2015 mayoral race public opinion polling has started

[captainwjm]

you fellas might feel more comfortable in California or Massachusetts, whose current state of affairs is far more to your liking.

 

I know I would.

[BnaBreaker]

Ahh yes...San Diego, Boston, Santa Barbara, Cape Cod, San Francisco...what disgusting cesspools...who would want to live there? 

[fieldmarshaldj]

San Diego just elected a GOP Mayor on Tuesday to replace one of those "forward-thinking" Progressive types who couldn't help laying hands of every female within arms' reach. I guess that one's out for you guys now. ;-)

[dmillsphoto]

So far, so good here. Let's make sure it stays clean of attacks.

[bwithers1]

So far, so good here. Let's make sure it stays clean of attacks.

As the person who initiated this thread, I would like to humbly request that we keep the discussion focused specifically on Nashville's 2015 mayoral race, because that is the one that will affect us here in Nashville, not something that happens in other cities or other States or in Washington, DC. 

 

It is also noteworthy that Nashville's Mayoral and Council races are nonpartisan.  So we may guess that Karl Dean is a Democrat and, say, Charlie Tygard is a Republican, but nobody is going to run for Mayor of Nashville as a Democrat or a Republican, and so the Nashville Mayoral race doesn't have a ton of impact in a broader national party-line discussion. 

 

My perspective is that there are forward- and backward-looking Democrats and Republicans but painting with a broad brush is not often helpful in gaining and understanding of practical matters.  I'm more interested in what a candidate plans to do with the Fairgrounds or how they want to approach the TIF funds that apparently are still going to be needed to land the luxury hotels to support the Convention Center.

[BnaBreaker]

San Diego just elected a GOP Mayor on Tuesday to replace one of those "forward-thinking" Progressive types who couldn't help laying hands of every female within arms' reach. I guess that one's out for you guys now. ;-)

 

It makes no difference to me what political party is in power in those places.  There are many good conservative mayors around and many bad progressive mayors.  San Diego is probably the most conservative big city in California, but it's still San Diego.  Hell, I obviously love Nashville, and it's state legislature doesn't exactly line up with my personal politics.  You more or less implied that you wouldn't live in those places because they are in blue states, so I'm just having a little fun with your reasoning.  I'll take San Diego, and Boston, and Seattle, and San Francisco etc...you can keep Bucksnort, TN.    Just Kidding...I really just wanted to have an excuse to use Bucksnort in my response.  Ever since I was a kid I've gotten a kick out of that town's name.  Anyway, carry on good gentlemen.

[fieldmarshaldj]

As the person who initiated this thread, I would like to humbly request that we keep the discussion focused specifically on Nashville's 2015 mayoral race, because that is the one that will affect us here in Nashville, not something that happens in other cities or other States or in Washington, DC. 

 

It is also noteworthy that Nashville's Mayoral and Council races are nonpartisan.  So we may guess that Karl Dean is a Democrat and, say, Charlie Tygard is a Republican, but nobody is going to run for Mayor of Nashville as a Democrat or a Republican, and so the Nashville Mayoral race doesn't have a ton of impact in a broader national party-line discussion.

The "non-partisan" definition (at least with respect to Mayor) is disingenuous (and Chicago has the same claim, which is just as absurd). It's not a "we may guess". Thomas Kercheval was the last Republican elected, and that was in 1886-88. Every other Mayor since has been a Democrat, not a "non partisan." In my lifetime, as I was born under Beverly Briley, it's been an all-Democrat affair (at least with respect to the final runoff). As I've said, I'd like to see a fiscally & socially Conservative Mayor to lead Nashville for a change, rather than ever more leftist (fiscal and social) as with every successive Mayor since Briley.

[fieldmarshaldj]

It makes no difference to me what political party is in power in those places.  There are many good conservative mayors around and many bad progressive mayors.  San Diego is probably the most conservative big city in California, but it's still San Diego.  Hell, I obviously love Nashville, and it's state legislature doesn't exactly line up with my personal politics.  You more or less implied that you wouldn't live in those places because they are in blue states, so I'm just having a little fun with your reasoning.  I'll take San Diego, and Boston, and Seattle, and San Francisco etc...you can keep Bucksnort, TN.    Just Kidding...I really just wanted to have an excuse to use Bucksnort in my response.  Ever since I was a kid I've gotten a kick out of that town's name.  Anyway, carry on good gentlemen.

I wouldn't object to visiting those places, as I've been to many of those places you've cited. I've been to Boston & Cape Cod. I've been to San Francisco and San Diego (missed out on Los Angeles as I narrowly missed being in the Rodney King riots of 22 years ago). Excluding San Diego from the equation, sadly those states have politics I find viscerally offensive, not only social, but epic-level and willful fiscal mismanagement (each going hand in hand with the other). I listen every day to scores of good, hard working folks whom have watched the deterioration of said states while swimming against the tide, trying to warn folks that going in this direction is unsustainable (fiscally and socially).

I think it's very sad the fragmentation and division of the country that has risen, especially since the '80s. Before long, we're going to have to have a serious discussion to resolve the fact that we have two diametrically opposed ideologies and what to do about it, because short of war or a mass epiphany of one side, I think a split is inevitable. Let those that wish to live under a particular ideology be able to do so without oppression or interference. Let the left have their utopian society and the right to have theirs, and the folks in the middle can choose which suits them (or have their own place). A peaceful divorce certainly beats going through another civil war.

Anyway, gotten off topic here... back to the Nashville 2015 Mayoral. Does Nashville have a Ted Cruz ? ;-)

[UTgrad09]

My perspective is that there are forward- and backward-looking Democrats and Republicans but painting with a broad brush is not often helpful in gaining and understanding of practical matters.  I'm more interested in what a candidate plans to do with the Fairgrounds or how they want to approach the TIF funds that apparently are still going to be needed to land the luxury hotels to support the Convention Center.

 

Seconded.

[BnaBreaker]

I admittedly don't have much to add on this topic since I'm not a resident and am not personally effected by any of the mayors policies, but I just wanted to point out say that I don't think a mayor's party affiliation really matters that much in the end, since much of what a mayor does falls outside the typical 'left-right' political spectrum that we see on a state and federal level.  I mean, OKC, for example, has a Republican mayor, and that city is enjoying a great urban renaissance under his leadership. 

[Neigeville2]

.... Let those that wish to live under a particular ideology be able to do so without oppression or interference. Let the left have their utopian society and the right to have theirs, and the folks in the middle can choose which suits them (or have their own place). A peaceful divorce certainly beats going through another civil war...

 

You're reminding me of someone on the Scene blog a while back who asked "if Tennessee secedes from the Union, can Nashville secede from Tennessee?"

 

This separation scenario is appealing, the problem is that the conservative bedroom communities and declining rural areas are inextricably linked to the liberal urban areas that generate most of the country's economic activity.  Moving across the county line to a different school district is about as far you can go towards a peaceful divorce. 

 

If the state legislature could somehow resist the temptation to tell Nashville, Memphis and VolksWagen how to run their affairs, maybe we'd all get along.  Unfortunately our politicians think they know more about how to run a car company than one of the most successful car companies on the planet, so I'm sure they they think they know what's best for Nashville as well.   I don't see an end.

[UTgrad09]

I admittedly don't have much to add on this topic since I'm not a resident and am not personally effected by any of the mayors policies, but I just wanted to point out say that I don't think a mayor's party affiliation really matters that much in the end, since much of what a mayor does falls outside the typical 'left-right' political spectrum that we see on a state and federal level.  I mean, OKC, for example, has a Republican mayor, and that city is enjoying a great urban renaissance under his leadership. 

 

I agree to a point, but there are quite obviously left and right issues that are influenced by local politics. Fiscal policies and social policies may not always have the same effect that they do on the state or federal level, but they are certainly evident.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You're reminding me of someone on the Scene blog a while back who asked "if Tennessee secedes from the Union, can Nashville secede from Tennessee?"

 

This separation scenario is appealing, the problem is that the conservative bedroom communities and declining rural areas are inextricably linked to the liberal urban areas that generate most of the country's economic activity.  Moving across the county line to a different school district is about as far you can go towards a peaceful divorce. 

 

If the state legislature could somehow resist the temptation to tell Nashville, Memphis and VolksWagen how to run their affairs, maybe we'd all get along.  Unfortunately our politicians think they know more about how to run a car company than one of the most successful car companies on the planet, so I'm sure they they think they know what's best for Nashville as well.   I don't see an end.

I disagree that they are necessarily "inextricably linked" to such areas. I think many Conservative areas could cut loose said counties from the fold and the politics that keep them held back and flourish greatly. Cutting loose Chicago/Cook County from Illinois and Detroit/Wayne County in MI & Philadelphia in PA, and those single counties hold back the rest of their states from running their affairs as they see fit. By doing so, those urban areas then don't have to complain if the rest of their states hold them back from engaging in the wildest of left-wing schemes of social policies and economic redistribution. They can go and do their proverbial "worst."

As for our own state, what you suggest is leaving Nashville and Memphis (and VW) to its own devices, free from interference from those "dastardly right-wingers" in the state government (something which is never suggested by the left to free the overwhelming rest of the nation from the Washington/NYC/Chicago/L.A. axis). That would be fine and dandy to do, if said entities didn't end up dragging down the rest of the state with policies they'd have to pay for. In the case of VW, especially, why would they wish to become a part of the very group that had a substantially heavy hand in destroying not only the city of Detroit, but an entire industry ?

That's why I favor such a separation, because those leftist enclaves and entities need the right (and more to the point, their money) a helluva lot more than we need them. It wouldn't take long before they'd come begging to take them back. That's the basic difference.

[samsonh]

I disagree that they are necessarily "inextricably linked" to such areas. I think many Conservative areas could cut loose said counties from the fold and the politics that keep them held back and flourish greatly. Cutting loose Chicago/Cook County from Illinois and Detroit/Wayne County in MI & Philadelphia in PA, and those single counties hold back the rest of their states from running their affairs as they see fit. By doing so, those urban areas then don't have to complain if the rest of their states hold them back from engaging in the wildest of left-wing schemes of social policies and economic redistribution. They can go and do their proverbial "worst."

As for our own state, what you suggest is leaving Nashville and Memphis (and VW) to its own devices, free from interference from those "dastardly right-wingers" in the state government (something which is never suggested by the left to free the overwhelming rest of the nation from the Washington/NYC/Chicago/L.A. axis). That would be fine and dandy to do, if said entities didn't end up dragging down the rest of the state with policies they'd have to pay for. In the case of VW, especially, why would they wish to become a part of the very group that had a substantially heavy hand in destroying not only the city of Detroit, but an entire industry ?

That's why I favor such a separation, because those leftist enclaves and entities need the right (and more to the point, their money) a helluva lot more than we need them. It wouldn't take long before they'd come begging to take them back. That's the basic difference.

 

Except basic facts disagree with you. Generally those urban areas have much higher per capita GDPs. The rural areas are the ones who benefit the most from economic redistribution. The Red states generally benefit greatly from federal funds. One wonders how effective you would find the TN state government if they were not the recipient in billions more federal dollars than they pay in. http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=9832647

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Yes, because I'm going to trust sources as diverse as Randi Rhodes, the NY Times and Mother Jones. *laughter*

[samsonh]

^Yes, because I'm going to trust sources as diverse as Randi Rhodes, the NY Times and Mother Jones. *laughter*

Ok, go to the source and look it up yourself

 

http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Gross-Collections,-by-Type-of-Tax-and-State,-Fiscal-Year-IRS-Data-Book-Table-5

http://www.transparency.gov/state-summary-tabular?tab=By+Location&tabletype=statesummary

 

*Laughter*

[fieldmarshaldj]

Well, then to take you at your word, look at all that money you'd have to shower on those left-wing urban areas without having to subsidize all those right-wing suburbs and rural areas. It'd be positively Nirvana. :-)

[samsonh]

Every big city would be San Francisco!

[Neigeville2]

Well, then to take you at your word, look at all that money you'd have to shower on those left-wing urban areas without having to subsidize all those right-wing suburbs and rural areas. It'd be positively Nirvana. :-)

 

I suspect this is true.  Well, not Nirvana exactly.  But if no one in Davidson Co paid any state taxes, but paid the same to Metro, we most likely wouldn't have any trouble raising the money for light rail.  Does anyone know the numbers in terms of what Davidson pays to the state? 

 

On the other hand, the truly rural counties like Perry and Grundy would most likely be even worse off.  Presumably Williamson would have plenty of resources. 

 

But my point isn't just about taxing/spending, but that (as an example) Williamson County exists in its current state (which wouldn't be my ideal choice design-wise, but it's at least fiscally solvent) not because it's full of Republicans, but only because it is adjacent to Davidson.  Even more so, Rutherford and Wilson don't have nearly enough jobs to employ the workers living there, while Davidson has generated far more jobs than can be filled by Davidsonians while simultaneously becoming a far more expensive place to live (although tax rates in Rutherford and Wilson are higher than Davidson, land is cheap there).  That's why there's all those cars on the interstate in the morning.  Maybe they should be charged a toll to enter Davidson County.

[BnaBreaker]

Davy, that's typically where, ya know, you admit that you were wrong and whatnot.    Or was that data not reliable enough for you either?  Perhaps you could share some of the sources that drove you to the contrary position? 

[fieldmarshaldj]

You can always spin facts and figures to support whatever side you wish to. With such a subject like this, especially so. I can state without hesitation that if such a divorce were to occur between the right and left areas, it would serve to benefit the former enormously so. Even with rich left areas, said moneys to fund government would be gone in short order because of the problem of chronic fiscal mismanagement. For a left-winger to support a balanced budget is acknowledgement that fiscal leftism is an utter failure.

Remember the situation we face today as a whole that we don't have a problem with tax revenues, the problem is exclusively one of spending. This is my central point. If you need a source for that, I'll point to the national debt since 2007 (when the Democrats reclaimed Congress followed by the current administration).

Anyway, we've gotten a bit away from the subject of the thread, which our humble mods would probably prefer we stick to. ;-)

[samsonh]

Fm,

Months ago we had a debate about economics, where I took a much more liberal position than you did about both monetary and fiscal policy. It's pretty clear my position was correct at this point. Why was your position incorrect at that time?

[fieldmarshaldj]

You're going to have to refresh my memory, since I don't recall the discussion (not to mention we've gotten far off topic here from the thread at hand).

[Paramount747]

The last remotely "Conservative" Mayor was Beverly Briley (1963-75), that if only because he endorsed liberal Republican Nixon for President in 1972 over the ultraleftist McGovern. Mayors in Nashville since have gotten more left-wing with each successive election, unfortunately, from Fulton onwards. Nothing "fiscally" let alone socially "Conservative" about any of them, mostly spendthrifts. Not even San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago or New York has gone on that long with one party in control of the Mayorship as Nashville has.

I don't know what a "ugh replusivecan" is, must be some bizarre frothing-at-the-mouth creation in Huffinglue land. As for a "tea bagger" Mayor, well, I've not grilled any of the former Mayors or current aspirants on their dysfunctional sexual proclivities. As for racists, it appears Councilman Jerry Maynard may try to corner that vote if he runs. Now, again, what we haven't had is a visionary Conservative Tea Partier in that office, which is so badly needed after that 127 years of one party rule, one whom is more in line with our responsible Conservative legislature, one of the best, brightest and most successful in the nation (and the reason why so many productive individuals are leaving insolvent and decayed Democrat-run states behind to move here).

Just as an aside, I've never had much of a high opinion of either the Mayors or the Metro Council over my lifetime, if only because my part of Nashville was either ignored or used as a proverbial dumping ground for the last 4 decades+. When Dean first ran against Bob Clement, this area overwhelmingly went for Clement. It's a simple response as to what Dean (or Purcell, or Bredesen) has done for my area, and the answer is "nothing."

You could always run for office to change things rather than rant on here Davy, no disrespect intended.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^I've been asked to run for Council in the past. Unfortunately, my health and constitution aren't in the greatest of shape.