Sunday, April 02, 2006

Special Election in the 50th?

Ben Tribbett is reporting that the special election to fill the seat left vacant by Harry Parrish's passing will be held on 11 or 18 July.

This makes no sense. By that time, any special sessions should be concluded, and --- while I could be wrong and would be happy to be corrected --- there seems to be no reason to not wait until the general election in November. It would be an unnecessary expense for the County and City of Manassas.

27 comments:

Charles said...

I agree, but if Howell doesn't call a special election by the close of the session, then Kaine can call for one as soon as the session ends.

And since the democrats would have a better chance to win a special election than one in November, he could well call the election in the hopes that incumbency means something even when they haven't spent a day in the legislature yet.

What SHOULD happen is an agreement between Howell and Kaine to not call the election. Any chance of that happening?

Not Larry Sabato said...

I'll look it up, but I think the code requires it be held within a certain amount of time.

James Young said...

Well, I spoke to a member of the County Board of Elections yesterday, and my understanding is that Charles is correct as to where the authority falls, and when. Ben you are correct, but my understanding is that the statutory limit is the next general election date. I would think that any date after the special session is concluded OTHER THAN November is pure politics, based upon the relative assessment of the chances for partisan success. The interests of economy and an electorate informed to the maximum degree --- devoid of politics (ha, ha) --- suggests that the special should simply be delayed until November.

I note that at the Prince William GOP Conventino yesterday, there was no call or push for an early election.

Not Larry Sabato said...

Legal arguments aside for a moment: If I were a Democratic campaign manager I would want the election against Chapman (if he is the nominee) in November. Maybe that's just my own personal preference to having downballot races truly downballot, and having to persuade instead of turn out likely voters.

James Young said...

That might be sound strategy, Ben, from your political persuasion. However, I think that anybody who schedules this before November (if I am right on the law) will create a political issue for the opposing party. On the other hand, all may be for naught; this is such a safely GOP district that I doubt that any Dem has a chance. I can't even think of a serious prospective Dem nominee in the District.

Moreover, I don't think that it's certain that Chapman WILL be the nominee. At the risk of being savaged by some (you, I, and they know who they are) I know that Jackson Miller (Manassas City Council) has been mentioned, and he has considerable advantages over Chapman. Perhaps the most significant are his relative maturity, and the fact that he has already won political office.

James Young said...

OK. So I guess you can still comment on old posts.

NoVA Scout said...

this should be a safe GOP seat whether election is held now or later UNLESS the local Rs put up Chapman. I'm sure, given the recent memory of Harry Parrish, very few Republicans would want to do anything to diminish Parrish's legacy.

NoVa Scout said...

PS: I agree totally with James Young that, unless the law otherwise mandates it, there is absolutely no reason to have a special election in the summer and then have to go through it all again in November. The best result from an effective government standpoint would be to do this in the context of the General in November. Again, this is part of my policy of always acknowledging when James has a good point.

Charles said...

nova scout, remember that this november is not a state election, it's a federal election. If you had a special election this summer, the winner would hold the seat until the state election in 2007.

The advantage of waiting until november is that you have polls already set up, and people coming for a big election, so you don't have the problem of low turnout, and don't spend a lot of money and time on an election for a single district in the middle of the summer when people want to be vacationing with their families.

NoVA Scout said...

C1: thanks for straightening me out. I'm not sure what I was thinking as to this year. I guess I'm so curious about what will happen in the GA races in 2007 that I just chopped a year off the waiting period. My only other excuse is that I'm about 12 time zones west (or east) of you guys at the moment and jet-lagged. Calendars apparently aren't my strong suit in this condition. But the merits of November stand, for the reasons you mention.

James Young said...

Careful, NoVA Scout. Here's what one idiot (Comment 22) said to me when I dared to mention --- like you, as a point of reference --- my frequent travels: "You know, it would have been just as easy and a lot less pretentious to just make your point without all of the additional 'Look, I wear big-boy pants!'" http://tooconservative.com/?p=401#comments

BTW, I DON'T apply that comment to you. Indeed, I find it interesting that the idiot doesn't, either. And how Chairman Sean's lapdogs can't even leave attack mode when one expresses sympathy for what may (or may not) have been the justification for his action.

Not Susan Clarke Schaar said...

Don't Manassas and Manassas Park have council and school board elections on May 2? That seems like a logical and timely coincidence for a special election in this district.

James Young said...

Thanks for the comment, Not Susan.

That would be the best argument that I've seen for a special election before November, though it would still impose some costs upon the County for those County precincts in the 50th, and I'm having trouble getting past the notion that there's any need for it, assuming that there are no special sessions in the interim between the conclusion of the current one and November. The July dates could and perhaps should be death for the candidates of the party of the one proposing/mandating them.

NoVA Scout said...

Jmes: re your 1029 post from Monday AM: sometimes I have not the slightest idea of what you're talking about. And your reference to Connaughton is completely perplexing. You are truly obsessed. The man's name had not even been mentioned in the thread. The only thing happening was a fairly technical discussion about whther it was necessary/advisable to have a short-fuse special election in the 50th. What causes you to wing off like that? It's probably not harmful to others (although it is profoundly off-putting), but it surely isn't healthy.

James Young said...

Well, NoVA Scout, I certainly beg your pardon for assuming that you read other blogs (http://tooconservative.com/?p=401#comments), rather than just being "obsessed" with attacking me.

Oops! Looks like my reference (post 22 on that thread) shouldn't have been obscure, since you posted (post 29) on the thread to which I rather obscurely referred, and now explicitly reference, AFTER the insulting comment to which I refer.

And what's not "healthy" is your rather childish pop-psych references, aside from the fact that the reference was not to Chairman Sean, but to "Chairman Sean's lapdogs."

And I wasn't even referring to you as a "lapdog" on this occasion; rather, I was criticizing lapdoggish behavior in the reference. I guess that expecting you to join in that legitimate criticism was just too much; you apparently thought it'd be more fun to indulge your belittling little pseudo-psychoanalysis.

So what's more off-putting, I wonder? My legitimate reference, or your misrepresentation of my reference to "Chairman Sean's lapdogs," coupled with your childish pseudo-psychoanalysis?

NOVA Scout said...

You might want to re-read through the thread again - and then go get help. I think my observation about it being a discussion about the wisdom of a short-bell special election is objectively correct.

James Young said...

NoVA Scout, your dime-store psychology is terribly impressive. Nearly as impressive as your knowledge of the use of analogy.

Of course, that this thread is "a discussion about the wisdom of a short-bell special election is objectively correct." It's entirely fair to point out that one of your comments was in the nature of a comment for which I was savaged (by Chairman Sean's lapdogs) elsewhere. It's too bad that your knee-jerk need to take up for the man causes you to ignore that the type of comment that you made is akin to the type of comment for which I was savaged elsewhere, and that the savaging was at the hands of Chairman Sean's lapdogs. Indeed, it's too bad that your knee-jerk support for the man causes you to ignore that this was a comment about his lapdogs (unless you know something the posters that I don't) rather than one about him.

It merely demonstrates that your intellectualism and objectivism is as feigned as your expertise in the field of psychology.

And I hope you enjoy this little back and forth here. This is the kind of crap that will cause me to block your comments in the new Haloscan section. Behave, or cast your aspersions/play your games/shovel your manure on someone else's website.

NoVA Scout said...

Gee whiz, James - you sure know how to scare the hell out of a guy. I'm assuming you're just making a stab at light humor. I can't imagine that a blogger would actually ban a commenter based on disagreements. To do that leaves you open to the presumably unwarranted inference that you're an extremely prickly guy who can't handle the rough and tumble (even though I'm hardly rough) of blog exchanges.

I don't comment on this site frequently. Ironically, in this thread, my sole purpose in commenting initially was to AGREE with you that the election to fill the seat in the 50th ought to be postponed until November, if there is no legal compulsion to have it sooner.

My blog behavior is above board. Generally, I think my input in virginia blog circles, while frequently disagreed with, is regarded as a cut or two above "manure." I have advised you to do something about your Connaughton fixation. I don't think that's bad advice. It detracts from your ability to contribute and pops up in the strangest places. I would get more out of your site if you could lower the level on that considerably. I doubt that I am alone in that regard. That's just my opinion.

I have no idea whether the folks who were ribbing you about your non-sequitur Premier Executive boast at the other site were Sean partisans or not. Your comment was the sort of thing that gets ribbed in blog circles frequently. This is sort of a schoolyard medium in which there's a lot of razzing that goes on. So I think you would have gotten a few jibes whether or not Sean Connaughton was an extremely popular Conservative Republican elected official in Northern Virginia. To turn it into a "Sean's lapdogs" event seems more than a little bit of jumping at shadows.

If you don't like my advice, which is sound and intended to be constructive, don't take it. It's entirely up to you.

James Young said...

Well, gee, whiz, NoVA Scout, it's difficult to imagine how "constructive criticism" can be derived from your dime-store psychoanalysis.

In fact, the only one "fixated" on Chairman Sean here is you. Let's go over the timeline once again, for those who aren't paying attention, and for you, who prefers not to.

1. I post this comment about the impending election in the 50th.

2. On another thread, I note that Chairman Sean may, indeed, have had good cause to miss the PWC GOP Convention, noting my own experience as a possible reason.

3. I am immediately attacked by one of Chairman Sean's lapdogs with the "big-boy pants" comment.

4. You comment here, qualifying that comment by noting your "only other excuse is that I'm about 12 time zones west (or east) of you guys at the moment and jet-lagged."

5. I compare your comment to the attack made upon me in that other blog thread to an attack by Chairman Sean's lapdogs.

6. You immediately attack with your dime-store psychoanalysis, falsely claiming that my "reference to Connaughton" --- the reference was to "Chairman Sean's lapdogs" --- "is completely perplexing."

That's the kind of dishonesty and belittlement, your pretensions of "constructive criticism" to the contrary notwithstanding, that rightly gets one banned.

NoVA Scout said...

Glad we got that straightened out.

I think I'll just mosey on out of here. At times I just don't feel welcome.

James Young said...

Go with the feeling. Go with God.

BVBL said...

James Young,

You should be more tolerant of those who challenge you. I am sure that if you and I discussed our postions on the issues, you would find that BVBL and James Young agree, more than we disagree.

I think it is is the execcution that we run afoul of each other. We should talk, offline, and work our differences out (as I suspect that they are more personality driven, than they are policy driven)

What say you?

James Young said...

BVBL, I am perfectly tolerant of respectful disagreement. I do NOT tolerate nonsense, nor anonymous/pseudonymous cowardice, nor belittling dime-store psychoanalysis masquerading as high-toned "constructive criticism."

As for meeting, you really don't want to. While I don't doubt that we agree on much, if I know who you are, I'll out you. And my guess is that, unless you are judgment-proof, you probably don't want anybody to know who you are.

BVBL said...

Well, I tried. I think you just like to scrap, but are too dumb to know when you are outmatched.

As far as a face-to-face meeting goes, that has already happened....

James Young said...

You "tried"? No, you declined when I had the integrity to forewarn you that I would out your identity if we did. Guess you have something to hide....

"Dumb"? "Outmatched"!?!?! Oh, BVBL, it's good to know that what you lack in integrity, you make up for in wit.

On the other hand, I suppose I can expect a stirring defense from Anke Cheney, for your name-calling. Or is it only acceptable when directed at someone you "moderates" hate?

BVBL said...

To remain anonymous has nothing to do with integrity, and your point is gratuitous. About what exactly have I lied? You can never seem to disprove anything that I say. Some Attorney....

Call me a moderate if you will, I am every bit as conservative as you. I am pro-life, pro-2nd Ammendment, pro-small governemnt, pro-state's rights, anti-tax, anti-gay marriage, anti-union...pick an issue, any issue, and I'd bet we are on the same side of it. But that's where our similarities end.

I am anti-chapman, not because of his postions...it's his character.

As for talking off-line, you and I have talked. We've shaken hands. The thing is, I knew exactly who you were, but you had no clue as to who I was. It was at the PWC convention. Think...think... if you are smart enough...

James Young said...

Of course, anonymity/pseudonymity has EVERYTHING to do with integrity and courage, since those who maintaining while leveling elaborate charges --- even if true --- against others plainly fear association with their comments. Of course, the proof in the pudding is in your denial of the label "moderate," in which you offer an unprovable list of credentials which sounds more like a far Left caricature ("anti-union"?!?) of conservatism than any real philosophy/ideology

You're right, whomever. I guess I'm just not smart enough to figure out who among the many people with whom I shook hands at the PWC convention you were. Of course, the thing about events like that is the fact that there are many people who will offer one hand to you, while holding a knife to stab in you in the back in the other. Clearly, you are one of those.

As to Chapman, I have no problem with the fact that there are those who dislike him. They have a perfect right to do so. But dispute him on the issues. Dispute his integrity, if you must, but do so by attaching your name to it, so that --- if your charges are false --- he is capable of seeking easy redress, or by identifying motives carefully hidden, perhaps with good reason. I don't "disprove anything that [you] say" because I don't care to, and indeed, readily concede that I have no idea whether your elaborate charges are true.

And you are right. Clearly, our similarities end on the issues. Whereas you cower in fear and level childish attacks, I limit myself to discussing serious issues, and take seriously only those who have the courage and integrity to attach their names to their comments.