THOSE BAYING LEGAL BEAGLES … last week I mentioned in this space the persistent rumor that legal types are examining the various blogs in town for possible causes of action, an observation that struck a chord with my friend Mike at aol.com … writes Mike: “You hit the nail on the head better than you could know when you said there are lawyers trolling the area for suits, and I don’t mean Brooks Brothers.” … amen, Mike, you’re the one hitting nails on the head …
Adds Mike: “There is nothing that turns those guys on but a great mystery to open that journey down the long and winding road to truth (and discovery), and the pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow. All it takes is someone who got wrecked and hankers after a king-size settlement to get the ball rolling.” …
An interesting observation, indeed, given that various bloggers in town continue to pump out actionable libel and defamation nearly every day of the week, perhaps under the mistaken impression that “anonymous” blogs are no-holds-barred free-for-alls where the usual rules of law are suspended … they aren’t, which is a lesson some of them will no doubt learn in the near future …
So it turns out Mike at aol.com writes me to clarify that his email to Dunning was “cherry-picked” and distorted.
Mike was kind enough to write in and provide us with the full email which was in response to a completely different topic:
howdy there-
you know I think you hit the nail on the head better than you could (yet) know when you said there are lawyers trolling the area for suits…& I don’t mean Brooks Brothers…
there is nothing that turns those guys on but a great mystery to open ‘that journey down the long and winding road to truth’ (called discovery), and the pot’o’gold at the end of a rainbow.
all it takes is someone who got wrecked and hankers after a King-size settlement…
…as in Rodney _________________…
to get the ball rolling, as it is. but innocent town folk may ask, why should we get the Bill. And therein lies the justice of the American way:
each and severally.those who shirk their duties, or do the legal opposite, should pay.
anyway, have a nice holiday…
Mike’s comment was most likely in reference to the exchange in Dunning’s January 11, 2007 column:
Writes Larry at sbcglobal.net: “Bob — Your analysis of the Target vs. Downtown debate is so truthful, so logical and so sensible I can already guess next Sunday’s Enterprise headline: CAVE sues Dunning and Enterprise.”
Don’t laugh, Larry … there are Bay Area lawyers scouring Yolo County caves for clients even as we speak…
But, of course Dunning used the words of Mike to give it an entirely new and unintended meaning.
John Lofland’s guest commentary this morning asked, “How literally/seriously should we take anything that Bob Dunning says?” I think we see that the answer is we ought to treat everything he says with a grain of salt because it is clear at least to this blogger, that we’re not getting the full story.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Dunning is really not worth all this space and attention. His “rice bowl”, depends on reader’s interest; celebrity status, whether positive of negative is all the same to him. Let’s move on to something important like how we get a council majority in 2008 that SERVES the interests of the people of Davis.
Dunning is really not worth all this space and attention. His “rice bowl”, depends on reader’s interest; celebrity status, whether positive of negative is all the same to him. Let’s move on to something important like how we get a council majority in 2008 that SERVES the interests of the people of Davis.
Dunning is really not worth all this space and attention. His “rice bowl”, depends on reader’s interest; celebrity status, whether positive of negative is all the same to him. Let’s move on to something important like how we get a council majority in 2008 that SERVES the interests of the people of Davis.
Dunning is really not worth all this space and attention. His “rice bowl”, depends on reader’s interest; celebrity status, whether positive of negative is all the same to him. Let’s move on to something important like how we get a council majority in 2008 that SERVES the interests of the people of Davis.
I agree
I agree
I agree
I agree
This blog is getting pretty weird and a little unreadable, if I do say so myself.
Josh
This blog is getting pretty weird and a little unreadable, if I do say so myself.
Josh
This blog is getting pretty weird and a little unreadable, if I do say so myself.
Josh
This blog is getting pretty weird and a little unreadable, if I do say so myself.
Josh
Unreadable? I tried to make it as simple as I could. But don’t worry, we’ll be moving on to bigger and better issues.
Unreadable? I tried to make it as simple as I could. But don’t worry, we’ll be moving on to bigger and better issues.
Unreadable? I tried to make it as simple as I could. But don’t worry, we’ll be moving on to bigger and better issues.
Unreadable? I tried to make it as simple as I could. But don’t worry, we’ll be moving on to bigger and better issues.
“…how we get a council majority in 2008 that SERVES the interests of the people of Davis.”
Great topic. Any ideas?
“…how we get a council majority in 2008 that SERVES the interests of the people of Davis.”
Great topic. Any ideas?
“…how we get a council majority in 2008 that SERVES the interests of the people of Davis.”
Great topic. Any ideas?
“…how we get a council majority in 2008 that SERVES the interests of the people of Davis.”
Great topic. Any ideas?
I would start with finding good strong candidates that can appeal to a good cross-section of the city’s population crossing over from the traditional progressive segments into some of the newer developments.
I would start with finding good strong candidates that can appeal to a good cross-section of the city’s population crossing over from the traditional progressive segments into some of the newer developments.
I would start with finding good strong candidates that can appeal to a good cross-section of the city’s population crossing over from the traditional progressive segments into some of the newer developments.
I would start with finding good strong candidates that can appeal to a good cross-section of the city’s population crossing over from the traditional progressive segments into some of the newer developments.
Levy will most likely make another run at council. He is the Saylor and Asmundson candidate and carries a lot of political baggage because of this into 2008.
The critical thing is to build voter coalitions. We do not all have to have exactly the same agenda but we can all agree that this council majority’s agenda must go…” a new direction” seems to be the national political mantra and it certainly applies to our local politics as well. Uniting behind a few good candidates(no more than the open council seats)and discipline without personality battles and ego hissy-fits will win the day for us.
Levy will most likely make another run at council. He is the Saylor and Asmundson candidate and carries a lot of political baggage because of this into 2008.
The critical thing is to build voter coalitions. We do not all have to have exactly the same agenda but we can all agree that this council majority’s agenda must go…” a new direction” seems to be the national political mantra and it certainly applies to our local politics as well. Uniting behind a few good candidates(no more than the open council seats)and discipline without personality battles and ego hissy-fits will win the day for us.
Levy will most likely make another run at council. He is the Saylor and Asmundson candidate and carries a lot of political baggage because of this into 2008.
The critical thing is to build voter coalitions. We do not all have to have exactly the same agenda but we can all agree that this council majority’s agenda must go…” a new direction” seems to be the national political mantra and it certainly applies to our local politics as well. Uniting behind a few good candidates(no more than the open council seats)and discipline without personality battles and ego hissy-fits will win the day for us.
Levy will most likely make another run at council. He is the Saylor and Asmundson candidate and carries a lot of political baggage because of this into 2008.
The critical thing is to build voter coalitions. We do not all have to have exactly the same agenda but we can all agree that this council majority’s agenda must go…” a new direction” seems to be the national political mantra and it certainly applies to our local politics as well. Uniting behind a few good candidates(no more than the open council seats)and discipline without personality battles and ego hissy-fits will win the day for us.
Also.. all you Vanguardian commentors and lurkers, get ready to abandon your keyboards for a while and get out there knocking on your neighbors’ doors, getting out literature and yes, kicking in a little cash to the campaigns. It’s only a year away now.
Also.. all you Vanguardian commentors and lurkers, get ready to abandon your keyboards for a while and get out there knocking on your neighbors’ doors, getting out literature and yes, kicking in a little cash to the campaigns. It’s only a year away now.
Also.. all you Vanguardian commentors and lurkers, get ready to abandon your keyboards for a while and get out there knocking on your neighbors’ doors, getting out literature and yes, kicking in a little cash to the campaigns. It’s only a year away now.
Also.. all you Vanguardian commentors and lurkers, get ready to abandon your keyboards for a while and get out there knocking on your neighbors’ doors, getting out literature and yes, kicking in a little cash to the campaigns. It’s only a year away now.
well, the problem with “the people” is that the people of davis aren’t really of one mind on most things, politically. mostcity council election results reflect this, with the margins between most candidates generally being rather narrow.
it’s more honest just to say that one has ideas about how davis should be run, and that one wants candidates who agree with those ideas.
well, the problem with “the people” is that the people of davis aren’t really of one mind on most things, politically. mostcity council election results reflect this, with the margins between most candidates generally being rather narrow.
it’s more honest just to say that one has ideas about how davis should be run, and that one wants candidates who agree with those ideas.
well, the problem with “the people” is that the people of davis aren’t really of one mind on most things, politically. mostcity council election results reflect this, with the margins between most candidates generally being rather narrow.
it’s more honest just to say that one has ideas about how davis should be run, and that one wants candidates who agree with those ideas.
well, the problem with “the people” is that the people of davis aren’t really of one mind on most things, politically. mostcity council election results reflect this, with the margins between most candidates generally being rather narrow.
it’s more honest just to say that one has ideas about how davis should be run, and that one wants candidates who agree with those ideas.
?? Wu-ming….. Last year,60% of the voters and every precinct in Davis, save one, voted to reject what Saylor, Souza and Asmundson were strongly advocating with regard to Covell Village. This was a clear expression of the fact that the majority of the people of Davis did not believe that this council majority was representing their interests. There is no indication that this council majority has changed its agenda.. only its strategy… again, an eerie parallel to what we are seeing in Washington DC.
?? Wu-ming….. Last year,60% of the voters and every precinct in Davis, save one, voted to reject what Saylor, Souza and Asmundson were strongly advocating with regard to Covell Village. This was a clear expression of the fact that the majority of the people of Davis did not believe that this council majority was representing their interests. There is no indication that this council majority has changed its agenda.. only its strategy… again, an eerie parallel to what we are seeing in Washington DC.
?? Wu-ming….. Last year,60% of the voters and every precinct in Davis, save one, voted to reject what Saylor, Souza and Asmundson were strongly advocating with regard to Covell Village. This was a clear expression of the fact that the majority of the people of Davis did not believe that this council majority was representing their interests. There is no indication that this council majority has changed its agenda.. only its strategy… again, an eerie parallel to what we are seeing in Washington DC.
?? Wu-ming….. Last year,60% of the voters and every precinct in Davis, save one, voted to reject what Saylor, Souza and Asmundson were strongly advocating with regard to Covell Village. This was a clear expression of the fact that the majority of the people of Davis did not believe that this council majority was representing their interests. There is no indication that this council majority has changed its agenda.. only its strategy… again, an eerie parallel to what we are seeing in Washington DC.
well, it’s not clear that all 60% were opposed to anything beyond covell village with that vote, and it still leaves 40% of davisites that are part of the people but not in your “the people.” a significant chunk of that vote also went for target a year later (which made absolutely no sense to me, but do the math, there’s a 10% shift), and i suspect that there’s a lot of people who might have been swayed one way or the other on the specifics, but who do not share your conviction that further growth is itself bad.
the electorate is not all on the same page, although we can only get hints of what people are thinking ever year or so during these votes. talking with friends and neighbors about the issues and candidates during the past several elections, a lot of what i heard was ambivalence, as much as anything else. on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand-ism.
even those who do agree that further development is not a good idea don’t necessarily agree on other issues (likewise, people who disagree on growth issues often still have vast areas of common ground elsewhere).
the biggest difference between what you describe nationally and politics here in davis is that things just don’t work in a partisan manner, not at the voter level. not for most voters, anyway. result of being a one-party town where the second biggest one is “decline to state.” city politics is a far more complex calculus, and often decided on personal networks and experience as much as policy differences.
well, it’s not clear that all 60% were opposed to anything beyond covell village with that vote, and it still leaves 40% of davisites that are part of the people but not in your “the people.” a significant chunk of that vote also went for target a year later (which made absolutely no sense to me, but do the math, there’s a 10% shift), and i suspect that there’s a lot of people who might have been swayed one way or the other on the specifics, but who do not share your conviction that further growth is itself bad.
the electorate is not all on the same page, although we can only get hints of what people are thinking ever year or so during these votes. talking with friends and neighbors about the issues and candidates during the past several elections, a lot of what i heard was ambivalence, as much as anything else. on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand-ism.
even those who do agree that further development is not a good idea don’t necessarily agree on other issues (likewise, people who disagree on growth issues often still have vast areas of common ground elsewhere).
the biggest difference between what you describe nationally and politics here in davis is that things just don’t work in a partisan manner, not at the voter level. not for most voters, anyway. result of being a one-party town where the second biggest one is “decline to state.” city politics is a far more complex calculus, and often decided on personal networks and experience as much as policy differences.
well, it’s not clear that all 60% were opposed to anything beyond covell village with that vote, and it still leaves 40% of davisites that are part of the people but not in your “the people.” a significant chunk of that vote also went for target a year later (which made absolutely no sense to me, but do the math, there’s a 10% shift), and i suspect that there’s a lot of people who might have been swayed one way or the other on the specifics, but who do not share your conviction that further growth is itself bad.
the electorate is not all on the same page, although we can only get hints of what people are thinking ever year or so during these votes. talking with friends and neighbors about the issues and candidates during the past several elections, a lot of what i heard was ambivalence, as much as anything else. on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand-ism.
even those who do agree that further development is not a good idea don’t necessarily agree on other issues (likewise, people who disagree on growth issues often still have vast areas of common ground elsewhere).
the biggest difference between what you describe nationally and politics here in davis is that things just don’t work in a partisan manner, not at the voter level. not for most voters, anyway. result of being a one-party town where the second biggest one is “decline to state.” city politics is a far more complex calculus, and often decided on personal networks and experience as much as policy differences.
well, it’s not clear that all 60% were opposed to anything beyond covell village with that vote, and it still leaves 40% of davisites that are part of the people but not in your “the people.” a significant chunk of that vote also went for target a year later (which made absolutely no sense to me, but do the math, there’s a 10% shift), and i suspect that there’s a lot of people who might have been swayed one way or the other on the specifics, but who do not share your conviction that further growth is itself bad.
the electorate is not all on the same page, although we can only get hints of what people are thinking ever year or so during these votes. talking with friends and neighbors about the issues and candidates during the past several elections, a lot of what i heard was ambivalence, as much as anything else. on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand-ism.
even those who do agree that further development is not a good idea don’t necessarily agree on other issues (likewise, people who disagree on growth issues often still have vast areas of common ground elsewhere).
the biggest difference between what you describe nationally and politics here in davis is that things just don’t work in a partisan manner, not at the voter level. not for most voters, anyway. result of being a one-party town where the second biggest one is “decline to state.” city politics is a far more complex calculus, and often decided on personal networks and experience as much as policy differences.
“This was a clear expression of the fact that the majority of the people of Davis did not believe that this council majority was representing their interests.”
I disagree. My sense is that there were many wildly different reasons why different people voted against Measure X. It was not a unified vote.
I still think Davis is divided between the liberal-centrism of the current council majority (35%), the leftist-progressivism of the council minority (35%), and the rest of town that votes more on personalities or personal issues (30%).
No one wins a council election in Davis merely on “the issues” or on his “ideology.” Personality and personal connections are big components for a lot of voters.
If 60% of the town really equated their vote on Measure X with a rejection of Ruth Asmundson, then why did she finish in first place in her very next election?
Helen Thomson was out front in her very enthusiastic support of Measure X. If 60% of Davis equated that vote with a rejection of the politicians who supported it, then why did no one even challenge Helen for her Supervisorial seat, let alone defeat her at the polls?
Very few people are single-issue voters. Certainly, the 35% or so of the Davis electorate that considers itself left-wing or progressive dislikes the more centrist approach of people like Ruth Asmundson. So they wouldn’t have voted for her not just because of Covell Village, but because of their opposing views on dozens of issues.
But many of the rest who opposed Covell Village likely agree with Ruth on many other issues or just like her personally. So disagreement on one single issue, albeit a big one, won’t sway them too much.
I am personally not a single-issue voter. I strongly disagreed with Helen regarding Conaway Ranch, for example. I wrote vigorously of my opposition to the county’s lawsuit. I don’t agree with the 40% payraise for supervisors, either. However, I still consider myself a big fan of Helen. I have voted for her a number of times for a number of different positions. I think she’s smart, honest, and hard-working and she cares about helping people who most need help. I also like her personally. So even if I think she was wrong on a big issue, I am not going to disregard her good character and otherwise excellent performance.
“This was a clear expression of the fact that the majority of the people of Davis did not believe that this council majority was representing their interests.”
I disagree. My sense is that there were many wildly different reasons why different people voted against Measure X. It was not a unified vote.
I still think Davis is divided between the liberal-centrism of the current council majority (35%), the leftist-progressivism of the council minority (35%), and the rest of town that votes more on personalities or personal issues (30%).
No one wins a council election in Davis merely on “the issues” or on his “ideology.” Personality and personal connections are big components for a lot of voters.
If 60% of the town really equated their vote on Measure X with a rejection of Ruth Asmundson, then why did she finish in first place in her very next election?
Helen Thomson was out front in her very enthusiastic support of Measure X. If 60% of Davis equated that vote with a rejection of the politicians who supported it, then why did no one even challenge Helen for her Supervisorial seat, let alone defeat her at the polls?
Very few people are single-issue voters. Certainly, the 35% or so of the Davis electorate that considers itself left-wing or progressive dislikes the more centrist approach of people like Ruth Asmundson. So they wouldn’t have voted for her not just because of Covell Village, but because of their opposing views on dozens of issues.
But many of the rest who opposed Covell Village likely agree with Ruth on many other issues or just like her personally. So disagreement on one single issue, albeit a big one, won’t sway them too much.
I am personally not a single-issue voter. I strongly disagreed with Helen regarding Conaway Ranch, for example. I wrote vigorously of my opposition to the county’s lawsuit. I don’t agree with the 40% payraise for supervisors, either. However, I still consider myself a big fan of Helen. I have voted for her a number of times for a number of different positions. I think she’s smart, honest, and hard-working and she cares about helping people who most need help. I also like her personally. So even if I think she was wrong on a big issue, I am not going to disregard her good character and otherwise excellent performance.
“This was a clear expression of the fact that the majority of the people of Davis did not believe that this council majority was representing their interests.”
I disagree. My sense is that there were many wildly different reasons why different people voted against Measure X. It was not a unified vote.
I still think Davis is divided between the liberal-centrism of the current council majority (35%), the leftist-progressivism of the council minority (35%), and the rest of town that votes more on personalities or personal issues (30%).
No one wins a council election in Davis merely on “the issues” or on his “ideology.” Personality and personal connections are big components for a lot of voters.
If 60% of the town really equated their vote on Measure X with a rejection of Ruth Asmundson, then why did she finish in first place in her very next election?
Helen Thomson was out front in her very enthusiastic support of Measure X. If 60% of Davis equated that vote with a rejection of the politicians who supported it, then why did no one even challenge Helen for her Supervisorial seat, let alone defeat her at the polls?
Very few people are single-issue voters. Certainly, the 35% or so of the Davis electorate that considers itself left-wing or progressive dislikes the more centrist approach of people like Ruth Asmundson. So they wouldn’t have voted for her not just because of Covell Village, but because of their opposing views on dozens of issues.
But many of the rest who opposed Covell Village likely agree with Ruth on many other issues or just like her personally. So disagreement on one single issue, albeit a big one, won’t sway them too much.
I am personally not a single-issue voter. I strongly disagreed with Helen regarding Conaway Ranch, for example. I wrote vigorously of my opposition to the county’s lawsuit. I don’t agree with the 40% payraise for supervisors, either. However, I still consider myself a big fan of Helen. I have voted for her a number of times for a number of different positions. I think she’s smart, honest, and hard-working and she cares about helping people who most need help. I also like her personally. So even if I think she was wrong on a big issue, I am not going to disregard her good character and otherwise excellent performance.
“This was a clear expression of the fact that the majority of the people of Davis did not believe that this council majority was representing their interests.”
I disagree. My sense is that there were many wildly different reasons why different people voted against Measure X. It was not a unified vote.
I still think Davis is divided between the liberal-centrism of the current council majority (35%), the leftist-progressivism of the council minority (35%), and the rest of town that votes more on personalities or personal issues (30%).
No one wins a council election in Davis merely on “the issues” or on his “ideology.” Personality and personal connections are big components for a lot of voters.
If 60% of the town really equated their vote on Measure X with a rejection of Ruth Asmundson, then why did she finish in first place in her very next election?
Helen Thomson was out front in her very enthusiastic support of Measure X. If 60% of Davis equated that vote with a rejection of the politicians who supported it, then why did no one even challenge Helen for her Supervisorial seat, let alone defeat her at the polls?
Very few people are single-issue voters. Certainly, the 35% or so of the Davis electorate that considers itself left-wing or progressive dislikes the more centrist approach of people like Ruth Asmundson. So they wouldn’t have voted for her not just because of Covell Village, but because of their opposing views on dozens of issues.
But many of the rest who opposed Covell Village likely agree with Ruth on many other issues or just like her personally. So disagreement on one single issue, albeit a big one, won’t sway them too much.
I am personally not a single-issue voter. I strongly disagreed with Helen regarding Conaway Ranch, for example. I wrote vigorously of my opposition to the county’s lawsuit. I don’t agree with the 40% payraise for supervisors, either. However, I still consider myself a big fan of Helen. I have voted for her a number of times for a number of different positions. I think she’s smart, honest, and hard-working and she cares about helping people who most need help. I also like her personally. So even if I think she was wrong on a big issue, I am not going to disregard her good character and otherwise excellent performance.
Don Shor said: “Great topic. Any ideas?”
Yeah! I got a great idea. Don Shor for City Council :-)Heck I’d even work on that campaign …something I said I’d never do (work on any campaign) after Measure K. You’re perfect for it …well spoken …well liked …well respected …knowledgeable on city issues past, present and future …handsome (don’t worry, Rob thinks you’re handsome too ;-). Don Shor for City Council 2008!
Don Shor said: “Great topic. Any ideas?”
Yeah! I got a great idea. Don Shor for City Council :-)Heck I’d even work on that campaign …something I said I’d never do (work on any campaign) after Measure K. You’re perfect for it …well spoken …well liked …well respected …knowledgeable on city issues past, present and future …handsome (don’t worry, Rob thinks you’re handsome too ;-). Don Shor for City Council 2008!
Don Shor said: “Great topic. Any ideas?”
Yeah! I got a great idea. Don Shor for City Council :-)Heck I’d even work on that campaign …something I said I’d never do (work on any campaign) after Measure K. You’re perfect for it …well spoken …well liked …well respected …knowledgeable on city issues past, present and future …handsome (don’t worry, Rob thinks you’re handsome too ;-). Don Shor for City Council 2008!
Don Shor said: “Great topic. Any ideas?”
Yeah! I got a great idea. Don Shor for City Council :-)Heck I’d even work on that campaign …something I said I’d never do (work on any campaign) after Measure K. You’re perfect for it …well spoken …well liked …well respected …knowledgeable on city issues past, present and future …handsome (don’t worry, Rob thinks you’re handsome too ;-). Don Shor for City Council 2008!
yes, davisite, our city council is *just like the bush administration* because going to an unpopular war is just like approving unpopular developments.
good lord.
in regards to this blog getting weird, i agree. it’s just becoming a soapbox to sound big alarms through what is frankly a small town whose
“big issues” always have heralders of the apocalypse (aka the loss of ‘town character’, whatever the hell that is). i mean, target? BFD.
it’s a store students dont have to blow a stupid amount of gas to get socks at. Davis’ “character” is more in line with making a huge fuss about piddling crap, complete with parents who expect to get their way because they were goodly enough to breed, than it is about holding on
to any notion of being “quaint” or “friendly”
but i digress.
en bref: you want to look like a blog that has a journalistic bent on politics, but you just sound like those people that write in to the editor with unsolicited opinions they’re not being paid for and
shouldnt be. and now you’re just doing copypasta of someone elses angry rant on jerks nominating jerks.
you even managed to rob the inherent funny of Bob Dunning threatening legal action by being super-serious about it.
way to go.
yes, davisite, our city council is *just like the bush administration* because going to an unpopular war is just like approving unpopular developments.
good lord.
in regards to this blog getting weird, i agree. it’s just becoming a soapbox to sound big alarms through what is frankly a small town whose
“big issues” always have heralders of the apocalypse (aka the loss of ‘town character’, whatever the hell that is). i mean, target? BFD.
it’s a store students dont have to blow a stupid amount of gas to get socks at. Davis’ “character” is more in line with making a huge fuss about piddling crap, complete with parents who expect to get their way because they were goodly enough to breed, than it is about holding on
to any notion of being “quaint” or “friendly”
but i digress.
en bref: you want to look like a blog that has a journalistic bent on politics, but you just sound like those people that write in to the editor with unsolicited opinions they’re not being paid for and
shouldnt be. and now you’re just doing copypasta of someone elses angry rant on jerks nominating jerks.
you even managed to rob the inherent funny of Bob Dunning threatening legal action by being super-serious about it.
way to go.
yes, davisite, our city council is *just like the bush administration* because going to an unpopular war is just like approving unpopular developments.
good lord.
in regards to this blog getting weird, i agree. it’s just becoming a soapbox to sound big alarms through what is frankly a small town whose
“big issues” always have heralders of the apocalypse (aka the loss of ‘town character’, whatever the hell that is). i mean, target? BFD.
it’s a store students dont have to blow a stupid amount of gas to get socks at. Davis’ “character” is more in line with making a huge fuss about piddling crap, complete with parents who expect to get their way because they were goodly enough to breed, than it is about holding on
to any notion of being “quaint” or “friendly”
but i digress.
en bref: you want to look like a blog that has a journalistic bent on politics, but you just sound like those people that write in to the editor with unsolicited opinions they’re not being paid for and
shouldnt be. and now you’re just doing copypasta of someone elses angry rant on jerks nominating jerks.
you even managed to rob the inherent funny of Bob Dunning threatening legal action by being super-serious about it.
way to go.
yes, davisite, our city council is *just like the bush administration* because going to an unpopular war is just like approving unpopular developments.
good lord.
in regards to this blog getting weird, i agree. it’s just becoming a soapbox to sound big alarms through what is frankly a small town whose
“big issues” always have heralders of the apocalypse (aka the loss of ‘town character’, whatever the hell that is). i mean, target? BFD.
it’s a store students dont have to blow a stupid amount of gas to get socks at. Davis’ “character” is more in line with making a huge fuss about piddling crap, complete with parents who expect to get their way because they were goodly enough to breed, than it is about holding on
to any notion of being “quaint” or “friendly”
but i digress.
en bref: you want to look like a blog that has a journalistic bent on politics, but you just sound like those people that write in to the editor with unsolicited opinions they’re not being paid for and
shouldnt be. and now you’re just doing copypasta of someone elses angry rant on jerks nominating jerks.
you even managed to rob the inherent funny of Bob Dunning threatening legal action by being super-serious about it.
way to go.
………It was not a unified vote.
I was not implying that there was one reason why 60% voted against Covell Village but rather that 60% decided that the council majority was not representing what they felt was THEIR interest… hence my suggestion that voter coalitions can be formed with different interests but common goal.
Ruth Asmundson’s perciptious drop in the last election( I believe it was around 40 percentage points from her first election) left her with about 26% which is probably her unflinchingly loyal constituency.
Anyway… this will all play itself out next year.. see you there.
………It was not a unified vote.
I was not implying that there was one reason why 60% voted against Covell Village but rather that 60% decided that the council majority was not representing what they felt was THEIR interest… hence my suggestion that voter coalitions can be formed with different interests but common goal.
Ruth Asmundson’s perciptious drop in the last election( I believe it was around 40 percentage points from her first election) left her with about 26% which is probably her unflinchingly loyal constituency.
Anyway… this will all play itself out next year.. see you there.
………It was not a unified vote.
I was not implying that there was one reason why 60% voted against Covell Village but rather that 60% decided that the council majority was not representing what they felt was THEIR interest… hence my suggestion that voter coalitions can be formed with different interests but common goal.
Ruth Asmundson’s perciptious drop in the last election( I believe it was around 40 percentage points from her first election) left her with about 26% which is probably her unflinchingly loyal constituency.
Anyway… this will all play itself out next year.. see you there.
………It was not a unified vote.
I was not implying that there was one reason why 60% voted against Covell Village but rather that 60% decided that the council majority was not representing what they felt was THEIR interest… hence my suggestion that voter coalitions can be formed with different interests but common goal.
Ruth Asmundson’s perciptious drop in the last election( I believe it was around 40 percentage points from her first election) left her with about 26% which is probably her unflinchingly loyal constituency.
Anyway… this will all play itself out next year.. see you there.
i’d second don shor for city council, FWIW.
i’d second don shor for city council, FWIW.
i’d second don shor for city council, FWIW.
i’d second don shor for city council, FWIW.
“Ruth Asmundson’s perciptious drop in the last election( I believe it was around 40 percentage points from her first election)…”
In 2002, Ruth received 8,474 votes. In 2006, 6,751. That’s a 20% decline.
However, Measure X is not the best explanation for that decline. (I agree that its unpopularity did hurt her some.) I think the best explanation is that the field of candidates she ran against in 2006 was much stronger than it was in 2002.
In 2002, Ruth and Ted Puntillo won office easily. The four losing candidates were Pam Gunnell, Russell Snyder, William Diemer and JJ Charlesworth. Not one of the bottom four had ever run for city council before (as far as I recall); not one had ever been elected to anything in Davis before; and not one of the bottom four had a strong base of support, in terms of being identified with a larger group or cause.
Pam Gunnell was, at least, well known. But she didn’t do very well in that election, perhaps because she didn’t know how to run a campaign for office.
By contrast, 2006 was a much stronger field: Ruth, Lamar, Stan, Mike Levy and Rob Roy.
Granted, if he had not received 1,517 votes, I would not have counted Rob as a “strong” candidate. But aside from his not raising any money for his campaign, Rob is a very likable guy. I imagine anyone who ever met him during the campaign (or at any other time) would agree. And he was reasonably well known in town, already. So Rob’s candidacy was not just a lark. He might have a chance to win office in the future, if he works at it. But he’ll have to raise some money.
Mike Levy, who finished only 277 votes behind Lamar, was hurt by his inexperience in running for elective office. But he certainly was a formidable candidate, having raised a lot of money and received the strong backing of a lot of power brokers in town.
Stan Forbes, who would have won Lamar’s seat in 2006 but for the strong showing of Rob Roy, was obviously a good candidate. Stan not only had won running for the council in the past, but he was also an elected member of the school board and widely known from his writings and from his businesses.
And of couse Lamar was a good candidate. He was a fairly good candidate 2 years earlier. But that experience surely helped him to run a better (and better financed) race.
So Ruth’s decline, I think, was mostly due to the better field. Though perhaps some of the better field could be explained by her unpopular position on Measure X.
“Ruth Asmundson’s perciptious drop in the last election( I believe it was around 40 percentage points from her first election)…”
In 2002, Ruth received 8,474 votes. In 2006, 6,751. That’s a 20% decline.
However, Measure X is not the best explanation for that decline. (I agree that its unpopularity did hurt her some.) I think the best explanation is that the field of candidates she ran against in 2006 was much stronger than it was in 2002.
In 2002, Ruth and Ted Puntillo won office easily. The four losing candidates were Pam Gunnell, Russell Snyder, William Diemer and JJ Charlesworth. Not one of the bottom four had ever run for city council before (as far as I recall); not one had ever been elected to anything in Davis before; and not one of the bottom four had a strong base of support, in terms of being identified with a larger group or cause.
Pam Gunnell was, at least, well known. But she didn’t do very well in that election, perhaps because she didn’t know how to run a campaign for office.
By contrast, 2006 was a much stronger field: Ruth, Lamar, Stan, Mike Levy and Rob Roy.
Granted, if he had not received 1,517 votes, I would not have counted Rob as a “strong” candidate. But aside from his not raising any money for his campaign, Rob is a very likable guy. I imagine anyone who ever met him during the campaign (or at any other time) would agree. And he was reasonably well known in town, already. So Rob’s candidacy was not just a lark. He might have a chance to win office in the future, if he works at it. But he’ll have to raise some money.
Mike Levy, who finished only 277 votes behind Lamar, was hurt by his inexperience in running for elective office. But he certainly was a formidable candidate, having raised a lot of money and received the strong backing of a lot of power brokers in town.
Stan Forbes, who would have won Lamar’s seat in 2006 but for the strong showing of Rob Roy, was obviously a good candidate. Stan not only had won running for the council in the past, but he was also an elected member of the school board and widely known from his writings and from his businesses.
And of couse Lamar was a good candidate. He was a fairly good candidate 2 years earlier. But that experience surely helped him to run a better (and better financed) race.
So Ruth’s decline, I think, was mostly due to the better field. Though perhaps some of the better field could be explained by her unpopular position on Measure X.
“Ruth Asmundson’s perciptious drop in the last election( I believe it was around 40 percentage points from her first election)…”
In 2002, Ruth received 8,474 votes. In 2006, 6,751. That’s a 20% decline.
However, Measure X is not the best explanation for that decline. (I agree that its unpopularity did hurt her some.) I think the best explanation is that the field of candidates she ran against in 2006 was much stronger than it was in 2002.
In 2002, Ruth and Ted Puntillo won office easily. The four losing candidates were Pam Gunnell, Russell Snyder, William Diemer and JJ Charlesworth. Not one of the bottom four had ever run for city council before (as far as I recall); not one had ever been elected to anything in Davis before; and not one of the bottom four had a strong base of support, in terms of being identified with a larger group or cause.
Pam Gunnell was, at least, well known. But she didn’t do very well in that election, perhaps because she didn’t know how to run a campaign for office.
By contrast, 2006 was a much stronger field: Ruth, Lamar, Stan, Mike Levy and Rob Roy.
Granted, if he had not received 1,517 votes, I would not have counted Rob as a “strong” candidate. But aside from his not raising any money for his campaign, Rob is a very likable guy. I imagine anyone who ever met him during the campaign (or at any other time) would agree. And he was reasonably well known in town, already. So Rob’s candidacy was not just a lark. He might have a chance to win office in the future, if he works at it. But he’ll have to raise some money.
Mike Levy, who finished only 277 votes behind Lamar, was hurt by his inexperience in running for elective office. But he certainly was a formidable candidate, having raised a lot of money and received the strong backing of a lot of power brokers in town.
Stan Forbes, who would have won Lamar’s seat in 2006 but for the strong showing of Rob Roy, was obviously a good candidate. Stan not only had won running for the council in the past, but he was also an elected member of the school board and widely known from his writings and from his businesses.
And of couse Lamar was a good candidate. He was a fairly good candidate 2 years earlier. But that experience surely helped him to run a better (and better financed) race.
So Ruth’s decline, I think, was mostly due to the better field. Though perhaps some of the better field could be explained by her unpopular position on Measure X.
“Ruth Asmundson’s perciptious drop in the last election( I believe it was around 40 percentage points from her first election)…”
In 2002, Ruth received 8,474 votes. In 2006, 6,751. That’s a 20% decline.
However, Measure X is not the best explanation for that decline. (I agree that its unpopularity did hurt her some.) I think the best explanation is that the field of candidates she ran against in 2006 was much stronger than it was in 2002.
In 2002, Ruth and Ted Puntillo won office easily. The four losing candidates were Pam Gunnell, Russell Snyder, William Diemer and JJ Charlesworth. Not one of the bottom four had ever run for city council before (as far as I recall); not one had ever been elected to anything in Davis before; and not one of the bottom four had a strong base of support, in terms of being identified with a larger group or cause.
Pam Gunnell was, at least, well known. But she didn’t do very well in that election, perhaps because she didn’t know how to run a campaign for office.
By contrast, 2006 was a much stronger field: Ruth, Lamar, Stan, Mike Levy and Rob Roy.
Granted, if he had not received 1,517 votes, I would not have counted Rob as a “strong” candidate. But aside from his not raising any money for his campaign, Rob is a very likable guy. I imagine anyone who ever met him during the campaign (or at any other time) would agree. And he was reasonably well known in town, already. So Rob’s candidacy was not just a lark. He might have a chance to win office in the future, if he works at it. But he’ll have to raise some money.
Mike Levy, who finished only 277 votes behind Lamar, was hurt by his inexperience in running for elective office. But he certainly was a formidable candidate, having raised a lot of money and received the strong backing of a lot of power brokers in town.
Stan Forbes, who would have won Lamar’s seat in 2006 but for the strong showing of Rob Roy, was obviously a good candidate. Stan not only had won running for the council in the past, but he was also an elected member of the school board and widely known from his writings and from his businesses.
And of couse Lamar was a good candidate. He was a fairly good candidate 2 years earlier. But that experience surely helped him to run a better (and better financed) race.
So Ruth’s decline, I think, was mostly due to the better field. Though perhaps some of the better field could be explained by her unpopular position on Measure X.
There is a long history in Davis politics of a non-viable UCD student candidate being recruited as a spoiler. There were strong rumors floating about(remember, this is a small town) that Saylor was encouraging and supporting Rob Roy’s candidacy. Without Rob Roy, we would now have mayor pro tem Lamar Heystek. Rob Roy, to his credit, did not seem to be totally taken in by this but I am sure that he was receiving ego-inflating encouragement(heady stuff for a young man) from the Saylor/Levy campaign. Without Rob Roy in the mix, and he had no chance of winning at any time, Stan would have beat out Levy as he would have
been the student’s 2nd pick along with his campaign-partner, Lamar.
It would have been Lamar first and Ruth and Stan battling for second.
There is a long history in Davis politics of a non-viable UCD student candidate being recruited as a spoiler. There were strong rumors floating about(remember, this is a small town) that Saylor was encouraging and supporting Rob Roy’s candidacy. Without Rob Roy, we would now have mayor pro tem Lamar Heystek. Rob Roy, to his credit, did not seem to be totally taken in by this but I am sure that he was receiving ego-inflating encouragement(heady stuff for a young man) from the Saylor/Levy campaign. Without Rob Roy in the mix, and he had no chance of winning at any time, Stan would have beat out Levy as he would have
been the student’s 2nd pick along with his campaign-partner, Lamar.
It would have been Lamar first and Ruth and Stan battling for second.
There is a long history in Davis politics of a non-viable UCD student candidate being recruited as a spoiler. There were strong rumors floating about(remember, this is a small town) that Saylor was encouraging and supporting Rob Roy’s candidacy. Without Rob Roy, we would now have mayor pro tem Lamar Heystek. Rob Roy, to his credit, did not seem to be totally taken in by this but I am sure that he was receiving ego-inflating encouragement(heady stuff for a young man) from the Saylor/Levy campaign. Without Rob Roy in the mix, and he had no chance of winning at any time, Stan would have beat out Levy as he would have
been the student’s 2nd pick along with his campaign-partner, Lamar.
It would have been Lamar first and Ruth and Stan battling for second.
There is a long history in Davis politics of a non-viable UCD student candidate being recruited as a spoiler. There were strong rumors floating about(remember, this is a small town) that Saylor was encouraging and supporting Rob Roy’s candidacy. Without Rob Roy, we would now have mayor pro tem Lamar Heystek. Rob Roy, to his credit, did not seem to be totally taken in by this but I am sure that he was receiving ego-inflating encouragement(heady stuff for a young man) from the Saylor/Levy campaign. Without Rob Roy in the mix, and he had no chance of winning at any time, Stan would have beat out Levy as he would have
been the student’s 2nd pick along with his campaign-partner, Lamar.
It would have been Lamar first and Ruth and Stan battling for second.
Davisite,
I think you are mistaken in saying that Rob Roy took votes away from Lamar.
I have not seen a list of the votes which shows voting correlations (i.e., if someone voted for Rob Roy, who was the other person that voter voted for). However, I have a strong feeling that Rob Roy was the second choice of a lot of Lamar Heystek voters. He was not the second choice of Levy, Asmundson or Forbes voters.
Because Forbes was running in alliance with Lamar, many who favored Lamar picked Stan as their second choice. But the candidacy of Rob Roy stole away some of those “second choice” votes that would have gone to Stan. As such, it was Stan, not Lamar, who suffered from Rob’s success.
Rob Roy got 1,517 votes. Stan was about 500 votes from being the top vote getter. You take Rob out of the race, give half of those Rob Roy votes to Stan and Forbes finishes in first place. Ruth would have finished second, Lamar third, and Levy fourth.
While I believe it is true that Lamar was the first choice of more voters than Stan was, Stan was not anathema to a lot of Ruth Asmundson voters. As such, Stan also got a lot of “second choice” votes from people who voted for Ruth and didn’t care for (or know much about) Levy. Stan was much better known than Levy, and probably better connected.
My preference is that we adopt choice voting. If we did that, Ruth and Lamar would have won (just as happened). The difference would be that choice voting takes out the luck factor which comes about due to wild card candidates (like Rob Roy).
Davisite,
I think you are mistaken in saying that Rob Roy took votes away from Lamar.
I have not seen a list of the votes which shows voting correlations (i.e., if someone voted for Rob Roy, who was the other person that voter voted for). However, I have a strong feeling that Rob Roy was the second choice of a lot of Lamar Heystek voters. He was not the second choice of Levy, Asmundson or Forbes voters.
Because Forbes was running in alliance with Lamar, many who favored Lamar picked Stan as their second choice. But the candidacy of Rob Roy stole away some of those “second choice” votes that would have gone to Stan. As such, it was Stan, not Lamar, who suffered from Rob’s success.
Rob Roy got 1,517 votes. Stan was about 500 votes from being the top vote getter. You take Rob out of the race, give half of those Rob Roy votes to Stan and Forbes finishes in first place. Ruth would have finished second, Lamar third, and Levy fourth.
While I believe it is true that Lamar was the first choice of more voters than Stan was, Stan was not anathema to a lot of Ruth Asmundson voters. As such, Stan also got a lot of “second choice” votes from people who voted for Ruth and didn’t care for (or know much about) Levy. Stan was much better known than Levy, and probably better connected.
My preference is that we adopt choice voting. If we did that, Ruth and Lamar would have won (just as happened). The difference would be that choice voting takes out the luck factor which comes about due to wild card candidates (like Rob Roy).
Davisite,
I think you are mistaken in saying that Rob Roy took votes away from Lamar.
I have not seen a list of the votes which shows voting correlations (i.e., if someone voted for Rob Roy, who was the other person that voter voted for). However, I have a strong feeling that Rob Roy was the second choice of a lot of Lamar Heystek voters. He was not the second choice of Levy, Asmundson or Forbes voters.
Because Forbes was running in alliance with Lamar, many who favored Lamar picked Stan as their second choice. But the candidacy of Rob Roy stole away some of those “second choice” votes that would have gone to Stan. As such, it was Stan, not Lamar, who suffered from Rob’s success.
Rob Roy got 1,517 votes. Stan was about 500 votes from being the top vote getter. You take Rob out of the race, give half of those Rob Roy votes to Stan and Forbes finishes in first place. Ruth would have finished second, Lamar third, and Levy fourth.
While I believe it is true that Lamar was the first choice of more voters than Stan was, Stan was not anathema to a lot of Ruth Asmundson voters. As such, Stan also got a lot of “second choice” votes from people who voted for Ruth and didn’t care for (or know much about) Levy. Stan was much better known than Levy, and probably better connected.
My preference is that we adopt choice voting. If we did that, Ruth and Lamar would have won (just as happened). The difference would be that choice voting takes out the luck factor which comes about due to wild card candidates (like Rob Roy).
Davisite,
I think you are mistaken in saying that Rob Roy took votes away from Lamar.
I have not seen a list of the votes which shows voting correlations (i.e., if someone voted for Rob Roy, who was the other person that voter voted for). However, I have a strong feeling that Rob Roy was the second choice of a lot of Lamar Heystek voters. He was not the second choice of Levy, Asmundson or Forbes voters.
Because Forbes was running in alliance with Lamar, many who favored Lamar picked Stan as their second choice. But the candidacy of Rob Roy stole away some of those “second choice” votes that would have gone to Stan. As such, it was Stan, not Lamar, who suffered from Rob’s success.
Rob Roy got 1,517 votes. Stan was about 500 votes from being the top vote getter. You take Rob out of the race, give half of those Rob Roy votes to Stan and Forbes finishes in first place. Ruth would have finished second, Lamar third, and Levy fourth.
While I believe it is true that Lamar was the first choice of more voters than Stan was, Stan was not anathema to a lot of Ruth Asmundson voters. As such, Stan also got a lot of “second choice” votes from people who voted for Ruth and didn’t care for (or know much about) Levy. Stan was much better known than Levy, and probably better connected.
My preference is that we adopt choice voting. If we did that, Ruth and Lamar would have won (just as happened). The difference would be that choice voting takes out the luck factor which comes about due to wild card candidates (like Rob Roy).
I have a different thinking on Rob Roy. First, I don’t know how many votes he took from anyone, a lot of his voters may not have voted without him in the race. As much as he may have had a factor it may have been getting Heystek a few extra second votes. But the other odd thing is that I saw some very interesting combinations–Asmundson with Rob Roy signs. Overall, he may have cost Forbes some votes, but I don’t think it really swung the election.
I have a different thinking on Rob Roy. First, I don’t know how many votes he took from anyone, a lot of his voters may not have voted without him in the race. As much as he may have had a factor it may have been getting Heystek a few extra second votes. But the other odd thing is that I saw some very interesting combinations–Asmundson with Rob Roy signs. Overall, he may have cost Forbes some votes, but I don’t think it really swung the election.
I have a different thinking on Rob Roy. First, I don’t know how many votes he took from anyone, a lot of his voters may not have voted without him in the race. As much as he may have had a factor it may have been getting Heystek a few extra second votes. But the other odd thing is that I saw some very interesting combinations–Asmundson with Rob Roy signs. Overall, he may have cost Forbes some votes, but I don’t think it really swung the election.
I have a different thinking on Rob Roy. First, I don’t know how many votes he took from anyone, a lot of his voters may not have voted without him in the race. As much as he may have had a factor it may have been getting Heystek a few extra second votes. But the other odd thing is that I saw some very interesting combinations–Asmundson with Rob Roy signs. Overall, he may have cost Forbes some votes, but I don’t think it really swung the election.
“But the other odd thing is that I saw some very interesting combinations–Asmundson with Rob Roy signs.”
I can’t imagine that there were too many of those. The only Rob Roy signs I saw were hand-made, and they were out front of rental houses not far from campus near Rite Aid, suggesting to me that they were students.
One thing which makes me doubt the theory that Rob Roy’s voters otherwise would not have voted, but for Rob’s presence on the ballot, is that the total number of voters was not elevated in any sense. The total number of voters (15,902) was virtually identical to the 2002 election (15,736). In 2004, when there was a presidential primary being contested, voter turnout was significantly higher (19,347).
“But the other odd thing is that I saw some very interesting combinations–Asmundson with Rob Roy signs.”
I can’t imagine that there were too many of those. The only Rob Roy signs I saw were hand-made, and they were out front of rental houses not far from campus near Rite Aid, suggesting to me that they were students.
One thing which makes me doubt the theory that Rob Roy’s voters otherwise would not have voted, but for Rob’s presence on the ballot, is that the total number of voters was not elevated in any sense. The total number of voters (15,902) was virtually identical to the 2002 election (15,736). In 2004, when there was a presidential primary being contested, voter turnout was significantly higher (19,347).
“But the other odd thing is that I saw some very interesting combinations–Asmundson with Rob Roy signs.”
I can’t imagine that there were too many of those. The only Rob Roy signs I saw were hand-made, and they were out front of rental houses not far from campus near Rite Aid, suggesting to me that they were students.
One thing which makes me doubt the theory that Rob Roy’s voters otherwise would not have voted, but for Rob’s presence on the ballot, is that the total number of voters was not elevated in any sense. The total number of voters (15,902) was virtually identical to the 2002 election (15,736). In 2004, when there was a presidential primary being contested, voter turnout was significantly higher (19,347).
“But the other odd thing is that I saw some very interesting combinations–Asmundson with Rob Roy signs.”
I can’t imagine that there were too many of those. The only Rob Roy signs I saw were hand-made, and they were out front of rental houses not far from campus near Rite Aid, suggesting to me that they were students.
One thing which makes me doubt the theory that Rob Roy’s voters otherwise would not have voted, but for Rob’s presence on the ballot, is that the total number of voters was not elevated in any sense. The total number of voters (15,902) was virtually identical to the 2002 election (15,736). In 2004, when there was a presidential primary being contested, voter turnout was significantly higher (19,347).
LOL!
“I shall not seek, nor would I accept, the nomination….”
Plus, I live in Solano County.
But I am glad to know Rob finds me handsome.
wu ming, BTW, has a really interesting blog which I just found through this thread….
It would be a really good idea for a moderately progressive consensus candidate to emerge early, and for the field not to be fractured.
LOL!
“I shall not seek, nor would I accept, the nomination….”
Plus, I live in Solano County.
But I am glad to know Rob finds me handsome.
wu ming, BTW, has a really interesting blog which I just found through this thread….
It would be a really good idea for a moderately progressive consensus candidate to emerge early, and for the field not to be fractured.
LOL!
“I shall not seek, nor would I accept, the nomination….”
Plus, I live in Solano County.
But I am glad to know Rob finds me handsome.
wu ming, BTW, has a really interesting blog which I just found through this thread….
It would be a really good idea for a moderately progressive consensus candidate to emerge early, and for the field not to be fractured.
LOL!
“I shall not seek, nor would I accept, the nomination….”
Plus, I live in Solano County.
But I am glad to know Rob finds me handsome.
wu ming, BTW, has a really interesting blog which I just found through this thread….
It would be a really good idea for a moderately progressive consensus candidate to emerge early, and for the field not to be fractured.
Yes Rich… your analysis of the past election is probably more accurate.. mine was a little more wishful thinking.. Lamar Heystek following in the footsteps of Dennis Kucinich, now congressman and back then the youngest elected mayor of Clevland.
Since People’s Vanguard of Davis is subtitled-the dark underbelly of Davis Politics, the “spoiler” strategy of the supporters of Levy(Asmundson, Saylor et al) in supporting Rob Roy’s council bid is
to be considered. Stan Forbes was their most formidable opponent and Rob’s entry into the race definitely hurt Stan most deeply for the reasons you outlined. Without Rob Roy in the race, it would have been a closer (if that’s possible)three-way race(Ruth, Lamar and Stan) and any two of the three could have prevailed.
Stan’s albatross was the Davis voters who remembered some of his
council votes that they were unhappy with. Contrary to your description, I find Davis voters have a long memory when they are unhappy with their council representative’s position on issues that are important to them.
Yes Rich… your analysis of the past election is probably more accurate.. mine was a little more wishful thinking.. Lamar Heystek following in the footsteps of Dennis Kucinich, now congressman and back then the youngest elected mayor of Clevland.
Since People’s Vanguard of Davis is subtitled-the dark underbelly of Davis Politics, the “spoiler” strategy of the supporters of Levy(Asmundson, Saylor et al) in supporting Rob Roy’s council bid is
to be considered. Stan Forbes was their most formidable opponent and Rob’s entry into the race definitely hurt Stan most deeply for the reasons you outlined. Without Rob Roy in the race, it would have been a closer (if that’s possible)three-way race(Ruth, Lamar and Stan) and any two of the three could have prevailed.
Stan’s albatross was the Davis voters who remembered some of his
council votes that they were unhappy with. Contrary to your description, I find Davis voters have a long memory when they are unhappy with their council representative’s position on issues that are important to them.
Yes Rich… your analysis of the past election is probably more accurate.. mine was a little more wishful thinking.. Lamar Heystek following in the footsteps of Dennis Kucinich, now congressman and back then the youngest elected mayor of Clevland.
Since People’s Vanguard of Davis is subtitled-the dark underbelly of Davis Politics, the “spoiler” strategy of the supporters of Levy(Asmundson, Saylor et al) in supporting Rob Roy’s council bid is
to be considered. Stan Forbes was their most formidable opponent and Rob’s entry into the race definitely hurt Stan most deeply for the reasons you outlined. Without Rob Roy in the race, it would have been a closer (if that’s possible)three-way race(Ruth, Lamar and Stan) and any two of the three could have prevailed.
Stan’s albatross was the Davis voters who remembered some of his
council votes that they were unhappy with. Contrary to your description, I find Davis voters have a long memory when they are unhappy with their council representative’s position on issues that are important to them.
Yes Rich… your analysis of the past election is probably more accurate.. mine was a little more wishful thinking.. Lamar Heystek following in the footsteps of Dennis Kucinich, now congressman and back then the youngest elected mayor of Clevland.
Since People’s Vanguard of Davis is subtitled-the dark underbelly of Davis Politics, the “spoiler” strategy of the supporters of Levy(Asmundson, Saylor et al) in supporting Rob Roy’s council bid is
to be considered. Stan Forbes was their most formidable opponent and Rob’s entry into the race definitely hurt Stan most deeply for the reasons you outlined. Without Rob Roy in the race, it would have been a closer (if that’s possible)three-way race(Ruth, Lamar and Stan) and any two of the three could have prevailed.
Stan’s albatross was the Davis voters who remembered some of his
council votes that they were unhappy with. Contrary to your description, I find Davis voters have a long memory when they are unhappy with their council representative’s position on issues that are important to them.