Dodd Declares Victory

Bill Dodd address supporters on Election Night in Napa - courtesy photo from the Dodd campaign.
Bill Dodd address supporters on Election Night in Napa – courtesy photo from the Dodd campaign.

The Bill Dodd campaign is declaring victory based on their statistical analysis of the remaining uncounted ballots.

“The voters sent a clear message Tuesday,” Mr. Dodd said. “They agree with our campaign’s message that it’s time to work together to rebuild California, it’s time for progress, it’s time for a new direction in Sacramento.

“We also talked about the need for leadership, accountability to Californians, and integrity,” Mr. Dodd continued. “Voters embraced those ideals and we will continue to press the need to move California in the right direction all the way through the November campaign and beyond.

“In addition to the voters, I am grateful for a tremendous outpouring of support from literally thousands of people. In particular, I want to thank Congressman Mike Thompson, my local government colleagues who numbered over 160+ people, small business, agriculture and other job producing leaders, the law enforcement community who keep us safe, and the building trades workers who do the hard work building the infrastructure this state so desperately needs.”

Election night results show Dodd a single vote behind Republican Charlie Schaupp in this overwhelmingly Democratic district. The third-place finisher, Dan Wolk, trails by 628 votes.

“Based on the number and county origin of the remaining ballots it is a statistical improbability for Dodd to finish outside the top two vote-getters,” the Dodd campaign stated.

In Yolo County, there is a total of 7200 uncounted ballots.  The Napa Elections Office indicated that there were between 5000 and 10,000 uncounted votes there.  If the Dodd campaign analysis is correct, that leaves Dan Wolk rought 600 votes behind Republican Charlie Schaupp for the other seat.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

click here to read our earlier analysis: http://www.davisvanguard.org/vanguard-analysis-is-dan-wolk-on-the-outside-looking-in/

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

45 Comments

    1. South of Davis

      I bet we could put Pat Robertson on the ballot in a liberal district in CA with “Democrat” after his name and he would get a ton of votes, while Maxine Watters or Barbara Lee could not get elected if we put “Republican” after their names…

      P.S. Look for more incumbent Republicans in CA to mention older relatives who were Democrats years ago (when the Democrats were more conservative than Republicans today) as they switch parties to stay in office (just like so many southern “Democrats” did as their districts changed to Republican majorities)…

  1. Davis Progressive

    i don’t think wolk is eliminated. but i do like the fact that wolk is going down. i’d rather not have a moderate democrat, but i prefer that to the cultural of privilege and entitlement that dan wolk represents.

      1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

        Yes, it was Ned Beatty I was thinking of, though not really the Deliverance version of him.

        That said, the Carroll O’Connor call is not too bad. My guess is that all of these guys trace their roots to the same part of Ireland.

  2. Don Shor

    From his web site:

    Take my party registration, for example. I’m a registered Democrat, but for many years I was a Republican. My registration change reflects my values, and the movement of one party toward my values and the other away from them.

    Some examples of this: the need for immigration reform, attacks on a woman’s right to choose and LGBT rights, and each party’s approach to a narrowing of economic opportunity. On each of these the Democratic Party’s worldview resembles my own.

    I guess no one should be surprised by my values-over-ideology approach. After all that’s our family history: My great-great grandfather, Martin Murphy, Jr., was the first Chair of the California Democratic Party and I was raised in a moderate Republican household.

    Now that the local favorite sons are out of the race, I don’t have any problem with this guy.

    1. Frankly

      I do. I have big problems.

      I wish Democrats of any stripe would stop with the race, gender and sexual orientation class war BS. He says those things so someone with your political orientation gets all mushy inside and falls in love. Liberals are blinded by a need to maintain their social justice relevancy even when there is nothing left worth making a scene about. Politicians like Dodd apparently know how to pull all their strings.

      “The need for immigration reform”? WTH is he talking about? The GOP has been demanding comprehensive immigration reform for decades and the dems have botched and blocked any meaningful progress on it.

      And a woman’s right to choose. Does he even understand that he is just mouthing a talking point without even considering the true points in agreement and points in conflict.

      And LGBT… WTH is he talking about there? Does he even acknowledge that gay marriage is a separate issue, and otherwise there is nothing left in that Democrat canard.

      This guy is just another fake leader. He is a snake oil salesman slithering to the side that will love him the most and give him votes and money.

      If what he says makes emotional Dems love him, it makes thoughtful conservatives like me dislike him significantly.

      But he will probably be better than the Davis boys because he is likely to be more fiscal conservative.

      1. Don Shor

        Then I would suggest you vote for Mr. Schaupp. And the notion that Democrats are ’emotional’ and you are ‘thoughtful’ is laughable. You are angry all the time. Anger is an emotion that clouds judgment.

        1. Frankly

          Democrats are emotional about their politicians.

          Republicans are much less so.

          But anger is an emotion, I will give you that. So maybe Democrats can only love their politicians and be angry at everyone else.

          But I am not angry all the time. Far from it. I am Mr. Happy in person… (or at least neutral and civil). Maybe because I can get all my frustration and irritation about the crappy state of our politics and our city, state and country out on the VG.

      2. Don Shor

        These are directly excerpted from the California Republican Party platform.
        http://cagop.org/documents/2012-2016%20Platform.pdf

        We oppose any special rights based on sexual or behavioral preferences.

        We believe public policy and education should not be exploited to present or teach homosexuality as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle. We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption.

        We should grant citizenship only to those who embrace American values and culture. New immigrants should be required to learn English, and businesses should be able to require employees to speak the English language while on the job. English should be the official language of government. All election ballots and other government documents should be printed in English only.

        We oppose any further gun control legislation and support the right of all California citizens to own and bear guns and ammunition for any lawful purpose. … We support allowing citizens to use deadly force to protect lives and property. We also support including all of these rights in the California constitution. Finally, we call for the elimination of waiting periods to purchase firearms and instead support complete implementation of instant background checks.

        We believe life begins at conception and ends at natural death. We support laws that protect unborn children from partial birth, sex selection, and tax-payer funded abortions, and abortions performed as a form of birth control or on minor girls without their parent’s notification and consent. We believe that the question of abortion is a matter that should be left to the people through their elected representatives, not usurped by the United States Supreme Court, and believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be reversed.
        We support adoption as an alternative to abortion and call on lawmakers to reduce the bureaucratic burden placed on adoptive couples.

        As a part of respecting the sanctity of life for disabled persons, we oppose efforts to legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia.

        We support a comprehensive ban on all human cloning. The California Republican Party supports ethical stem cell research that focuses on cures not destroying innocent human Life.

        1. Frankly

          Democrat Party Platform preamble…

          America’s strength derives from collective action for the common good. Our vision includes a plan for communities that are environmentally clean, energy efficient, well educated, healthy, economically strong, and secure. We will promote energy self-sufficiency and renewable energy to counter global warming and pollution, and protect our natural resources. Our economy must be built on a diverse workforce educated in quality public schools. We believe in universal, comprehensive, and affordable health care.

          We believe in the fundamental equality of all persons and devote ourselves to the defense of their inherent dignity, collectively and individually. We believe that justice for all minority groups and the rights of women require constant vigilance and a thorough examination of laws that disproportionately impact minorities and women. Our state and our nation must respect the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and marriage for all its residents.

          This Democratic Platform represents a vision based on resolutely defending these American values and supports working people’s hopes and dreams for the future. We will work with elected officials and activists to achieve this vision in government and in our communities.

          Translated…

          We favor environmental extremist issues over the private economy, and we pander to every group-ism to ensure dominance over males and especially white males except from those that frog-step to our ideological demands. Lastly we will protect public education to ensure that it stays crappy and kids continue to be damaged just so the education system employees are taken care of.

          I guess the point is… how many Republicans and how many Democrats embody these views published in their platform. Seems like the GOP is divided specifically because of some of these things. The Dems seem to be all lined up like good soldiers.

          1. wdf1

            Frankly: Lastly we will protect public education to ensure that it stays crappy and kids continue to be damaged just so the education system employees are taken care of.

            I’m still looking for examples of superior privatized education that you’ve touted but haven’t been able to demonstrate.

            Looks like it’s not happening in New Orleans:

            New Orleans nearing a ‘privatized’ public school system

          2. Frankly

            Don: Interesting that you read ‘equality’ as ‘dominance over white males

            Dems: We believe that justice for all minority groups and the rights of women require constant vigilance and a thorough examination of laws that disproportionately impact minorities and women.

            Why not write this a simply believing in justice and rights for all people?

          3. Don Shor

            Such as same-sex couples? Do you believe in justice and rights for all people? How about that part from the Republican Platform:

            We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption.

            As to this:

            laws that disproportionately impact minorities and women.

            Laws restricting reproductive freedom disproportionately impact women, wouldn’t you say?

      3. Tia Will

        “And a woman’s right to choose. Does he even understand that he is just mouthing a talking point without even considering the true points in agreement and points in conflict.

        Your comment demonstrates that you do not appear to understand that to many, many women this is far from just a “talking point”. In many cases, and yes, I could name more than a few if is were not for HIPPA this “talking point” might be the difference between a woman living and dying or between her retaining her ability to have future children or not.
        I think it is fine to question what a politician knows. It is quite another matter to imply that he does not know what he is talking about. He stated early that he believes in a woman’s right to choose and I do not see anything ambiguous about this at all.

  3. DisgustedInDavis

    Why couldn’t Wolk and Krovoza just come to an agreement? Krovoza’s turn now. Wolk could run in the Senate race in 2 years to replace mommy – you know, to carry on the Wolk legacy. Now, we get Dodd and Schaupp.

    1. SODA

      For the life of me I cannot understand the repeated statement that Dan would be a viable candidate for SENATE in 2 years….where is the rationale for that?

    2. Rich RifkinWDE 73

      Disgusted — why should they have “come to an agreement.” It bewilders me that anyone thinks it is such a big deal that we won’t have a Davis resident as our member of the Assembly. Seems to me that if it is Dodd, he will do a much better job representing our community’s interests at the Capitol than our extremely corrupt sell-out Assemblywoman, Mariko Yamada. The only shame is that the actions she has taken–accepting money from groups and then writing bills to enrich those same donors–are not considered crimes. Leland Yee would enjoy her company in his jail cell.

  4. Good Government

    What is the point of Dodd taking a premature victory lap here? Does he not want all the votes to be counted? New results have been posted online and his lead over Wolk has shrunk to only 522 votes. The Wolk-haters here are gleefully dancing on what they perceive to be a grave. But both they and Dodd should probably just wait for the votes to be counted, or start googling recipes for crow.

      1. Good Government

        There have been some pretty hateful words thrown at Dan and his family in this comment section. I don’t really care to repeat them.

        1. David Greenwald

          And you’ve made derisive comments about Joe Krovoza in other comment sections. So I would respectfully suggest you back off those comments and I agree others have been out of line in the other direction.

          1. Good Government

            I agree with all that. But the insinuation from Don is that there is no such thing as a “Wolk-hater” on this blog. Coming from the moderator himself, I think that is just absurd. I get it, “haters gonna hate”. But to deny their existence, especially by the moderator, calls into question his fairness and ability to do that job.

          2. Good Government

            I think a few examples are in order: On this very page, Dan Wolk is said to represent “cultural of privilege and entitlement”. In previous posts, Senator Wolk is repeatedly referred to as “mommy”. And my favorite, when Rifkin used a vague sexual metaphor to describe Dan’s relation to unions, he said he was “hoovering” them. I’m not saying there weren’t volleys in the other direction. That’s not the point. The point is that the moderator denies the existence of “Wolk-haters”. Please.

          3. Don Shor

            Ah. If those are your definitions of ‘haters’ then I stand corrected. But I doubt that any of those people ‘hate’ Dan Wolk.

          4. Rich RifkinWDE 73

            And my favorite, when Rifkin used a vague sexual metaphor to describe Dan’s relation to unions, he said he was “hoovering” them.

            I never used any sexual metaphor. That is in your own sick head.

            Plus, I am not a Wolk hater. I have very cordial relations with Dan. I think he’s about as likable a guy as you will ever meet, and I admire his political skills. I do think, nonetheless, that he never should have tied his fortunes to the corrupt public employee unions in our state. It may be reality that those unions control the Democratic Party. However, it’s equally true that Dan’s mother, Lois, has long had a cool relation with them and she has even stood up to those unions and paid the price for doing so.

            To me, politics should start with ethics and move to ideas from there. The public employee unions have no ethics. They are all about enriching themselves at the public expense. And that is the way they are designed to work. I don’t blame them for their avarice. Greed is their job. However, those who are supposed to represent all of the people and all interests have an ethical obligation to not give favor to one group over the others when all interests ought to be balanced.

          5. Don Shor

            I was interested to learn from the Urban Dictionary that hoovering does have a sexual connotation. I was only aware of the more benign definitions. Shows my age, I guess.

          6. Rich RifkinWDE 73

            The Brits use hoovering in common discourse, more-less the way we use “sucking up to.” However, there is no need to presume a sexual connotation, and I can say I have honestly never used such terms in that way and I resent the fake-named poster claiming that I ever did.

            I think the implication likely depends on how the term is used. For example, if I say (or write), “Mr. Green sucked up to Mr. Blue in order to get Blue’s support,” that does not imply that the sucking up was sexual or physical in any way. It’s simply suggests Green’s behavior or actions were servile or obsequious.

            While I have no memory of saying anything like that about Dan’s relationship with the public employee unions who paid for his campaign and waged the expensive assault on Mr. Dodd (e.g., the bogus business about Dodd buying the wrong bolts in China for the Bay Bridge), if I did, it would ONLY have been in the sense of obsequy.

          7. Rich RifkinWDE 73

            “it would ONLY have been in the sense of obsequy.”

            Auto-correct got me. I did not try to type “obsequy,” which has a different meaning. I meant to type obsequiousness.

        2. Frankly

          I think Dan and Joe are two of the nicest guys in the city. Let’s not confuse the words directed at their political positions and actions with what we might feel about Dan or Joe the person.

          The fact that I was against Dan and Joe simply because their political views and actions don’t line up well enough with mine, and because I have been critical of their political views and actions… I hope does not translate into anything personal.

    1. David Greenwald

      I guess I’m a little baffled by your comment, you can look at how many votes remain in what places and create a model based on it. It’s not perfect, but we have enough results to know that unless there is a huge skew in the remaining distribution about what can be expected. The lead that you cite is immaterial because you don’t know where those votes are coming from.

      1. Good Government

        But what is the point of Dodd’s press release? If the votes are counted and he wins, then great! If the votes are counted and he doesn’t win, then great! Why make a release saying “I’m a gunna win!”? What is the point?

        It’s an honest question. If there is a political upside to it, I don’t see it.

      2. Good Government

        It seems the classy thing to do, if you are confident in your victory, is to wait confidently for it to materialize and for the losers to come calling to kiss the ring.

      3. Good Government

        And on the (admittedly very small) chance he’s wrong, this press release will make him look pretty stupid. Pretty much any chicken recipe will also work for crow.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for