As usual, I’m going to give out my best Brain, Heart, Gut predictions for this election. As a reminder, the “Brain” is who you logically believe will win based on actual data and stuff. “Heart” is who you want to win. And “Gut” is who you feel will win based on nothing more than the churning of your bowels.
If you want to memorialize your picks in a contest, check out Mike McMahon’s annual contest where the winner will receive nothing more than accolades of being either a really good guesser or the biggest political geek in Alameda.
Mayor:
Brain: Marie Gilmore. She has the biggest campaign war chest and the most organized boots on the ground to turn out an effective get out the vote campaign. Logically, given her name recognition and the power of incumbency, Marie Gilmore should muster up enough votes to retain her seat.
Heart: Marie Gilmore. See endorsement post.
Gut: Marie Gilmore. Typically well liked and has done nothing extremely controversial. All in all, with the exception of some vocal complainers, the sense is that the silent majority is not unhappy with the direction the City is going in. When that’s the case, folks will vote for the incumbent.
City Council:
Brain: Frank Matarrese and Jim Oddie. There is nothing like the power of name recognition the squeak someone into office that may have been out of office for a while. That’s what’s going to happen in the case of Frank Matarrese, he’s done a good job of keeping his name in the public sphere through endless Letters to the Editor for the last two years leading up to this election. Most people remember him from his advocacy of the Alameda Theatre and Cineplex which brings him a lot of good will. And it appears that even people who were (and still are) against the Alameda Theatre and Cineplex remodel are firmly in Frank Matarrese’s corner because of his current, and very different, position on development in general in the City of Alameda. Jim Oddie is going to reap the benefits of being not really widely identified with any faction — despite being on Rob Bonta’s staff — is probably going to be a lot of people’s second votes whether people vote for Frank Matarrese or Stewart Chen.
Heart: Jim Oddie. See endorsement post.
Gut: Frank Matarrese and Jim Oddie. The negative mailers against Frank Matarrese are probably going to ding Stewart Chen more than help him. Typically the Asian vote would be enough of a gut factor for me to say the only Asian candidate on the ballot will squeak through, but I don’t know if it will be enough for Stewart Chen this time around given his poor showing two years ago, only scraping enough for a third place win. Jim Oddie seems to have the most momentum and has collected a fair share of endorsements from newspapers etc, although I’m not sure how much impact that will actually have on the election. Frank Matarrese, has also collected a number of endorsements and even though he has become the darling of the “against everything” faction of Alameda, the majority of people — who remember these things — will still remember him warmly for his advocacy with the Alameda Theatre project.
School Board
Brain: Mike McMahon and Solana Henneberry. Solana Henneberry has everything in her corner to win. She has the right background. The right endorsements. The right support. There is no way she will not win. Mike McMahon comes to the campaign with the power of incumbency, but incumbency means very little when it comes to School Board elections. Logically, given the lack of support for Mike McMahon from the usual suspects (aka teachers’ union) he would go down in flames, but Mike McMahon does have a coveted endorsement from the Alameda County Democratic Party which has brought with it his name and face on important mailers. Mike McMahon is running a very low key campaign, as he has in the past, if Gary Lym can’t beat him with boots on the ground support from AEA, then he has squandered his advantage.
Heart: Mike McMahon See endorsement post.
Gut: See Brain post.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Brain? Off year election: No hot button issue: Low vote turnout, except for motivated “no” voters, one issue voters and your “base.” Spencer was largest vote getter in last election. The same people who vote for Spencer will vote for Matarrese and against Measure I. Asian vote will apply to Lym and Chen. Traffic and development is a big issue you left out along with concern about unions controlling elections. Therefore here are your results…
Mayor: Spencer
Council (in order) Matarrese, Chen, Oddie
School Board: Hennebery, Lym, McMahon
Measure I: no
Comment by Breathless — November 3, 2014 @ 6:42 am
I am more concerned about the fates of Measure I and Measure BB than I am about the races for school board and city offices, and I do not think either measure has a lock on winning by the needed majority. If they fail, it will be further sad proof that voters no longer care about “paying it forward” and investing in our future. In neither case have opponents offered any meaningful or constructive alternative solutions to the problems we face.
Gilmore will win reelection, but the City Council and school board races offer enough variables and negatives to make predictions tricky: I certainly hope Jim Oddie will win a CC seat, though.
It appears that Robert Raburn will win a much-deserved reelection to the BART Board District 4 seat he has held since 2010, and that will be a very good thing for Alameda as well as BART riders throughout the Bay Area.
The specter of nasty and inaccurate campaigning has once again raised its ugly head, and I am dismayed that my fellow Democrats seem to be the worst offenders in Alameda: why do unions, in particular, seem to be drawn to funding locally-targeted mailers that are inaccurate and mean-spirited? They ought to know better than to imitate Suncal’s slimy 2010 example. I have decided to vote against the candidates whose names are associated with the worst examples…
Comment by Jon Spangler — November 3, 2014 @ 7:03 am
For the political junkies:
http://www.calbuzz.com/2014/11/op-ed-why-politicians-run-knowing-theyll-lose/
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 3, 2014 @ 7:21 am
#3: see also: Trish Spencer’s run for mayor.
Comment by A-la-median — November 3, 2014 @ 7:45 am
One of the reason why I read Blogging Bayport and the Alamedan for real news and keeping my finger on the pulse of the community, is the Alameda Sun editors seem to use the newspaper as a platform for their agenda.
http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2014/11/03/correction-alameda-sun/
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 3, 2014 @ 8:10 am
Mike, unfortunately it is an extension of Action Alameda News (the “No” sayers) —- and has lost all credibility in my book.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 3, 2014 @ 8:18 am
Karen, in practical terms it may seem like the Sun is an extension of Action Alameda, they certainly have tapped it as a source, but I think the intentions of current staff are better than that, just misguided and unprofessional. They think writing articles under news analysis allows them to to write their bias with impunity. The cover article about out of town fliers last Thursday ends with this paragraph: “Of course, conveniently enough for Chen or Oddie, the slick that the out-of-town money paid for contains a caveat that states, “not authorized by the candidate or committee controlled by the candidate.”
I think Dennis felt that in order to be fair and balanced maybe he should mention the authorization issue, but he couldn’t resist framing it with prejudicial terms like “of course”, “conveniently” and “slick” because he doesn’t have enough faith in the intelligence of the readership to sort the bare facts without the leading color commentary, or maybe he is writing for a constituency and feels he owes them “red meat”. This goes to the point that it is fairly easy to write with biased intent without it being blatant, but the Sun is ham handed.
Comment by MI — November 3, 2014 @ 8:33 am
I’d vote for Measure BB if I felt that the people magian the transportation agencies had half a brain. They don’t. They waste money, they hide facts, and continue to believe that voters will believe their BS about what they will do with our money. Have you read about the huge crane that was built to build the new Bay Bridge? It cost $600M!! The State let them “have” it when the bridge was done!! WE paid for it, the contractors got to keep it. They are now using it in NY to work on a bride there and we get nothing. It is saving NY millions of dollars while it costs us Bay Area residents millions. The transportation commissions are worthless and the agencies are in to yours and our pockets big time. DO NOT VOTE FOR BB!!
Comment by Bill — November 3, 2014 @ 8:39 am
I predict Mayor Gilmore will be re-elected, and like you Jon I am concerned about the fate of Measure I and Measure BB, both very important Measures that should be passed. Measure I needs 55% majority to win – which may be difficult to achieve in this election.
For Council, I predict that Oddie and Matarrese will win — Chen may have hurt himself with the negative campaign mailers.
For School Board, I predict McMahon, and Hennebery will win. Mike, because of name recognition and Hennebery because she has a very positive message and because she’s union.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 3, 2014 @ 8:43 am
Not sure how you can claim that Gilmore has the most “boots on the ground”. Other than a few signs, I haven’t seen any Gilmore supporters around town. I have not seen had one single Gilmore volunteer talk to me, nor come to my door. I also haven’t seen Marie herself at any public events. As for Trish, I have seen all of the above. Trish took 10 minutes to talk with me at the Everything Alameda festival. Her supporters are also all over social media, perhaps a little too heavy on that actually. I’m not saying Trish is better, just countering your statement that Marie has more “boots on the ground”, whatever that is.
Comment by AJ — November 3, 2014 @ 8:44 am
the reason I wrote “current staff” in 7 is because previous partner Eric Turowski didn’t seem well prepared to take the heat of being an editor and I’ve exchanged email with Dennis and met with Eric Kos a few times and I think that they mean well, and credit them with the motive of wanting to fight for the little guy. And of course many of us miss Julia’s influence. Howard on the other hand is 100% malicious, devious and underhanded at all times.
Did anybody else notice the comments below endorsement article in electronic version of EBX where some guy named “Jared” made ludicrous claims about words spoken by Gilmore?
Comment by MI — November 3, 2014 @ 8:47 am
AJ: I think it depends on where you live for the door knocking, but Marie Gilmore has manpower in the form of tried and true “get out the vote” efforts (door to door canvassing, phone banking, and day of GOTV). Social media is great — I love it — but it’s unclear how much that translates into actual votes.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2014 @ 8:52 am
well it looks like Trish has at least one vote. If you haven’t seen any Gilmore volunteers or seen her around town, maybe you weren’t in Alameda. I have not seen one single Spencer volunteer, nor had any come to my door. So what does that mean?? maybe she doesn’t have enough “boots on the ground” just sayin.
Comment by John P. — November 3, 2014 @ 8:58 am
According to social media, Hillary has already won the next presidential campaign.
Comment by Jake — November 3, 2014 @ 9:07 am
For those of you who have not entered your predictions for the 2014 race (http://goo.gl/forms/Lk6gyWG78r) here is the recap from the 2010 elections. http://www.mikemcmahon.info/ElectionSurvey2010.pdf The crowd sourced predictions did pretty well except for missing the Tony Daysog second place finish.
I will publish results just before the polls close.
After the polls close I will be tweeting out results and analysis as well as posting here and on Facebook.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 3, 2014 @ 9:25 am
5, I agree with you, Mike, about The Alamedan having no apparent political agenda but Blogging Bayport? Lauren’s political agenda has been fairly obvious in her blog posts for years. I do credit her with not censoring comments and allowing those who disagree with her a free and open forum, though. If folks take time to read through the comments, they can get a clearer picture of both sides than they can from other sources, but that is because she has among her contributors those who are willing to argue against some of what she has to say.
The Sun’s technique of using prejudicial terms to influence its readers as outlined by Mark Irons, is a technique often employed in Lauren’s posts. Just look at what she’s just said about Mataresse and his “endless letters to the editor” and characterizing him as the “darling of the against everything faction.”
To belong to the “against everything faction” it would seem all one has to do is question any project Lauren supports. One’s record of support for other projects apparently means nothing to her and her stalwart allies. One might have been in favor of the new library, in favor of the theatre project, in favor of expanding the parkland around Crown Beach, in favor of the redevelopment that brought us the Bridgeside Shopping Center, but unless one also agrees with rapid housing development without any push back to question the impacts,one runs the risk of being branded a NIMBY in Lauren’s book and summarily dismissed.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 3, 2014 @ 10:28 am
I’m not really interested in getting into a pissing match, but every publication has its biases. Some — like the Alamedan — do a better job at concealing their biases. The difference is whether or not those publications are up front about it or try to hide behind the whole “non-partial, non-political” label. I’ve written about it before, but the EBX presents a good picture of the whole “unbiased media” meme. Blogs by their very existence are biased. But that doesn’t mean that the news presented — albeit in a biased form — isn’t “real” or that it isn’t informative. It just has a slant. Same with publications like the EBX or Mother Jones. The slant and bias is there and obvious, it doesn’t mean that the news presented is not “real” or “informative.”
The myth that “real news” is unbiased or non political is simply that, a myth. All media is biased based on editorial decisions and word choice. Such as opting to use the term “pro abortion” to describe politicians who support a woman’s right to choose. Or covering a story from the perspective that supports a certain politician’s talking point. It’s the little subtle cues that you need to observe and be wary about, not media that fully disclose their biases.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 3, 2014 @ 10:59 am
And unlike Lauren’s blog, the Sun does not allow for a variety of voices – just the ones they agree with.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 3, 2014 @ 12:01 pm
Karen, Lauren has her daily op -ed at Bayport and it’s all from her position. The Sun seems to have the habit of coddling a few regulars on their op -ed page. I think the columns of Richard Bangert and Irene Dieter have done are great. They may slant naturally toward the Sun’s editorial bent but that is O.K. to me. It is O.K. for them to have a known opinion on the spectrum and have their editorial content reflect that, but their “guest editorials” from guys like retired political science prof. Mark Greenfield ( I think that’s right) are a bit much, particularly as a steady diet. While those columns may not be by invitation I always feel the way the paper frames the headers on letters and other tweaks to various issues that they are happy to push it as many of those op-eds as possible. There have been times in the past like parcel tax measures where people with other views have been proactive, submitted a lot of volume and gotten some balance, but generally many of us may have grown weary of the Sun in terms of hoping for serious attempt at even semi-unbiased reporting of news so we are less apt to turn to them to print our op-eds.
I would not call Laurens blog a “news site”, but rather a place to find a lot of useful information and observations, and that comes before the comment portion. Sites that purport to be news have to at least attempt to use the language of even handedness, even if the content may be edited toward one bias or another. At some point the heavy handed editing of content can cross lines but I think new articles start with what we all agree to be facts. As you add layers of shading stuff which is more open to interpretation, a good news source will seek both sides and quotes them. Not selectively either. The Sun very often falls short on verifying points of view, making calls for comment etc.
Denise, if you are indignant at being dismissed by Lauren or some of her readers you are welcome to not come to the site, but it seems you take advantage of a fair amount of air time, so don’t complain too much if you feel like you walked into the wrong bar or something where the conversation is offensive.
I’m curious if Jack ever spent much time in cafe Med on Telegraph. During the mid to later seventies when dusk from most of the big commotion ( Free Speech and People Park) had settled down but the scene was still really eclectic, the front table there which seated 8 or 9 people you would find a weird array of conversation. Not often super conservative, but there were regulars who were law an order, some hippies , some vets, this and that, a lot of libertarianism.
In terms of cable TV as a comparative world for “news” coverage, I find Al Jazeera to be head and shoulders better than Fox and even MSNBC. The latter is big on liberal bias but they have some respect for facts. Fox is all crack pot red meat. Al Jazeera will cover Ebola too, but not beat you over the head like it’s the only story and they often take various approaches to in depth material which make almost any other network pale, accept for Front Line.
Comment by MI — November 3, 2014 @ 12:51 pm
post #16. Denise, you probably didn’t notice that this blog does not call itself a “newspaper”. We are just people putting out our opinions and Lauren seems to be the moderator. The Alameda Sun actually calls itself a newspaper, which it is not, its a personal opinion paper in my opinion. I find very little news in there. If I want biases, I come here or go to Alameda merry go round or Action Alameda. These sites aren’t calling themselves “newspapers” they call themselves “blog” for a reason.
Comment by John P. — November 3, 2014 @ 2:43 pm
To clarify I never said Blogging Bayport was non biased. I have been able to find out more about city development here with greater detail than anywhere else. And yes I understand Lauren has a point of view. So do all of her faithful commenters. I have read 99% of all of the posts and comments from this site for the last 6 years and once again serves as a good barometer of the pulse of the community. I still remembering the “carpetbagger” comments and “she will never last” comments from the royal Don Roberts readers.
It is my understanding that is a strong possibility that Michele Ellson will be returning to school and the fate of the Alamedas is up in the air. So this site remains a valuable asset for me personally.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 3, 2014 @ 2:58 pm
I will agree and thanks Lauren for not censuring her blog which unlike some which are critical of the Sun have a moderation before the post can be seen , kind a sad coming from peoples involving in the City …..
As far as the Sun impersonating anyone , the very same person has been greatly publicized in the Sun for various articles , As long as I can remember the Sun require address phone and name before posting anything , I doubt they have used someone name to post an article.
I have stopped reading it after seeing so many article some rather pompous coming from the very detractors.
Whether we care to recognize it or not David Howard did some good by exposing what was happening at the base .
At large they all contributed to Alameda against totaly dishonest City Employees , you all have the names .
I am deeply disappointed by the Democrats which have been stabbing each other on the back Alameda does not need these dirty campaign .
Financed by the Cops voters guide $30 000 donation from Seattle New York Miami Nebraska etc , gee matarrese bring that much to the national elections
Comment by Joel Rambaud — November 3, 2014 @ 4:35 pm
Closing in on 50 entries. If you have entered your predictions, invite your friends to enter their picks. http://goo.gl/forms/Lk6gyWG78r
Then on Tuesday night, follow the results on Twitter, Facebook and here. The first results are usually available around 8:15pm. This will be the count of the vote by mail ballots received by Registrar of Voters in enough time for them to verify and compile results. Typically, the first results from Alameda precincts get reported sometime between 9pm and 930pm.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 3, 2014 @ 5:33 pm
#22 I’m sorry, what did david howard expose at the base?
Comment by notadave — November 3, 2014 @ 5:33 pm
19
No Mark, I worked nights on the base in the seventies pumping out air launch missiles and went to Cal during the day…morning classes during the uprisings because the protesters didn’t get up until 11 AM and Dwinelle Hall, where most of my lectures were held, was the first lecture hall they hit. It got so bad we had to schedule classes off campus because the tear gas and noise made it impossible listen. I graduated in 72 so wasn’t around the campus much in the later seventies
Back in those days there were tons of places where every political ilk known to man had a voice. I didn’t have time for that stuff though.
Comment by jack — November 3, 2014 @ 5:57 pm
Election prediction game update:
If I get over 100 entries, happy to take the winner out to breakfast or lunch at the Alameda eatery of their choice. Not likely.
75 entries and I will have coffee with the winner at the Alameda place of their choice.
In 2010 I had 73 entries.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 3, 2014 @ 6:50 pm
#24, NAD he was on the leading edge of accurately reporting that it existed! You have to give him credit for that, he worked hard on that angle, it was a real breakthrough for his blog.
Comment by jkw — November 3, 2014 @ 7:34 pm
If I get one entry that votes exactly how I vote I’ll treat the first contestant winner to a free glass of wine and a stack of garlic fries (and a hell of a good conversation) at Rock Wall at a time of their choosing. I’m honest and you can email your votes at sorta1959@aol.com
Comment by jack — November 3, 2014 @ 7:58 pm
19, Mark, you have misinterpreted what I said. I did not refer to myself at all. I did not cite personal attacks directed at me. I am not complaining but clarifying. Lauren obviously feels strongly about her views. The very nature of what she posts invites debate. If she didn’t want this to be a forum, she would not print comments from readers or she would only allow those who are in agreement with her to have a say. If that were the case, I suspect this blog would reach a much smaller audience or possibly have ceased to exist years ago. While, everyone who joins in the fray here is in part responsible for the success of Blogging Bayport as a source of information, it is Lauren’s dedication and diligence to the project that brought it into being and keeps it going. I applaud her for that and have done so a number of times over the years. I can disagree with someone and even criticize them and still admire some of what they say and do.
20. John P., where have you been? Of course it is a blog and not billed as an unbiased news source. I know I’ve mentioned this very thing a few times here before and Lauren has said the same thing when others have accused her of having a bias. Do you think I’m suffering from amnesia? My comment was directed at Mike’s comment which seemed to imply that this blog doesn’t use prejudicial terms like the Sun does. Mike clarified what he meant himself and that’s not what he meant.
Bottom line, it’s nice to show support when warranted, but sometimes we can avoid confusion by letting people fight their own battles. Lauren and Mike are more than up to the task.
Comment by Denise Shelton — November 4, 2014 @ 9:03 am
The wonderful thing about BBA is: it is the only truly Free Press Blog in Alameda. I lost all respect for Michele Ellson when she blocked me from commenting on the Alamedan two weeks ago. I sent the exact same post to the Sun as a Letter to the Editor and it was printed last week. No dirty words, no personal attacks. Michele just didn’t like my point of view. I asked Michele why I was blocked, and she said I wasn’t, but everytime I try to log in, I am still blocked. So yeah, Michele needs to go back to school…journalism school!.
The most effective way to skew your blog is not to let people you have disagreed with before even log on to your blog. So, as much as I violently disagree with Lauren sometimes, she is a more mature journalist than Michele Ellson. I now view “The Alamedan” as little more than whitewashed politically correct fishwrap.
Comment by vigi — November 4, 2014 @ 9:27 am
Thank you Vigi – you just helped prove my point about the Sun.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 4, 2014 @ 10:29 am
29. I can see now you were speaking in general terms, not personally, but most of the reason for my post 19 was not to defend Lauren, but to expound on exactly how I see the Sun falling short of best practices for a “real” news site. Dennis has always said that he was not trained journalist and he would like a chance to hone his craft, but the problem is we’ve given him plenty of opportunity and constructive criticism, but they don’t seem willing or able to take it to heart and to try to change. I think it may be a siege mentality of meeting deadline every week and barely being able to keep up because they weren’t turned out with journalism degrees, but in the long run that is no excuse. Their letters policy of running letters anonymously as long as THEY know who wrote it is a failure of basic journalism 101 and free speech even playing field, yet they persist. Really amateur. Lauren may have blatant bias but her methodology of accountability is a better standard than theirs. blogs just have to put up with the anonymous thing because of format and the amount of time it would consume for a single blogger to do the same sort of vetting. For years the Journal would call me to verify my identity even after I was a regular letter writer. Once it was electronic that relaxed because it was easier for everybody. If the Sun going to stay in business it would be nice if they took a little more responsibility and cleaned up their act. For what it is worth, I think Robert Gammon at the Express is often a bit too biased and people call him on it all the time. That paper also sees itself as an advocate for less popular points of view. The thing is that Gammon is a pro, he is usually thorough if he wants to be and he has a thick skin, unlike the guys at the Sun who have whined about being picked on an often write little caveats about what their latest excuse may be. I did some work for the previous editor of the EBX and his wife who is editor of Alameda and Oakland magazines and I talked to him a lot about his job. I thought Tavares’s article on elections in one of the recent Alameda Magazines was abysmal piece of crap which essentially amplified the opinions of Robert Sullwold and David Howard including ridiculous quotes, but with no calls made to other people like IAFF to help round out the story. But he and Ellson broke Chen’s fraud story.
Comment by MI — November 4, 2014 @ 10:45 am
Michele Ellson has an incredible amount of integrity and knowledge of Alameda’s inner workings. I approached her when the Littlejohn Park neighbors first started organizing ourselves. Her name was given to me as someone who could help me with a crash-course on current development happenings. I’d somehow expected her to have an opinion, and I’m sure she does, but she didn’t share it with me. She gave me some astute, sharp insights into people & processes. What impressed me most is her ability to see through the form to get to the substance of a person. BTW – there have been times when I’ve been unable to log into my usual websites. Resetting my browser & clearing the cache usually took care of it.
Comment by Alison — November 4, 2014 @ 11:46 am
post #29, Denise, actually I think its the water in New York that is causing you this problem (the Amnesia).
as to your question of “where have you been” I”m still right here in Alameda. I’m just pleased that you can still keep things exciting.
Comment by John P. — November 4, 2014 @ 1:27 pm
post#33, I think Michele Ellson is probably the best journalist we have in Alameda at the moment. BTW, for vigi I have heard more than one person having trouble getting on the Alamedan, as have I. I will bet that Michele had nothing to do with your problem of getting onto the site. For you to accuse her of doing that is a pretty low thing. Your also calling her a liar instead of trying to find out exactly what the problem is for your not being able to log onto the Alamedan. Eventually I did figure out that I was doing something wrong, not getting blocked.
Comment by John P. — November 4, 2014 @ 1:37 pm
post #30 not #33.
Comment by John P. — November 4, 2014 @ 1:38 pm
There you go again, JP. I will take that bet. I did exchange several emails with Michele Ellson asking what the problem was. Spent half a day doing it. She kept saying I wasn’t being blocked, but i could not post comments without moderation. However, that implies that I could write something in the box in the first place..it would just be “moderated” [i.e. censored] by her before it was finally posted. I am signing on to the Alamedan the same way I always have, same password, same handle. It knows who I am, because the blocking message addresses me by name when it tells me my comments are blocked, before I have written anything.
I judge what I see, and it looks like censorship to me. I am surprised it is her, though. I tried setting up a new account with a different email address and it said the email account wasn’t valid. but it has been for years. Since I only use public computers, I cannot clean my cache of cookies. If that is the problem, then it is something the Alamedan should fix, because a whole lot of people in Alameda use public computers. I’m guessing they’ll just quit visiting Michele’s website.
For what it’s worth, in the past the Sun has [1] posted someone else’s name under a letter I sent them and [2] lifted a post I wrote here on BBA, onto the Sun op-ed page, without my permission.
Comment by vigi — November 4, 2014 @ 3:57 pm
vigi, if the letter was the one in the Sun maybe Michele had a problem because it didn’t stand alone. It makes sense to be in the Sun because as you state in the opening it is in response to another letter that was printed in the Sun.
That letter was mine. I didn’t actually say consensus building “all by itself” is a virtue, as readers may have inferred from you letter, Trying to dismiss consensus as a valuable quality by speciously linking it to Hitler’s rise to power is sort of a lunatic notion. Sure, many manipulations of public consensus have occurred in history, but my reference was to the fact that Spencer is almost exclusively obstructionist and seldom if ever has offered alternatives around which the board might move to some sort of resolution on which at least a majority could agree.
As to your lengthy quote of Steve Jobs ( which is hardly appropriate for “comments” on a news feed) about how it sometimes takes a crazy person, Trish may be a kook, but she hardly has the genius qualities of a Steve Jobs. Jobs was also a private entrepreneur not a team player and apparently not areal nice guy. He would have been a horrible public servant. Jerry Brown comes closer to the kind of odd ball who can get things done, but again Spencer may have that moonbeam smile, but she’s no Jerry Brown.
Let me flip the scenario. I’ll insert crazy for “building consensus” and otherwise quote you. Vigi “puts a great deal of emphasis on the quality of ” CRAZY ” as what ” she “finds important for the job of mayor.” “Since when is” CRAZINESS ” all by itself a virtue?” HUH?
Comment by MI — November 4, 2014 @ 5:56 pm
The Registrar of Voters has issued the final statement of vote. The turnout for the city of Alameda voters was 50.82% with 22,498 ballots cast out of the 44,273 registered voters with 62% voting using vote by mail ballots. In the Mayor race, Trish Spencer had a winning margin of 383 votes (4142-3759) at the polls where voters voted using the machines. Marie Gilmore had a winning margin of 263 (6609-6346) where voters used vote by mail ballots. Precinct 300100 where Harbor Bay Club is located was the largest supporter of Trish Spencer where she won by 155 votes (416 – 261). There were 1559 ballots where the voter did not make a selection in the Mayor race.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 26, 2014 @ 9:11 am