The Ugly Facts - UFT Helped Adams and charters by ignoring Wiley, AOC Votes Stringer #2 questioning METOO auto cancellation

Mulgrew told people not to vote for Adams. But in essence he may have helped Adams get elected. Mulgrew and the UFT could have taken advantage of RCV (see Politico below) --- but the UFT is center/right Democratic Party and Wiley was too far out -- they won't say it but would rather have Adams than Wiley - better to have more charters? Was it an error in judgment or a calculated political decision? No one outside the black box of narrow UFT decision making knows.

How dangerous is Adams? Ross Barkan let's us know.

Eric Adams and the Weapon of Identity

The Left doesn't quite know what could hit them

Eric Adams, Unleashed

https://rossbarkan.substack.com/p/eric-adams-unleashed

And City and State reports: 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she ranked Maya Wiley and Scott Stringer as her Nos. 1 and 2 picks for New York City mayor while making no mention of the sexual harassment accusations swirling around Stringer, the Daily News reports. 

Given that METOO was weaponized against Stringer, I see the AOC vote as a significant form of vindication - and condemnation of aspects of meetoo and automatic cancellation. And to some extent a point for Mulgrew and the UFT for sticking with Stringer. 

But I keep asking how Mulgrew and his three men and one woman in the room make their decisions. But when you examine the history of real UFT politics - not what they say but what they do -- you can see that what I said to open this conversation is accurate. Better right wing than left wing.

Mulgrew has helped elect Adams by ignoring Wiley

My problem with the UFT is that they didn't offer alt choices, totally ignoring the new RCV system. In other words, locking us into a loser, once again. Many of us, and some inside the UFT itself, pushed for at the very least Wiley as a #2. With her in 2nd place and with a chance to overtake Adams, in essence Mulgew has helped Adams despite calling for him and Yang to be left off the ballot.

So if Wiley could have beaten Adams if the UFT had backed her, watch what happens when charters invade in force and Mulgrew will run away from this mistake.

I think the Stringer collapse and the questions raised as progressives blew a chance to win will have repercussions. Every male candidate better search his past back to elementary school. I just remembered, I looked up a girl's dress when I was 5. 

Here are some of my reports on the UFT, Stringer and the questionable charges.

• Mayoral Election Update: UFT/AFT Defiantly Doubles...
• What Should Next School Year Look Like? - An Educa...
• Krystal Ball on Stringer Charges: Are Progressives...
• UFT Sticks with Stringer Despite MORE Calls to Dro...

Here's an example explaining how Mulgrew and the UFT could have taken advantage of RCV -- but the UFT is center/right Democratic Party and Wiley was too far out -- they won't say it but would rather have Adams - just as they'd prefer Trump to a Bernie.

Politico: RANKED CHOICE VOTING: IT’S AUSTRALIAN FOR ELECTIONS — Ranked choice voting isn’t complicated — but you’d never know it from New York City’s mayoral race.

When Nightly contacted each of the top candidates, not one of them had a plan for telling their voters how to rank the rest of the candidates on their ballots. Sure, Andrew Yang has been saying for months that he would rank Kathryn Garcia second, and he urged his supporters to do so at a weekend rally — but he failed to even update his website with the instruction. A list of ranked-choice recommendations is not posted on any candidate’s site, or printed on their mailers. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave a more detailed RCV guide for downballot races than any of the mayoral candidates did for their own race.

That’s Election 101 stuff in Australia, my home country and the global capital of ranked choice voting , where the system is used in all elections from college campuses to federal elections. In New York, where I live now, voting may be about to end at 9 p.m. ET, but the crapshoot among five leading candidates is only just starting.

Ever since New Yorkers voted by a 74-26 margin to introduce ranked choice voting in 2019 — joining the state of Maine and cities including San Francisco and Minneapolis — the system has been under attack, including from Eric Adams, the leading candidate in today’s mayoral race . In a decision that may fuel suspicions, the city’s notorious election board won’t commit to timely publication of ongoing vote totals.

But the real problem has been the failure of the candidates to adapt their campaign strategies to the new system. In a ranked choice system, self-interest dictates that a candidate should make deals with rivals and communicate those deals with voters. But admitting you need voters who think you’re only second-best is the antithesis of New York toughness.

The lowest-ranked candidates could have formed a coalition to take on the big shots, while the more left-wing candidates such as Maya Wiley, Scott Stringer and Dianne Morales could have worked together to blunt the moderates at the top of opinion polls.

Instead it was moderate Kathryn Garcia who did most to explore preference deals, and even that was half-hearted. She failed to return the favor when Yang recommended her as his second choice.

Australia’s experience with ranked choice voting shows that deals among candidates can affect the results. Australian candidates have won ranked choice elections with as little as 0.2 percent of first choice votes . Senator Ricky Muir won a Senate seat in 2013 after starting with 0.5 percent of the vote: He vacuumed up another half million or so votes from voters who ranked him second or lower, closing a 400,000 vote gap. (Muir is an exception, though. The main outcome the system has led to in the Australian Senate, where eight parties are represented, is diversity without gridlock.)

More common are “Anyone But X” campaigns. In San Francisco, mayoral candidates Jane Kim and Mark Leno formed a tactical alliance against Mayor London Breed, getting within 2,500 votes of unseating her in 2018.

In New York, Adams — a former Republican — is a vulnerable frontrunner sitting at the top of opinion polls with just 24 percent support. An “Anyone by Adams” campaign could have worked, but his rivals missed that tactical opportunity, leaving it up to individual anti-Adams voters to coordinate to defeat him.

Polls alone should have told the leading candidates the usual tactics wouldn’t cut it. Five candidates have regularly polled in double digits — Adams, Andrew Yang, Kathryn Garcia, Maya Wiley and Scott Stringer — but none is polling above 25 percent. That means each of them needs to double or triple their vote totals to win by collecting second, third, fourth and fifth preference votes as their lower-ranked rivals are eliminated and their votes are redistributed.

In the absence of coordinated rivals, Adams used his frontrunner status to slam ranked choice voting as a form of voter suppression: “Everyone knows that every layer you put in place in the process, you lose Black and brown voters and participation,” he told POLITICO. He railed Monday against Yang and Garcia for finally daring to campaign together.

By Adams’ logic, the same people who voted for ranked choice voting are going to be disenfranchised by it. But voters say they’re happy with the system, and Adams is in pole position. In 96 percent of American ranked choice elections since 2004, the candidate with the most first-preference votes ended up winning.

It’s not even New York’s first time at this rodeo: A version of ranked choice voting was in place from 1936 to 1947, allowing the first women and black candidates to be elected to the City Council. The local Democratic machine disliked the reduced control that ranked choice voting forced on them, and worked for years to abolish the system.

As the leading candidate, Adams cannot coast to victory under ranked choice. Instead, he must listen to and appeal to voters well beyond his base. If he fails in that task, one of the lower ranked candidates will sweep up second preference votes and overtake him when the final results are tabulated sometime in the week of July 12.

If Adams ends up winning, he may work to kill New York’s new voting system. His rivals would have only themselves to blame.

Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas for us at rheath@politico.com, or on Twitter at @politicoryan.

Another interesting article on RCV

https://www.wired.com/story/ranked-choice-voting-reveals-the-weird-math-of-elections

Krystal Ball on Stringer Charges: Are Progressives Falling For Another MeToo SCAM?

May 6, 2021, 8:30 AM

Yesterday, I had an extensive report on The Intercept investigation of the charges against Scott Stringer that have blown up the mayoral race:  UFT Sticks with Stringer Despite MORE Calls to Drop him, The Intercept Casts Doubts on Accuser, Wiley Hypcorisy on Biden and Stringer

I included links to the written story and a video of coverage on Rising.

Rising followed up the day after with Krystal focusing her aim on MeToo political hits, including the guys who primaried Nancy Pelosi and Richard Neal when fake stuff was leaked at a strategic point that made it impossible to recover. And that was my main beef and suspicians about Jean Kim who waited 20 years until just the right moment. Now people have been telling me I jumped the gun because more women may come out against Stringer. We may have to vet every woman he ever dated. Krystal, coming from the almost hard left, as does the Interecept reporter Ryan Grim, are important voices even though they risk cancellation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B6D7l-ajpY

Krystal Ball: Are Progressives Falling For Another MeToo SCAM?

UPDATED: UFT Mayoral Election Update: Wiley/Stringer vs Yang/Adams With a Twist

Monday, APRIL 5, 2021 - 

Friday night I posted an early version of this story about the UFT final four mayoral forum this Wednesday, April 7. I reposted earlier today and then even more info came in - so this is a 4th rewrite.

 ---- Norm Scott

UFT Media Advisory: UFT Invites "Final Four" Candidates to Forum, Sets Stage for Endorsement in Democratic Mayoral Primary:  Four candidates for the June Democratic primary -- Eric Adams, Scott Stringer, Maya Wiley and Andrew Yang -- have been invited to take part in the final mayoral forum sponsored by the United Federation of Teachers... The forum, chaired by UFT President Michael Mulgrew, will be held on Wednesday, April 7, at 4 p.m. at UFT headquarters at 52 Broadway.  Mulgrew and the candidates are expected to appear in person (socially distanced), along with a small audience of UFT members.  All others, including the press, will be able to watch online. --- UFT Media

There are a lot of knots in recent events surrounding the UFT process for endorsing a candidate for mayor, something they haven't gotten right since Dinkins 30 years ago. Bloomberg called a UFT endorsement the kiss of death. Maybe they should sit this one out.

And what exactly is the process for endorsing candidates? Three guys and gals in a room? I mean how exactly was the final four chosen? 

Watch the name Cassie Prugh, UFT's high level political operative who comes straight from the Cuomo administration. She fits perfectly with the Machiavellian operation at Unity Caucus. What did she know and when did she know it when she worked for Cuomo?  She's a major player in UFT political decisions.

 

 

 

The REAL final four - forget basketball - will be April 7

Did Yang have to make a three point shot at the buzzer to make the final four?

 

Mulgrew announced the candidates who made the cut last Friday - Given the UFT history of failure in these endorsements these candidates might not be celebrating.

People were shocked at the inclusion of Yang, who had attacked the UFT and blamed the union for keeping schools closed, clearly wrongheaded and mistaken since it has been the rank and file resistance that would never have opened schools in the first place and has been critical of the leadership for even considering to work with de Blasio to open schools partially.

Mulgrew had recently referred to Yang as "Bloomberg Reincarnated."  But he's under consideration? But in Arthur's notes Mulgrew said: To not have Yang would be crazy because he's frontrunner in every poll. Would be irresponsible not to have him answer. Not just about policy, but viability.

No less an eminence than Diane Ravitch, upon hearing the news asked:  

Why is Andrew Yang in the final four when he supports public  money for religious schools and more charters?

I would ask the same question, though our own glorious national leader also supports public money for religious schools. [Outrage at Randi Grows -- Schumer and a Teachers’ Union Leader Secure Billions for Private Schools, NYT]

And of course Adams is also pro-charter - so two out of the four finalists seem willing to turn more of our public schools over to anti-union charters. A giant WTF.

My first thought was that the UFT can't really endorse Yang - maybe Adams - but they are the front runners so the UFT plays the "who can possibly win" game even of they would screw the membership. 

Rank choice voting gives the UFT a few options.

Betting on Thompson Surge as I Pulled the Lever for .....

Don't count your di Blasio chickens yet.

On my short 2 minute walk to the polling booth I was listening to Brian Lehrer and a woman said she changed her mind about di Blasio because of the Wayne Barrett and Slate articles -- they bothered me too.

She was going to Thompson. I detect a late Thompson surge and some wearing away of diBlasio support and will make a rough guess that di Blasio numbers will drop to the mid thirties - say 35-6% and Thompson's will head toward the late 20's. A very competitive run-off I will bet at the power forces push Thompson. Where will Quinn's votes go for instance? Thompson, mostly.

My gut instincts that both Thompson and di Blasio will screw us but if I look at self interest alone -- a) A runoff between them would be lots of fun and b) Better Thompson, the UFT choice, screws us.

But I also feel that diBlasio's electoral constituency would hold him more accountable than Thompson's, so better to have Big Bill rather than little Bill.

However, in the booth I just had to give Sal Albanese a pop, especially since Kevin Boyle my editor at The Wave is so passionate about showing that there is a constituency for guys like him. Since Big Bill will be in the runoff we can go there next time. Or maybe not given how much fun it would be to watch Little Bill tilt to Tisch rather than to Mulgrew.

At any rate, yesterday I raised my problem in who to vote for for Queens Borough President and lo and behold there was dropout Tony Avella, my fave politician, still on the ballot. And so I wasted yet another vote.

But did vote for Scott Stringer who is clearly a hack but Patrick Sullivan influenced me there. Spitzer doesn't seem to be able to win but it would be fun to watch if he did.

Oh, and of course Leticia James who I feel has great potential as a populist politician.

Breaking: NYPD String Safety Nets Around 52 Broadway in Case Thompson Doesn't Make Runoff

With so much at stake for the gang running the UFT and AFT (Randi) -- but not so much for NY city teachers -- who one would think are their main constituency -- there is fear that bodies will come crashing down from the roof of the UFT headquarters if Bill Thompson doesn't make it into the runoff, though I agree with Reality Based Educator that he probably will (2013 Election: Predictions And Endorsements).

[I interrupt this report to report that Ednotes online just passed 2 million page views since July 2009 when I started using the Google counter].

Just think of it. Can Bill di Blasio really be worse for UFT members than Thompson? Though I also agree with RBE not to trust di Blasio, Thompson is worse (Bill Thompson Hit The Brooklyn Streets Yesterday With Al D'amato Trolling For Votes).
Actually, much worse.

But this past weekend we saw the desperation with Leo Casey whining on twitter about how irresponsible MORE has been in not endorsing a candidate given that this is the most important election in poor Leo's life. We also saw New Action's Halabi tag teaming with his pal Leo in also making a point about MORE's non-endorsement. Yes, if Thompson loses it is all MORE's fault - as if the endorsement by a small caucus in the UFT would actually make a difference. We are not as pretentious as New Action was 4 years ago in endorsing Thompson and making that a big issue in their campaign in the UFT elections. Yawn.

I'm not going to get into the details of why on paper di Blasio seems better for educators and education than Thompson but this is all about power at the top, not about what is good for the rank and file. And for students and parents. So what else is new?

I saw that Thompson's big move is to allow parents to chose a member of the PEP. Gee wiz. Hey Bill, how about allowing parents to choose the entire PEP (other than the 5 borough president choices)?

You can't tell me that a guy supported by D'Amato and Tisch is good for us.

If di Blasio actually cuts into the charter lobby and makes charters pay the damn rent - which I am ready to bet he won't - then that is worth seeing him in office. As RBE points out (Bloomberg Furious He Can't Stop Attacks On His "Legacy), just having a guy win who trashes Bloomberg's legacy brings a smile to my face. But I really think he will turn into another Obama.

And there was that Wayne Barrett piece - What you don't know about Big Bill- Digging deeper into de Blasio's associations.

Scary stuff.

Imagine this scenario: di Blasio wins and screws us and the UFT leadership says "we told you so." As an organizer in the union trying to get people to join MORE, I would much rather have Thompson screw us so we can say "told you so."

By the way, I'm sure you noticed RBE's amazing election coverage and analysis at Perdido Street School blog.

He is holding his nose and voting for diB. I was thinking of going for Sal Albanese but am also thinking that if my vote puts Bill D over the 40% I'd hate to lose that opportunity. Sal was endorsed by The Wave out here (It’s Sal) and they made a good case for that not being a wasted vote. (If the link above doesn't work, you can read the endorsement editorial below the break. -- but here's a sample:

If you’re not crazy about any of the candidates—and admit it, you’re not -- hold on. Say the polls are fairly accurate and Sal will finish far behind. Your vote for Sal still holds value. Your vote will actually signal something to those left standing. Your “Sal” vote will be considered an “undecided” vote and will be sought after in a runoff or the general election.

I actually have mixed feelings about the idea of a runoff with Thompson. I'm thinking of the advantage of keeping that race alive and giving less time for the Lhota dogs to come out in force against dB.

I agree with RBE about Tish James for Public Advocate. She has steadily been moving in the direction of the forces battling ed deform.

I do not agree with his points about not endorsing Stringer though the idea of Spitzer winning (which I think he won't) in office putting burs in everyone's butt. I am voting Stringer out of loyalty to Patrick Sullivan who he appointed to the PEP even if I agree with RBE that he could get away with it given that Patrick was often a lone voice. Still .... Patrick is a Stringer guy and I am going with that.

I have a problem with the Queens borough president race since my guy Tony Avella dropped out. I don't like Valone or Katz, who is  the partner of Curtis Sliwa who makes me gag. And the BP picks a PEP person so it is important but if I had to hold my nose I would go for Katz --- no, I can't do it.

My local Assemblyman, Phil Goldfeder, is a great guy and has made himself a Rockaway fave, so that's a no brainer.

Well, gotta go exercise my voting arm -- those old voting machines are rusty.

Real Politics: Will They Turn de Blasio into Mark Green and make Lhota King?

If De Blasio wins the runoff and then the nomination, there will be an attempt to "Mark Green" him. But I don't think they will be able to do that easily.

Most interesting would be a run-off with Thompson -- watch the unions battle that one out. But all along some of us have watched the machinations -- ie, Tisch and D'Amato for Thompson - as part of the campaign to get their real guy in -- Lhota -- in an attempt to repeat 2001.

Let's review the 2001 mayoral race that brought Bloomberg to power. Hevesi, the crook, was enthusiastically endorsed by the UFT in August -- I was at that Ex Bd meeting where Randi introduced him with such glowing words. The UFT would not go near Ferrar or Green. So when they made the runoff, the UFT held its nose and endorsed Ferrar. Ooops. Two-time losers. So when Green won the runoff they again held their noses and very reluctantly endorsed Green. Voila: Bloomberg. UFT- 3 time losers, never to go near a mayoral endorsement again until this time.

(Sidenote: I was at an Ex Bd meeting I think back in May or June, 2001 when Randi started to giggle as she said:  Bloomberg wants to stop by and will be here in 10 minutes -- her attitude was so smug. So Bloomberg does show and makes his pitch and everyone is polite. I made sure to give him ed notes on his way out. I really had little idea who he was. I would never suggest the UFT should have endorsed him or sat out the mayoral race.)

So just how much did the UFT leadership's poor political judgement lead to 12 years of hell for educators? I leave you to judge. And how desperate are they now to not be proven wrong once again with their Thompson endorsement? How deaf are they to the outrage of the Tisch connection or the D'Amato support or the growing Thompson scandals?

A perfect example: Randi's attack on de Blasio for his pre-k plan where she disparaged his funding plans as being unrealistic instead of saying: we think your plan is unrealistic but we are on board to make it happen in any way we can. How embarassing that Randi endorsed Thompson BEFORE the Delegate Assembly? And Thompson's waiting in the wings? And the phony explanation? I'm betting that an enormous number of teachers are ignoring the UFT pleas.

Let's examine the current state of the mayoral race as the dynamic changes every day.

A few weeks ago it looked like a Weiner/Quinn runoff. Then it looked like Quinn/Thompson for a brief time. Then came the de Blasio surge, leaving Quinn and Thompson to battle for the last run-off position. Imagine if Thompson doesn't make the run-off. Where does the UFT go? Quinn or de Blasio?

I predict they sit round 2 out and just endorse whoever wins the Dem nom. If Lhota wins (never say never) then the UFT can claim they were only 2 time losers instead of 3.

------
Afterburn
I don't trust de Blasio - any more than the others. I would bet a substantial sum that he forgets all about the charters paying rent or many of the other parts of his programs. Watch one day Howard Wolfson stand by his side with Bloomberg's support and praise Bill's "willing to listen to reason." And if he wins and runs for re-election in '17, see who will support him. And watch who he appoints to the PEP and as chancellor. Should be fun.

While I would vote for Sal or Liu-- and still may just to make a statement to the winner that there is support for a more liberal agenda.

RBE has not let up on the reporting, so check all the posts out.
Here are some links:

NY Times Follows Thompson Story Up With De Blasio Story

Yesterday the Times put a front page story out that essentially said Bill Thompson is a crook.

They've done "expose" stories on Quinn, Weiner, and now Thompson, so I figured the de Blasio "expose" was coming soon.

Tonight they're out with it, and if this is all they've got on him, it's not much.

De Blasio's Cozy Relationship With The Real Estate Industry

Dunno why the NY Post and NY Daily News editorial boards are upset at the prospect of a de Blasio mayorality.

As Dana Rubenstein shows in an extensive post at Politicker, de Blasio was very happy to cut deals on the Atlantic Yards mess, the Gowanus Canal sell-out to Toll Brothers, and a Fourth Avenue rezoning for taller buildings that the Bloomberg administration wanted.

Perdido Street on Thompson: Political Hack And Walking Conflict Of Interest

After a closer look at Thompson's political record and associations, he is no less a crook and a hack than Quinn herself. And to be honest, I'm not so sure he isn't worse than Quinn. .... RBE

Councilman Jumaane Williams explained mayoral hopeful Bill Thompson‘s race relations speech by musing about his poll numbers among black voters. “I think he originally felt that certain segments of the population were going to go with him automatically. He started looking at polls and seeing that wasn’t happening,” he said. “Thompson’s trying to have it both ways without putting any skin in the game.”

Reality-Based Educator nails it. Remember how the UFT first endorsement in 2001 was one Alan Hevesi?

This is so good I am printing it and adding it to my sandwich for lunch.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Bill Thompson - Political Hack And Walking Conflict Of Interest

With the Anthony Weiner poll plummet made official by yesterday's Quinnipiac poll release (Weiner dropped to fourth in the race; 53% of New Yorkers say he should drop out), I am starting to turn my attention back to the candidate whose policies I can live with who will be most effective at taking on Christine Quinn in a runoff.
The Marist poll from last week and yesterday's Quinnipiac poll release show us that the two candidates with a good chance to make the runoff against Quinn are Bill Thompson, the former NYC comptroller, and Bill de Blasio, the current Public Advocate.

Read it all:  http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2013/07/bill-thompson-political-hack-and.html

Though many teachers I know favor Liu or even Sal Albanese, the default position will be Thompson or de Blasio, who I don't particularly love either. But if I were voting today that is where my vote would go. Just don't ask me what I think tomorrow.