Tuesday, February 10, 2009

You Know It, I Know It, How'd We Forget it?

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is going to be Mayor Luke Ravenstahl in 2010. We may not like his little snafus*, but the bottom line is this: he hasn't screwed up enough to lose the primary. Ravenstahl has lost some of his political capital, sure but he still has more then enough to win this election. It doesn't matter who he runs against, the quality of his opponent only effects his margin of victory. We've known this for 6 months, which is why I don't understand why Doug Shields dropping out is such a big deal. Maybe with a tough campaign this time and another 4 years of silly mistakes Ravenstahl will be vulnerable in 2013. But I know he's not, you know he's not and Doug Shields knows he's not.

*I like using antiquated words, it means screw-ups. It's more commonly spoken then written.

12 comments:

Schultz said...

I wouldn't say this is a done deal, yet at least. There are two races between Luke Ravesntahl and reelection the May 19th Democratic primary and the November general election. Conventional wisdom says Ravenstahl will win another 4 year term. Conventional wisdom also counted out Obama from the start. It's not always the right answer, but is usually the easiest, less intriguing, and less risky bet.

Burgher Jon said...

Schultz either doesn't know it or forgot it.

First of all, Obama was hand picked for the presidential race, you think they gave him the key note in 2004 because they thought he had topped out at senator? The field (including republicans) was two previous primary losers (mccain and edwards), two high-profile candidates with tons of high-profile baggage (clinton and guliani) and two fringe candidates (huckabee and romney). We only remember Obama as a long shot because that's the way he wants us to remember him.

Secondly, this isn't Obama vs. McCain, this is Dole vs. Clinton (Bill) or Swann vs. Rendell.

Bram Reichbaum said...

I put Dowd's current odds of victory at 12:1, with a chance of improving them to 8:1 by month's end if he performs optimally. Amd from there, thereout.

I'm not sure about this meme that the City has be donig *badly enough* to warrant ousting an incumbent. Obviously that would be one factor, but I think also that voters may be independently inclined to *prefer somebody else*, even in the relative absense of Internet-style Luke hatred.

Schultz said...

I forgot? Well, since you called me out....

First of all, Obama was hand picked for the presidential race, you think they gave him the key note in 2004 because they thought he had topped out at senator?

He was picked for the 2004 keynote address because he was anointed as a future leader of the party and yes, perhaps a Presidential candidate, but not in 2008. According to your (tortured) logic Mark Warner will be running against Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012.


We only remember Obama as a long shot because that's the way he wants us to remember him.

Clearly you were one of the late arrivals on the Obama band wagon. Okay, how about this. When some of us were backing Obama early on, he was a long shot. No one considered him to be the front runner until he pulled off Iowa. That means he was an underdog for about 11 months out of the 21 month campaign. Even after he pulled off Iowa, they were not counting out the Clinton juggernaut. That is a fact.

Now, back to the mayoral contest. Bram's analysis is pretty spot on, although I, being my usual overly optimistic self, put Dowd's odds of winning, assuming he runs of course, at 4 to 1. I say this not only because he is a great campaigner, but because he was all over the place during the Obama campaign, so his name recognition is pretty high among those 50,000 city residents who voted for Obama in last spring's primary. Also, a lot of the Obama organizers are chomping at the bit ready to get back in action, so there is grassroots support already in place. And while at a severe money disadvantage he would have the grassroots support that the mayor's money cannot buy. He has a chance to win if he can raise just enough to support the basic campaign infrastructure he needs to get his message out in all of those 89, or is it 90, Pittsburgh neighborhoods. In '07 DeSantis raised a lot of money, but didn't have enough foot soldiers. Being a Republican running in the city didn't help either.

I have additional information but since Burgher Jon dissed me I'm going to keep it to myself.

Burgher Jon said...

3 Things:
1. I had an Obama Staffer living in my house two months before the primary, not exactly what you'd call "late to the band wagon".
2. Anyone who follows presidential politics thought Obama was the front runner before Iowa, Clinton just had too much baggage. Commentators talked about her because it sells newspapers, not cause she was ever going to win.
3. Like I said before, this is not the presidential race. If it was Dowd would be more analogous to Huckabee then any of the major candidates.
4. At 4:1 I would like to place my house on Luke, if you've got the bank maybe I can retire early.

Anonymous said...

Burger,

No one thought Obama was the front-runner until after he pulled off eleven victories in a row in Feb/March. Hillary had the name recognition, the polling number, the financing and the backing of the "Superdelegates".

In fact, during the summer and into the late fall of 2007 when BHO was 20-30 points behind Hillary, many pundits were wondering when Obama was going to make his move. I remember reading MoDo in the NYT, and having her describe Hillary as being more masculine than Obama in the early debates and wondering why BHO was not attacking Hillary, since he was so far behind.

In November of 2007, two things happened to change the race: 1) BHO gave a speech in Iowa that began to move the polls. 2) Hillary made a political mistake when she endorsed giving Illegal Aliens Legal Driver's Licenses.

Then, once the polls started to move, BHO began to implement his superior organization (taking advantage of the usual Clinton inner-circle drama) and, by March 2008, pushed himself into a unassailable lead.

Even more amazing, Terry McAuliffe has admitted that when he was the DNC chair, he front-loaded the primary schedule with big states in order to make it very difficult for anyone to challenge Hillary. Yeah, you had Iowa and NH, but after than, the D's almost immediately went into Super Tuesday (what was that, 10-12-15 states?). The expectation by McAuliffe and Hillary was that no other candidate would be able to raise enough money to compete. And, that they would do well enough in NH to push the opposition out (IA was more of a risk for Hillary, many of her staffers didn't want to to run in IA, since Bill was never strong in that state).

I think your history is revisionist. Hillary was the front-runner. Even in April of 2008, when she was obviously going to lose, her supporters were OFFENDED that BHO was DARE to challenge the future first female President.

BHO beat the most powerful name in Democratic politics.

Burgher Jon said...

Annonymous,

Thought you might want this back, your Fox News badge slipped out when you were walking by. Actually let me keep it, perhaps you'd do better to hear news on the future Virginia Governor from places without so much slant. McAuliffe is the one that stripped MI and FL of their votes, clearly not the move of a Clinton operative. (Pauses a moment to let you see what O'Reiley had to say about that one)

Furthermore, I'm not asking who was "leading" the race, I'm asking who (outside the press who has to sell newspapers) thought President Obama was going to lose this thing. If you didn't think Obama was going to win until after he'd won 12 states, you better check if your news network is afraid of black people. If your news network is the kind of network to abbreviate the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA's name BHO to draw attention to the Hussein. That's PBHO to you buddy. One more initial to show your patriotism is that too much to ask? You know if you're not patriotic, the terrorists have won. What's McCain's middle initial? Ever abreviated him JxM? Sorry, SJxM?

That's right people, welcome to the new Burgher Jon's Blog. I'm taking all callers and spending more time on comments.

Schultz said...

I think your history is revisionist.

I second that.

If you didn't think Obama was going to win until after he'd won 12 states...

Jon:

1. So you had an Obama staffer living in your house prior to the primary. Which one?

2. On what planet? Maybe the Obama staffer thought he would win "all along" but I follow Presidential politics and I didn't think he was the front runner until after Iowa. So, you're wrong

3. Dowd would be Huckabee? I guess you don't follow Presidential politics or Pittsburgh politics. Like I said, Dowd was a big time supporter of Obama, and he is all about running an Obama style grassroots campaign, just like he did in the spring of 2007.

4. If he runs I think it's going to be close, much closer than what people think.

Your last comment:

Sounds like you are changing your tune. First you said he was the front runner all along, now you're talking about Super Tuesday. Like I said, he was not even mentioned as front runner until he pulled of Iowa.

That's right people, welcome to the new Burgher Jon's Blog. I'm taking all callers and spending more time on comments.

Good, this is more interesting than fake stock picks.

Bram Reichbaum said...

Anonymous - I was with you until "drivers licenses". How about sniper fire?

Picking apart Burgher Jon -

2. Anyone who follows presidential politics thought Obama was the front runner before Iowa, Clinton just had too much baggage. Commentators talked about her because it sells newspapers, not cause she was ever going to win."

I think you're wrong.

4. At 4:1 I would like to place my house on Luke, if you've got the bank maybe I can retire early.

Don't bet the house. Bet the car. The true odds are about a dozen to one.

On Schultz:

Maybe the Obama staffer thought he would win "all along" but I follow Presidential politics and I didn't think he was the front runner until after Iowa. So, you're wrong

WOW. Infantile argument much? I'm all about the occasional performances, but "I know this stuff and" should always be an implied statement.

Generally: Obama clearly had top-tier status -- he was on the top tier with Hillary and Edwards for a long time and Edwards barely deserved to be there -- but he was never the frontrunner until after Iowa. Until about two weeks after Iowa, by my reckoning, once everyone saw Yes We Can on YouTube.

Burgher Jon said...

Ok, here's how we got in this discussion in the first place. The argument was essentially "Obama came from nowhere, why can't Dowd?"

My point is this... Dowd is not the Obama of this election, he's the Huckabee. I know politically it is not an apt comparison, but Dowd is passionate about what he believes but a SEVERE long shot. He might garner some attention even make it closer then everyone thinks, but he's not going to win.

Anonymous said...

Burgher, calling me a Fox News Loving republican? Inferring that I (and "my" Fox News Network are afraid of blacks? For the record, in the early 1990s, I made a short career as a professional paid political consultant. I traveled to a variety of states in the mid-west and northeast and worked for (drum roll) Democrats -- only democrats. I used to be a fundraiser and worked on a variety of Senate, Gubenatorial and state legislative races.

It was a short career because I am not James Carville and I needed to start earning a real living. That plus I had a horrible losing streak so I never received that coveted "Chief of Staff" job in the Senate.

Bram is right, I forgot about the sniper fire comments from Hillary. I think the driver's licenses were the first minor slip up and gave BHO an opening. "Sniper Fire" was more damaging.

As for Dowd, I gave up on City politics when I left City employment (yes, I used to work at the City). I am now a proud suburbanite that wonders when the City voters will suddenly realize our City Democratic Party is a farce. Then again, those morons continually put Tom Flaherty in office, so city voters don't exactly have a great track record. I don't care who becomes mayor, because the Mayor of Pittsburgh has about as much power and influence as the Mayor of Heidelberg. Especially since the City is still under state receivership (or whatever Act 47 is called these days)

What matters are County Executive and County Council. It's time for Onorato to go away and put someone in office who has the guts to finally re-assess every property.

Burgher Jon said...

If you're a democrat then stopping repeating every crazy bit of conspiracy theory you hear about the dem party.

In a city where the annual budget is $438 million and the county budget is $700+ million I would agree that there is not enough focus on County government, but I certainly would not agree that city government is irrelevant.