Buffalo, NY - The Comeback Kid

[Meatball Ron]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

Why do you say that?

[ilikeverin]

I just took a look at election day/early voting results. They're a bit messy since it seems like the city consolidated a bunch of precincts. So far, the strongest precincts for India are in areas where there is a large number of either hipster white folks (Allentown, the West Side*) or, to a slightly lesser but still considerable extent, rich white folks (Elmwood Village). The strongest precincts for Byron are in areas with a large number of working-class white folks (South Buffalo, Riverside*). To me, this suggests an education split among white voters. The East Side, which has our Black neighborhoods, was fairly closely split; perhaps a hair more for Byron than India, but not by a lot. I'm not seeing many patterns yet on the East Side.

Once the absentees are in and tabulated, I'll put up some maps

* Interestingly, although these areas are split in the results, they share large parts of Buffalo's considerable and growing refugee population. I presume many of the refugees aren't yet voting citizens.

YES!!! I'm a new Buffalo resident and happily voted for India, even though I'd not consider myself anything close to a socialist. This is exactly why:

Apparently he attempted to sleepwalk to victory, which might have been part of the reason for the upset.

Byron did not participate in mayoral debates. Byron did not campaign. Byron's campaign site was basically, "hello, I am Byron Brown, the mayor of Buffalo". I could not tell you Byron's campaign platform because it did not seem to exist (I tried to look). One of the biggest political debates in Buffalo right now is over speed cameras (which is a whole thing that I won't get into). When the Common Council passed two bills trying to abolish them, Byron (1) got the first one voided on a technicality so he didn't have to take a position on the cameras, and (2) let the second one slide into law without signing it or vetoing it so he didn't have take a position on the cameras. Again, this is a huge issue in Buffalo, and rather than taking a side, he tried to cower.

Welcome to the 716!

Thanks! *hughughug*

[ilikeverin]

Interesting to compare these results to the Erie County Sheriff primary, where a coalition of overwhelming support in the East Side and good support from well-educated (hipster+rich) white folks in both the City of Buffalo and the suburbs (including East Aurora! how cute!) led a Black woman to soundly defeat a white man in the sheriff race.

[LabourJersey]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

Why do you say that?

sore loser laws ensure that primary elections have consequences.

If Brown runs as a write-in and wins, it's telegraphing to everyone that primaries are irrelevant, and that entrenched incumbents can win even if they sleep in the run up to an election

[Oryxslayer]

I just took a look at election day/early voting results. They're a bit messy since it seems like the city consolidated a bunch of precincts. So far, the strongest precincts for India are in areas where there is a large number of either hipster white folks (Allentown, the West Side*) or, to a slightly lesser but still considerable extent, rich white folks (Elmwood Village). The strongest precincts for Byron are in areas with a large number of working-class white folks (South Buffalo, Riverside*). To me, this suggests an education split among white voters. The East Side, which has our Black neighborhoods, was fairly closely split; perhaps a hair more for Byron than India, but not by a lot. I'm not seeing many patterns yet on the East Side.

Once the absentees are in and tabulated, I'll put up some maps

* Interestingly, although these areas are split in the results, they share large parts of Buffalo's considerable and growing refugee population. I presume many of the refugees aren't yet voting citizens.

YES!!! I'm a new Buffalo resident and happily voted for India, even though I'd not consider myself anything close to a socialist. This is exactly why:

Apparently he attempted to sleepwalk to victory, which might have been part of the reason for the upset.

Byron did not participate in mayoral debates. Byron did not campaign. Byron's campaign site was basically, "hello, I am Byron Brown, the mayor of Buffalo". I could not tell you Byron's campaign platform because it did not seem to exist (I tried to look). One of the biggest political debates in Buffalo right now is over speed cameras (which is a whole thing that I won't get into). When the Common Council passed two bills trying to abolish them, Byron (1) got the first one voided on a technicality so he didn't have to take a position on the cameras, and (2) let the second one slide into law without signing it or vetoing it so he didn't have take a position on the cameras. Again, this is a huge issue in Buffalo, and rather than taking a side, he tried to cower.

Welcome to the 716!

Thanks! *hughughug*

https://twitter.com/cinyc9/status/1408148845528326147?s=20

For the viewer's sake.

[Intell]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

Why do you say that?

sore loser laws ensure that primary elections have consequences.

If Brown runs as a write-in and wins, it's telegraphing to everyone that primaries are irrelevant, and that entrenched incumbents can win even if they sleep in the run up to an election

People should be allowed to run in any general election race they choose to, and anything against that is a restriction of people's democratic right to run in said general election races or for people to vote for the candidate.

In CT 2006, more people wanted Liberman to be senator than Lamont and thus voted for him, should that not have occurred because of sore-loser laws? Any restriction of Lieberman's ability to run again and people's ability to vote for him if they choose to, is undemocratic.

[LabourJersey]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

Why do you say that?

sore loser laws ensure that primary elections have consequences.

If Brown runs as a write-in and wins, it's telegraphing to everyone that primaries are irrelevant, and that entrenched incumbents can win even if they sleep in the run up to an election

People should be allowed to run in any general election race they choose to, and anything against that is a restriction of people's democratic right to run in said general election races or for people to vote for the candidate.

In CT 2006, more people wanted Liberman to be senator than Lamont and thus voted for him, should that not have occurred because of sore-loser laws? Any restriction of Lieberman's ability to run again and people's ability to vote for him if they choose to, is undemocratic.

I mean at a certain point that line of thinking means primaries should be irrelevant. That's not necessarily a bad idea, but we have a party system of representative democracy.

Also for purely partisan reasons I think that Lieberman should not have ran after his primary loss in 2006--the country would have definitely been better off with a Senator Lamont from Connecticut from 2007 to 2013.

[Intell]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

Why do you say that?

sore loser laws ensure that primary elections have consequences.

If Brown runs as a write-in and wins, it's telegraphing to everyone that primaries are irrelevant, and that entrenched incumbents can win even if they sleep in the run up to an election

People should be allowed to run in any general election race they choose to, and anything against that is a restriction of people's democratic right to run in said general election races or for people to vote for the candidate.

In CT 2006, more people wanted Liberman to be senator than Lamont and thus voted for him, should that not have occurred because of sore-loser laws? Any restriction of Lieberman's ability to run again and people's ability to vote for him if they choose to, is undemocratic.

I mean at a certain point that line of thinking means primaries should be irrelevant. That's not necessarily a bad idea, but we have a party system of representative democracy.

Also for purely partisan reasons I think that Lieberman should not have ran after his primary loss in 2006--the country would have definitely been better off with a Senator Lamont from Connecticut from 2007 to 2013.

Primaries help you get the D or R badge which is pretty important in American politics, if someone can win outside that, then good for them!

Lieberman winning was bad, but Lieberman being allowed to win was good.

[Meatball Ron]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

Why do you say that?

sore loser laws ensure that primary elections have consequences.

If Brown runs as a write-in and wins, it's telegraphing to everyone that primaries are irrelevant, and that entrenched incumbents can win even if they sleep in the run up to an election

People should be allowed to run in any general election race they choose to, and anything against that is a restriction of people's democratic right to run in said general election races or for people to vote for the candidate.

In CT 2006, more people wanted Liberman to be senator than Lamont and thus voted for him, should that not have occurred because of sore-loser laws? Any restriction of Lieberman's ability to run again and people's ability to vote for him if they choose to, is undemocratic.

Intell - what this post and your previous/subsequent posts on this topic miss - is that, even with sore loser laws, Lieberman would be allowed to run in the general election. He chose to try to do so through the Democratic Party line. But he didn't have to. He could have ran as an independent, third-party, write-in, etc. and anyone should be allowed to do that. That doesn't mean you should be entitled to two shots - to try to seek the party line nomination but still get to run afterward. If you're running for a party's nomination, it's with the implicit understanding that you aren't entitled to be on the general election ballot if you fail. We don't even need to frame this as a "sore loser" law - it's as simple as a primary election filing deadline that's on the same date as (rather than earlier than) the general election deadline. Forcing people to choose whether they want to run on a party line or as an independent is not anti-democratic. It would be anti-democratic if the only option was to run on a party line.

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Walton had already secured the Working Families Party line and openly told the public she would run against Byron in November if she had lost the primary.

I don't understand the outrage. (and I say this as someone happy for India)

[ilikeverin]

I just took a look at election day/early voting results. They're a bit messy since it seems like the city consolidated a bunch of precincts. So far, the strongest precincts for India are in areas where there is a large number of either hipster white folks (Allentown, the West Side*) or, to a slightly lesser but still considerable extent, rich white folks (Elmwood Village). The strongest precincts for Byron are in areas with a large number of working-class white folks (South Buffalo, Riverside*). To me, this suggests an education split among white voters. The East Side, which has our Black neighborhoods, was fairly closely split; perhaps a hair more for Byron than India, but not by a lot. I'm not seeing many patterns yet on the East Side.

Once the absentees are in and tabulated, I'll put up some maps

* Interestingly, although these areas are split in the results, they share large parts of Buffalo's considerable and growing refugee population. I presume many of the refugees aren't yet voting citizens.

YES!!! I'm a new Buffalo resident and happily voted for India, even though I'd not consider myself anything close to a socialist. This is exactly why:

Apparently he attempted to sleepwalk to victory, which might have been part of the reason for the upset.

Byron did not participate in mayoral debates. Byron did not campaign. Byron's campaign site was basically, "hello, I am Byron Brown, the mayor of Buffalo". I could not tell you Byron's campaign platform because it did not seem to exist (I tried to look). One of the biggest political debates in Buffalo right now is over speed cameras (which is a whole thing that I won't get into). When the Common Council passed two bills trying to abolish them, Byron (1) got the first one voided on a technicality so he didn't have to take a position on the cameras, and (2) let the second one slide into law without signing it or vetoing it so he didn't have take a position on the cameras. Again, this is a huge issue in Buffalo, and rather than taking a side, he tried to cower.

Welcome to the 716!

Thanks! *hughughug*

https://twitter.com/cinyc9/status/1408148845528326147?s=20

For the viewer's sake.

Awesome. Can't wait for the updated version after the absentees came in today (they went about 2:1 for Byron, but not enough to change the results)

[SWE]

https://twitter.com/DaveMcKinley2/status/1410623496284213254?s=19

The local party establishment is fully behind Walton, Brown's write-in campaign is just a joke vanity campaign from a man who's overdosed on copium. It'd be an upset if he could secure 10% of the vote

[ilikeverin]

https://twitter.com/DaveMcKinley2/status/1410623496284213254?s=19

The local party establishment is fully behind Walton, Brown's write-in campaign is just a joke vanity campaign from a man who's overdosed on copium. It'd be an upset if he could secure 10% of the vote

Poloncarz seems to be well-liked, and those are unequivocal comments. Good for him.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

I'm actually really interested to see if this is successful.  Since I couldn't care less about Buffalo, I selfishly think it would be nice to have another city other than Seattle and Portland that's hijacked by the socialist nuts.  Maybe then the midwest cities can start sending their homeless junkies to Buffalo instead of putting them on buses to Seattle.

You really need to touch grass sometime.

[Lambsbread]

Hilarious stuff from Buffalo Mayor Billy Brown Byron Brown:

https://twitter.com/BenjaminPDixon/status/1412463523507093510?s=20

How out of touch do you have to be to proclaim that voters don't want a "radical socialist mayor" after they literally chose to elect one over you?

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Local Republican, QAnon Youtuber, and failed Assembly candidate Jaz Miles has launched a write-in campaign.

Miles has already canvassed the city, and reportedly is filming commercials soon.

The race is now Walton (D, WF) vs. Brown (I) vs. Miles (I), with several people still rumored to be considering campaigns such as Joel Giambra and Joel Feroleto.

[MaxQue]

Local Republican and failed Assembly candidate Jaz Miles has launched a write-in campaign.

Miles has already canvassed the city, and reportedly is filming commercials soon.

The race is now Walton (D, WF) vs. Brown (I) vs. Miles (I), with several people still rumored to be considering campaigns such as Joel Giambra and Joel Feroleto.

Wouldn't that just increase the odds of Walton winning?

[NYSforKennedy2024]

Local Republican and failed Assembly candidate Jaz Miles has launched a write-in campaign.

Miles has already canvassed the city, and reportedly is filming commercials soon.

The race is now Walton (D, WF) vs. Brown (I) vs. Miles (I), with several people still rumored to be considering campaigns such as Joel Giambra and Joel Feroleto.

Wouldn't that just increase the odds of Walton winning?

Yes, and as such the Buffalo GOP has actually disavowed him. Just found that he's a staunch QAnon fan also.

[PSOL]

Oh my, this race keeps on giving. Let the fun commence!

[Donerail]

Buffalo City Council considering shift to council-manager model of governance, eliminating the position of Mayor.

[ꙮ]

Buffalo City Council considering shift to council-manager model of governance, eliminating the position of Mayor.

I was in South Buffalo the other day and was surprised by the number of "write in Byron Brown" signs I saw. Strange that he lost given I didn't see any signs for the other candidate. I haven't seen a centrist case of "yard signs aren't votes" before.

[Torrain]

Obvious "it's Emerson" disclaimer, but interesting, given that other indicators suggest Brown might really be competitive in this race.
https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1425906180933648384

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Obvious "it's Emerson" disclaimer, but interesting, given that other indicators suggest Brown might really be competitive in this race.
https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1425906180933648384

I think that the possibility of Brown leading in polls and losing in the end is decent. I see a number of people possibly not seeing his name on the ballot and assuming he dropped out or something, not realizing his campaign is a write in.

That said he is probably the narrow favorite now.

[President Johnson]

Is Brown about to become a Democratic Lisa Murkowski?

[Torrain]

Obvious "it's Emerson" disclaimer, but interesting, given that other indicators suggest Brown might really be competitive in this race.
https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1425906180933648384

I think that the possibility of Brown leading in polls and losing in the end is decent. I see a number of people possibly not seeing his name on the ballot and assuming he dropped out or something, not realizing his campaign is a write in.

That said he is probably the narrow favorite now.

Agreed. Name recognition will probably secure him a decent portion of the vote, but whether it'll be enough is wholly unclear.