Sunday, November 23, 2008

 

My Word post-election statements

Clif's

Estelle's

I can't find Johanna's. Maybe it hasn't been published yet. I'll link to it as soon as it becomes available.

Comments:
Pretty generic except for Estelle's subtle dig about the "fear mongering."
 
I am extremely proud to say that we stuck to the issues of importance to the 2nd District and never stooped to fear-based or negative campaigning.

Is that the comment? The only reason it might be interpreted as any kind of swipe is that some of her supporters were accusing Clif's campaign, including me, of playing the "fear card" by discussing the arithmetic (which by the way was completely justified by the results). But if she wanted to make that point, she could have made it plainly.

In fact, notwithstanding a few overzealous supporters on the blog, in the letters pages, and on the radio, all three of the campaigns themselves kept a positive tone. In fact, I'm hard pressed to come up with a firm jab in any of the debates.

Estelle probably should have congratulated Clif in the My Word piece, but she did call him up to congratulate him personally and that's where it counts.

The race is over for four years and we'll soon learn if my support for Clif was justified. I'm pretty certain
 
I'm a 5th District resident. I love where I live, but for a brief moment I wished I lived in so hum so I could vote for Estelle. She is an amazing person and a very talented journalist, which tells me she knows her community well and wouldn't have cowered when faced with the pressures of power. I am confident Estelle will continue to serve her community with energy and commitment regardless of her title or position. Good job Estelle!
 
The spoiler was the write-in, Johanna Rodoni, not Estelle Fennell. Your talk about math is just the Kool-aid talking. Be careful about believing talking points. Clif owes his new job to Johanna. Oh well, another missed opportunity for SoHum. At least the Pepperwood Greens finally won one, I guess that's what counts...
 
Hey, Clif has clear mandate. A clear 40% mandate.
 
Odd that the "spoiler" came in second place.
 
eric, that one sentence, on it's own, is pretty bitchy and negative and is stooping.
 
Only if you take it as an implication that other campaigns acted differently. Again, if she wanted to make that point she could have been much more explicit. Glass half full.
 
the fact that she is bringing up the fear thing seems to indicate that she still is trying to mislead about her chances, not that it matters anymore--i hope she gets over it...
 
It seems to me that if Estelle really cared about the Second District, or the County as a whole, that her letter in the Time Squandered would have mentioned that she'd work to make things better for us regardless of winning as Supervisor. Her failure to say she supports the winning candidate smacks of nothing less than sour grapes, and perhaps the arrogance of thinking that no-one but she could do the job.
 
the "spoiler" johanna was only 200 votes ahead of Estelle. (approx 3,000 each) And Estelle could still get ahead of johanna once all of the absentee votes are counted.

That whole myth in sohum "johanna is a big threat so vote for cliff" was bogus.

cliff got a little over 38% , that is the lowest amount of votes any supervisor was elected with.
 
cliff got a little over 38% , that is the lowest amount of votes any supervisor was elected with.

That's a big duh, so what? It's purely a quirk of this year's Supervisor election, the first to have a run-off election with a write-in candidate. There has never before been an election held for Supervisor where it was possible for the successful candidate to win with less than 50%. It was always mathematically imposssible.

The system is supposed to be set up to ensure that anyone elected to the Board must get more than 50% of the vote. In the "non-partisan" primary in the spring, there is no winner declared if no candidate gets >50%. If no one candidate receives >50%, there is a run-off scheduled for the fall, between the top two vote-getters. Then, in the run-off, one of those two will, by definition, get >50% (unless it's a dead tie vote). It's only the opinion (and some believe it's wrong) of the State and County attorneys that allowed in a third, write-in candidate (Johanna), rendering it, IMHO, not a run-off at all, but a new election.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for www.electoral-vote.com