Polls are closing at 8 PM, I’m seated deep in the heart of the County Elections Office and we’ll have our first results in less than 10 minutes. Stay tuned to the Vanguard for Live Updates and Interviews.
Freddie Oakley is telling me the turnout is very low.
Absentees show an early commanding lead by Lovenburg with 38.55 and Harris 31.9%, Schelen third with 15,71, Spector with 13.8.
Measure P with 67.17 and Measure Q with 66.63%, both right on the bubble, it looks like a nailbiter for the parcel tax.
The word seems to be that the early lead should hold, Lovenburg already with almost 3500 votes and a 2000 vote lead over the third place finisher.
Absentees in Davis may top ballot votes.
Calm and quiet here, the ballots from precincts have not arrived as of yet. Just going over procedures before things get hot and heavy.
Our reporters are out in Davis tonight…
From Spector’s party at the graduate:
Julie Cuetara – “I’m very sad about the two top candidates and very worried about the what the district is going to be like.”
Another attendee, “We’re high on optimism…”
One of the officials think P and Q will pull it out
Ballots are starting to be counted
Measure S is 51-49, that is West Sacramento’s School bond. It needs 55% to pass. Desperately need the money there.
Back to the field:
Harris Camp at Sudwerk’s in a cheery atmosphere in a dinner party way. Richard Harris: “We’ll wait and see what happens. We’re hopeful.”
Stuff here from Woodland but not Davis so far. Davis stuff is usually last. They have to consolidate on sight and match their take with their records. Then bring it up here, so that takes some time and it tends to be larger than other parts of the county.
Davis ballots just now coming into the building. Woodland is 80 percent done.
Precincts in Woodland reporting at less than 10 percent turnout–holy cow. Maybe Freddie was not kidding when she said 18%.
Reports from Schelen’s party:
Maybe Woodland should consider changing their election dates–5% turnout average. One polling place two votes. Matt Rexroad will have to weigh in on this one…
They are talking maybe 22% in Davis. I have faith, I said 30%.
Look for some Davis precincts coming up in the next batch. Looking through the numbers–a lot of undervotes or bullet votes amongst the absentees. About 13 Davis precincts in the next batch
Freddie gave me numbers for woodland–5.48%, 2.68%, 4.1%, etc. Wow.
They are actually sitting waiting for ballots here, they have so few ballots in the precincts. 30 precincts reporting, barely over 2000 votes in them.
Possibly more absentees than votes, that would be a first time ever if it happens. This might be an historic night–in a bad way.
Lots of hardware failures tonight at the election office, fortunately it doesn’t matter tonight.
19 from Davis here.
P & Q now both at 69 percent.
Candidates are unchanged.
Lovenburg with 4340, Harris 3525, Schelen 1849 and Spector 1572 with 20 of 39 reporting
Wow some amazing figures. 9 people on Olive Drive voted. 6 people at the Coffee House. 17 a the other student precinct.
So far turnout with half reporting is 18.85 percent in Davis, that figure will go up, not sure by how much.
So we’re expecting another report around 11 pm and a final report at 11:30 PM. Blogger is supposedly down at 11 PM for ten minutes, but we’ll see.
Back online, P and Q now up over 70 percent with two-thirds precincts reporting.
Officially calling it for the school board races, Susan Lovenburg and Richard Harris are the winners there.
Looks like they are celebrating at the P and Q party:
Helen Thomson: “Exciting! I’m glad to see the community cares about schools and libraries.
Mariko Yamada: “I’m glad we minded our Ps and Qs!”
Ballots are all in, final tallies are pending.
Final vote in Woodland–10.5% turnout.
Total Davis turnout 22.39%
All precincts are in
72.9 YES ON Q
73% Measure P
6806 Lovenburg 38.47%
5412 Harris 30.59
3066 Schelen 17.33%
2406 Spector 13.6%
That’s all for tonight.
P and Q win easily, Lovenburg and Harris do as well.
Schelen second in the Valley Oak are fwiw
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
how low is very low? 30%? 25%? 10%?
i did not see anyone at my precinct when i went in this morning.
should be interesting to see how that affects the 2/3 vote.
how low is very low? 30%? 25%? 10%?
i did not see anyone at my precinct when i went in this morning.
should be interesting to see how that affects the 2/3 vote.
how low is very low? 30%? 25%? 10%?
i did not see anyone at my precinct when i went in this morning.
should be interesting to see how that affects the 2/3 vote.
how low is very low? 30%? 25%? 10%?
i did not see anyone at my precinct when i went in this morning.
should be interesting to see how that affects the 2/3 vote.
She joked 18% but said very low.
She joked 18% but said very low.
She joked 18% but said very low.
She joked 18% but said very low.
I wonder what the Presidentail turnout will be like? Hopefully not this bad.
I wonder what the Presidentail turnout will be like? Hopefully not this bad.
I wonder what the Presidentail turnout will be like? Hopefully not this bad.
I wonder what the Presidentail turnout will be like? Hopefully not this bad.
wow. that’s low all right.
wow. that’s low all right.
wow. that’s low all right.
wow. that’s low all right.
I can’t help but think that Schelen and Spector may have linked themselves too tightly with VO. Not that supporting the cause was problematic in and of itself, but I think people are wary of candidates that id themsleves closely with one school or one neighborhood.
Just as East Davis residents may not want to vote for, say, the “Patwin Candidate,” much of the district’s voters are looking at issues that extend beyond VO. Of course, it can’t help that the VO neighborhood doesn’t all that many parents, either…
I can’t help but think that Schelen and Spector may have linked themselves too tightly with VO. Not that supporting the cause was problematic in and of itself, but I think people are wary of candidates that id themsleves closely with one school or one neighborhood.
Just as East Davis residents may not want to vote for, say, the “Patwin Candidate,” much of the district’s voters are looking at issues that extend beyond VO. Of course, it can’t help that the VO neighborhood doesn’t all that many parents, either…
I can’t help but think that Schelen and Spector may have linked themselves too tightly with VO. Not that supporting the cause was problematic in and of itself, but I think people are wary of candidates that id themsleves closely with one school or one neighborhood.
Just as East Davis residents may not want to vote for, say, the “Patwin Candidate,” much of the district’s voters are looking at issues that extend beyond VO. Of course, it can’t help that the VO neighborhood doesn’t all that many parents, either…
I can’t help but think that Schelen and Spector may have linked themselves too tightly with VO. Not that supporting the cause was problematic in and of itself, but I think people are wary of candidates that id themsleves closely with one school or one neighborhood.
Just as East Davis residents may not want to vote for, say, the “Patwin Candidate,” much of the district’s voters are looking at issues that extend beyond VO. Of course, it can’t help that the VO neighborhood doesn’t all that many parents, either…
Doug,
I don’t think turnout at this level should be unexpected. The 2005 race was the outlier since that had Measure X and the Arnold’s statewide ballot initiatives. The November 2003 race also had very low turnout.
The turnout is disgraceful, but this is in the range of what I expected.
Doug,
I don’t think turnout at this level should be unexpected. The 2005 race was the outlier since that had Measure X and the Arnold’s statewide ballot initiatives. The November 2003 race also had very low turnout.
The turnout is disgraceful, but this is in the range of what I expected.
Doug,
I don’t think turnout at this level should be unexpected. The 2005 race was the outlier since that had Measure X and the Arnold’s statewide ballot initiatives. The November 2003 race also had very low turnout.
The turnout is disgraceful, but this is in the range of what I expected.
Doug,
I don’t think turnout at this level should be unexpected. The 2005 race was the outlier since that had Measure X and the Arnold’s statewide ballot initiatives. The November 2003 race also had very low turnout.
The turnout is disgraceful, but this is in the range of what I expected.
Still I was guessing about 30 to 40, right now it’s about 18, worse than that in Woodland.
Still I was guessing about 30 to 40, right now it’s about 18, worse than that in Woodland.
Still I was guessing about 30 to 40, right now it’s about 18, worse than that in Woodland.
Still I was guessing about 30 to 40, right now it’s about 18, worse than that in Woodland.
First off, it’s a real shame Schelen is falling behind. I think he’d do a great job on the School Board. That said, I’m not surprised to see the “progressive backed” candidates tank. For all the huff-and-puff on this blog, the progressive voting bloc certainly has waned.
First off, it’s a real shame Schelen is falling behind. I think he’d do a great job on the School Board. That said, I’m not surprised to see the “progressive backed” candidates tank. For all the huff-and-puff on this blog, the progressive voting bloc certainly has waned.
First off, it’s a real shame Schelen is falling behind. I think he’d do a great job on the School Board. That said, I’m not surprised to see the “progressive backed” candidates tank. For all the huff-and-puff on this blog, the progressive voting bloc certainly has waned.
First off, it’s a real shame Schelen is falling behind. I think he’d do a great job on the School Board. That said, I’m not surprised to see the “progressive backed” candidates tank. For all the huff-and-puff on this blog, the progressive voting bloc certainly has waned.
You attribute that to the progressive bloc rather than the poor quality of the candidates?
You attribute that to the progressive bloc rather than the poor quality of the candidates?
You attribute that to the progressive bloc rather than the poor quality of the candidates?
You attribute that to the progressive bloc rather than the poor quality of the candidates?
at this level of turnout, it may just be the people who put up lawn signs voting.
at this level of turnout, it may just be the people who put up lawn signs voting.
at this level of turnout, it may just be the people who put up lawn signs voting.
at this level of turnout, it may just be the people who put up lawn signs voting.
Not a big enough sample to infer much of anything other than disinterest
Not a big enough sample to infer much of anything other than disinterest
Not a big enough sample to infer much of anything other than disinterest
Not a big enough sample to infer much of anything other than disinterest
“Lovenburg with 4340, Harris 3525, Schelen 1849 and Spector 1572 with 20 of 39 reporting”
I think we had four well qualified candidates. If this outcome holds, my take is that the main reason Lovenburg and Harris won, while Schelen and Spector lost, was the first two were better known and better connected with the Davis community at large and with the school/PTA community in particular going in.
Mostly trading off that inter-connectedness, the two winners raised more money (though in Harris’s case, a lot of that was from his friends and colleagues in Sacto, as was Schelen’s money) and spent it wisely to become even better known.
I don’t think the difference in outcomes was due to an ideological split, despite some evident differences on the Valley Oak and other issues. Posters on this blog tend to be quite ideological, and as such, they see politics through that prism. But most voters in a school board race simply vote for the people they know best and believed had good ideas to make the schools function better.
Nevertheless, I think Joe Spector (but not Bob Schelen) could be said to have made some mistakes in his campaign, which probably cost him votes:
* The whole Don Winters thing. It was not so much (IMO) the fact that Winters had kids stuffing Spector’s envelopes in his classroom. Rather, it was the convoluted response by Spector and the fact that Winters took so long to fess up.
* The negativity of Spector’s campaign in attacking Richard Harris’s fundraising. Even if Spector had a reasonable point, it came across as unseemly. It felt personal. That might work in a city council race, but not in a school board election.
* The negativity of Spector’s campaign in pushing the idea that others were motivated to benefit real estate developers by selling district properties at the expense of the district’s best interests and the city of Davis’s best interest. While this kind of attack may excite a handful of conspiratorial minded voters, it really just served to detract from the bigger message most voters look for: what you are going to do to make our schools better for our kids and teachers.
“Lovenburg with 4340, Harris 3525, Schelen 1849 and Spector 1572 with 20 of 39 reporting”
I think we had four well qualified candidates. If this outcome holds, my take is that the main reason Lovenburg and Harris won, while Schelen and Spector lost, was the first two were better known and better connected with the Davis community at large and with the school/PTA community in particular going in.
Mostly trading off that inter-connectedness, the two winners raised more money (though in Harris’s case, a lot of that was from his friends and colleagues in Sacto, as was Schelen’s money) and spent it wisely to become even better known.
I don’t think the difference in outcomes was due to an ideological split, despite some evident differences on the Valley Oak and other issues. Posters on this blog tend to be quite ideological, and as such, they see politics through that prism. But most voters in a school board race simply vote for the people they know best and believed had good ideas to make the schools function better.
Nevertheless, I think Joe Spector (but not Bob Schelen) could be said to have made some mistakes in his campaign, which probably cost him votes:
* The whole Don Winters thing. It was not so much (IMO) the fact that Winters had kids stuffing Spector’s envelopes in his classroom. Rather, it was the convoluted response by Spector and the fact that Winters took so long to fess up.
* The negativity of Spector’s campaign in attacking Richard Harris’s fundraising. Even if Spector had a reasonable point, it came across as unseemly. It felt personal. That might work in a city council race, but not in a school board election.
* The negativity of Spector’s campaign in pushing the idea that others were motivated to benefit real estate developers by selling district properties at the expense of the district’s best interests and the city of Davis’s best interest. While this kind of attack may excite a handful of conspiratorial minded voters, it really just served to detract from the bigger message most voters look for: what you are going to do to make our schools better for our kids and teachers.
“Lovenburg with 4340, Harris 3525, Schelen 1849 and Spector 1572 with 20 of 39 reporting”
I think we had four well qualified candidates. If this outcome holds, my take is that the main reason Lovenburg and Harris won, while Schelen and Spector lost, was the first two were better known and better connected with the Davis community at large and with the school/PTA community in particular going in.
Mostly trading off that inter-connectedness, the two winners raised more money (though in Harris’s case, a lot of that was from his friends and colleagues in Sacto, as was Schelen’s money) and spent it wisely to become even better known.
I don’t think the difference in outcomes was due to an ideological split, despite some evident differences on the Valley Oak and other issues. Posters on this blog tend to be quite ideological, and as such, they see politics through that prism. But most voters in a school board race simply vote for the people they know best and believed had good ideas to make the schools function better.
Nevertheless, I think Joe Spector (but not Bob Schelen) could be said to have made some mistakes in his campaign, which probably cost him votes:
* The whole Don Winters thing. It was not so much (IMO) the fact that Winters had kids stuffing Spector’s envelopes in his classroom. Rather, it was the convoluted response by Spector and the fact that Winters took so long to fess up.
* The negativity of Spector’s campaign in attacking Richard Harris’s fundraising. Even if Spector had a reasonable point, it came across as unseemly. It felt personal. That might work in a city council race, but not in a school board election.
* The negativity of Spector’s campaign in pushing the idea that others were motivated to benefit real estate developers by selling district properties at the expense of the district’s best interests and the city of Davis’s best interest. While this kind of attack may excite a handful of conspiratorial minded voters, it really just served to detract from the bigger message most voters look for: what you are going to do to make our schools better for our kids and teachers.
“Lovenburg with 4340, Harris 3525, Schelen 1849 and Spector 1572 with 20 of 39 reporting”
I think we had four well qualified candidates. If this outcome holds, my take is that the main reason Lovenburg and Harris won, while Schelen and Spector lost, was the first two were better known and better connected with the Davis community at large and with the school/PTA community in particular going in.
Mostly trading off that inter-connectedness, the two winners raised more money (though in Harris’s case, a lot of that was from his friends and colleagues in Sacto, as was Schelen’s money) and spent it wisely to become even better known.
I don’t think the difference in outcomes was due to an ideological split, despite some evident differences on the Valley Oak and other issues. Posters on this blog tend to be quite ideological, and as such, they see politics through that prism. But most voters in a school board race simply vote for the people they know best and believed had good ideas to make the schools function better.
Nevertheless, I think Joe Spector (but not Bob Schelen) could be said to have made some mistakes in his campaign, which probably cost him votes:
* The whole Don Winters thing. It was not so much (IMO) the fact that Winters had kids stuffing Spector’s envelopes in his classroom. Rather, it was the convoluted response by Spector and the fact that Winters took so long to fess up.
* The negativity of Spector’s campaign in attacking Richard Harris’s fundraising. Even if Spector had a reasonable point, it came across as unseemly. It felt personal. That might work in a city council race, but not in a school board election.
* The negativity of Spector’s campaign in pushing the idea that others were motivated to benefit real estate developers by selling district properties at the expense of the district’s best interests and the city of Davis’s best interest. While this kind of attack may excite a handful of conspiratorial minded voters, it really just served to detract from the bigger message most voters look for: what you are going to do to make our schools better for our kids and teachers.
Pretty much think you’re spot on Rich there.
Pretty much think you’re spot on Rich there.
Pretty much think you’re spot on Rich there.
Pretty much think you’re spot on Rich there.
I also think it’s worth noting that the VO issue is not all that salient beyond this blog. Note that neither Schelen or Specor finish 1st or 2nd even in East Davis precincts. Not everyone around VO thinks the Board made a bad decision.
As posted earlier, Schelen and Spector campaigned as the VO candidates and that math never added up.
I also think it’s worth noting that the VO issue is not all that salient beyond this blog. Note that neither Schelen or Specor finish 1st or 2nd even in East Davis precincts. Not everyone around VO thinks the Board made a bad decision.
As posted earlier, Schelen and Spector campaigned as the VO candidates and that math never added up.
I also think it’s worth noting that the VO issue is not all that salient beyond this blog. Note that neither Schelen or Specor finish 1st or 2nd even in East Davis precincts. Not everyone around VO thinks the Board made a bad decision.
As posted earlier, Schelen and Spector campaigned as the VO candidates and that math never added up.
I also think it’s worth noting that the VO issue is not all that salient beyond this blog. Note that neither Schelen or Specor finish 1st or 2nd even in East Davis precincts. Not everyone around VO thinks the Board made a bad decision.
As posted earlier, Schelen and Spector campaigned as the VO candidates and that math never added up.
I wonder how many even knew which candidates were for Valley Oak and which were against.
I wonder how many even knew which candidates were for Valley Oak and which were against.
I wonder how many even knew which candidates were for Valley Oak and which were against.
I wonder how many even knew which candidates were for Valley Oak and which were against.
wow, rich….that was great!
i think you pretty much “hit the nails on the head” with your commentary.
one interesting sidebar i have been thinking about:
i was really taken aback by how much the spector campaign began to attack harris for his take of “developer money” to be used for “infill” projects.
interesting, ’cause these same “progressive” folks (who are outspoken in their opposition to peripheral development) are now worried about the potential “infill” projects.
can’t have it both ways, “progressives”, either build out or build up.
thanks dpd, for your elections coverage!
wow, rich….that was great!
i think you pretty much “hit the nails on the head” with your commentary.
one interesting sidebar i have been thinking about:
i was really taken aback by how much the spector campaign began to attack harris for his take of “developer money” to be used for “infill” projects.
interesting, ’cause these same “progressive” folks (who are outspoken in their opposition to peripheral development) are now worried about the potential “infill” projects.
can’t have it both ways, “progressives”, either build out or build up.
thanks dpd, for your elections coverage!
wow, rich….that was great!
i think you pretty much “hit the nails on the head” with your commentary.
one interesting sidebar i have been thinking about:
i was really taken aback by how much the spector campaign began to attack harris for his take of “developer money” to be used for “infill” projects.
interesting, ’cause these same “progressive” folks (who are outspoken in their opposition to peripheral development) are now worried about the potential “infill” projects.
can’t have it both ways, “progressives”, either build out or build up.
thanks dpd, for your elections coverage!
wow, rich….that was great!
i think you pretty much “hit the nails on the head” with your commentary.
one interesting sidebar i have been thinking about:
i was really taken aback by how much the spector campaign began to attack harris for his take of “developer money” to be used for “infill” projects.
interesting, ’cause these same “progressive” folks (who are outspoken in their opposition to peripheral development) are now worried about the potential “infill” projects.
can’t have it both ways, “progressives”, either build out or build up.
thanks dpd, for your elections coverage!
I wonder how many even knew which candidates were for Valley Oak and which were against.
A low turnout election likely means ballots were cast disproportionately by insiders. I suspect people know.
I wonder how many even knew which candidates were for Valley Oak and which were against.
A low turnout election likely means ballots were cast disproportionately by insiders. I suspect people know.
I wonder how many even knew which candidates were for Valley Oak and which were against.
A low turnout election likely means ballots were cast disproportionately by insiders. I suspect people know.
I wonder how many even knew which candidates were for Valley Oak and which were against.
A low turnout election likely means ballots were cast disproportionately by insiders. I suspect people know.
I don’t think the difference in outcomes was due to an ideological split, despite some evident differences on the Valley Oak and other issues. Posters on this blog tend to be quite ideological, and as such, they see politics through that prism. But most voters in a school board race simply vote for the people they know best and believed had good ideas to make the schools function better.
generally, i think this tends to be true for a significant % of voters in all local elections. ideology tends to play a larger role the greater the distance the voter is from the candidate, and the less personal ties and local social networks at play.
I don’t think the difference in outcomes was due to an ideological split, despite some evident differences on the Valley Oak and other issues. Posters on this blog tend to be quite ideological, and as such, they see politics through that prism. But most voters in a school board race simply vote for the people they know best and believed had good ideas to make the schools function better.
generally, i think this tends to be true for a significant % of voters in all local elections. ideology tends to play a larger role the greater the distance the voter is from the candidate, and the less personal ties and local social networks at play.
I don’t think the difference in outcomes was due to an ideological split, despite some evident differences on the Valley Oak and other issues. Posters on this blog tend to be quite ideological, and as such, they see politics through that prism. But most voters in a school board race simply vote for the people they know best and believed had good ideas to make the schools function better.
generally, i think this tends to be true for a significant % of voters in all local elections. ideology tends to play a larger role the greater the distance the voter is from the candidate, and the less personal ties and local social networks at play.
I don’t think the difference in outcomes was due to an ideological split, despite some evident differences on the Valley Oak and other issues. Posters on this blog tend to be quite ideological, and as such, they see politics through that prism. But most voters in a school board race simply vote for the people they know best and believed had good ideas to make the schools function better.
generally, i think this tends to be true for a significant % of voters in all local elections. ideology tends to play a larger role the greater the distance the voter is from the candidate, and the less personal ties and local social networks at play.
Rich,
Interesting analysis, but the margin of victory here is very large by the standards of recent school board elections. I don’t think Spector ever had much of a chance.
Rich,
Interesting analysis, but the margin of victory here is very large by the standards of recent school board elections. I don’t think Spector ever had much of a chance.
Rich,
Interesting analysis, but the margin of victory here is very large by the standards of recent school board elections. I don’t think Spector ever had much of a chance.
Rich,
Interesting analysis, but the margin of victory here is very large by the standards of recent school board elections. I don’t think Spector ever had much of a chance.
“I don’t think Spector ever had much of a chance.”
Yeah, I agree with that. It was mostly a reflection of him starting out as the least well known candidate. If you heard Joe at the forums, he seemed (to me) to be thoughtful and smart. He had good ideas and has a great background for this job. But more people (who actually vote) knew the others to start out with, or knew others who knew Lovenburg and Harris and trusted those endorsements.
Another mistake of the Spector campaign, which I forgot to mention before, was the fact that he had no statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet. I don’t know if Joe didn’t have the money it took to publish a statement, or he just made a decision not to spend his money on that. But I think some voters might base their vote on those statements. (Not too many voters, but some.) While I think EVERY candidate, regardless of how much money he has, should be guaranteed space in the Voter Pamphlet to make his case, Spector’s absence there hurt him. (If it were up to me, candidates would be taxed 10% of their first $1000 raised, in order to pay for their statement to be published in the Voter Pamphlet. Any candidates who raised less than $1000 would get their statements published, but for less. The big-time money raisers would all pay the full $100 cost.)
“I don’t think Spector ever had much of a chance.”
Yeah, I agree with that. It was mostly a reflection of him starting out as the least well known candidate. If you heard Joe at the forums, he seemed (to me) to be thoughtful and smart. He had good ideas and has a great background for this job. But more people (who actually vote) knew the others to start out with, or knew others who knew Lovenburg and Harris and trusted those endorsements.
Another mistake of the Spector campaign, which I forgot to mention before, was the fact that he had no statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet. I don’t know if Joe didn’t have the money it took to publish a statement, or he just made a decision not to spend his money on that. But I think some voters might base their vote on those statements. (Not too many voters, but some.) While I think EVERY candidate, regardless of how much money he has, should be guaranteed space in the Voter Pamphlet to make his case, Spector’s absence there hurt him. (If it were up to me, candidates would be taxed 10% of their first $1000 raised, in order to pay for their statement to be published in the Voter Pamphlet. Any candidates who raised less than $1000 would get their statements published, but for less. The big-time money raisers would all pay the full $100 cost.)
“I don’t think Spector ever had much of a chance.”
Yeah, I agree with that. It was mostly a reflection of him starting out as the least well known candidate. If you heard Joe at the forums, he seemed (to me) to be thoughtful and smart. He had good ideas and has a great background for this job. But more people (who actually vote) knew the others to start out with, or knew others who knew Lovenburg and Harris and trusted those endorsements.
Another mistake of the Spector campaign, which I forgot to mention before, was the fact that he had no statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet. I don’t know if Joe didn’t have the money it took to publish a statement, or he just made a decision not to spend his money on that. But I think some voters might base their vote on those statements. (Not too many voters, but some.) While I think EVERY candidate, regardless of how much money he has, should be guaranteed space in the Voter Pamphlet to make his case, Spector’s absence there hurt him. (If it were up to me, candidates would be taxed 10% of their first $1000 raised, in order to pay for their statement to be published in the Voter Pamphlet. Any candidates who raised less than $1000 would get their statements published, but for less. The big-time money raisers would all pay the full $100 cost.)
“I don’t think Spector ever had much of a chance.”
Yeah, I agree with that. It was mostly a reflection of him starting out as the least well known candidate. If you heard Joe at the forums, he seemed (to me) to be thoughtful and smart. He had good ideas and has a great background for this job. But more people (who actually vote) knew the others to start out with, or knew others who knew Lovenburg and Harris and trusted those endorsements.
Another mistake of the Spector campaign, which I forgot to mention before, was the fact that he had no statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet. I don’t know if Joe didn’t have the money it took to publish a statement, or he just made a decision not to spend his money on that. But I think some voters might base their vote on those statements. (Not too many voters, but some.) While I think EVERY candidate, regardless of how much money he has, should be guaranteed space in the Voter Pamphlet to make his case, Spector’s absence there hurt him. (If it were up to me, candidates would be taxed 10% of their first $1000 raised, in order to pay for their statement to be published in the Voter Pamphlet. Any candidates who raised less than $1000 would get their statements published, but for less. The big-time money raisers would all pay the full $100 cost.)
Congratulations to Susan and Richard.
Congratulations to Susan and Richard.
Congratulations to Susan and Richard.
Congratulations to Susan and Richard.
Great job Vanguard! You’ve proven to be essential to our community once again. Thanks for hanging in there so late to report the returns.
Great job Vanguard! You’ve proven to be essential to our community once again. Thanks for hanging in there so late to report the returns.
Great job Vanguard! You’ve proven to be essential to our community once again. Thanks for hanging in there so late to report the returns.
Great job Vanguard! You’ve proven to be essential to our community once again. Thanks for hanging in there so late to report the returns.
the yolo elections site says 29% turnout. so that’d be nominally less embarassing than 22%.
the yolo elections site says 29% turnout. so that’d be nominally less embarassing than 22%.
the yolo elections site says 29% turnout. so that’d be nominally less embarassing than 22%.
the yolo elections site says 29% turnout. so that’d be nominally less embarassing than 22%.
“Poor candidates” – what is your problem with Joe and Bob? Did they do something to you to make you so hostile?
Apparently, your candidates have won. Have you ever head of being gracious in sucess?
“Poor candidates” – what is your problem with Joe and Bob? Did they do something to you to make you so hostile?
Apparently, your candidates have won. Have you ever head of being gracious in sucess?
“Poor candidates” – what is your problem with Joe and Bob? Did they do something to you to make you so hostile?
Apparently, your candidates have won. Have you ever head of being gracious in sucess?
“Poor candidates” – what is your problem with Joe and Bob? Did they do something to you to make you so hostile?
Apparently, your candidates have won. Have you ever head of being gracious in sucess?