ACTION ALERT: Hang Hand-Made Signs Supporting JEREMIAH STANBACK for DC Mayor
ACTION ALERT: At least 10,000 of Washington, DC's 145,000 food stamp recipients and other struggling residents should hang hand-made back-to-back signs that say "Vote JEREMIAH STANBACK for DC Mayor on June 19th, 2018" on light and sign poles in their respective neighborhoods. If 10,000 poor and dispossessed people of conscience in DC would each invest in two to four pairs of signs, we could generate enough name recognition for one of incumbent mayoral candidate Muriel Bowser's 11 little-known Democratic primary contenders to give her the run for her money -- i.e. her $2 million campaign war chest. This tactic is especially important in the final month before the election. So, in mid-May (10th to 15th) when you read the annual Washington Post article about the number of homeless people that the city counted this past January, remember that it's time to hang those signs and create some competition for Ms. Bowser -- if you haven't already done so by then.
I'll explain why this relatively simple act is the single best power-building tactic that the underprivileged people of our nation's capital can employ:
This past week I was speaking with a friend about the fact that none of those who are running against DC Mayor Muriel Bowser in the Democratic primary (for which the deadline to declare one's candidacy was March 21st) is considered to be a "viable" candidate. Caitlin then asked me, "Who are we to decide who's 'viable' and who's not???". Her point immediately struck me as a valid one -- not that it's up to me to validate anyone. That said, this flap about viability speaks to the issue of empowerment. It says that the media and political pundits often assume that their assessment of a candidate determines how the general public sees that candidate and how people will vote. As Caitlin implied, we need to turn this assumption on its head. She went on to suggest that name recognition, as opposed to good public service, might be the primary reason as to why any candidate for public office wins an election, which only begins to explain the logic for the aforementioned idea.
On Resurrection Sunday (which doubled as April Fools' Day) I read a Facebook reply to a comment I'd made about how the poor and dispossessed people of Washington, DC need to learn and begin to use the power they have -- to take advantage of the fact that the 145K people on food stamps is more than triple the 42K that voted for Muriel Bowser in April 2014. The respondent reminded me that the poor have asserted their power multiple times by voting for "Mayor for Life" Marion Barry (1979-1991 and 1995-1999), but agreed that they have indeed forgotten how much power they have. (I came to DC in the summer of 2005, some 6.5 years after Barry's last mayoral term ended.) In the 19 years since Marion Barry left the office of the mayor the plight of DC's poor has gotten considerably worse and gentrification has been greatly expedited. The burden of reversing gentrification for the homeless and the tenuously-housed might rest on the shoulders of a homeless mayoral candidate named Jeremiah Stanback. Interestingly enough, him winning the Democratic primary as a result of mere name recognition might be all it takes to begin the process of reversing gentrification. Whether or not he were to go on to win the general election in November, his defeat of the incumbent in the primary would cause the 22% of Washingtonians who are living in extreme poverty to feel empowered yet again. It would be the spark that would light the fire of a local poor people's movement. It would turn several long-standing political norms on their heads.
Let's face it: Countless hours of effort by dozens of advocates across the city are met in Jeremiah Stanback. Many Washingtonians worked for multiple years to effect the passage of legislation that would take money out of politics. A few months ago they succeeded at getting the DC Council to pass legislation that would give campaign money to candidates for public office who weren't likely to raise money any other way. This legislation makes it unnecessary for candidates to rely on developers who are the primary donors to DC's political campaigns -- especially the mayor's. This, in turn, means that elected officials will no longer be beholden to developers while in public office. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially threatened not to fund such an initiative, if the bill were passed into law; but, she bowed to pressure and put $860K into the Fiscal Year 19 budget as an initial installment to the fund created by this new law -- in an apparent effort to win votes and to assuage any fears that she seeks re-election so that she can continue to do the bidding of developers. However FY 19 doesn't begin until October 1st, 2018; and, these funds wouldn't be distributed quickly enough to have an impact on the November 6th general election.
That brings us back to Jeremiah Stanback. Were 10,000 Washingtonians to make signs using poster board or cardboard and either staple or tape them to nearby poles in the weeks leading up to the June 19th primary, that would eliminate the need for Mr. Stanback to raise millions or even tens of thousands of dollars in order to stand a chance at defeating the incumbent. It's conceivable that each poor household could spend less than $10 to support their next champion -- who would do more for them by winning round one of two than any DC mayor in recent history has done for the city's poor while in office. Of course, these thousands of hand-made signs would have to translate into about 100,000 primary votes for Jeremiah Stanback. That would be more than twice the 42,000 votes that Bowser got in 2014 and more than enough to embarrass her beyond words. (BTW, these words have been e-mailed to Ms. Bowser. Let's see if the possibility of a Stanback victory worries the Bowser administration enough to make them approach the candidate with housing and/or other services.)
With the city having counted 7,298 homeless people in January 2015 (the same month that Ms. Bowser took office as mayor) and having counted 7,473 homeless people in 2017 (a net increase of 175 people), it would be great if the Bowser administration were to connect this candidate to housing; but, reality says that Bowser would only feel compelled to do so if Jeremiah Stanback were to gain enough name recognition to pose a threat to her. A mayor who ran for office in 2014 on false pretenses of wanting to address homelessness would finally begin to make good on her stated intentions -- like a scene out of the movie "Ghost" wherein Whoopi Golberg's diviner character summons a real ghost. Mayor Bowser would have to set forth a real plan for addressing homelessness -- one that actually works -- lest Mr. Stanback call "BS" on her and she loses the general election as a direct result of having her BS exposed for what it is. That said, the pressures that many advocates for the homeless have exerted on local government for decades are met in Jeremiah Stanback.
Let's not forget about the city's Comprehensive Plan -- the 20-year document which guides gentrification...err development for DC Government. With the current Comp Plan (2006-2026) going through its second and final amendment cycle, Mayor Bowser is suggesting edits that would serve as a catalyst to gentrification. The amendment cycle will end in mid-June, right before the primary. The Comprehensive Plan will pretty much be set in stone through 2026 by June 19th, 2018. However, if Mr. Stanback were to appear to present a serious threat to Bowser and the status quo, then the mayor might back off of her gentrification-enhancing amendments to the Comp Plan before they become law for the next eight years. Jeremiah Stanback would have to present a threat though.
As things currently stand in DC, former mayor Vince Gray is likely to enter the general election as an Independent and could face off with Muriel Bowser who unseated him in the April 2014 primary or, more debasingly, against a homeless man who beat the woman who beat Mr. Gray. Muriel Bowser, after a primary defeat, could still seek thousands of signatures in order to get on the ballot as an Independent and then face off with Jeremiah Stanback and Vince Gray in November. It's worth noting that, during the signature-gathering process, she's likely to be mocked for having been defeated by a homeless man and ostracized for having not done enough to stop or reverse gentrification -- for instead having expedited it. This prospect of shaming her into doing better by her low-income constituents (if only from June 20th until November 7th -- were she to lose the general election) should be a selling point for many DC voters and cause them to buy into this cheap but effective idea. Though the incumbent or the former mayor could win as an Independent in November following a Stanback victory in June, either experienced mayor would be forced to show greater respect and concern for DC's poor and dispossessed population. That's not all that would change.
If Mr. Stanback were to lose the general election to an Independent candidate eventually, it would represent the first time since DC got Home Rule in 1973 that the mayor was not a Democrat (in name anyway). This would essentially end the age-old assumption that the winner of the mayoral Democratic primary is a shoe-in for the office of the mayor come November. It would probably stop all local politicians and candidates from taking anything for granted anymore. All he has to do is win the first of two rounds. As a result:
DC could have its first non-Democratic mayor.
The independent wouldn't have to answer to a political party.
The Democrat-turned-Independent could give the political middle finger to their former party.
The people would have gotten money out of politics more effectively than any law ever could.
The re-elected mayor (Gray???) would know that s/he is beholden to all DC voters.
What's more is that a primary victory for a long-shot candidate would be likely to cause dozens of people to enter the general election as Independents in hopes of offering what they figure are better choices than Jeremiah Stanback. The field of candidates would likely surpass the 23 we saw in the 2016 presidential race. As it turns out, a high number of candidates in the primary or the general election makes merely voting against an ineffective incumbent an ineffective strategy. If the votes against the incumbent are split too many ways, she could be the first mayor to be re-elected since 2002 and could set a record for winning with the lowest number of votes in the city's history. That begins to explain why I've put forth a singular name as someone that those who dislike Muriel Bowser can vote for in June. Irrespective of what anyone thinks Mr. Stanback will or won't do as mayor, we can rally behind him as a way of eliminating Muriel Bowser and then decide after June 19th which of the candidates that come out of the woodwork for the general election we prefer -- Mr. Stanback or one of the other 30 or so candidates.
So, you don't need to know much about Mr. Stanback to vote for him in June. You just need to know that he is our "anti-Bowser" -- our one candidate that we who dislike Muriel Bowser can agree to vote for in order to get her out of office. You should also know that he is homeless and that his long-shot primary victory would carry with it a message for all local politicians -- the message that Washingtonians demand truly affordable housing. His primary victory would make the general election more competitive and would guarantee that all candidates are pummeled with hard questions about how they plan to create affordable housing and to alleviate poverty as a whole. Whoever takes office in January after a Stanback primary victory -- whether it's Jeremiah Stanback or someone else -- would be guaranteed to work for the city's poor unless the poor forget their power and stop applying pressure. So.....
Hang those signs by May 20th and vote Jeremiah Stanback for mayor on (or before) June 19th.
I'll explain why this relatively simple act is the single best power-building tactic that the underprivileged people of our nation's capital can employ:
This past week I was speaking with a friend about the fact that none of those who are running against DC Mayor Muriel Bowser in the Democratic primary (for which the deadline to declare one's candidacy was March 21st) is considered to be a "viable" candidate. Caitlin then asked me, "Who are we to decide who's 'viable' and who's not???". Her point immediately struck me as a valid one -- not that it's up to me to validate anyone. That said, this flap about viability speaks to the issue of empowerment. It says that the media and political pundits often assume that their assessment of a candidate determines how the general public sees that candidate and how people will vote. As Caitlin implied, we need to turn this assumption on its head. She went on to suggest that name recognition, as opposed to good public service, might be the primary reason as to why any candidate for public office wins an election, which only begins to explain the logic for the aforementioned idea.
On Resurrection Sunday (which doubled as April Fools' Day) I read a Facebook reply to a comment I'd made about how the poor and dispossessed people of Washington, DC need to learn and begin to use the power they have -- to take advantage of the fact that the 145K people on food stamps is more than triple the 42K that voted for Muriel Bowser in April 2014. The respondent reminded me that the poor have asserted their power multiple times by voting for "Mayor for Life" Marion Barry (1979-1991 and 1995-1999), but agreed that they have indeed forgotten how much power they have. (I came to DC in the summer of 2005, some 6.5 years after Barry's last mayoral term ended.) In the 19 years since Marion Barry left the office of the mayor the plight of DC's poor has gotten considerably worse and gentrification has been greatly expedited. The burden of reversing gentrification for the homeless and the tenuously-housed might rest on the shoulders of a homeless mayoral candidate named Jeremiah Stanback. Interestingly enough, him winning the Democratic primary as a result of mere name recognition might be all it takes to begin the process of reversing gentrification. Whether or not he were to go on to win the general election in November, his defeat of the incumbent in the primary would cause the 22% of Washingtonians who are living in extreme poverty to feel empowered yet again. It would be the spark that would light the fire of a local poor people's movement. It would turn several long-standing political norms on their heads.
Let's face it: Countless hours of effort by dozens of advocates across the city are met in Jeremiah Stanback. Many Washingtonians worked for multiple years to effect the passage of legislation that would take money out of politics. A few months ago they succeeded at getting the DC Council to pass legislation that would give campaign money to candidates for public office who weren't likely to raise money any other way. This legislation makes it unnecessary for candidates to rely on developers who are the primary donors to DC's political campaigns -- especially the mayor's. This, in turn, means that elected officials will no longer be beholden to developers while in public office. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially threatened not to fund such an initiative, if the bill were passed into law; but, she bowed to pressure and put $860K into the Fiscal Year 19 budget as an initial installment to the fund created by this new law -- in an apparent effort to win votes and to assuage any fears that she seeks re-election so that she can continue to do the bidding of developers. However FY 19 doesn't begin until October 1st, 2018; and, these funds wouldn't be distributed quickly enough to have an impact on the November 6th general election.
That brings us back to Jeremiah Stanback. Were 10,000 Washingtonians to make signs using poster board or cardboard and either staple or tape them to nearby poles in the weeks leading up to the June 19th primary, that would eliminate the need for Mr. Stanback to raise millions or even tens of thousands of dollars in order to stand a chance at defeating the incumbent. It's conceivable that each poor household could spend less than $10 to support their next champion -- who would do more for them by winning round one of two than any DC mayor in recent history has done for the city's poor while in office. Of course, these thousands of hand-made signs would have to translate into about 100,000 primary votes for Jeremiah Stanback. That would be more than twice the 42,000 votes that Bowser got in 2014 and more than enough to embarrass her beyond words. (BTW, these words have been e-mailed to Ms. Bowser. Let's see if the possibility of a Stanback victory worries the Bowser administration enough to make them approach the candidate with housing and/or other services.)
With the city having counted 7,298 homeless people in January 2015 (the same month that Ms. Bowser took office as mayor) and having counted 7,473 homeless people in 2017 (a net increase of 175 people), it would be great if the Bowser administration were to connect this candidate to housing; but, reality says that Bowser would only feel compelled to do so if Jeremiah Stanback were to gain enough name recognition to pose a threat to her. A mayor who ran for office in 2014 on false pretenses of wanting to address homelessness would finally begin to make good on her stated intentions -- like a scene out of the movie "Ghost" wherein Whoopi Golberg's diviner character summons a real ghost. Mayor Bowser would have to set forth a real plan for addressing homelessness -- one that actually works -- lest Mr. Stanback call "BS" on her and she loses the general election as a direct result of having her BS exposed for what it is. That said, the pressures that many advocates for the homeless have exerted on local government for decades are met in Jeremiah Stanback.
Let's not forget about the city's Comprehensive Plan -- the 20-year document which guides gentrification...err development for DC Government. With the current Comp Plan (2006-2026) going through its second and final amendment cycle, Mayor Bowser is suggesting edits that would serve as a catalyst to gentrification. The amendment cycle will end in mid-June, right before the primary. The Comprehensive Plan will pretty much be set in stone through 2026 by June 19th, 2018. However, if Mr. Stanback were to appear to present a serious threat to Bowser and the status quo, then the mayor might back off of her gentrification-enhancing amendments to the Comp Plan before they become law for the next eight years. Jeremiah Stanback would have to present a threat though.
As things currently stand in DC, former mayor Vince Gray is likely to enter the general election as an Independent and could face off with Muriel Bowser who unseated him in the April 2014 primary or, more debasingly, against a homeless man who beat the woman who beat Mr. Gray. Muriel Bowser, after a primary defeat, could still seek thousands of signatures in order to get on the ballot as an Independent and then face off with Jeremiah Stanback and Vince Gray in November. It's worth noting that, during the signature-gathering process, she's likely to be mocked for having been defeated by a homeless man and ostracized for having not done enough to stop or reverse gentrification -- for instead having expedited it. This prospect of shaming her into doing better by her low-income constituents (if only from June 20th until November 7th -- were she to lose the general election) should be a selling point for many DC voters and cause them to buy into this cheap but effective idea. Though the incumbent or the former mayor could win as an Independent in November following a Stanback victory in June, either experienced mayor would be forced to show greater respect and concern for DC's poor and dispossessed population. That's not all that would change.
If Mr. Stanback were to lose the general election to an Independent candidate eventually, it would represent the first time since DC got Home Rule in 1973 that the mayor was not a Democrat (in name anyway). This would essentially end the age-old assumption that the winner of the mayoral Democratic primary is a shoe-in for the office of the mayor come November. It would probably stop all local politicians and candidates from taking anything for granted anymore. All he has to do is win the first of two rounds. As a result:
DC could have its first non-Democratic mayor.
The independent wouldn't have to answer to a political party.
The Democrat-turned-Independent could give the political middle finger to their former party.
The people would have gotten money out of politics more effectively than any law ever could.
The re-elected mayor (Gray???) would know that s/he is beholden to all DC voters.
What's more is that a primary victory for a long-shot candidate would be likely to cause dozens of people to enter the general election as Independents in hopes of offering what they figure are better choices than Jeremiah Stanback. The field of candidates would likely surpass the 23 we saw in the 2016 presidential race. As it turns out, a high number of candidates in the primary or the general election makes merely voting against an ineffective incumbent an ineffective strategy. If the votes against the incumbent are split too many ways, she could be the first mayor to be re-elected since 2002 and could set a record for winning with the lowest number of votes in the city's history. That begins to explain why I've put forth a singular name as someone that those who dislike Muriel Bowser can vote for in June. Irrespective of what anyone thinks Mr. Stanback will or won't do as mayor, we can rally behind him as a way of eliminating Muriel Bowser and then decide after June 19th which of the candidates that come out of the woodwork for the general election we prefer -- Mr. Stanback or one of the other 30 or so candidates.
So, you don't need to know much about Mr. Stanback to vote for him in June. You just need to know that he is our "anti-Bowser" -- our one candidate that we who dislike Muriel Bowser can agree to vote for in order to get her out of office. You should also know that he is homeless and that his long-shot primary victory would carry with it a message for all local politicians -- the message that Washingtonians demand truly affordable housing. His primary victory would make the general election more competitive and would guarantee that all candidates are pummeled with hard questions about how they plan to create affordable housing and to alleviate poverty as a whole. Whoever takes office in January after a Stanback primary victory -- whether it's Jeremiah Stanback or someone else -- would be guaranteed to work for the city's poor unless the poor forget their power and stop applying pressure. So.....
Hang those signs by May 20th and vote Jeremiah Stanback for mayor on (or before) June 19th.
Comments