GREEN MOUSE SAYS: Here's a little bit more about Phyllis Garmon's independent mayoral campaign in 1991.

Yesterday we glanced into the rearview mirror at the independent 1991 mayoral candidacy of Phyllis Garmon, asking if readers could fill in the details given that Garmon did quite well in a losing bid for office.

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

Last night the Green Mouse received this background information from a veteran of the political scene in New Albany.

Garmon was the founder and owner of Key Communication. Key was the most prolific company in the area at the time with 300 employees and $30 million in annual sales.

She was one of the first highly recognized, self-made women New Albany and a founding member of Northside Christian Church. Key Communications employees and church members worked for her 1991 campaign in huge numbers.

Garmon was a multi-millionaire, earning around $6.5 million per year, and she spent over $100,000 in 120 days in 1991 on her campaig, the largest amount ever spent at the time.

The Republican Party "owed" the mayor's nomination position to Kenny Keilman because he was a councilman and had "waited his turn" so to speak. Garmon did not like this fact, to put it mildly. She knew she was more qualified, so so she went independent, proving again that the two major parties seldom pick the most qualified person to run our community's most important business -- because Parties First!

In 2019 Mark Seabrook is not the most qualified, either. He has waited for his turn and his time. Mark is a safe choice. However, he is the most popular person in local politics and well known city- and county-wide because of his funeral home business. This year's race is all about PARTY, power and control, qualified or not, and so let the defense of the ALAMO begin.

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

Shocking video depicts the collapse of mutant Gahanism.

Look, I always told you it was a facade. Join us for the full length feature film on Tuesday, November 5.

Jackie Green on the ghettoization of independent candidates for Louisville mayor: "A form of media censorship — not censorship OF, but censorship BY the media.”

Before stealing a glance at the exclusion of independent candidates from the final Louisville mayoral debate, I'm turning to Jeff Gillenwater to articulate the crux of it.

I’ve spent decades now watching more thoughtful, compassionate people attempt to run for office under the Democratic banner in local, state, and national races. Over and over and over quite consistently, party officials at all levels have intervened, using the full force of their financial and political clout to defeat those candidates, to weaken those voices, and to make sure that their discourse and concerns, no matter how well documented and supported by evidence, do not become the center of policy debate, do not become a legitimate choice that voters can make. The idea that the Democratic Party in this country is an eager and effective agent or vehicle of significant social change simply isn’t true. When you donate to the party, you’re supporting the silencing and defeat of more thoughtful, compassionate voices. There’s no way around that so, if you’re going to do it, you need to own it and call it what it is.

It needed to be said. Now, let's look at yet another way media reinforces the two-party duopoly.

Independent candidates won’t share stage with Fischer, Leet in final mayoral debate, by Joe Sonka (Insider Louisville)

Independent mayoral candidates Jackie Green and Chris Thieneman say they were surprised and disappointed to learn last week that they will not be allowed to participate in the final televised mayoral debate next week, as only Mayor Greg Fischer and Councilwoman Angela Leet have been invited to participate in the live broadcast.

Pat Murrell, the president of the League of Women Voters of Louisville, told Insider Louisville last week that while all nine candidates for mayor were invited to its candidate forum to be broadcast on WAVE3-TV on Oct. 16, organizers recently decided to split the forum into two: one aired live on television and WFPL at 7 p.m., with the second one at 8:15 p.m., which will only be livestreamed on wave3.com and archived online on wave3.com and wfpl.org.

Only Fischer and Leet will participate in the forum that is broadcast live, while the independent candidates will participate in the second forum.

On this blogging day in 2007: Luddite testimonials and DNA's mayoral forum.

There were two posts on October 23, 2007. The first refers to the infamous and now entirely forgotten era of the Trog Blog Wars.

---

Okay, so I changed my mind ...sue me already.

---

The second posits the inconceivable (DNA being neutral about politics prior to its annexation by Deaf Gahan) grafted onto the "look how far we've ... er ... never mind." Stay tuned for 2019, when Deaf will dodge many of these same questions.

---

Reminder: "Develop New Albany to Host Mayoral Candidates Forum" on Wednesday night.

(From Develop New Albany)

Develop New Albany, the City’s non-profit, Main Street organization is hosting a Mayoral Candidates Forum to be held on Wednesday, October 24th from 7:00 - 9:00 pm at the Strassweg Auditorium at the New Albany-Floyd County Public Library.

The forum will consist of two 45-minute question-and-answer sessions with a 10-15-minute break in between. Mr. Randy Hubbard, Republican mayoral candidate, has agreed to participate in the first session and Mr. England, Democratic mayoral candidate, has agreed to participate in the second session which is anticipated to begin at 8:15 p.m. Neither candidate is invited to attend the session in which the opposing candidate is featured.

The sessions will be moderated by Greg Sekula, Develop New Albany Vice-President, and a series of questions will be asked by the moderator that relate to the issues of downtown and neighborhood revitalization. The public is invited and encouraged to attend.

The following topical issues are likely to be covered in the forum in no particular order:

1) Your vision for Downtown New Albany;

2) Strategies for furthering economic development in Downtown New Albany and surrounding older business districts such as the Vincennes and State Street corridors;

3) Addressing problems associated with rental housing conditions including absentee property ownership, illegally subdivided structures, and your position on a City-initiated rental housing inspection program;

4) Strategies for promoting and increasing homeownership and re-investment in older urban neighborhoods;

5) Relationships between the City and local neighborhood associations and non-profit groups;

6) Historic preservation, including the role of the Historic Preservation Commission, historic district designation, and design guidelines;

7) One-way vs. two-way street circulation patterns in the Downtown;

8) Enforcement of violations of City ordinances;

9) Aging infrastructure;

10) Upkeep of downtown streets and public spaces;

11) Ohio River Greenway project;

12) City-County Building space issues;

13) Relationship between the office of Mayor and City Council;

14) The role of public transportation in downtown revitalization and regional economic development;

15) Strategies for the City and school system to work together to strengthen inner-city schools and what impact that would have on downtown neighborhoods; and

16) Strategies for combating neighborhood crime, particularly drug activity.

For more information contact Develop New Albany at 812/941-0018 or e-mail here.

Of bagmen and mad hatters -- or, the business of electoral residency?

A reader writes:

I see David Duggins bought a house across the street from you. Do you think he's trying to establish residency to run for office?

Somewhere in this question, there is impenetrable satire on the topic of property values, but in spite of my reputation, I seldom drink whiskey before breakfast. Let's play it straight. Following are two passages from the 2015 Indiana Candidate Guide.

It makes no mention of term limits for bagmen.

Does HWC Engineering do rehabs?

A pirate looks at '15: "In the U.S., Almost No One Votes in Local Elections."

I was a year ahead of my time, but that's okay. The point was made, posterity will be generous, and I can't thank Seven Percenters often enough.

In the U.S., Almost No One Votes in Local Elections, by Kriston Capps (City Lab)

... As if incredibly low voter turnout weren’t dispiriting enough, mayoral elections in the U.S. are also barely representative of the population. In the most recent mayoral elections across 50 U.S. cities, the median voter age was 57—evidence of an enormous gap in civic participation between retiring Baby Boomers and rising Millennials. Worse still, perhaps, voters are overrepresented in some neighborhoods and dramatically underrepresented in others.

A new report from Portland State University finds that almost nobody bothers to vote in mayoral U.S. elections. Those who do tend to be much older than the median resident and hail from more affluent neighborhoods to boot. That’s not necessarily a surprise, although the degree of disparity in local voting patterns is alarming.

New Albany mayoral election vote tallies, 1971 - 2011.

A year and a half ago, we took a look at some New Albany mayoral election tallies dating back to 1971, with accompanying analysis. I doubt Nate Silver is quivering in his boots, but feel free to click through and reread. The raw numbers are reprinted below.

May 1, 2014: ON THE AVENUES: Three’s company, two. Or four? Maybe more.

---

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

"'Gay, dyslexic ex-alcoholic' Ivan Massow launches London mayor campaign."

It may appear to be just another crazy story from the big city, and one absent relevance to li'l ol' Nawbany, but there's a crucial aspect of Ivan Massow's candidacy.

He's a Tory ... meaning he's a conservative.

Verily, we're not in 'Bama any more ...

'Gay, dyslexic ex-alcoholic' Ivan Massow launches London mayor campaign, by Aisha Gani (The Guardian)

The Tory-supporting businessman Ivan Massow has launched his bid to become the next mayor of London with a candid YouTube video in which he introduces himself as “gay, ex-alcoholic and dyslexic”.

Massow, 47, said the 70-second pop art-style animated video gave an “honest warts-and-all” portrayal of him.

His voiceover begins: “I’m Ivan and I want to be your mayor of London.” He adds: “I’m gay, I’m an ex-alcoholic, I’m dyslexic, I’m adopted, I’m an activist, I’m a businessman, I’m a disruptor, I’m a doer. I’m not your typical ‘politician’ politician” – at which point the cartoon turns grey.

He says he is “someone who takes the tube, someone who hates sitting in traffic, someone who hates red tape, someone who hates politics as normal.”

Doug England heads south, and posterity starts now.

Shift happens, after all.

EXECUTIVE MOVE: Former Mayor England leaving New Albany for Florida, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

He left office in 2008 after declining to run for a fourth term as mayor. This Wednesday, on his 48th wedding anniversary, England and his wife will head south, but not just for the winter.

In a decision he said was made within the past two weeks, England will be moving to Delray Beach, Fla., as he’ll trade in the Ohio River for views of the Atlantic Ocean.

I wish the Englands well in retirement. I also wish the article weren't chock full of historical revisionism, as assembled by the former mayor himself, but that's okay. Those of us clinging to reality in New Albany have time to rectify the record. Let's examine just one instance.

England first took office in 1992, and served two terms before being defeated by Republican Mayor Regina Overton in 2000. He later defeated incumbent Democrat James Garner in the 2007 primary, and went on to win the general election.

The tale of the tape is interesting, indeed. In 1991, 58% of the turnout voted against England, led by the only considerable independent insurgency to date.

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

Next time out, England handily defeated an elderly, spent force.

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

Then the high-riding, two-term mayor was absolutely annihilated in 1999.

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

England offers this explanation for the resounding rejection.

England believes the reason he was defeated by Overton was because he supported allowing riverboat gambling in Floyd County. The option was twice voted down by referendum, and the Horseshoe Casino of Southern Indiana sits barely across the county line in Harrison County.

However, the referenda were held in 1993 and 1995 ... and as we've seen, England's re-election in 1995 was a veritable cakewalk.

From England's standpoint, the most charitable rendering of these two gaming boat rejections was that they constituted a personal rebuke, given that he was engaged in remarkably non-transparent shenanigans with respect to land deals prefacing the future casino site, though not an outright rejection of his job performance as mayor -- and what's more, Real was very, very tired by this point.

The probable reason England lost in 1999 was not ongoing casino animus, but the accumulated weight of Hizzoner Fatigue, which required two terms in the wilderness to dissipate. Having presumably paid his political penance, voters welcomed him back in 2007 -- by the narrowest of margins, and with 3,500 fewer voters participating than in 1991.

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

Beginning in 2008, England proceeded to do absolutely nothing, and maintained this pace for four long years. He talked as good a game as ever, but seemed to have lost his mojo without the formerly vital, and by 2007, estranged political enforcer John Mattingly at his side (Mattingly died during England's third term, if memory serves).

England's city hall team was older, and even less efficient than before. They drifted, and England postured. The council dominated him. Then, to make matters worse, he botched the "handover" to Irv Stumler, and was defeated by Shirley Baird in an ill-considered council race.

The revitalization of downtown, garnering a $6.7 million loan to improve the Midtown neighborhood and moving forward with plans for Bicentennial Park are some of the achievements England said he’s most proud of from his latest term as mayor. He credited his staff for their hard work during his time in office.

The reality of these projects is far different than the revisionism. Perhaps this is to be expected when it comes to measuring by plaque installation.

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

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

How many of those Bicentennial paving stones/seat cushions/white bread cookbooks are left unsold, anyway?

The Green Mouse was fairly lit at the time, but he thinks he heard Bob "CeeSaw" Caesar talking mayoral politics, in the sense of asking around, probing, seeking input into possible candidates to support against the sitting mayor come 2015.

If true, the first OLL (out-loud laugh) comes right here.

Really?

To begin, there's an implicit presumption that CeeSaw's support in any political race, from precinct toilet scrubber all the way to the third floor, is worth something. During a political career predicated on self-gratification, that's unlikely. You have to give to get, Bob.

Then there's the fact that CeeSaw, who often boasts of his fiscal rectitude, has voted with Jeff Gahan most of the time since Gahan took office. Is Caesar falling off the 63% bandwagon because of the mere possibility that someday, the counter-productive one-way street conveying impulse diamond shoppers to his front door might bring the exact same customers from two directions instead of one?

(That's right. He believes this to be a bad thing)

Rest assured, there'll be challengers to Gahan by the time we limp into 2015. A far better question for the here and now is this:

Can we find someone to knock out CeeSaw in the 2nd? 

Yes! Erika just endorsed me for mayor ... and she's got a boobery fixation, too.

No, really -- she did. In the breach, but hey -- any poseur in an electoral storm, right?

WHAT A SWEETHEART DEAL....

Our final thoughts on this contract:

Elect a boob and you get boobery.

Re-elect a boob and you get EVEN more boobery. Oy vey!

Anyone but Gahan and England in 2015.

There it is: "Anyone but." I resemble that remark, don't I?

Having the runs and thinking about running are two diffe ... wait, no they're not.

ON THE AVENUES: Meet the new reshuffle.

ON THE AVENUES: Meet the new reshuffle.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
-- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards

Tuesday’s results proved conclusively that an independent candidate dares not defy the two-party political establishment, and cannot hope to win a contested race in the city of New Albany – in fact, an independent cannot even come close, even after planting more yard signs than his opponent and declaring victory two weeks prior to election day.

That is, unless the independent candidate is Scott Blair.

The local political lexicon is now enriched, because in the 6th district, “pulling a Blair” now means not “pulling” a straight party lever. This bodes well for the future. Straight party voting should be removed as a ballot option, and what’s more, local races should be rigidly non-partisan. If they were, we’d be spared the indignity of Republicans demanding recounts (I seem to recall them opposing the concept in Florida way back in the year 2000).

Will the congenitally ineffective GOP chairman Dave Matthews endorse my reverse historical analogy and scurry to the state attorney general’s office for relief if Diane Benedetti’s 21-vote lead holds? Let’s hope so, because I could use a laugh.

Or, perhaps Ed Clere will introduce legislation to redress the municipal voting imbalance by introducing a new, innovative, St. Daniels-approved user fee for voting, not a poll tax per se, but the joyful, semantic improvement offered by a Poll Toll: Buy a coupon book of existing Ohio River bridge crossings, and get a Republican ballot absolutely free of charge.

(Alas, it’s just bad karma to campaign on behalf of any candidate who feeds his sign-planting workers mega-chain pizza.)

Speaking of pervasive Daniels envy, what are the odds of Doug England’s ballot-box-enforced “retirement” being permanent?

I asked the Green Mouse, who took a deep drag from his unfiltered Kool before responding: Nothing possibly could exceed the entertainment value of Hizzoner declaring for the House 72 seat currently occupied by Ed Clere. With Irv Stumler as titular England campaign manager, the vicious and predatory atmosphere of an epochal presidential election year would be the ideal moment to call in every accumulated marker from a lifetime in politics, and use the money to hammer the Republican incumbent both personally and mercilessly. Of course, it would be utterly futile, and Clere would win big nonetheless, but generational scores finally would be settled.

If a miracle occurred and England actually won, there’s already a deputy representative in waiting.

England and Jeffersonville’s deposed Tom Galligan are larger-than-life personalities accustomed to giving orders, not taking them. Both returned from the political wilderness to serve additional terms, and neither brought their A-games with them for a third ride on the merry-go-round. Now they’re back on the outside looking in, which is a place neither of them has ever been comfortable occupying.

In Jeffersonville, Galligan’s canal-side EPA edification plan has been unceremoniously aborted. Here in New Albany, Democratic party chairman John Wilcox tells One Southern Indiana Newspaper that, “(England) has made a change in New Albany that has never been duplicated and probably never will be duplicated.”

But nepotism as governing principle seems constantly duplicable. How’s that “change” working for you, anyway?

---

Once the new city council is seated, it would be unwise for anyone to bet against a resumption of the bile and acrimony engendered by the Greatly Unnecessary Smoking Debate of 2008. As I noted last evening, four of 2008’s anti-smoking voters return to their 3rd floor chairs. A fifth in favor of banning indoor smoking ban almost surely will be found among the three incoming rookie council persons. Jeff Gahan, who favored the smoke-out in 2008, now occupies the mayor’s office, meaning that another veto is unlikely.

Alas, the city’s cigarette smokers may no longer have friends in high places.

Speaking personally, I’ve precious little stomach for a return to the naked savagery of the 2008 scrum. Reviewing the written record of that time, I am surprised anew at the mutable shape of alliances on the smoking issue. Reliably as ever, Steve Price was against the ban, but Dan Coffey was for it. I pilloried council president Gahan for his pro-ban stance at the time, and then blackened his mayoral oval two days ago. Jack Messer opposed the smoking measure in 2008, and did not receive my vote for chief executive. Bedfellows seldom have been as strange as they were when indoor smoking was the topic, and when (not if) an ordinance returns to the floor, the sheets may rustle yet again. Don’t they always?

To Shirley Baird, Scott Blair and Greg Phipps: The door-to-door campaigning is about to return to your lives, except this time, it’ll be Tim Filler standing on your porches. I recommend slamming the door in his face.

---

Well, well.

Coffey dominated the hermetic 1st, and Jessica Knable, while losing, closed the GOP gap in CeeSaw’s 2nd. With the advent of Greg Phipps, the 3rd district belatedly achieves recognition as part of the city. When outgoing uncouncilperson Steve Price casts his final “no” vote on December 15, he’ll be serenaded by a karaoke version of the Manic Street Preachers’ “If You Tolerate This, Then Your Children Will Be Next.” That’ll be me, on amplified kazoo.

Pat’s back in the 4th, and at the musty King Kochert Memorial Museum of Back Alley Garage Polling Stations, rusty pins are being jammed into a spandex-clad voodoo doll. Diane Benedetti found 52% unattainable in both her 5th district 2011 council races, and yet she remains standing, albeit (politically) wobbly, with or without her other, variably interchangeable family name. As previously observed, Blair cleaned house in the 6th, making future mayoral contests potentially fascinating – assuming, of course, that Blair’s smashing win came without the new mayor’s assistance.

As expected, John Gonder and Kevin Zurschmiede resume their at-large council careers. They are joined by Shirley Baird, whose life lesson in very narrowly losing an at-large nomination to the superannuated Jimmy Hollis in the 2007 Democratic primary was to bind herself as tightly as possible to the party establishment. Now, having triumphed, she can be expected to follow the direction of the party establishment, which never exists in any substantive way once the last vote in any election is counted. With Jethro gone, who will she turn to? Only the Green Mouse knows, and he isn’t talking.

Mayor Gahan’s 64% appears impregnable, and will remain so until his 7-1-1 council majority turns on him at the second meeting in January. Then, at last, we can begin drinking heavily in preparation for the four-year siege of underachievement about to come. At least we’ll have our River View for consolation.

All four of my votes were cast for winning candidates.

Is that good, or bad?

Here are the 2011 winners.

Winners in bold (official)

NEW ALBANY MAYOR

D Jeff M. Gahan

R Dale D.M. Bagshaw
I Jack Messer
L Thomas Keister

---

NEW ALBANY COUNCIL DISTRICT 1
(Precincts New Albany 1, 17, 21, 23)

D Dan Coffey (incumbent)

R Eddie Hodges

---

NEW ALBANY COUNCIL DISTRICT 2
(Precincts New Albany 16, 18, 19, 22, 29)

D Bob Caesar (incumbent)

R Jessica Knable

---

NEW ALBANY COUNCIL DISTRICT 3
(Precincts New Albany 3, 5, 6, 7, 10)

D Greg Phipps

R Jameson Bledsoe

---

NEW ALBANY COUNCIL DISTRICT 4
(Precincts New Albany 11, 12, 13, 20, 24, 25)

D Pat McLaughlin (incumbent)

R John M. Hiatt

---

NEW ALBANY COUNCIL DISTRICT 5
(Precincts New Albany 9, 14, 15, 26, 28, 40)

D Diane McCartin Benedetti

R Tonye A. Rutherford

---

NEW ALBANY COUNCIL DISTRICT 6
(Precincts New Albany 27, 41, 42, 43, 44)

I Scott A. Blair

R Matt Oakley
D Suellen Wilkinson

---

NEW ALBANY COUNCIL MEMBER AT-LARGE
(Precincts New Albany 1,3,5,6,7,9 through 29 and 40 through 44)

D John Gonder (incumbent)
R Kevin W. Zurschmiede (incumbent)

D Shirley Baird

D Doug England

R Steve Burks
R Harry T. Harbison

Snailmailer thoughts as the election day flushing sound draws ever closer.

The three Jeff Gahan for Mayor (D) snailmailers received thus far at the Confidential household have been scanned and posted:

Gahan campaign mailers (1): Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Gahan campaign mailers (2): Education.

Gahan campaign mailers (3): Lee Hamilton endorsement.

We received one mailer from D. M. Bagshaw (R), and the Jack Messer (I) campaign attached a bag to our door with a brochure (unfortunately misplaced, sorry) and two pens. No litter-in-the-making has been generated by the Thomas Keister effort, and for that we sincerely thank him.

Finally, we got two England for Council (D) snailmailers a couple of weeks back, and a pamphlet for 3rd district hopeful Greg Phipps (D) was left on the front door.

What does it all mean?

Well, nothing changes for me. I'll still be voting for Gahan, Phipps and at-large incumbents John Gonder (D) and Kevin Zurschmiede (R). The claims of any candidate, including my own choices, to magically impel the private sector to create jobs or singlehandedly slay the stumblebutt deforms of state bureaucrats like Tony Bennett must be taken with massive blocks of salt.

That reality duly noted, I appreciate Gahan's positive snailmailer tone. Coming after the epic slimings-enabled by-far-off-money in the last two House 72 races, it's a pleasure to get a piece of mail that isn't oozing bile. I suspect that in the final analysis, a victorious Gahan will be judged by his appointments alone. Will he, or won't he, perpetuate the crony-laden nepotism of the current administration?

Also, don't forget that council candidates Steve Burks, Bob Caesar, Diane Benedetti and Tonye Rutherford did not return their OSIN surveys. Really? While imperfect, the newspaper's survey is a cost-free chance at something remotely resembling substance, and in addition, we'd really like to know if you are literate and can write above the paper's target level, although it's true that ghost writers are waiting for their cell phones to ring as we speak.

One last thought: How can any conceivable outcome to an election be all that bad, when Steve Price remains among the forcibly retired?

Huzzah ... huzzah.

Gahan campaign mailers (3): Lee Hamilton endorsement.

Gahan campaign mailers (2): Education.