While I agree that the Ward 6 election represents a warning and a wake-up call for Barry et al., and that Sharon Ambrose’s victory was decisive, I seriously question the political insight provided by Loose Lips (5/2).
LL claims not only that “particularly Republicans” provided the margin of victory for Ambrose, but he goes on to claim that Barry could “fall prey” to the white and Republican votes of Carol Schwartz.
I have a couple of questions. Has LL so quickly forgotten the names McCall and Merkle? Or does he suggest that the black Democrats in this ward voted overwhelmingly for them? If not, then it seems awfully hard to suggest that Ambrose’s 8-percent margin of victory, nearly 800 votes, came from “particularly Republicans.” With over 20 percent of the ward voting (a larger-than-expected turnout for a special election), LL is suggesting that nearly all the voters were white (which was not supported even at the 85th Precinct on Capitol Hill, where I poll-watched), and that Croft and Stallings (let alone Ambrose, Capozzi, and McCall) have no support among blacks. This simply cannot be the case, can it? I did graduate from D.C. Public Schools, but even I can do the math here, and LL’s math stinks. The District is still majority-black and majority-Democratic, and so is the Hill and Ward 6.
Ambrose dominated the field, and no amount of pseudo-inside knowledge can change the makeup of the voters, the ward, or her opponents to support LL’s claims. To garner such a margin of victory, she won the votes of blacks and whites, East and West, Democrat and Republican, and perhaps, if truth be known, some Umoja, too. Since we are not talking about a few votes here, LL’s decisive Republican support is just short of fantastic.
The Ward 6 race was a sign that Barry is in trouble, and the poor turnout in Anacostia is indicative of the failure of Barry and this city’s politicians to take care of business and instill confidence in their own electorate. It is not the Republicans’ fault that Ward 6 voters view their politicians as impotent. Perhaps he should accept that Ambrose was the candidate with the most support. I’m sure that if LL gave it some time he too could find a number of reasons for Ambrose’s victory (she was the most civil candidate with the most experience, for starters) other than that the Republicans did it. That was last year’s mantra; now can we just move on?
via the Internet