You're saying Mayor Zimmer who basicly tied, within 161 votes, the guy who took tens of thousands in illegal bribes and many more tens of thousands in questionable loans to greatly outspend her, and now she's running as an incumbent who has saved the city's Hospital and kept the city tax rate flat for 3 years is worried about running against... who? Tim Occipinti? Beth Mason? Frank Raia?
.
Everyone expects the Old Guard to get behind a single candidate when elections are consolidated so even your fallacious point it invalid.

The anti-Zimmer folks have done three polls in the past couple of months with a fourth now in the field. Maybe Captain Kirk can persuade them to make the poll results public so the public can better understand Zimmer supporters' desperation to avoid an election in May under existing rules.

Al Sullivan seems to think Zimmer's a fool for not leaving things as they are and putting a fork in these guys in May since they're so busy fighting with each other they can't even organize a barbecue.

Release the poll results so we can learn whether Al is right or just posting Zimmertini spin.

Duck a real election? What a load of #$%%. More people will be voting on those ballot initiatives than in any municipal election in the history of this town and the only way either one of them passes is if they get a clear majority of voters who vote yes. Zimmer isn't running away from a real election. It is the people who don't want those ballot initiatives on the ballot and are afraid of the higher turnout November elections typically have that are the ones running from a real election.

FAP, who is "everyone" and who is "The Old Guard". You have no idea what's going to happen. Neither do I. However, it's not in the nature of most politicians to just lay down to one another. Obviously you think the opposition is unlikely to come together, as I do also, or you wouldnt be pushing these electoral shenanigans. So I dont believe you think it's likely for one second. But let's say both of our crystal balls are broken and the opposition DOES pick one candidate...

Well, then your legislation has succeeded in moving that decision (who the opposition candidate will be) out of the voters hands and back into "smoke filled rooms". Congratulations, you've just reversed a century's worth of Progressive reforms to the electoral process. What you've also done is possibly succeeded in constructing your own gallows. What if the field is Ramos/Zimmer/Brinkman? Ahhh, that's a horse of a different color, isn't it? Be careful what you wish for! If our crystal balls ARE broken, you're not screwing the opposition out of a fair election, you're quite posibly screwing yourself.

I don't want to see the opposition screwed. I don't want to see the mayor screwed. I don't want the smoke filled room to return. I think it would be nice to have an actual election. This has nothing to do with good gov't. It's not a reform. It's not coming from random concerned citizens. It is a political maneuver from the mayor's operatives designed to short circuit the election. Vote NO!

I think Councilwoman Castellano put it best when asked who of the OLD GUARD politicos would attempt a mayoral run and she told a reporter that they were just trying to figure out which among them had the least negatives. :-)

PS. The current pollsters are asking for names and info....I would advise against giving it to them..

Ojo November elections and no runoffs are two different issues.

So Captain, you oppose this measure because it will "force" the anti zimmer folks into a "back room" in which they'll cut deals to pick a single candidate? As opposed to what Al Sullivan says they've been doing for the last couple of months?

You are right. They are 2 different issues and both ballot initiatives are separate on the ballot and require a clear majority to win. You can vote for one, both or neither.

You mean like Peter Cammarano's 161 vote "mandate" to keep personal control over zoning board appointments and to deliver development favors in exchange for bribes? Sure would hate to "undercut" that!

Then vote yes on the November change and no on the winner take all format. You don't have to vote yes on both measures.

I'm just as comfortable with a candidate winning with a plurality in a high turnout November election as with one who wins with a majority in a low turnout December election.

This tawdry little attempt to use the courts as a House Un-American Activities Committee to silence criticism through intimidation and fear of reprisal will be long forgotten by the 2013 elections - apart from the permanent damage to its various sponsors. Alas for your sad hopes.

Once again the 24/7/365 campaign has not thought through the possible consequences of its anti-democratic powerplays before setting them in motion. Morons.