Who is winning the race for mayor. What the polls show.

A recent Tennessee Star/ Triton poll shows the following in the mayor's race (link):

• David Briley 27.8 percent
• Carol Swain 22 percent
• John Cooper 19.8 percent
• John Ray Clemmons  10.8 percent
• Undecided 19.5 percent

For any candidate to win, he must receive more than 50% of the vote or there will be a runoff between the two top contenders. Carol Swain is performing well  but I do not see a path to victory for her.  There is no way she will reach the 50%+ threshold.  If she makes a runoff, she will be crushed.  I think she is probably near her peak. I would be surprised if any significant number of the "undecided" break her way.

We must face the fact that Davidson County is a Democratic enclave. Davidson County has been solidly Democrat ever since the Civil War.  While most of the state has flipped to Republican, if anything, Davidson County has become more solidly Democrat.  Also, the old conservative Democrat is a thing of the past.  Nashville is a city dominated by very progressive Democrats. 

While the mayoral race is non-partisan, the citizens of Nashville are just not going to elect a Republican.  The best a Republican can do is garner about 35% of the vote. If one looks at the last presidential race, or governor's race, or Senate race, Republicans did not do well in Davidson County.  If a moderate talented pro-business person like David Fox who was only loosely affiliated with the Republican Party could not win, Carol Swain cannot win.  I wish it was different, but it is not. 

Unfortunately, Carol Swain has a record.  She is a scholar, an author and a pundit who has expressed her views in books and network TV news and webcast. I agree with most of her opinions on the cause of the dysfunction in the Black Community, on the sanctity of life, on the danger from radical Islam, immigration, and other issues, but in progressive Nashville she will be smeared as homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynist, xenophobic, and racist if she becomes a threat to the liberal establishment.  At this point they can play nice, but let her become a threat and the gloves will come off.  There is no reason to go after her now.  In fact, I bet Briley is hoping she is his runoff opponent, if he cannot win outright.

I like Carol Swain.  I supported her last time she ran and this election before Cooper got in the race, I supported her.  I sent her a contribution. She is smart, has a compelling life story, and I share her values. However, once John Cooper was in, I switched my support to him.  Even when supporting Swain, I did not think she could win.  When the choice was only between Briley and Clemmons, I was glad to have Carol in the race.  Briley would not solve our city's problems and Clemmons would make them worst are a faster rate, I reasoned, so even if Swain couldn't win, I wanted an alternative to two progressives who would continue down the wrong path.

I support John Cooper because I believe he will fix what is wrong with Nashville. He will change course.  He  has the knowledge and the commitment to fixing Nashville's finances. Nashville is booming, yet we cannot give employees a decent raise, our police and fire are understaffed, our schools are failing and getting worse, we can't build sidewalks, traffic is snarled, and our infrastructure is crumbling and we Nashvillians have the highest debt per person of any city in America. But, we are not undertaxed, in my view; we are mismanaged. The way I see it those are our major issues and the social issues are irrelevant. John Cooper is the person we need for mayor at this time.  I am sure there are issues with which I will not agree with him, but on the important issues he is much better than Briley and much, much better than Clemmons and he is electable.

Top Stories

Maximum Pressure for a Denuclearized Iran

Rep. Phil Roe

by Congressman Phil Roe - One of the first policy questions I was ever asked was, “Do you think Iran should have a nuclear weapon?” I remember my answer clear as day: “During the Vietnam War, I served nearly 13 months near the Demilitarized Zone in Korea. Does anyone believe the world is safer and more stable now that North Korea has the capability to develop nuclear weapons?” Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ support for militant groups abroad has helped destabilize the Middle East and represents a clear threat to U.S. regional security interests. Historically, the U.S. placed strong sanctions on Iran in response to their nuclear and terroristic activity, until the 2015 nuclear deal. These sanctions were a proven success in curbing Iran’s aggressive activity. 

On May 12, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia reported that four oil tankers and Saudi oil pipeline infrastructure had been attacked. Last week, Iran shot down a U.S. military drone in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, attacked two more oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and attempted to shoot down another U.S. drone that was surveilling the attack. 

President Trump showed leadership and restraint when he decided against a military response to this latest aggression, instead deciding to impose new sanctions that would deny Iran’s leadership the financial resources for oppressive activity. War is never a desirable outcome, and I’m proud the President found a way to hold Iran accountable while leaving room for military escalation should their actions continue. The U.S. warned world leaders of the Iranians’ capacity to destabilize the region, and based on recent actions, that’s exactly what is happening. Our allies need to come together and accelerate sanctions to force the Iranians to the negotiating table. I am proud to support President Trump’s approach.

In 2015, the Obama administration negotiated the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear agreement, which overwhelmingly relieved sanctions against Iran in hopes they would limit their nuclear program. However, that agreement fell short. The U.S. was denied access to certain Iranian military areas, Iran’s missile program was left unchecked, and its regional influence enabling human rights abuses was not addressed. That’s why I voted against the Iran Nuclear deal when it was brought before Congress, and why I strongly supported President Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement to push the Iranian regime for additional concessions.

Since the moment the agreement was announced, strong bipartisan majorities in Congress – including myself – have voted against putting this agreement into place. Despite Congress’ opposition, the Obama administration pushed forward with their agreement. Now, many of the officials who negotiated this agreement are trying to push a false narrative that President Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement is the cause of Iranian aggression. You have to ask yourself: why on earth would a country committed to denuclearization attack another country who also wants them to be denuclearized? This logic doesn’t add up.

On July 25, 2017, I was proud to vote for the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act which passed the House by a vote of 419 to 3. This legislation, which President Trump signed into law, establishes new sanctions and enhances existing sanctions, against Iran, Russia and North Korea. If we are going to achieve a diplomatic solution, which the president has made it clear that he prefers, it needs to be one that guarantees a nuclear-free Iran. 

This May, the administration ended a U.S. sanctions exception for the purchase of Iranian oil, ended waivers allowing countries to help Iran remain within stockpile limits of low-enriched uranium and of heavy water reactor fuel and accelerated plans to send a strike group to the Persian Gulf region. Additionally, the President issued an executive order freezing U.S. based assets of personal and entities determined to have conducted significant transactions with Iran’s iron, steel, aluminum or copper sectors. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani responded by announcing Iran would no longer abide by the JCPOA on stockpiles of low-enriched uranium and heavy water, threatening to enrich it to a higher level. 

There are still Iranians that march through the streets chanting “Death to America.” We should take them at their word. While we do not want a war with Iran, any potential diplomatic solution also has to ensure American security. I will continue supporting President Trump’s actions to put American safety and security first, and I hope we can make real and lasting progress that ensures a future peace.

Phil Roe represents the First Congressional District of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is physician and co-chair of the House GOP Doctors Caucus and a member of the Health Caucus. Prior to serving in Congress, he served as the Mayor of Johnson City, Tennessee. 

Top Stories

It matters who governs and it matters who appoints Supreme Court justices.

by Rod Williams - It really matters who governs and it matters who appoints Supreme Court justices.  Yesterday the Court ruled five to four that it was not up to the Court to draw political boundaries for congressional districts but up to state legislators.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberst said, "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."

It is refreshing to have a court that recognizes some questions are "political questions" not to be decided from the bench and that even judges are limited by "authority in the Constitution."  This would have been decided the other way if not for the appointment of Neil Gorsuch.

Unfortunately, the other decision handed down yesterday did not favor Republicans. The Court blocked a citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census. The Court did not permanently block the inclusion of the citizenship question but delayed it.  If the administration can delay the census, it still may be able to meet the Court's requirements for including it.

While I have not delved deeply into the courts opinion on the census issue, my initial thoughts are that  the court wrongly decided the case. Given the intrusive nosy nature of the census, asking one's citizenship status seems not that offensive and seems rational. It seems like the government should know how many citizens are in America.  If the census can ask you your race and ethnicity it seems like it should be allowed to ask you your citizenship status. The question was part of the census as recent as 1950. The argument against asking it is that asking the questions would result in illegal immigrants not answering the census and thus being undercounted in the census. The census is used for the allocation of congressional seats and to allocate federal funds to the States and if illegal immigrants did not answer the census then states with large number of illegals, such as Texas and California, would be allocated fewer representatives and receive fewer federal dollars.

While I am disappointing the census questions did not go our way, I am pleased that the ruling did not just outright ban asking the question which would have happened with a more liberal court and I am very pleased with the gerrymandering decision. If we can get one more conservative justice on the Court, our Democracy will be assured for decades to come.

Surprising no one, Tennessee Democrats criticized and  Republicans praised the Supreme Court ruling regarding gerrymandering. Congressman Jim Cooper called it "shortsighted and dangerous for our country."  Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Scott Golden said the Supreme Court decision "was the constitutionally correct" one. "District lines should be drawn by elected officials who are held accountable by the people they represent, not appointed federal judges or un-elected bureaucrats," he said.

For more on this topic see link,  link ,  link, link.

Top Stories

Nashville police union backs John Cooper for mayor

Nashville police union backs John Cooper for mayor, other Metro Council candidates

by Yihyun Jeong, The Tennessean - The Fraternal Order of Police  — which represents thousands of local, state and federal law enforcement personnel stationed in the Nashville area. — released their endorsements Monday for candidates running for Metro office. 

"I am honored to be endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police," Cooper said in a statement. "Keeping people safe is the first job of government. Policing is a difficult and noble profession and the rank and file should be treated fairly by their superiors, just as the citizenry at large deserve to be treated fairly. It is the job of the mayor to set clear goals, provide the resources necessary, and hold people accountable for results." (read more)

Top Stories

The televised Channel 5 mayoral debate, part 2.

Top Stories

The televised Channel 5 mayoral debate, part 1.

If you were not one of the few who attended in person or did not watch it live last night, here is part 1 of the mayoral debate between the four serious candidates for mayor, sponsored by News Channel 5 and The Tennessean.

Quick takeaways and my impressions from this debate is that Ray Clemmons would drastically hike taxes and give the school board any amount of money they requested and is the only candidate who thinks the Council should have raised taxes.  Only Mayor Briley thinks Nashville is going in the right direction. All are concerned about traffic, and affordable housing and education. All talk about communities that are left behind.

Carol Swain does not sound much more conservative than any of the others in the debate except for Clemmons. She does say, "we do not have a revenue problem, but a spending problem."  I like that   She condemns the "good ole boy" network and corporations that get handouts. She has a focus, and rightly so I think, on building sidewalks and says only 19% of the city has sidewalks and we should focus on building sidewalks instead of bike lanes. I am disappointing that Carol Swain says when negotiating with companies she would get them to "invest" in the city in things like affordable housing, etc.  I do not want the city trying to extract payoffs businesses any more than I want the city to bribe them to come here.

Without getting lost in the weeds of too much details, Councilman Cooper, comes across as someone with a deep understanding of what is wrong with Metro's finances and a commitment to fixing it. He says the recently proposed tax increase would have raised property taxes on police and firemen and they would not have gotten a raise. He does a good job of explaining why the tax increase proposal was a bad idea. Briley does a credible jobs of explaining and defending his policies. He looks better in the debate than I though he would.

Top Stories

TOMORROW: 1st Televised Mayoral Debate

Tuesday, June 25th at 6pm

Belmont University 

Tickets are sold out, but you can still watch the debate live!  NewsChannel 5 will be airing the debate live, as well as streaming it on NewsChannel5.com. 

Top Stories

Doesn't this make you proud?

Metro Police unveil new cruiser for Safe Place Program, LGBTQ liasion

Top Stories

TORI GODDARD STATEMENT ON NASHVILLE’S FALSE ALARM TORNADO SIRENS AFTER EXPIRATION OF TORNADO WARNING

Press release - Advocate for children with disabilities and candidate for District 20 on the Nashville Metro Council, Tori Goddard, released the following statement after the repeated sounding of Nashville’s tornado sirens on June 21, 2019 after the expiration of the National Weather Service’s warning in Davidson County:

“It is entirely unacceptable that the Metro Council and Mayor have not moved more swiftly to improve Nashville’s tornado warning system. As we move further into both tornado and tourist season it is irresponsible, terrifying, and detrimental to our city to continue having an outdated tornado warning system. As the mother of a child with special needs, I am particularly frustrated with our city’s inaction. Beyond the panic that is created among tourists and many residents, the additional stress and harm brought upon my daughter by alerting for a non-existent tornado threat is unacceptable.”

Campaign spokesman, Christian Potucek, added the following: “West Nashville’s current representative on the Metro Council, Mary Carolyn Roberts, has repeatedly ignored the most important issues of her District and our city on the whole. It is irresponsible and downright dangerous that the Metro Council didn’t take steps to correct this absurdity when it first occurred earlier this year. Government red tape is not a valid excuse for putting the lives of citizens and tourists in danger.”

Top Stories

The Tennessean's candidate's questionaire for candidates seeking the office of mayor, vice mayor, council member at-large or district council member.

The Tennessean sent a 25-question survey to all candidates seeking the office of mayor, vice mayor, council member at-large or district council member. Questions asked include a question about if the candidate supported a tax increase, if the candidate supported incentives for corporations to locate to Nashville, if and how the Council should exert influence over the School Board and a question about the candidates priorities for Nashville. In addition to the questions about policy, candidates were asked their age, education, job history, and family status. 

Of the 110 candidates seeking office, 95 responded.  In my view any candidate who did not complete the survey should not be considered a serious candidate. Below are links to the questionnaire.

• Nashville mayor candidates' answers to The Tennessean questionnaire

• Nashville vice mayor candidates' answers to The Tennessean questionnaire 

• Nashville at-Large Metro Council candidates' answers to The Tennessean questionnaire

• Nashville district Metro Council candidates' answers to The Tennessean questionnaire

Top Stories