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.

She's not that young.

According to the released tax records, this job would double her salary while it would be a 2/3 pay cut for Frumin.

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.

Anonymous wrote: She is a young, single, reporter-turned-policy-wonk, working out of her N.W. townhouse.

this should say NE, not NW.

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.

Lefties are so naive about politics (and I say this as a leftie). In order to win you have to play hard, and this includes tactics like the one Silverman tried with her opponent. You will never get anything done if you don't. It isn't hubris - it is the reality of politics. As long as it is not actually criminal or in violation of ethics rules, it's fine and shows that Silverman has the potential to get things done.

I just posted a long blog article on this topic:

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

Anonymous wrote:As I just posted in the other thread, the emails clearly show she had an advance copy of the poll results (why did she have it?) and tried to use them (is that legal?) to get Frumin out of the race. The emails have enough inference in them, in my opinion, to believe there was a quid pro quo as was alleged.

I am not understanding why Silverman supporters are happy about this. It shows a hubris and reversion to politics as usual.

I may qualify as a Silverman supporter, or perhaps as a Silverman/Frumin fence-sitter. Last night I thought she was hurt. I thought she had made a sensible move, but I also thought the story made it look under-handed. Seeing the emails made me feel she had done it it a careful way, and as long as they catch up with the original story, I don't think it should hurt her.

In fact, given that she asked that it be confidential and it got leaked, I am a bit more favorably inclined in her direction. This won't be the deciding factor, though. I do think Frumin should have honored the request to keep it confidential, but I confess that I enjoy getting a look into their relationship.

As to the question of the legality of her hearing about the poll before it became public, that seems to me to be silly -- this was not some official poll covered by government regulations, it was financed by a marijuana legalization group after all.

As I just posted in the other thread, the emails clearly show she had an advance copy of the poll results (why did she have it?) and tried to use them (is that legal?) to get Frumin out of the race. The emails have enough inference in them, in my opinion, to believe there was a quid pro quo as was alleged.

I am not understanding why Silverman supporters are happy about this. It shows a hubris and reversion to politics as usual.

Mara can't be bothered to release his tax returns despite making a promise to do so. He is already under investigation for campaign finance fraud (we've been there before). Bonds can't show up at candidate forums and takes money from Gray cronies.

Silverman hasn't taken a cent from corporations, PACs and lobbyists. And she is meeting this minor controversy with transparency. Instead of hiding behind a no comment, she released her emails w/ Frumin for the world to see. No campaign is without minor bumps in the road. It's what you do when you face those bumps that matter.

Elissa just won my vote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-candidate-silverman-releases-e-mails-to-frumin/2013/04/22/c714cc48-ab48-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html

She has my vote!

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

OP, do you think this is better or worse than the likely violation of campaign finance laws by Pat Mara? Unlike Silverman, Mara is under Office of Campaign Finance investigation. Bonds' ethical problems are clear. If you find Silverman's offer to Frumin to be a deal killer (personally, I think it is a fairly normal political move), then Mara and Bonds must also be ruled out. I assume you will be voting Frumin?

Well, it is rather a shame that the two of them are dividing the reasonable person vote.