I don’t have much in the way of commentary about last night’s elections. They were municipal and important, but local issues that effect these kinds of elections vary so much from place to place, I think it’s foolish to try to draw broad lessons about “what it all means.”
For my part, I’m happy with the results in Tippecanoe County. We seem to have competent management in Lafayette and West Lafayette, and the voters, with an exception in maybe one race, seem to have returned the incumbents to office.
Interesting in Marion County that all at-large seats were won by Democrats. If my memory of history is correct, the reason for at-large seats under UniGov was to guarantee four spots for Republicans. So it’s a 16-13 council lead for Democrats, instead of 15-13-1 (Lib) for Republicans.
Also, I hope the switch and the re-election of Ballard doesn’t create gridlock. If Ballard is smart — and it appears he is — I’m sure that it won’t. Interesting that Ballard and Kennedy both ran as if party affiliation were a mere formality. Ballard isn’t a Tea Partier, and he knows to keep his job he can’t be one when, on a county-wide basis, Democrats are consistently being elected.
As if to prove my analysis right, the first thing Ballard talks about post-election is expanding and improving mass transit. Not exactly a pure partisan play.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20111109/NEWS05/111090396/Mayor-Ballard-rolls-out-mass-transit-plan-state-lawmakers?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com
One of the things noteworthy about Ballard is that during his firm term he never reached out to Democrats or built relationships across the aisle. He literally would not even talk to them. The approach was always armtwisting by aides to keep the R majority in line. I have my doubts Ballard has the political ability to build coalitions with Democrats.
I don’t think Ballard’s agenda though will be blocked by the Democrats. A lot of Ballard’s policies involve handing out tax dollars and giving tax breaks to big, politically connected companies. Some of the insider deals he was involved with in his first term were downright embarassing. While the Democrats mostly voted against the unpopular insider deals, when it came time to make those votes into campaign issues, their county chairman wasn’t willing to do it. My guess is because he wanted to do the same thing if his party won.
I think enough Democrats will cross over for Ballard’s new insider deals to cause them to pass. At the end of the day, there is one set of people who control Indanapolis politics and it doesn’t seem to matter which party wins.
First up, expect Ballard to agree to give the Pacers a subsidy of about $15 million a year for each of the next 7 years, over $100 million.
One potential “local issue” for Indiana that probably won’t become one now that Mississippi voters had had their say yesterday is a constitutional amendment that would define “personhood” from the moment of conception.
Leaving that field mostly to corporations, (from date of incorporation I suppose) , thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.
If my memory of history is correct, the reason for at-large seats under UniGov was to guarantee four spots for Republicans.
That is an interesting tidbit, thanks for sharing.
If you look at a precinct by precinct analysis of the vote, you will find that black precincts vote Democrat by literally 100 to 1. Thus, a few black precincts can so overwhelmingly turn an election towards the Democrats that the Republican simply cannot overcome in the ‘burbs, which might be only as much as 55% Republican.