Meet the real Elissa Silverman -- tried to pressure Frumin to drop out per Tim Craig now

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:also, it's disingenuous to say that the other candidates "failed to earn [your] vote" you interviewed Frumin, and then endorsed him. you never profiled any of the other candidates, or even talked to them from what i can tell.

I did not endorse Frumin at the time I interviewed him. In fact, I made clear before, during, and after the interview that I was leaning toward Silverman. A month passed between the interview and my endorsement. During that month, not one candidate reached out to me other than Silverman via broadcast emails for which I had never subscribed (and still get despite unsubscribing). If my support was valued by other candidates, they did not show it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I just posted a long blog article on this topic:

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

your entire argument is that Silverman should have dropped out because Frumin did it first and raised more money. Of course he raised more money. He is an old white guy who lives in ward 3. He has lots of friends with lots of money. And apparently, all his wealthy friends support him. She is a young, single, reporter-turned-policy-wonk, working out of her N.W. townhouse.

Look all over the rest of DC, and you'll find support for Silverman - in all socioeconomic strata, and all cultures. She has more, and stronger support than he has, DESPITE the fact that he was first and has more money. She also has momentum, which he lacks. She was right to ask him to withdraw. It doesn't call into question her ethics, or her accountability. It was a smart political move, and he clearly violated her request to keep it confidential and tried to get some press for himself in the last 24 hours before election day.

My argument is that if you enter a campaign in which it is obvious that you are going to split the progressive vote, you should not complain about the other candidate splitting the progressive vote.

Let's take the situation in Ward 1. Graham is going to be a tough candidate. Brianne Nadeau announced that she was running against him a long time ago. She has received significant progressive support (and I believe she contributed to Silverman). Then, Bryan Weaver entered the campaign. Weaver and Nadeau are obviously going to split the progressive vote and likely allow Graham to win again. Do you think Weaver has the right to complain about Nadeau being in the race? If he didn't want the progressive vote to be split, he shouldn't have entered the race. Having entered the race, he has to accept the likely vote split. That's not Nadeau's fault.

i don't think she's complaining that they were splitting the vote. she's pointing out the fact that they're splitting the vote (which is a surprise to neither of them). the point is that she currently has the momentum: if his goal is for a progressive to get the seat and effect change at the Wilson building, she has the better shot at winning between the two of them, and has the best shot at winning if he bows out. She's right, whether you support her or not.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
i don't think she's complaining that they were splitting the vote. she's pointing out the fact that they're splitting the vote (which is a surprise to neither of them). the point is that she currently has the momentum: if his goal is for a progressive to get the seat and effect change at the Wilson building, she has the better shot at winning between the two of them, and has the best shot at winning if he bows out. She's right, whether you support her or not.

Frumin would have a similar chance of winning if she dropped out and endorsed him. Her argument that she had a better chance of winning was based on a poll that is so full of problems that it is actually insulting to our intelligence.

If she had a commitment to a progressive winning she wouldn't have entered a race in which her entry meant splitting the progressive vote. This alleged commitment only came up when she could use it to benefit her own agenda. Why doesn't she drop out and get Frumin to help her run against Tommy Wells? He wants to be mayor anyway.

[Anonymous]

I also do not understand what the big deal is about. she did not threaten him, blackmail him or force him to withdraw. she thinks she has the bigger chance to win among them (right or wrong I do not know), and asked him to withdraw so she can actually have a chance. Bond is just an old guard DC democrat who is going to get the usual wagons of people from SE who will vote for her not based on her merits and stances but based on the color of her skin (her words, not mine), so having two good candidates split votes and losing the chance to win to Bond is sad. I also understand that Frumin does not want to drop out since he thinks he has a chance. But I do not see what the problem is with Silverman asking him to withdraw

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:i don't think she's complaining that they were splitting the vote. she's pointing out the fact that they're splitting the vote (which is a surprise to neither of them). the point is that she currently has the momentum: if his goal is for a progressive to get the seat and effect change at the Wilson building, she has the better shot at winning between the two of them, and has the best shot at winning if he bows out. She's right, whether you support her or not.

I agree with you, but he can make the same argument, since momentum is such a subjective concept. But now that they have the attention, they could follow my idea and get together for a coin-toss to decide which would drop out. I still think they would each have a better chance with that strategy than continuing on their present paths.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I also do not understand what the big deal is about. she did not threaten him, blackmail him or force him to withdraw. she thinks she has the bigger chance to win among them (right or wrong I do not know), and asked him to withdraw so she can actually have a chance. Bond is just an old guard DC democrat who is going to get the usual wagons of people from SE who will vote for her not based on her merits and stances but based on the color of her skin (her words, not mine), so having two good candidates split votes and losing the chance to win to Bond is sad. I also understand that Frumin does not want to drop out since he thinks he has a chance. But I do not see what the problem is with Silverman asking him to withdraw

I agree. I have no issue with her asking. It was a sensible thing to do. I also agree that Frumin was right to reject the proposal.

[Anonymous]

in the last week, elissa has gotten several considerable endorsements. washington city paper, georgetown voice, gay and lesbian action alliance.

this is in addition to the endorsements of GGW, sharon ambrose and david grosso, kathy patterson and democracy for america.

Matt Frumin has the endorsement of Jeff Steele and, according to his own website, the former president of the Wilson PTA and his sister.

Elissa has the momentum. she was right to ask him to drop out.

[Anonymous]

She illegally used the poll results, ahead of their release for her campaign.

Not. Ethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She illegally used the poll results, ahead of their release for her campaign.

Not. Ethical.

I don't have a horse in this one, as I now live in VA. But since you used the word "illegal", exactly what are you talking about that violates the law? I think that such an accusation should not go unchallenged so close to an election.

[Anonymous]

According to some political veterans, it is illegal to use polling information that doesn't belong to your campaign. In this case, Silverman acknowledges in her email that she had the polling information in advance of its release and was using it to try to argue a competitor out of the race.

I don't have a DC Code citation or anything like that.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:According to some political veterans, it is illegal to use polling information that doesn't belong to your campaign. In this case, Silverman acknowledges in her email that she had the polling information in advance of its release and was using it to try to argue a competitor out of the race.

I don't have a DC Code citation or anything like that.

I believe that this is a campaign finance violation. Non-public polling data has value. If Silverman was given non-public polling data, she was given something of value. Hence, that should have been reported on her campaign finance report.

But, this is s just a wild guess. Chuck Thies seems convinced it is illegal, but hasn't explained why. I'm not sure that I believe him though, given his obsession with bashing Silverman.

Edit: Oh, and the value of a private poll probably exceeds the contribution limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a normal and good political move and it only makes me think more highly of her.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to some political veterans, it is illegal to use polling information that doesn't belong to your campaign. In this case, Silverman acknowledges in her email that she had the polling information in advance of its release and was using it to try to argue a competitor out of the race.

I don't have a DC Code citation or anything like that.

You're talking out of your butt. "According to some political veterans" is weasel words if there ever were any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a normal and good political move and it only makes me think more highly of her.

Don't know if I care one way or another but I think it's perfectly normal as well.

[jsteele]

Tim Craig just tweeted that John Settles, who was knocked off the ballot by Silverman, is emailing his friends today urging them to vote for Matt Frumin.