Ruben sure cleaned up in his low turnout (23%) ward election- 247 VBMs to Dana's pitiful 14! And Tim's not-much-better 54!
What luck he has. Just stumbling upon 20 times more VBMs than his reform challenger.
Funny coincidence: so many $50 payments each to Mike Russo for Hoboken campaign workers (required to get Mike the one vote for his uncontested election), live in the 4th Ward.
Lotta funny things happen in Hoboken elections.
From there to here, from here to there,
Funny things
Are everywhere.
It's surreal that we're even having this conversation. It's like being challenged to prove the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
ReplyDeleteSadly though the problem is broader than paid for votes. Peter Cammarano was taped in 2009 saying "Right now the Italians, the Hispanics and the seniors are locked down. I could be indicted and I'm still going to win 85 - 95% of those populations."
Trump stole his line! About 1000 of the "locked down" votes are paid for. The rest are not paid but do as their told. In total it's about 5000 votes that are "locked down" before the race even starts.
In a December runoff those 5000 "locked down" votes from voters who don't care if their candidate is a crook will be pretty challenging to outvote. Dawn Zimmer came close but fell 161 votes short. But that was in June. In December it's likely mission impossible even for a great candidate with a compelling message.
People like Fisher, Giattino and Cunningham know this. So do people like Mike Lenz and Tony Soares. They want to take the City back to the days when those "locked down" votes were all that mattered and "reformers" fought the good fight and lost while complaining how unfair it all was.
They do not care. All that matters to them is "winning" and damn the consequences!
DeleteThe irony here is that they are ensuring that they will never win. This only benefits the beneficiaries of the "locked down" vote and that ain't ever gonna be Cunningham, Giattino or Fisher. In fact it's not likely to ever again be DeFusco. The only winners here will be Ramos and Russo with Raia getting honorable mention as kingmaker between the two.
DeleteTheir idea of winning is reformers losing. They would rather see a Russo running the city than Bhalla, Zimmer or anyone like those two.
DeleteThey just cannot accept that they were rejected by reform minded voters so they are doing what they can to screw over those very same voters that told them to go jump in a lake when they voted for Ravi over Jen.
It was refreshing to read amid the smoke of his hyperbole about the horrors "we" we're put through in November (it's called an election Mike) Mike Lenz actually admitting he would move the election back to May from November if he could since more voices are apparently not better if they have not been indoctrinated by Mike. Presumably that would apply to school board as well, since the reasons for having the election in November when turnout is highest are the same.
DeleteI wonder if Jen, Tiffanie and Peter will be honest enough to publicly stand with Mr. Lenz on this?
If they're going to be truly intellectually honest, they need to push for moving school board elections back to April. The move to November was done at the board level, not by referendum. Not a "collaborative process," more of a "baton toss." Let the people decide!
DeleteThis probably explains the brain-dead initiative to link Bhalla to Russo. Jen/Tiff/Peter are already linked in the real world to Ramos and Defusco and ALL THEY STAND FOR. Team Innuendo needs to come up with a worse narrative in the alternative fact world to hang around Bhalla's neck so they don't look quite so bad. And they continue not to let facts be a barrier to ambition. If only the ambition were worth something to the city.
ReplyDeleteit still boggles the mind that calling a presumably proud republican a republican is somehow spun as a vicious attack, do they actually think anyone out of their immediate bubble believes a word of that? the "fact" that jen has switched party affiliations is irrelevant, since anyone with half a brain clearly sees through that cynical ploy as merely a costume switch to the empress's clothing.
ReplyDeletethe empress still has no clothes.
They've probably decided on a narrative where she was unfairly associated with Trump in mailers when she allegedly voted for the libertarian candidate in the election.
DeleteHere are the facts:
1) Jen's "libertarian" leanings prompted her to pointedly question and push back against funding a southwest park despite the overwhelming popularity of the notion that every neighborhood should have a park, using decidedly libertarian ideological arguments for her position. Then, when she realized how unpopular her viewpoint was, she went along with the park plan and refused to acknowledge ever having been against it.
2) Similarly, Jen pushed back against the resolution addressing the post-election hate-crime spike, challenging that she had not seen sufficient evidence but was afraid of being called racist if she voted against it. Even if she didn't vote for Trump, putting one's head in the sand about this is pretty Trumpy.
3) Jen's leading, outspoken cheerleader and de facto Internet-campaign manager is/was an unabashed Trumper who supports even his most reprehensible positions -- she paid him $1,000 for his efforts on his behalf and never lifted a finger to distance herself from any of it.
Sorry, kids, truth hurts. Grow the fuck up. Your days are numbered before the adults are back in charge.