee bit, so let’s return to the point.

Each day between now and the November election we’ll be seeing Gahan’s face on something. For quite some time it has been seen on Kroger shopping carts.


Every last piece of taxpayer-funded city advertising in magazines and newspapers bears Gahan’s airbrushed cherubic image, usually ludicrously outdated. It amounts to branding the city of New Albany with one man’s face.

Personality cults rely for nourishment on a repetitive insistence that nothing of value or substance can happen without a blessed great leader’s intuitive impetus and inspired guidance. Gahan has grasped this and harnessed it to the full weight of taxpayer-funded public interest announcements, with the prerequisite that all such blurbs credit him.

As such, it’s meaningless propaganda, although in the present era of fake facts, there is a patina of normality -- the more exaggerated, the better.

Obviously when it comes to self-aggrandizement Gahan’s gone full frontal Ceausescu – but he couldn’t be bothered to attend Sunday’s rally for an inclusive hate crimes bill, and neither could the cream of his stunted political crop.

To repeat, this wasn’t unexpected.

It’s the same Gahan who enabled a Human Rights Commission for maximum propaganda value, drowned it in a vat of Kool-Aid, smothered it with a souvenir Visit Rock City pillow, and put it completely out of his mind.

Did human rights make a donation this year, Warren? They’d best get on it if they expect a ribbon cutting.

Then one day as Gahan was endorsing huge campaign contributions from Clark Dietz PAC, Faegre Baker Daniels and Beam, Longest & Neff, he became vaguely aware that Knable, a detested Republican, was taking the lead to restore the HRC.

Damn these people with principles!

Caught with his trousers down and unable to squirm out of making two appointments to an entity Gahan had euthanized, now being resuscitated by a deadly political foe, Hizzoner showed THEM, all right: he selected two old white guys, giggled, and returned to his bank vault for quality time alone with his money.

Me being the kind of guy who wants to believe the best in people, at Sunday’s rally I took two postcards for mailing to Indianapolis in support of meaningful hate crimes legislation. On one of them I used our home address. On the other I inscribed Gahan’s, as copied from his most recent CFA-4 campaign finance form.

You know, just in case he forgot.

---

Recent columns:

March 5: ON THE AVENUES: Prom planning's nice and all, but New Albany still needs an autonomous independent business alliance.

February 26: ON THE AVENUES: Pretty in pink slips, aren’t they? Those who mutilated Speck need to be cashiered.

February 22: ON THE AVENUES SPECIAL: Take your cult of personality and shove it, Dear Leader.

February 19: ON THE AVENUES: I'd stop drinking, but I'm no quitter (the 2019 Gravity Head remix).