Skip to main content

Springfield Mayor: November Runoff

 


The mayor of Springfield, Massachusetts has taken his first step toward re-election. On Tuesday, September 12, he came in first in the first-round election.

Incumbent mayor Domenic Sarno has had the job since 2007. He faced four challengers in a non-partisan ballot. One of these challengers was, frankly, an obscure fellow who wants Springfield to host a "Rio-style Carnival." The other three were  the present and two former City Council presidents.

And yes, "Domenic" is the proper though somewhat unusual spelling of his first name. Blogger's spellcheck wants me to write it "Dominic" and so has given me a red squiggle.  I will not surrender!

Sarno did not manage to get 50% of the vote, though he came close (a bit more than 47%). The November run-off will pit him against former council president Justin Hurst (a bit less than 29%). The Carnival guy, David Ciampi, got only the votes of his relatives and close friends. Nobody is even trying to state it as a percentage. One only needs two digits for the absolute number.  

There is no broader national pattern into which I can fit the results. The differences between Sarno and Hurst turn on the usual local political issues: property taxes, garbage delivery, emergency response, and everybody's unhappiness about interference from "Beacon Hill." [The state government's "Capitol Hill.") 

If I have to state some broader lesson, I would say this: media love eccentric out-of-left-field candidates like Ciampi.  They make great copy. But ... Donald Trump began his political career as a candidate like Ciampi. From outside of politics, free to speak things that are outside of the mainstream of discussion (NOBODY else associates Springfield with  the sort of pre-Lent festival Ciampi has in mind), and generally fun. 

Perhaps the disappearance of Ciampi from the league table, fifth behind ALL of the career politicos, shows that the Ciampis of the country have lost their appeal. Being an "outsider" is no longer a charm.  That might be helpful.  

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more