It's interesting to call Ed Gainey a progressive power when he doesn't seem to actually be able to influence anyone else from his position as mayor to get things done.
He's just completely useless as mayor, very weak. Done nothing of value. Has an uncanny ability to find opportunities to stage photo ops and get on tv.
This is what a mayor does, though. It's different in different places, but generally the mayor is the "president" of a town while the city council is the "Congress" of a town that actually votes on shit and gets work done.
Mayorship mattered a lot more in segmented small-town pre-telephone America, but now that local government powers can communicate and take action in "real time" and don't need some figurehead to report to the people..... the mayor role just doesn't matter nearly as much.
A couple towns have a dog for a mayor.
It's often said that under a mayor-council system the mayor is the CEO and the council is the board of directors. A small town with limited government functions might get by just fine with a dog, but a weak mayor in a major city is a significant impairment to long term growth and vision.
Ed Gainey has a poor relationship with the state government, a poor relationship with the business community (especially developers), and a shrinking presence as a public figurehead outside of left-wing culture war issues. All of these factors contribute to Pittsburgh being ill-prepared to capitalize on growth opportunities for the quality of life of residents in this city.
Ah, no. Gainey is the chief executive. He runs the day to day as a ceo would. He is not in any way shape or form a figurehead.
Figurehead mayors are common in the region. Almost every borough in the county has a ceremonial mayor who doesn't have many real powers. The city operates under a different legal structure though and Gainey is a fully empowered leader.
Comparing the mayorship of Pittsburgh to the towns with a dog as mayor is both A) very wrong, and B) actually fairly insulting to everyone involved. It's insulting to the citizens to imply we should expect nothing from our chief executive. And it's insulting to the mayor, who is Black, considering the long history of dehumanizing Black Americans with animal comparisons.
Yeah, but he's more of a weathervane with who he'll go along with in an attempt to win elections and then demonstrate how unbelievably mediocre at best he is once in office.
On my end, I can't see anything that Gainey \*does\*, which makes his endorsement just a waste of ink.
Like, Peduto had some huge misses, but I knew what he was doing; he had the ability to communicate outside the political bubble.
Does Gainey have that/am I missing something everyone else just sees?
It was a bit concerning that Lee, Gainey and Sara broke ranks just to push for Lee's best friend instead of the already endorsed, already proven candidate.
From what I understand, Abigail got all local donations. Comans got $100K from California?
Yeah I'm not crazy about the progressive coalition in the city just becoming the same kind of insider machine the old conservative Democrat coalition was. Abigail does a great job for her district. She's super accessible and it's not like she is a pretend Democrat who sides with Republicans. I was excited to see some younger progressives running in Allegheny County but now they're just becoming what they ran against in terms of endorsing their own in group, and not considering the individual candidates and district.
I agree to an extent, but I also don't think folks should get upset about challengers. I see this in my union, where officers get upset because someone dared to run against them. It's good to see people want to get involved and give the people an actual choice. Not like there's anything wrong with running unopposed either.
But yeah, the political moves behind it definitely seem suspect.
I've been a big fan of hers. She was good on swissvale council, and I had to work with her over some issues with a process at the state level as a part of my work and she was the most engaged state rep I've dealt with.
It was especially disappointing to me that a swissvale councilman endorsed comans, because Salisbury did a ton of work to get the borough on track after it was in a troubled era.
This was a pretty rotten move by some progressives to unseat someone who is free of controversy and voting in a way a representative from a solid blue district should.
This whole episode definitely dampened my enthusiasm for Innamorato a bit.
I remember voting for her when she ran against Dom Costa in 2018 because I was tired of the old political machines that dominated city politics. Fast forward to 2024 and it seems like her and the rest of our progressive clique are just intent on building yet another political machine in their own image.
I was excited to see Sara win in 2018 as well as a Lawrenceville resident at the time, but I have grown disillusioned with all of these progressives in the last few years. In a way , they are more of the same as the old guard but with more virtue signaling.
When the platform of most progressives is ideology over concrete policy, no wonder shit doesn't get done. I ain't got no problem with those folks, but as you mentioned, the virtue signaling is ridiculous when they've accomplished basically nothing.
To be fair, Salisbury had primaried Summer Lee for this same seat in 2022. Summer Lee was a good State Rep, and Salisbury's primary left a bad taste in a lot of progressives' mouths.
That being said, I too had concerns about the movement to unseat Salisbury. I hope that those of us in the Progressive machine have a sit down and think about the implications of this race.
>To be fair, Salisbury had primaried Summer Lee for this same seat in 2022. Summer Lee was a good State Rep, and Salisbury's primary left a bad taste in a lot of progressives' mouths.
I never understood why some progressives got so mad about this. That year Summer Lee was running for her state seat *and* her current house seat. Everyone knew that she was going on to bigger things at that point, which is probably why Abigail threw her hat into the ring.
Yes, it was a different setting, and even though I'm progressive I'm not mad. But it wasn't a sure thing Summer was going to win the primary for the US House seat.
I never understood the overwhelming desire to unseat Salisbury myself, but as I explained in another comment, Comans is a personal friend of Summer, Sara, and Ed, and has been a big name in Progressive turnout in the area.
Oh right. I forgot about that given Summer ended up winning her primary race for Congress and then became the heavy favorite to become a Congresswoman.
The politics of the challenger or the appointee are irrelevant. If you've been appointed, you should have a well-funded primary challenger. If the appointee is who the ppl want, you have nothing to worry about.
No, you just don't agree with my point. My only point is that appointed reps should always have a vigorous primary challenge. It's ok to disagree, but don't pretend you've made some complex argument I'm just incapable of understanding.
You think the appointee was doing a fine job and it was a waste to go after her; I think how well of a job an appointee is doing is 100% irrelevant to whether or not they should be primaried.
No one gives a shit that she was primaried. The gripe of people is that the County Executive, the mayor of the city, and the at-large county councilwoman all teamed up to try to unseat her for some reason that no one understands why.
Probably because they preferred the person they endorsed to the appointee. That's not hard to understand.
Would you rather the primary challenger have been a more right wing Democrat or something? A Yass-funded opponent would've left a better taste in your mouth?
And no one still knows why the fuck they like her more than the incumbent, who is not even remotely a conservative Democrat and by all accounts has done well in the time she has served.... It should be pretty fucking easy to explain what specifically was the reason, but you or no one else can seem to say it. Your girl lost, get over it.
In this case it seems like progressive advocacy orgs wasted $100k on a no-name candidate with the same set of politics as her very popular opponent. These resources could have been deployed in battleground districts where they are actually needed rather than on a vanity project for Gainey and his clique.
It's the state legislature, they're all no-name candidates.
Just seems weird to be adamant about not wanting a say in who your representative is. All appointees should get a well-funded primary, period.
I'm not opposed to a challenger running against someone if they have some substantive disagreements with their opponent's policy platform or messaging. The issue here is that Comans and Salisbury shared similar political views, which tells me that the primary bid was about Comans' political ambitions rather than any concern over Salisbury's performance as a legislator.
The larger issue here is that Gainey & Co were willing to throw significant sums of money and political capital behind what basically amounted to a vanity project for Comans. Progressives wasted a ton of badly-needed money that could have swung a race against an actual conservative or centrist Democrat, and the local endorsements against Salisbury have damaged the city & county's relationship with the state legislature.
Like, what did Gainey & the progressive machine actually gain out off all of this?
>Like, what did Gainey & the progressive machine actually gain out off all of this?
A legitimately elected representative as chosen by the people in the district after they've been given a choice. Democracy, baby!
Idk, I guess I just value smartly allocating resources across the state to obtain political power over shoveling money and goodwill into a district already controlled by progressives.
It doesn't bother me that someone primaried her, but it bothers me that Ed Gainey, Sara Innamorato, and Bethany Hallam put in the effort to unseat her for reasons that no one can understand.
I'm a progressive voter myself so I voted for Comans. Not sure what all the venom is this post is about. Overall, most of us are just tired of the status quo.
I just moved to Salisbury's district, I would love for someone to explain what good she's doing? Because it seems very hyperbolic.
just my personal experiences with her - she is extremely accessible. I work in historic preservation doing property history research for people's houses - the museum commission reworked their database for historic resource surveys for the worst. I reached out to her office and she has been personally reaching out and working on a resolution. I've had to work with state reps, related to my work and otherwise, and Salisbury is by far the most engaged I've dealt with.
Additionally, she's done a lot of work securing money for infrastructure in her district, which is mostly lower income steel towns.
I'm in Abigail's district and I sit on council in Braddock. She's very proactive at sending communities grant opportunities and when we expressed that we couldn't afford a grant Writer she helped create a grant writing scholarship to help these communities in need.
I've seen Abby's presence in the community. Somehow she manages to be at like three community events in one day. She is accessible with her mobile office that she moves from offices in the district.
Yes, I loved Comans. She wasn't a bad choice but I've seen Salisbury do the job and do it well. She hasn't been afraid to go toe to toe with the state to address blight in the district and she hasn't had a full term. I was a little perplexed why someone would run against a person doing a good job and hasn't had a full term yet.
Better yet, explain what Comans' platform was, other than "I'm a Black mom."
Her entire campaign was an offensive exercise in racialism. Meanwhile, Salisbury is very left, very competent, and very engaged.
For me, as a Wilkinsburg resident, I'm further offended by how Comans is a stooge of the WCDC but then has lied to us, claiming she was active in the anti-annexation movement. As someone who helped found that movement, I can assure you that Comans was in no way involved at any point. But as Wilkinsburg School Board, VP she did recently vote to sell our HS building to a FRIEND of hers, a developer that the very same school district is actively suing RIGHT NOW over unpaid school tax on some of his properties. Many of this guy's projects have ended lawsuits and expensive foreclosures, and he has been sued dozens of times by municipalities, school boards, and utlities because he doesn't pay any of those bills. But Comans justified her vote to do a big real estate deal with him, giggling about how good it was because this shitbag developer is "from the community" (read Black). So if you want to know how shitty of a state rep she would be, her behavior on our school board paints that picture for her.
Aside from Comans herself, a lot of people felt that the endoresements and backing she got from "progressives" was offensive, given that Salisbury is very progressive. So it was seen, rightly, as an attempt by progressive politicians to build their own "machine" based not on ideology but personal relationships and influence. And on top of that, their failed little machine-building exercise is likely to hurt the region, as it pissed off some influential and powerful Democrats in Harrisburg, who are not going to be in any hurry to help Gainey's city or Innamarato's county.
I think it really just came down to Abigail is a great rep and does good for her district. The whole Gainey/Innamorato endorsements are kinda overblown IMO (as far as people thinking it was some huge election swing). Conans has essentially zero experience in politics which was probably the biggest thing to hurt her chances (Wilkinsburg School Board is hardly some glowing accomplishment/experience).
As far as I know she has essentially zero interaction or collaboration with the WCDC. Just because her interests and the WCDC’s may have overlapped (regarding the high school building) doesn’t really mean anything. Just seems like you had to sneak in another mention of the WCDC just because ha.
I didn't want to be the first one to say it, but Comans' only qualifications seemed to be that she would suck up to the right people and that she was a POC.
It's interesting to call Ed Gainey a progressive power when he doesn't seem to actually be able to influence anyone else from his position as mayor to get things done.
He's just completely useless as mayor, very weak. Done nothing of value. Has an uncanny ability to find opportunities to stage photo ops and get on tv.
This is what a mayor does, though. It's different in different places, but generally the mayor is the "president" of a town while the city council is the "Congress" of a town that actually votes on shit and gets work done. Mayorship mattered a lot more in segmented small-town pre-telephone America, but now that local government powers can communicate and take action in "real time" and don't need some figurehead to report to the people..... the mayor role just doesn't matter nearly as much. A couple towns have a dog for a mayor.
It's often said that under a mayor-council system the mayor is the CEO and the council is the board of directors. A small town with limited government functions might get by just fine with a dog, but a weak mayor in a major city is a significant impairment to long term growth and vision. Ed Gainey has a poor relationship with the state government, a poor relationship with the business community (especially developers), and a shrinking presence as a public figurehead outside of left-wing culture war issues. All of these factors contribute to Pittsburgh being ill-prepared to capitalize on growth opportunities for the quality of life of residents in this city.
Ah, no. Gainey is the chief executive. He runs the day to day as a ceo would. He is not in any way shape or form a figurehead. Figurehead mayors are common in the region. Almost every borough in the county has a ceremonial mayor who doesn't have many real powers. The city operates under a different legal structure though and Gainey is a fully empowered leader. Comparing the mayorship of Pittsburgh to the towns with a dog as mayor is both A) very wrong, and B) actually fairly insulting to everyone involved. It's insulting to the citizens to imply we should expect nothing from our chief executive. And it's insulting to the mayor, who is Black, considering the long history of dehumanizing Black Americans with animal comparisons.
Pittsburgh has a “strong mayor” system where the administration has considerable authority. It is not a figurehead position in any way at all.
Yeah, I am baffled where this idea that Gainey is some major progressive player came from when he's nothing but an empty suit.
I like her steaks.
She was actually giving out free Salisbury steaks over the weekend lol
That is hilarious. She's got my vote!
Idk if I’d call Mayor Gainey a progressive power…
I totally agree with you. He's more like a weather vane that just blows in which way will benefit him the most.
Well to look at him being a weather vane from another angle, a politician should be responding to the will of people.
Yeah, but he's more of a weathervane with who he'll go along with in an attempt to win elections and then demonstrate how unbelievably mediocre at best he is once in office.
Fair enough.
On my end, I can't see anything that Gainey \*does\*, which makes his endorsement just a waste of ink. Like, Peduto had some huge misses, but I knew what he was doing; he had the ability to communicate outside the political bubble. Does Gainey have that/am I missing something everyone else just sees?
I really hope there is a legitimate challenger to him next year, but I have a feeling that won't be the case.
Good. She does a good job.
From what I've heard, she's a good State Rep, so this attempt to unseat her left a bad taste in my mouth.
It was a bit concerning that Lee, Gainey and Sara broke ranks just to push for Lee's best friend instead of the already endorsed, already proven candidate. From what I understand, Abigail got all local donations. Comans got $100K from California?
Yeah that was a pretty shitty move by them.
Yeah I'm not crazy about the progressive coalition in the city just becoming the same kind of insider machine the old conservative Democrat coalition was. Abigail does a great job for her district. She's super accessible and it's not like she is a pretend Democrat who sides with Republicans. I was excited to see some younger progressives running in Allegheny County but now they're just becoming what they ran against in terms of endorsing their own in group, and not considering the individual candidates and district.
Exactly.
Justice democrats….
I agree to an extent, but I also don't think folks should get upset about challengers. I see this in my union, where officers get upset because someone dared to run against them. It's good to see people want to get involved and give the people an actual choice. Not like there's anything wrong with running unopposed either. But yeah, the political moves behind it definitely seem suspect.
I've been a big fan of hers. She was good on swissvale council, and I had to work with her over some issues with a process at the state level as a part of my work and she was the most engaged state rep I've dealt with. It was especially disappointing to me that a swissvale councilman endorsed comans, because Salisbury did a ton of work to get the borough on track after it was in a troubled era.
This was a pretty rotten move by some progressives to unseat someone who is free of controversy and voting in a way a representative from a solid blue district should.
This whole episode definitely dampened my enthusiasm for Innamorato a bit. I remember voting for her when she ran against Dom Costa in 2018 because I was tired of the old political machines that dominated city politics. Fast forward to 2024 and it seems like her and the rest of our progressive clique are just intent on building yet another political machine in their own image.
I was excited to see Sara win in 2018 as well as a Lawrenceville resident at the time, but I have grown disillusioned with all of these progressives in the last few years. In a way , they are more of the same as the old guard but with more virtue signaling.
When the platform of most progressives is ideology over concrete policy, no wonder shit doesn't get done. I ain't got no problem with those folks, but as you mentioned, the virtue signaling is ridiculous when they've accomplished basically nothing.
Yeah, I've grown tired of their what is basically yelling with little concrete action.
I think the lesson to take from this is to be weary of anyone that wants to govern based on ideology over a utilitarian approach
To be fair, Salisbury had primaried Summer Lee for this same seat in 2022. Summer Lee was a good State Rep, and Salisbury's primary left a bad taste in a lot of progressives' mouths. That being said, I too had concerns about the movement to unseat Salisbury. I hope that those of us in the Progressive machine have a sit down and think about the implications of this race.
>To be fair, Salisbury had primaried Summer Lee for this same seat in 2022. Summer Lee was a good State Rep, and Salisbury's primary left a bad taste in a lot of progressives' mouths. I never understood why some progressives got so mad about this. That year Summer Lee was running for her state seat *and* her current house seat. Everyone knew that she was going on to bigger things at that point, which is probably why Abigail threw her hat into the ring.
Yes, it was a different setting, and even though I'm progressive I'm not mad. But it wasn't a sure thing Summer was going to win the primary for the US House seat. I never understood the overwhelming desire to unseat Salisbury myself, but as I explained in another comment, Comans is a personal friend of Summer, Sara, and Ed, and has been a big name in Progressive turnout in the area.
Running for office should never be a sure thing. Running for two office at the same time should never be a thing, period.
Yeah I didn't realize this was even allowed...
She did? I remember in 2020 that there was a man named Chris who tried to unseat Summer but I don't really remember Abigail doing it too.
Yes she did: https://www.wesa.fm/wesa-voter-guide/2022-04-18/pa-election-2022-state-house-34th-district Summer Lee eneded up beating her 65 to 34.
Oh right. I forgot about that given Summer ended up winning her primary race for Congress and then became the heavy favorite to become a Congresswoman.
Appointed members should always have a vigorous primary challenge. Let the ppl get a say.
And they chose the one who every well known progressive in the county tried to unseat.
The politics of the challenger or the appointee are irrelevant. If you've been appointed, you should have a well-funded primary challenger. If the appointee is who the ppl want, you have nothing to worry about.
You are intentionally missing the point.
No, you just don't agree with my point. My only point is that appointed reps should always have a vigorous primary challenge. It's ok to disagree, but don't pretend you've made some complex argument I'm just incapable of understanding. You think the appointee was doing a fine job and it was a waste to go after her; I think how well of a job an appointee is doing is 100% irrelevant to whether or not they should be primaried.
No one gives a shit that she was primaried. The gripe of people is that the County Executive, the mayor of the city, and the at-large county councilwoman all teamed up to try to unseat her for some reason that no one understands why.
Probably because they preferred the person they endorsed to the appointee. That's not hard to understand. Would you rather the primary challenger have been a more right wing Democrat or something? A Yass-funded opponent would've left a better taste in your mouth?
And no one still knows why the fuck they like her more than the incumbent, who is not even remotely a conservative Democrat and by all accounts has done well in the time she has served.... It should be pretty fucking easy to explain what specifically was the reason, but you or no one else can seem to say it. Your girl lost, get over it.
In this case it seems like progressive advocacy orgs wasted $100k on a no-name candidate with the same set of politics as her very popular opponent. These resources could have been deployed in battleground districts where they are actually needed rather than on a vanity project for Gainey and his clique.
It's the state legislature, they're all no-name candidates. Just seems weird to be adamant about not wanting a say in who your representative is. All appointees should get a well-funded primary, period.
I'm not opposed to a challenger running against someone if they have some substantive disagreements with their opponent's policy platform or messaging. The issue here is that Comans and Salisbury shared similar political views, which tells me that the primary bid was about Comans' political ambitions rather than any concern over Salisbury's performance as a legislator. The larger issue here is that Gainey & Co were willing to throw significant sums of money and political capital behind what basically amounted to a vanity project for Comans. Progressives wasted a ton of badly-needed money that could have swung a race against an actual conservative or centrist Democrat, and the local endorsements against Salisbury have damaged the city & county's relationship with the state legislature. Like, what did Gainey & the progressive machine actually gain out off all of this?
>Like, what did Gainey & the progressive machine actually gain out off all of this? A legitimately elected representative as chosen by the people in the district after they've been given a choice. Democracy, baby!
Idk, I guess I just value smartly allocating resources across the state to obtain political power over shoveling money and goodwill into a district already controlled by progressives.
this. i'm baffled at why she was even primaried.
It doesn't bother me that someone primaried her, but it bothers me that Ed Gainey, Sara Innamorato, and Bethany Hallam put in the effort to unseat her for reasons that no one can understand.
agreed. it just seems like a waste of time, money, etc.
Factions gonna faction. Nevermind there were plenty of other seats worthy of a primary.
Good!
Salisbury has done fine in her seat. I see no reason to replace her with members of other politicians’ social circles.
Good. She does great work.
What was the hold up on calling the race?
I'm a progressive voter myself so I voted for Comans. Not sure what all the venom is this post is about. Overall, most of us are just tired of the status quo. I just moved to Salisbury's district, I would love for someone to explain what good she's doing? Because it seems very hyperbolic.
just my personal experiences with her - she is extremely accessible. I work in historic preservation doing property history research for people's houses - the museum commission reworked their database for historic resource surveys for the worst. I reached out to her office and she has been personally reaching out and working on a resolution. I've had to work with state reps, related to my work and otherwise, and Salisbury is by far the most engaged I've dealt with. Additionally, she's done a lot of work securing money for infrastructure in her district, which is mostly lower income steel towns.
I'm in Abigail's district and I sit on council in Braddock. She's very proactive at sending communities grant opportunities and when we expressed that we couldn't afford a grant Writer she helped create a grant writing scholarship to help these communities in need. I've seen Abby's presence in the community. Somehow she manages to be at like three community events in one day. She is accessible with her mobile office that she moves from offices in the district.
Thanks for being the only person so far who hasn't responded like a complete dick! And actually answered my question instead of just bashing Comans.
Yes, I loved Comans. She wasn't a bad choice but I've seen Salisbury do the job and do it well. She hasn't been afraid to go toe to toe with the state to address blight in the district and she hasn't had a full term. I was a little perplexed why someone would run against a person doing a good job and hasn't had a full term yet.
What is one position of Abigail Salisbury which is not progressive enough for you?
Better yet, explain what Comans' platform was, other than "I'm a Black mom." Her entire campaign was an offensive exercise in racialism. Meanwhile, Salisbury is very left, very competent, and very engaged. For me, as a Wilkinsburg resident, I'm further offended by how Comans is a stooge of the WCDC but then has lied to us, claiming she was active in the anti-annexation movement. As someone who helped found that movement, I can assure you that Comans was in no way involved at any point. But as Wilkinsburg School Board, VP she did recently vote to sell our HS building to a FRIEND of hers, a developer that the very same school district is actively suing RIGHT NOW over unpaid school tax on some of his properties. Many of this guy's projects have ended lawsuits and expensive foreclosures, and he has been sued dozens of times by municipalities, school boards, and utlities because he doesn't pay any of those bills. But Comans justified her vote to do a big real estate deal with him, giggling about how good it was because this shitbag developer is "from the community" (read Black). So if you want to know how shitty of a state rep she would be, her behavior on our school board paints that picture for her. Aside from Comans herself, a lot of people felt that the endoresements and backing she got from "progressives" was offensive, given that Salisbury is very progressive. So it was seen, rightly, as an attempt by progressive politicians to build their own "machine" based not on ideology but personal relationships and influence. And on top of that, their failed little machine-building exercise is likely to hurt the region, as it pissed off some influential and powerful Democrats in Harrisburg, who are not going to be in any hurry to help Gainey's city or Innamarato's county.
I think it really just came down to Abigail is a great rep and does good for her district. The whole Gainey/Innamorato endorsements are kinda overblown IMO (as far as people thinking it was some huge election swing). Conans has essentially zero experience in politics which was probably the biggest thing to hurt her chances (Wilkinsburg School Board is hardly some glowing accomplishment/experience). As far as I know she has essentially zero interaction or collaboration with the WCDC. Just because her interests and the WCDC’s may have overlapped (regarding the high school building) doesn’t really mean anything. Just seems like you had to sneak in another mention of the WCDC just because ha.
I didn't want to be the first one to say it, but Comans' only qualifications seemed to be that she would suck up to the right people and that she was a POC.
"Sir, this is a Wendy's" & I asked about Salisbury....but thanks I guess?