Tom Richards has a decision to make. And my hunch is that it’s one of the toughest he has faced in a long time.
Having lost the Democratic primary to Lovely Warren, does he try hold on to the office of mayor and run in the November general election? He’s still on the ballot, on the Working Families and Independence lines. In that respect, then, he’s still in the race. But should he conduct a serious campaign? Or should he say that the people in his party have spoken, and he’s supporting Warren?
I think there are compelling reasons why Richards should keep campaigning.
First of all, I think he’s done an excellent job, and I think the city will be better off with him as mayor for the next four years.
But regardless of that, it’s unsettling for most of the city’s voters to have no voice on something as important as selecting the person who leads this city. Only 23 percent of registered Democrats showed up at the polls. And Democrats are only 64 percent of the city’s registered voters. The 11,386 Republicans, 5,456 smaller-party voters, and 19,013 voters who are not registered in any political party had no voice in this at all.
(Let me hasten to add, by the way, that I wish Richards’ supporters would stop saying that he lost because voters thought he was a shoo-in and it was a hot day and they didn’t think they needed to vote. That’s demeaning to Warren and her team, who conducted a terrific campaign and won fair and square.)
Richards, though, has a lot to wrestle with. My assumption is that he won’t be able to have the help of the Democratic Party in the next phase of the campaign; the party’s responsibility is to help elect the Democrats their voters have nominated. In the case of the mayor’s race, that’s Lovely Warren.
If Richards continues to run, he’ll have to raise more money. He’ll have to figure out why Warren’s message resonated and his did not.
From a personal standpoint, he’ll have to decide whether the strain of the campaign, and the possibility that he’ll lose, is worth it.
But I’d bet that something else is weighing on Richards’ mind: if he runs and wins, will he have done more harm to the city than good?
The issue of race was kept at bay, mostly, in the primary campaign. But a lot of Warren’s support is in predominantly black neighborhoods, and a lot of Richards’ is from whites. Early indications are that voter turnout in black neighborhoods was much higher than in the white neighborhoods. If Richards decides to continue his campaign, the risk is huge that it will generate considerable racial tension. That would be very harmful for Richards and his administration. And it would be very harmful for the city.
I think he could overcome it. But it wouldn’t be easy.
I don’t envy Richards his decision. I very much wanted him to win. I also want what is best for the city. And I’m conflicted about whether a continued campaign is what’s best.
This article appears in Sep 11-17, 2013.
Yes, absolutely he should keep running. Richards has done a decent job. No mistakes that I can think of. There’s no reason to change. Despite reading multiple interviews, I couldn’t get a grasp of Lovely’s platform. I’m confused why she won. But this was just a primary, not the election.
Facing facts here, if Richards doesn’t continue to campaign, the mayor of New York’s third-largest city will have been chosen under a perfect storm of aberrant circumstances: a historic low turnout of Democrat voters, and a political poll gone so bad it will probably make its way into the textbooks as a negative case study. Literally, fewer than 9,000 voters, entirely of one political party, will have chosen the mayor for over 200,000 residents.
You’re right to point out that Warren had hustle, and a good ground game. But let’s take a look for a second at how that legendary Gantt turnout machine works. I’ve done pollwatching twice at the Hudson Avenue Fire Hall when Gantt-backed candidates were on the ballot. Usually around lunchtime, one of the sisters from the House of Mercy homeless shelter, which has gotten funding from Gantt, will show up leading a line of clients, each with a sandwich in hand, to vote. One time I had to protest because the sister was trying to go into the voting booth (lever machine) with the clients.
And if you’re going to vote for the Gantt-backed candidate and need a ride to the polls, and in many city neighborhoods even well-bodied people are understandably reluctant to walk to the polling place, a church van will come to pick you up. It may be the same church van that comes by to take you to church on Sunday, because at church may well be where you signed up for a ride to the polls. At the Hudson Avenue Fire Hall, throughout the day I watched church vans come and go.
Is there necessarily anything wrong with any of that? Not really. It’s a good thing for religious organizations to support their community and those they serve. But a clear-eyed recognition of how the Gantt turnout machine works is absolutely necessary in deciding whether you feel OK with how Rochester’s mayor will have been chosen, should Richards not continue.
As far as impacts on race relations, three things:
1) The special election in 2011 gave Rochester, sadly, perhaps the most racially divided election in its history. But it wasn’t the end of the world. In fact, perhaps fueled by that event, Rochester has embarked on an admirable dialog and process to improve racial understanding and relations.
2) Warren’s campaign manager, Chris Christopher, gave Rochester its first racially charged citywide campaign in 2005. Her candidate paid a price at the polls for her having “gone there.” This time around, although she has toned it down, the Warren campaign, from the get-go — and especially among her supporters, who I have seen engage in some brutal ad hominem attacks — has struck a note of resentment and betrayal that serves as almost a surrogate for racial politics.
3) Richards would be well advised to make this continued campaign strictly about giving the entire city the opportunity to vote — as they were given in 2011 but were denied this week — and not in any way about Warren, Gantt, or their supporters. Then, if the race became about race, it would be clear who was making it so.
I think Richards should not just soldier on, but even use the circumstances to let his hair down and go for broke. He should insist that the Working Families Party support him just as vigorously as they did Bill Johnson in 2011. In return, the WFP would get a real shot at electing a big-city mayor on their line, which would be a huge feather in their cap. But most of all, _everyone_ in the city would get the chance to choose their mayor, an opportunity for which many would be very grateful — especially in light of this week’s outcome. Undoubtedly, many would show their gratitude to Richards on election day.
There is no controversy among Republicans that Henrietta Town Supervisor Yudelson is going to continue to campaign on the Conservative and Independence Party lines despite losing the GOP nomination handily. Henrietta had a similar turnout to the city and is equally one-party dominated. Why then must it be a travesty if Mayor Richards continues to campaign for Mayor on the Working Families and Independence party lines which he earned?
Lovely had an opportunity to seize those party’s nominations and failed, that is her problem, not Tom Richards’. Likewise, Tom owes nothing to the Democratic Party and if he is re-elected in a general election, what are the Dems on Council going to do? Block important legislation and harm the people of the City of Rochester out of spite? I think not. The reason the Gantt/Warren camp is freaking out about this is because they know that she will lose in a general election. If they truly feel that she can win, then they ought to do the honorable thing and focus on proving themselves in November.
One simple thing to consider: Cynthia Elliott was re-elected by the electorate that turned out Tuesday. Nuff said.
I’m sorry but this is all really a bunch of rubbish. The white executive suburban-type lost to the African-American hometown girl. Does anyone know the turnout for the 2011 special election (which Richards and Morelle and Mary Anna insisted had to be held for “stability” mind you)? 12,471. Does anyone know the turnout for the general election in 2011? Brooks won less than 80,000 votes in a county of 300,000 eligible voters. In a primary, to get 25% is about average. So stop whining because your candidate lost and let’s all support Lovely Warren in trying to move this community forward.
MARY ANNA TOWLER & A WHOLE LOT OF OTHERS CAN’T ACCEPT DEFEAT — ANYBODY SURPRISED???
Defeat is definitely something Howard Eagle knows a thing or two about. He’s the Anthony Giordano of School Board elections.
“What’s in a name? that which we call a Dem
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Richards would, were he not Democrat call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Tom, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.”
I am not at all impressed with all of this hand-wringing.
For whatever reason, the Democratic Party voters who cared enough to show up at the polls chose Lovely Warren as their mayoral candidate. It does not matter what the circumstances were – they showed up. So, Lovely Warren is the Democratic candidate, fair and square. Fine!
Tom Richards will have his name on the ballot twice – on the Independence and Working Families lines. So he is a doubly visible candidate with the incumbent’s credentials. Good!
Alex White is on the ballot on the Green Party line. Another perfectly legitimate candidate whose voice and opinions have been consistent and strong in our community for years. Excellent!
Finally, the GOP has admitted that they are not a viable party, at least in the City, and are nowhere to be found. I, for one, don’t miss them at all.
So, we have three visible and viable candidates, each with a fair chance and each with a dramatically different personality and vision. The voters are not so dull as to be incapable of making a decision based upon individual qualifications rather than party label.
It’s time to forget the primaries and the party labels. Think of them as running under the labels Orange, Blue, and Purple if you wish, and focus on the candidates themselves.
-Scott Wagner
No, Richards has been rejected by the majority of voters in the Democratic Primary, something he has feared since 2010!
Richards was appointed deputy mayor by Bob Duffy thirty seconds after re-registering as a Democrat, the sole purpose of which was for Richards to succeed Duffy on Rochester’s mayoral throne.
Richards then demanded a “special election” to avoid a Democratic primary. There were several prominent Democrats in Rochester with that lean and hungry look, eying the mayoral throne. The “special election” nipped their ambitions in the bud, but Richards won with less than 50% of the popular vote.
In January 2013, Duffy tried to warn Lovely away from running for mayor, once again to avoid a primary election that would show Richards was just not all that popular with Rochester’s Democrats.
This is exactly what happened when Lovely refused to back down.
Despite running her campaign on a shoestring, Lovely’s people did get out the vote and soundly trounced Richards in the Primary Election this week. Richards’ people were either lulled into a false sense of security by the two Siena Polls or they really lacked conviction in Richards as mayor to bother to come out to the polls in full force, which would have settled this argument once and for all.
Instead, Richards is mulling over the option of continuing his campaign, to try and get a second bite at the apple.
Richards ought to know when to quit, because his continuing to campaign in the face of his defeat at the Democratic Primary will simply mean that he never took his conversion to the Democratic Party seriously. It was simply a case of political expedience, and his continued presence in this campaign will split the Democratic Party in Rochester.
@Andreas:
Richards ought to know when to quit
He’s the candidate of 2 political parties, and on the ballot for the general election. I’d say “when to quit” campaigning is 9PM on election night. You know, right after everyone in the city — Dems, Reps, Blanks, WFPs, Greens, Presbyterians, etc. — have had the chance to make their selection.
You don’t want them to have that choice–?
Ahhh, but RaChaCha, was there even a Primary Election for either of those other two parties?
And I had no idea that Presbyterians were a political party!
@Andreas
Parties other than Republican and Democrat do have primaries. In Buffalo, the incumbent Democrat mayor received the Conservative designation through “transactional” means. His Republican opponent challenged him for it in the primary, and may have succeeded (pending count of absentee and write-in votes).
That said, Presbyterians do not have primaries — you know, predestination and all…
One is almost, ALMOST, given to feel sorry for Tom Richards.
First, after spending several years acting as Bob Duffy’s flunky, he gets rewarded with the mayor’s job only to discover he is only an “acting mayor” and has to run in a special election to become the real thing.
Next, federal officials determined that there were sufficient questions about the legality of his appointment to force him to resign in order to remain in the campaign
Then, with a re-treaded Bill “Fast Ferry” Johnson capturing 43% of the vote, Richards squeaks through to victory with less then half of the total vote.
And after unsuccessfully trying to persuade Lovely Warren not to force a primary, Richards runs an inept and lackluster campaign and goes down to an ignominious defeat last Tuesday.
Now, as the final humiliation, Richards is given two options. Pack it in now and look like a sore loser. Or run as a third party candidate and have his head handed to him (again) in November.
But of course, at the end of this sorry saga, the biggest losers will be the citizens of Rochester who, come January, will be installing their fourth unqualified mayor in 37 months.
Yes, Mr. Richards should stay in the race.
He has the Independence and Working Family Party lines. Mr. Richards will probably get the support of the Republicans as well in the November election. Adding that to his already sizable Democratic base of support, Mr. Richards could probably win.
The Democratic primary didn’t reflect all of Rochester. Mr. Gantt knows this, which is why his people are demanding that Mr. Richards withdraw.
But that’s what can happen in a one-party town.
And a lot will depend on who the Republicans will choose to openly endorse, if they do it in the next couple of days.
If Mr. Richards stays in the race, the Republicans will decide who the next mayor will be.
Only in a strange situation like this are the Rochester Republicans good for anything. As much as Mr. Gantt and his people hate the Republicans, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were making overtures to the Republican Party to enlist their support.
Richards needs to throw in the towel. He was defeated this time and will be the next time if he continues. He surely does not take defeat well.
May I , respectfully, be the voice of reason? First, for Richards to run, he needs a campaign organization…but does not have one, because his was the Democratic party organization. Second, he needs the money to run, and , unless he funds himself, business people from outside of the city are his funders. And, worse, all the Democrat elected officials from the Governor down, must support Ms. Warren! Which then means, he is toast!
That said, there is one unfinished piece of business…the Sienna pol. Please check the records. Since a “pol” with a political agenda, started to run the poll (which he sells to media companies who do not want to be seen as stupid), they have been wrong time and again! Please look at their poll in the Dorley-Taylor race for DA. Same pattern, I fear.
Last, why are we worrying about this anyway? Richards will exit and Lovely will be Mayor! All the rest is articulated by the song “Rosie it’s you and me tonight”…