And, it is a bit troubling to me that there doesn't seem that much attention being given to an important local NYC primary -- in this city the Democratic Party Primary is generally the election -- including for the mayor. The primary is late June with early voting starting earlier; so we have basically a month until voting starts. The specter of Andrew f-ng Yang the front-runner for mayor now is scary there. Mayor De Blasio is term limited. I will note that for local races, I'm okay with term limits; for national ones, I'd be okay for 12 years for the House and 18 for the Senate, probably.
Not that other races, including one or more district attorney races, lack bite. The public advocate race is low energy with the incumbent basically a shoe-in. The comptroller seems to be likely to be won by the current term limited City Council President. I'm not sure about Bronx borough president, which my own assembly member is running for in a multi-person race. And, Marjorie Velázquez is trying to fill the soon to be open seat of the city council, now filled by someone whom I opposed last time in part since I thought he should have stayed in his state legislator job. Aaron Carr (a liberal activist) and others have noted he leaves a lot to be desired in general.
[He says he is not running for re-election since the political climate makes his "moderate" views too unpopular. Okay.]
We will have ranked choice voting -- if (knock on wood) I'm back on as a election worker, let's see if that leads to some confusion. NYT had a good explainer recently and I would suppose other places did or will. Plus, eventually, I should get a voter's guide in the mail. Those guides tend to be helpful to get a sense of the candidates and whatever ballot measures involved. The one thing that they don't cover are judicial races, adding to my overall feeling that they are stupid -- if you are not even going to have basic information on these people, what's the point?
Ranked choice voting is only for city positions and that would not include the district attorney races, which are county. A recent Queens D.A. race could have used it -- there were two main candidates (left leaning, moderate), a more conservative leaning person and a few also rans. The net result was a plurality win by the lefty, but a surprising to me ultimate loss since the write-ins significantly went the way of the moderate. An instant run-off system probably would have avoided that, the 10% or so of the third candidate likely to decide the race via second choices.
The basic concept isn't that hard -- you rank people 1-5, though you need not fill in all the slots. And, for non-mayor races (even there really) I'm not going to do that. For instance, for Bronx Borough President, only the two women running interest me at all. For my local city council race, I will need to think a bit more, but the woman that came in second last time is my strong favorite. She seems like a good choice, I thought she should have won last time and has experience as an assistant of a previous occupant (Vacca). But, one or two of the other options might be worth an inclusion.
====
The big race is mayor. I think Andrew Yang is ahead out of name recognition, something that makes him stand out as a "new" thing that seems different. But, he's a horrible choice, who comes off as a gimmick candidate while we need a serious choice to lead the city. De Blasio has gotten some criticism though from my rather isolated location, he seemed okay. I am ready for a person of color who has some ability to push the city in a good liberal position. Maya Wiley is where I'm leaning with activist Dianne Morales as my first choice.
Not a POC, but Scott Stringer was looked to many as the best choice, including his experience in local government. Eric Adams (black and a Brooklyn borough president) has had some success, perhaps because of his experience and recognition in the populous Brooklyn borough. He also was a state senator and a former NYPD captain, which some like, some (COP!) do not. I do respect experience, but was going to put Stringer third since my liberal activist senator (Biaggi) and others whose positions I respect supported him. Well ....
A former Stringer volunteer accused Stringer of assault, arising from things like twenty years ago, and Biaggi et. al. (including the powerful Working Family Party) pulled their endorsements. We got some messiness, Stringer lashing back, leading supporters removing endorsements (a sexual violence victim/activist like Sen. Biaggi who enthusiastically supporter him must have been hit hard -- it is likely a factor why she postponed a sexual violence event, her office saying recent events "triggered" her and she couldn't handle the event at the scheduled time).
[And, we got misleading reports that the accuser supported Yang, when it appears she really supported another Yang who was on a ballot with multiple people along with Andrew Yang.]
Wiley and Morales seem to be the ones who might benefit the most. Again, since Andrew Yang simply doesn't seem like someone who in the end will get the votes (kill me now if I'm wrong), to me, it would seem to go to Wiley and Adams. The remaining people might include one or more people nice on some level, but come off as also rans. Kathryn Garcia, e.g., sounds like she did some good work. If I had to fill out five choices, she might be three now. But, again, don't see her and others winning.
This is preliminary but it's hard to see how Scott Stringer can come back from the pulled endorsements from the Working Family Party particularly. Are they going to say "oops" or something? Biaggi and a few others, e.g., started with a statement supporting the accuser without even citing Stringer (I retweeting it thinking it was just a Cuomo thing). Then, first one of her allies in the state government and Biaggi herself pulled the endorsement. In a close race, with multiple candidates, how can he recover?
How about the accusation? First, a strict policy for someone like Biaggi is understandable. She's an activist and so forth so has personal and professional standards with a high sense of principle to uphold. It's surely not the same thing, but a few already called her a hypocrite for soft pedaling early on while being such a strong Cuomo opponent. Of course, Cuomo is the governor and has a lot more problems. Nuance is hard.
It's easier for me since Stringer was my distant second choice anyway among the top tier candidates. It's still important in a ranked race to determine who gets those back-up slots. If I rank Eric Adams, e.g,., fourth in place of Stringer, the low vote getting "favorite daughter" let us say choices will drop out, and it can be a matter of Wiley v. Adams, instead of Wiley v. Stringer. Nonetheless, it often is matter of a position or candidate and you basically find it easy to not choice another, any decent reason (or half-way decent) will do. It is not as stressful for me.
Let's say I was a Stringer supporter. I would first looked toward the Working Family Party, Biaggi and others who I respect in this situation. Yes, you should judge things for yourself, but it is appropriate to use trustworthy third parties as proxies. We are after all a republican form of government. Second, given the times (including the Cuomo controversies), the whole thing would be a concern. The person has been vouched for. This isn't the situation with the dubious Biden accuser. The alternatives are acceptable enough, even if you think Stringer is the best choice.
Still, on my own, I find an accusation based on actions from 2001 a bit dubious. I'll grant without further reason to doubt (this isn't a court of law) the allegation (per NYT): "repeatedly groped me, put his hands on my thighs and between my legs and demanded to know why I would not have sex with him.” It is just that something he did twenty years to me by itself is not disqualifying unless we are talking about something like actual rape. That might be wrong, but I don't think there is a lifetime ban concept here.
But, we work within the system, and times, in place. On that level, unless (and it is getting late) some serious damage control occurs, he's in a real tough spot. Stringer strongly denied it, noting they did have a voluntary relationship. His campaign not surprisingly struck back hard, including raising the "she's for Andrew Yang" bit that as I noted itself was challenged. As noted here, this seems risky, and likely to antagonize left leaning (on the scale of NYC Democratic voters) supporters.
Again, he's not my first choice, so it's easier -- especially if I don't like his response -- for me to write him off. It also points to the value of POC or women in certain cases, since it helps to avoid #MeToo type situations like this. I think the sane choice with Kavanaugh, e.g., was to pick a conservative woman judge instead. At the time, I offered Barrett, which appalled a few, but I was thinking of the choices in context. Same here. Wiley's involvement with De Blasio, e.g., got her in some trouble, but it isn't as sensitive as some sort of sexual abuse allegation.
Anyway, it's a big upset in the race. Now can we get rid of Yang?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!