Nate Livingston analyzes the race for city council and categorizes the candidates into the likelihood of getting elected.
I disagree with Nate on two big fronts. First I don't see Winburn and Fischer are as big a locks as he thinks. Charlie Winburn has a good chance, but I put him in the pack at best even with Monzel and Ghiz. I still see Fischer as another Barb Trauth, with all the money and no message.
Secondly and more importantly, this race is far more open than he infers. In 2005 vote difference between the #3 spot and the #9 spot was less than 3,000 votes. The top two(Cranley and Tarbell) won far and away. That leaves the rest in a very narrow pack. None of the rest are stellar returning candidates and they all have negatives. I think they all have an advantage over the non-incumbents, of course, but I don't see any of them with a leg up at this point over the really strong group of endorsed challengers.
I'm also not sure why Nate but Mitch Painter into the higher tier candidates. Both Thomas and Malone have a far better chance than the rookie. His name will help in a small way, but when people see a young guy standing up to speak at forums, I don't know if they are going to take him seriously.
I myself at this point think we will have at least 3 new faces on council, maybe more. Which 2 or more incumbents will lose is the 100,000 dollar question.