The 2017 Democratic primary for mayor is shaping up to be one hell of a fight. The latest: former Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard confirmed this week that he’s considering a run.
Also exploring a bid is Rachel Barnhart, former WROC-TV8 reporter and anchor. Barnhart made the announcement earlier this month.
To be clear, no one has officially declared his or her candidacy yet, not even Lovely Warren, the sitting mayor — but you have to assume she’s running unless she says otherwise.
Sheppard, a Monroe County legislator, says that he’s talking to Democratic committee members, the public, and others about a possible run and that his decision will be based on their feedback. He says that he’ll make an announcement in January; his term in the Legislature ends in 2019.
Sheppard retired as police chief in 2013, a month after Warren won the mayor’s race; the speculation was that Warren intended to replace him. Though Warren and Sheppard never publicly clashed, it was clear that Warren was not completely happy with the operation of the department.
Warren was also rumored to be the driving force behind Mitch Rowe’s decision to run for County Legislature in 2015 — for the same seat that Sheppard was seeking. The word among some Democrats was that Warren wanted to solidify or broaden her influence in the Lej and knew that Sheppard wasn’t a guaranteed ally.
Sheppard defeated Rowe, at that time the city’s director of planning and zoning, handily. And Rowe has always maintained that running was his decision, alone.
Barnhart is expected to announce her decision in either January or February. She lost a hard-fought primary battle for State Assembly to Democrat Harry Bronson, the incumbent, earlier this year.
A battle between Barnhart and Warren would be fascinating — and undoubtedly ugly. The two have quarreled publicly in the past and neither is known for backing down or is afraid of rocking the boat.
Adding a Shakespearean splash to the whole thing is the involvement of lobbyist Robert Scott Gaddy. Gaddy and Warren are protégés of State Assembly member David Gantt, and Gaddy has been a major Warren supporter.
But Gaddy is now backing Barnhart. Unless you believe the theory among some Dems that it’s an elaborate con; that Gaddy and Warren are manipulating Sheppard and Barnhart so that they split the anti-Warren vote, giving Warren enough votes to win the primary.
It’s not an easy theory to believe, though, and Barnhart’s team says that it’s not true.
“The theory that Rachel’s possible campaign is subterfuge meant to support the incumbent says more about Rachel’s strength as a candidate than the viability of Warren and Sheppard,” says a statement from Joe Rittler, spokesperson for Barnhart’s exploratory committee.
The statement accuses Warren and Sheppard of being beholden to high-ranking politicians: Gantt for Warren and State Assembly Majority Leader Joe Morelle for Sheppard, and chides Warren for not coming out and saying whether she’s running.
“That’s not the level of transparency we expect from our officials,” Rittler says. “Perhaps those peddling conspiracy theories should focus more on building a better community than trying to subvert the democratic process.”
This article appears in Dec 28, 2016 – Jan 3, 2017.
i always love a good fight – 2017 here we go!
“The two have quarreled publicly in the past and neither is known for backing down or for playing nice just to make people comfortable.” Why are women always expected to “play nice”? Sheppard gets a pass on playing nice just because he left after Warren won the mayoral election?
And when was Barnhart actually mean to Warren? Barnhart reported what the mayor did, which was newsworthy, then even met with Warren.
“Some Democrats say…” Oh yeah? Care to say who? If “some Democrats” want to provide their take on the election, let them come out and say so. There’s no need to enable them to provide conspiracy theories without consequence. And why would someone stall a career, resist attempts to buy her out, and raise $150,000+ just so someone else has a chance to win? That’s lunacy.
Oh, please, really Ms. Fien?
“A battle between Barnhart and Warren would be fascinating and undoubtedly ugly. The two have quarreled publicly in the past and neither is known for backing down or for playing nice just to make people comfortable.”
Why not just say its a ‘catfight’ between two women while the respectable gentleman stands above it all.
Whether you meant to draw that picture consciously, or just subconsciously, draw it you did.
Why not keep the mayor’s race about issues, and finally stop with the identity politics of personalities engaging in ugly fights: that is your conjecture (maybe your secret hope), and does not deserve to be in a news article.
Any you know it.
Let’s not forget the Republicans choice for Mayor .
Bill Rielich would love to run the city and county .
A cat fight between Rachel and Lovely would be just that .
Lovely would win !
She has a lot of financial backing and friends .
Might I add friends that have gained financially for the friendship .
There’s proven and documented corruption in our City Hall .
The FBI , The A/G and the media have known for three years but fail to act on the racketeering and bid rigging that’s gone on for the past 20 years .
I wonder who they’re protecting ?
I’ve offered my knowledge to both Mr. Sheppard and Ms. Barnhart but neither want to comment .
I wonder why ?
The article raises the idea that Sheppard and Barnhart would split the anti-Warren vote. Consider also that Sheppard and Warren could split the black vote, benefiting Barhart, or that Barnhart and Warren get into a cat fight and split the female vote, benefitting Sheppard. All of this seems possible.
One of the things I love about “small government” Republican hypocrites is how desperate they are to get on the public payroll. Barnhart will simply keep running for any office she can latch onto, because she needs a job.
Barnhart currently works to help raise money for the poor. She could have easily gone back to journalism. She doesn’t need a job. She’s also been a Democrat since she was 18.
So what does she do that makes you think she’s a Republican? Demanding more of our local leadership? Creating programs to help the poor instead of tax incentives for people buying $300,000 condos? Serving the poor?
The fact that prominent African-Americans are not only leaving the Warren camp, but also are not aligning with Sheppard speaks volumes about their viability as incumbent and prospective challenger, respectively. Rochester has never been well-served by either identity or factional politics, and in 2017 I hope that Rochester voters take the opportunity to rise above both.
This brings back memories of 1983, when I ran against Rochester’s popular mayor, Tom Ryan. For me, it wasn’t about politics or an advancement of my personal status. It was about ideas I had to consolidate several county and city services as a means of reducing burdens on taxpayers.
If Rachel Barnhart officially enters the race, I will support her. I am convinced this race would not be about her, but rather her sincere desire to heal divisions in the local Democratic Party and her sincere desire to have a government that works for all in the community, regardless of political affiliations.
I will not be surprised if Molly Clifford enters the mayoral race. She has a lot of support in the community, and she is talented. So, I expect some interesting developments in the next two months. If Lovely Warren is running for reelection, she should state so now, which will help other potential candidates to make decisions.
While these 3, and probably Alex White all swing it out for the “opportunity” to keep Rochester in permanent status quo mode, or even worse, the obvious choice is….well, I guess nobody. Is there anyone living in the city that can put this insanity to rest and restore Rochester to the greatness we once were?
Ray,
What in the world would make you think that Barnhart is capable of “healing divisions in the local Democratic Party?” In fact, wouldn’t you say that she is very much part of, if not responsible for at least some of the divisiveness?
“If Lovely Warren is running for reelection, she should state so now, which will help other potential candidates to make decisions.” WHAT??? …. .WHAT???
RaChaCha,
What in the heck is “identity politics?” Isn’t that what the majority of white folks have been practicing for centuries? In fact, didn’t we just witness one of the greatest displays of “identity politics” in the entire history of this thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based nation -state via the recent Presidential Election???
School me if I’m mistaken or wrong.
Peter,
What “program [has] Barnhart created to help the poor???”
Stop making stuff up.
Chris,
If “Barnhart and Warren gets into a fight [what exactly is it that would distinguish it as being] a cat fight?” By the way, if the past is an accurate indicator — if they do get into a fight — it would probably, likely be more akin to a RACE WAR than a so-called “cat fight.”
“In fact, didn’t we just witness one of the greatest displays of “identity politics” in the entire history of this thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based nation -state via the recent Presidential Election???”
Again, I guess you missed the (half) black guy we had president for the last 8 years (meaning he won twice, both times verses white opponents. But yeah, “racism” is why Trump got elected lol).
Eric,
Trump attracted as many Black votes as Obama attracted white ones — right???
Now, tell us again, which situation represents the BIGGEST case of “identity politics.”
In 2008 43% of Whites voted for Obama
In 2016 8% of Blacks voted for Trump
Howard that is not a convincing argument of white bias as you claim
Howard, Trump attracted a greater % of black voters than Romney or McCain did. From Pew:
Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obamas 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks.
fgf,
I don’t really understand what you, and/or Eric are attempting to argue, but what I do understand, is that Trump’s victory clearly represents the most notable, and most outstanding example of so called RACIAL IDENTITY POLITICS in a very, very long time: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/…
Howard, the others, I believe, are taking issue with your statement “Trump attracted as many Black votes as Obama attracted white ones”. This is clearly false and deserves to be clarified, which they did. Obama clearly attracted FAR more white votes as Trump attracted black votes.