Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
The world is still reeling over news that City Council President Doug Shields will not — I repeat, not — be running for mayor.
Actually, by “the world” I mean, “a few reporters, bloggers, and politicos,” and by “reeling” I mean, “raising their eyebrows slightly.” Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, and incumbent with a million-dollar war chest, looks to be in a strong position, and no one could blame Shields for taking a pass. But still, this news deserves to be chewed over with a long-winded blog post restating the obvious, don’t you think?
Over at the 2pjs, David DeAngelo conducts a quick interview with Shields, the key parts of which are:
When asked if he thought that the Mayor was politically vulnerable, he said began his answer with a caveat; we live in uncertain times and no one should attempt to predict six months down the road in any political campaign. No one knows for sure what will happen.
Translation: You never know! Ravenstahl could be indicted after all!
On the other hand, financially the city is better off than we were 4 years ago. The national press is playing up Pittsburgh in its coverage – he said, for example, that the NYTimes suggested that a good place to ride out the recession is Pittsburgh.
This dovetails with my own assessment: “As he did in 2007, [Ravenstahl] can tout positive financial results for the city, while boasting of feel-good innovations on stuff like biking.” Ravenstahl’s critics are just going to have to grit their teeth and admit it: He hasn’t screwed up badly enough to be voted out of office. His publicity stunts may be wince-inducing, but when has a Pittsburgh politician ever been punished for shamelessness?
All that said, I’m now even more sure that Ravenstahl will face a challenge from city councilor Patrick Dowd. The past few weeks have been a kind of shadow play, with Shields and Dowd testing the waters, and each other’s intentions. Shields has now ceded the stage to Dowd alone.
Obviously the odds are stacked against Dowd, but I have a pretty good feeling he’ll do it anyway.
For one thing, Dowd believes in robust public debate — perhaps to the point of making other people wish he’d shut up. And even an unsuccessful Dowd candidacy will hold Ravenstahl’s feet to the fire, nudging him — however fractionally — toward a more reform-minded approach to governance than he might otherwise demonstrate. Dowd’s t-crossing and i-dotting will be a useful counterpoint to Ravenstahl’s own frequently slapdash approach to governance. In the end, that could be a good thing for Ravenstahl.
It could also be a good thing for Dowd, who could be the happy warrior of 2009. He can run for mayor without expecting to win, but with the hope of positioning himself for another run down the road. Dowd has a lot to prove to a lot of people — black voters and progressives among them — and this could be the race where he starts to make his case.
In other words, Dowd could run a race similar to that Bill Peduto ran in 2005.
In that year, Bob O’Connor was all but assured the election. But I always felt that Peduto’s 2005 race was about establishing his credibility for this year, when he expected — as did we all — to see O’Connor up for re-election. By finishing second, Peduto could define himself as the loyal opposition, the viable alternative if Peduto’s warnings about the city’s fiscal plight proved prescient.
The hopes for that approach were derailed by O’Connor’s sad death, and by Peduto’s abortive campaign in 2007. But it still might be a good model for Dowd to follow.
It won’t be as easy for Dowd to be the progressive standard bearer as it was for Peduto — partly because Peduto’s backers may be loath to hand over the banner. I’m not sure how far you can carry that flag in this town anyway. Dowd has a chance to find out, and to see if he can cobble together a different kind of coalition.
This article appears in Feb 5-11, 2009.
The “world” might also mean the readers of the Slag Heap. lol
So far I am not seeing any pedutoista resistance to a Dowd candidacy. In fact, I think they would pretty much support and vote for ABL – Anyone But Lukey, in both the primary and the general. A lot of these folks went so far as to vote for Joe Weinroth in the 2005 general election – which means that their vote is almost a guarantee for the non-machine candidate.
Aren’t you the media? Aren’t you supposed to whip up expectations of a nail-bitingly close race in order to sell newspapers and advertising?
Schultz, I agree Team Peduto’s vote has no where to go but Dowd, but how about their money and sweat equity?
“Aren’t you supposed to whip up expectations of a nail-bitingly close race in order to sell newspapers and advertising?”
>>>> Hey, if I had any business sense, I WOULDN’T be the media. But let’s be clear … Shields took a long, hard look at this race. I understand he hired some pros to get the lay of the land. And obviously — he chose not to get in.
Dowd, I think, feels less constrained by such considerations.
A better question is who get’s the money and sweat equity from Pittsburgh’s Team Obama.
I blog about this:
http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/2009/02/abt-abl-wnc.html
So sad.
Okay, Potter. I’m porting this discussion over to your blog because on my blog it just seems like navel-gazing, whereas on the Slag Heap it seems far more cromulent.
You said:
“I think tactics are important, and it’s worth talking about which races are worth investing time and money in and which aren’t. You’re [Bram] calling for contributions to be made to Dowd, which is fine. But there may be other worthy candidates out there, in other races, and most folks I know have limited resources. If you had a choice between door-knocking for a candidate who, though admirable, has no prayer of winning … or a candidate who could really benefit from the help … well, which would you choose?”
That is one interpretation of the strategic situation: a zero-sum game in which a mayor’s race is a distraction and competitor. I am thinking of a high-interest mayor’s race as something that will heighten interest in and attention paid to local politics, and encourage an environment of fiscal and sweat investments in local politics, which in my view is good for all talented non-incumbents. It might even heighten interest in “reform”, which IMO is good for all talented non-incumbents.
“I am thinking of a high-interest mayor’s race as something that will heighten interest in and attention paid to local politics.”
>>> It’s a respectable argument. Certainly a high-profile race increases turnout, and candidates at the top of the card sometimes have coattails. I’m not sure how well it plays out at the city level, though.
Let’s look at the 2005 race, when there were not one but TWO reform candidates running for mayor — Peduto and Lamb. If ever a race should have caught fire for reformers, that would be the one: Lamb, after all, drew South Hills voters that were more resistant to Peduto, who obviously had a lot of cache with progressives already. i remember the mayor’s race that year as the headiest, most fun I ever covered. So if there was going to be a time when people would reach out — from across districts and other boundaries — to support the cause of government reform, this would have been it.
But 2005 was the same year Dan Deasy won, and Tonya Payne and Jim Motznik too. These have been, of course, Ravenstahl’s most steadfast supporters. (Peduto won re-election to his council seat, which I think would have happened no matter what.)
Of course, Motznik was only facing Anthony Coghill — so I’m not sure reformers had a dog in that fight. (Although if reformist fever is as contagious as you hope, one might wish it had infected a potential candidate or two.) Payne’s rival was Sala Udin, and I don’t think any amount of reformist zeal could have helped him — he was too unpopular with the people in his own district.
The contest that MIGHT have been affected by having Peduto and Lamb at the top of the fight card was District 2. The young people’s candidate in that race was Erin Molchany, the current head of PUMP and a young, smart, personable candidate. As I recall, she worked pretty hard, and lots of people who travel in progressive circles liked her a lot. But she finished in a very distant 4th place.
None of that disproves your theory, and certainly I wouldn’t argue that Molchany or Udin would have won if there HADN’T been a mayoral race. (It’s quite possible, after all, that the council candidates you support will all lose whether Dowd runs or not.) There are just too many variables — the profile of the council candidates themselves, the dispersion of progressive types across districts, etc.
Probably I’ve just taken a very long time to say there isn’t a hell of a lot of evidence either way. It comes down to gut feeling.
You have an expansive vision in which a mayoral candidate, perhaps with bloggers acting as his herald, inspires the people to rise up and demand the old ways to be cast down, etc. I’m not sure it works that way. It’s hard to imagine a candidate having coattails when he’s only got three months to even tell voters who the hell he is. What’s more, in this economy, especially, I DO see things like campaign-contributions as a “zero-sum game.” A person giving $25 to a mayoral candidate probably ISN’T giving that money to someone at the council level