Vance name fails to boost Bowman in Cincinnati mayor's race
Cincinnati hasn't had a Republican mayor in more than 50 years, and that streak isn't in danger based on Tuesday's primary election results.
Incumbent Mayor Aftab Pureval is poised to cruise into a second term with little resistance. He dominated the low-turnout primary with 82.5% of the vote, according to unofficial results from the Hamilton County Board of Elections. Republican Cory Bowman, Vice President J.D. Vance's half-brother, came in a distant second with 13% of the vote.
More: What the primary tells us about Hyde Park, JD Vance, and the November election
The two men will now go head-to-head in November for the mayor's seat. Barring some scandal or self-inflicted political wounds by Pureval, I don't expect the outcome to change. Bowman, who has struggled to rally support, might get beaten even worse in a general election when more voters usually turn out.
Cincinnati mayor Aftab Pureval during The Cincinnati Enquirer mayoral debate at the Covedale Center for the Arts Tuesday, March 25, 2025.
Pureval expressed gratitude to the people of Cincinnati.
"Election Day is always a special day in our democracy. It is our opportunity as citizens to make our voices heard and choose the direction we want our city to go in the next four years. I don't take lightly the responsibility the voters have given me over the past three years," Pureval told me in a phone interview.
Of Tuesday's election results, he said, "I'm not sure I can read anything into it other than the people think the city is on the right path."
Bowman, a West End pastor and coffee shop owner, kept the faith despite the Grand Canyon-sized vote gap between him and Pureval. Advancing to November in his first political campaign was the goal, he said. I reached out to Bowman, but he didn't immediately return my call or text.
"What I will say is that looks like he had a good head start, but we're kind of catching up a little bit," Bowman told the Enquirer. "So once I see the numbers there, I'll know what our mission, our focus needs to be going into November.'
More: Forget the mayor's race. 27 want to run for Cincinnati City Council
A good head start? I guess that's one way of looking at it, if you're wearing rose-colored glasses. Here's a more clear-eyed view. Bowman has a 16,000-vote Mount Everest he must climb the next six months in a Democratic-leaning city. He got less than 3,000 votes and won only two of 190 precincts. I'll be generous and say the chances of overcoming those numbers are highly improbable.
Bowman's family ties might have helped him outlast Republican Brian Frank, whose performance was more dismal with less than 5% of the vote, but riding Vance's coattails won't be enough to unseat Pureval. The vice president endorsed Bowman just hours before the polls closed, seemingly without much effect.
If Bowman wants any shot at a more respectable finish in November, he needs to give Cincinnatians a reason to vote for him. That starts with doing a better job of articulating his vision and plans for the city. Saying what you don't like and that new leadership is needed simply isn't enough.
I'm glad that Bowman and Frank decided to run against Pureval. I think the public loses anytime candidates run unopposed for elected office. Citizens benefit whenever candidates have to debate their ideas, explain their vision, and defend their records. Seeing the contrast and having a choice matters.
That's why I'm hoping Bowman can step up his game in the months ahead.
Is he serious about being Cincinnati's mayor, or is he more interested in trading on his half-brother's celebrity for his own 15 minutes of fame? He managed to get featured in POLITICO Magazine before the primary.
Winning might not be the point. Bowman could simply be using this race to raise his national profile or position himself for other political opportunities down the road. (Hey, it worked for Vivek Ramaswamy.) If so, that's even more of a reason for him to make a decent showing. The political future isn't typically bright for candidates who get trounced in elections.
Cincinnati mayoral candidate Cory Bowman makes a statement as polling numbers show him trailing behind incumbent mayor Aftab Pureval, and advancing to the general election, at his election night party in the West End neighborhood of Cincinnati on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.
Meanwhile, Pureval has his sights set on another four years as mayor in what could be his last election. Nothing is certain, but Pureval said the thought of stepping away from politics after a second term has crossed his mind.
"A lot of politics is timing, and there may not be an opportunity for me in elected office given the political realities in the state," Pureval said. "My goal was never to be a career politician. It was to do the most good with the time that I have. I'm genuinely passionate about public service, but that may not take the role of electoral politics."
But that's a conversation for the future. Pureval said he's focused on the two most important jobs he has right now: being mayor and being a father to two sons under five.
"You have a very brief amount of time in these roles, and I feel a sense of urgency to get the difficult things done and set Cincinnati up for success after I'm gone," Pureval said.
Bowman doesn't have much time either. He'd better start knocking on some more doors. After Tuesday, the one to the mayor's office might already be closed.
Opinion and Engagement Editor Kevin S. Aldridge can be reached at kaldridge@enquirer.com. On X: @kevaldrid.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: JD Vance's endorsement didn't help Bowman in mayoral primary | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump ropes Fed into debt fight as GOP faces fiscal mess
President Trump is pushing the Federal Reserve to go beyond its legal mandate and help him manage the national debt as Republicans face growing pressure over the nation's finances. In a series of remarks and social media posts, Trump has ripped Fed Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to lower interest rates, insisting he should help the White House manage the costs of servicing more than $36 trillion in national debt. ''Too Late' Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government, and the Fed Board is complicit,' Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social, a day after the Fed held rates steady. While Trump has spent most of his two White House stints berating Powell to cut rates, only recently has he tied those demands to the country's deteriorating fiscal health. 'We're beginning to see what I think are the early warning signs that the Fed is going to be increasingly called upon to keep the government solvent,' said David Beckworth, senior research fellow and monetary policy director at the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank at George Mason University. 'When you begin to see this type of rhetoric, it's a clear sign that people are beginning to get nervous,' Beckworth explained. 'And how else can we save money? Well, let's turn into the Fed and put pressure on them.' Trump's escalating pressure on Powell over the national debt comes as he and Republicans stand to add trillions of dollars to it through a major tax-cut bill. Republican lawmakers are attempting to find common ground on what Trump has called his 'big, beautiful bill.' The legislation features an extension of his 2017 tax cuts, additional cuts the president proposed during the 2024 campaign, and steep cuts to social safety net programs. While GOP lawmakers claim the bill would help solve the country's fiscal woes, a range of ideologically diverse analysts forecast the bill to add anywhere between $2 trillion to nearly $4 trillion to the national debt. At the same time, Trump is attempting to secure GOP support to raise the debt ceiling before the Treasury Department runs out of ways to avoid a default — a deadline that could come as soon as August. Trump is 'kind of speaking out of both sides of his mouth,' said Dan Alpert, managing partner at investment firm Westwood Capital 'He's got this enormous, $3.5 trillion dollar continuation of a tax cut from his first term that he wants to get across the line,' Alpert added. Republican lawmakers have argued that such estimates don't take into account the economic growth unlocked by lower tax rates, which they say would help narrow deficits over time. But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that even when accounting for growth impacts, the bill would still add $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next ten years — more than the CBO projected without considering the preferred GOP scoring. 'The fundamental issue is we have a Congress and a president who cannot bring the budget deficit under control,' Beckworth said. While both Republicans and Democrats are to blame, he added, 'for a party that has claimed historically it is concerned about their debt burden, it is going to blow things up even more.' Trump's efforts to push the Fed into managing the debt mark a significant break from more than 70 years of federal economic policy. During World War I and II, the Fed yielded to pressure from presidential administrations to keep interest rates low and ease the burden of the rising debt. While that practice extended for nearly a decade after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Fed and Treasury eventually reached an agreement in 1951, setting the stage for the next seven decades of economic management. 'The purpose of the 'accord' was to make Treasury manage its debt, rather than expecting the Fed to 'monetize' it. In turn, the Fed asserted its control of monetary policy via the setting of interest rates to meet congressional mandates for price stability and maximizing employment,' said Sarah Binder, political science professor at George Washington University and co-author of 'The Myth of Independence: How Congress Governs the Federal Reserve.' The Fed has since avoided anything that could be considered financing the federal debt while sticking to its 'dual mandate' of balancing unemployment and inflation. And while several presidents have verbally pressured the Fed to keep rates low since 1951, none has made a formal move to limit its legal authority over monetary policy. 'Based on most concepts of 'independent' monetary policy, the central bank shouldn't be monetizing the debt. That is, it shouldn't be taking the administration's financing needs into account when it aims to meet its mandates,' Binder said. 'Those mandates are price stability and strong labor markets,' she added. 'Congress has not given the Fed an additional mandate to make it easier for the Treasury to finance its debt.' But Trump could be laying the groundwork for a shift toward a 'fiscal dominance' regime, Beckworth warned, in which the Fed would be forced to clean up the government's fiscal mess and abandon the bank's legal obligation to keep prices stable and unemployment low. 'Maybe we're not there yet, but we're getting close,' Beckworth said. 'If they push, push, push, and then at some point, the Fed loses independence … and it's no longer able to control inflation.' Trump griped Wednesday, hours before the Fed's latest hold, that he was unable to sway Powell into making major interest rate reductions. 'He's not a smart person,' Trump said of Powell. 'I think he hates me, but that's OK, you know, he should. He should. I call him every name in the book to get him to do something.' Powell brushed off several questions Wednesday about Trump's attacks and the potential debt impact of the president's agenda, but has implored the White House and Congress throughout his time as Fed chief to get the nation's finances on a sustainable track. Trump will be able to add 'former Chair' to his list of names for Powell come 2026, when his four-year term leading the Fed board lapses. Whomever Trump nominates to succeed Powell will almost certainly be more aligned with the president's thinking and face an easy path to confirmation in a GOP-controlled Senate. Even so, Powell is but one of 12 Fed officials on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) who vote to set interest rates — all of whom voted to keep borrowing costs steady Wednesday. 'Even if you got rid of Powell, you'd have to remake the FOMC with yes-men,' Beckworth said. Powell could also choose to stay on as a member of the Fed board through 2028. That would be an usual move for a former Fed chair, but Powell has not ruled it out. 'Powell has not budged, and the FOMC has not budged despite Trump's incessant ranting and pressure and whatever else he can throw at them,' Beckworth said. 'They're still sticking to their guns.'
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani slams US bombing of Iran nuclear sites: ‘Dark new chapter'
Anti-Israel mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is blasting the US bombing of Iran's nuclear sites as an 'unconstitutional military action. 'Donald Trump ran for president promising to end wars, not start new ones,' the Democratic Socialist said in a statement released on X late Saturday. 'Today's unconstitutional military action represents a dark, new chapter in his endless betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos,' the New York City candidate wrote. 'In a city as global as ours, the impacts of war are felt deeply here at home.' 4 'Donald Trump ran for president promising to end wars, not start new ones,' candidate Zohran Mamdani said in a statement on X, blasting the bombings. Vincent Alban/UPI/Shutterstock 4 'Today's unconstitutional military action represents a dark, new chapter in his endless betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos,' Mamdani said about Trump's decision. AP Mamdani also blamed the 'political establishment' for spending money on weaponry and 'endless wars' rather than on fighting poverty and promoting peace. 'For Americans middle aged and younger, this is all we have known,' said Mamdani, who is running a strong second in polls to front-runner Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary for mayor. 'We cannot accept it any longer,' the candidate said. The Cuomo campaign had no immediate comment on the US airstrikes. But city Comptroller and Democratic mayoral candidate Brad Lander also slammed the bombing. 'Trump's reckless & unconstitutional strikes against Iran are a dangerous escalation of war — and threaten countless Iranian, Israeli & American lives,' Lander wrote on X on Saturday, after President Trump's address to the nation outlining why the US launched the bombs at Iran. 4 City Comptroller and Democratic mayoral candidate Brad Lander also condemned the bombing, calling it 'reckless & unconstitutional.' William Farrington 'My thoughts are with families fearing for their safety, and the thousands of New Yorkers worrying tonight about loved ones in Iran,' Lander said. Trump defended the bombing in his speech by saying, 'Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror.' The US strikes came before Tuesday's final day of voting in the Big Apple's Democratic primary for mayor after Sunday's last day of early voting, overshadowing and potentially impacting the outcome. Stay up to date on the latest developments in the U.S. airstrike on Iran Mayor Eric Adams, who is seeking re-election on an independent ballot line, said he ordered the NYPD to 'increase its presence around religious, cultural, and diplomatic sites throughout the five boroughs' in the wake of the US attack. 'Thinking about our large Persian population here in NYC at this time,' he wrote on X on Saturday night. Mamdani's close Democratic Socialist ally, New York City Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Trump's bombing of Iran is 'grounds for impeachment.' 4 Trump defended the bombing, saying, 'our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror.' via REUTERS Mamdani has come under fire for his vicious bashing of Israel, which has also struck Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities in an effort to prevent Tehran from building nuke bombs. He is a staunch supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against the Jewish state, and refused to condemn the 'globalize the intifada' rallying cry — a slogan that has been denounced for allegedly stoking antisemitic violence.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump Got This One Right
'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.
