Over the weekend I had a lot of time to think about the election while painting. And not the artsy kind of painting, the wall kind of painting. There’s not a whole lot to do other than listen to music and think. Before you ask, the color is “soft pumpkin” and that equals orange.
Anyway, I was tossing this comment over in my head:
I suspect that if almost anyone other than Trish had run on Trish’s platform, this election would have been a complete blowout. I think there are a fair number of people like me who just couldn’t vote for Trish because I think she’s nuts. If anyone else (with a few notable exceptions) had run on her platform s/he probably would have gotten my vote. (But I also know a few people who voted for Trish because they think she’ll do less harm at the city level than she does on the school board.)
Because I was thinking more along the lines of “I wonder if others that had mayoral aspirations are kicking themselves for ceding the battle against Marie Gilmore to Trish Spencer.” Like a Doug deHaan or even a Frank Matarrese. I wonder if they look at Trish Spencer’s win as a missed opportunity because of the sentiment stated above.
But here’s the thing: I think this win had to be Trish Spencer’s because she is forever underestimated from the view point of traditional political candidates.
A lot of people forget how well Trish Spencer did two years ago, like, really well from a sheer number of votes perspective. And there is also this, which really encapsulated Trish Spencer’s appeal as a politician:
If you want to see Trish’s personal listening skills in action, have a complaint against the district, or in near future, against the city. She will shower you with heartfelt attention and unwavering eye contact and will promise to carry your cause all the way. She means it, until the next complaint grabs her attention.
I have experienced this with her personally. Several years ago during the primary school lottery controversy, she called me up and listened carefully and paid very close attention to my concerns. For a brief period I thought she really had our backs. It became clear very soon after, though, that Trish always has the back of whoever is complaining at a given moment, and for not much longer than that given moment.
Since I pay very close attention to school issues, it wasn’t hard to figure out what her game was (and remains). It’s easy to see, though, how a person who doesn’t follow things closely would have that opinion of her continuously. This being the Bay Area, where complaint is our National Pastime, there’s always a good number of folks grinding an axe. If she makes a fair portion of them think she’s in their camp, she gets their votes for life. When AEA was caterwauling about a Superintendent who wanted to enforce standards of professionalism, she gave them the Trish Treatment and won their endorsement, but notice that she isn’t carrying their water any longer. When the anti-gay bigots were railing about the mere existence of gay people, she played them too. She isn’t advocating for them any more either but I bet most of that crowd still supports her based on that one little memory. I suspect the Del Monte neighbors will have a decent opinion of her for a long time, even if she votes to pave paradise and leave out the parking lot.
It’s good retail politics: pretend to care about as many people as you can and throw in a few warm handshakes and boom, you get elected to something.
Trish Spencer is probably one of the best politicians to come out of Alameda for a long time. She epitomizes the mantra of winning votes one person at a time. The goodwill her “listening” — even though the listening never materialized into actual action — has won people over so thoroughly that it overcame every advantage that Marie Gilmore should have had in this election.
I don’t think it’s necessarily the fact that Marie Gilmore overestimated her appeal, it’s that the people around her underestimated the appeal of Trish Spencer. Trish Spencer is Alameda’s own George W. Bush/Sarah Palin all wrapped up into one smiley package. And that’s why it couldn’t have been a Doug deHaan or even a Frank Matarrese going head to head against Marie Gilmore. Because while both men have their own likability quotients, it’s not nearly as powerful as Trish Spencer’s and when you add in this:
If she makes a fair portion of them think she’s in their camp, she gets their votes for life.
Trish Spencer walked into this race with a voting bloc that would vote for her no matter how many debates or mailers or facts about her record were thrown their way. Case in point, a commenter here indicated that she was the past PTA president for Wood Middle School, but appears to be a die-hard Trish Spencer booster. I’m not quite sure what Trish Spencer did to earn her particular vote, but — most recently — Trish Spencer voted against ACLC/Nea’s lease to move both schools to the Woodstock campus even though Wood Middle School’s leadership indicated that they needed the additional space used by ACLC to implement its STEAM program.
Let’s just say, this next year — because, if you couldn’t tell I’ve resigned myself to the fact that Trish Spencer is our next Mayor — will be very interesting and, let’s face it, entertaining in a way that it hasn’t been in a long time. The City Council is a vastly different world from the School Board and given Trish Spencer’s answers for City related questions during the campaign it’s clear that she doesn’t have a firm grip on all of the subject matters and the learning curve is going to be steep. It’s not going to be all ribbon cuttings and proclamations — there are some super important topics that are on the horizon for this City Council in the next two years, and a few others that should be on the agenda as well.
Based on past performance, I’m not sure that Trish Spencer is Mayoral material, but I’m always willing to be proven wrong.
Silver lining: a Trish Spencer free School Board.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Silver Lining #2: unions’ control of council is now considerably weaker
Comment by dave — November 12, 2014 @ 6:13 am
Summary – you think more than half the voters in Alameda were duped by a smooth talking politician, whose only skill is pretending to “listen” to people; that you and other Gilmore supporters openly think is nuts, and “now” the school board will be better, although Spencer is unqualified to do her job and will fail at anything other than a ribbon cutting ceremony. Consider this- Spencer won precincts in every neighborhood- Bay Farm, the Island, and the West End. I guess she ” pretended” to listen to a lot of people. And less than 20% of Alameda residents have kids in public schools, so it can’t just be about her school board listening skills.
it is obvious to more objective political observers that the Gilmore camp totally underestimated Spencer’s appeal, and ran such a poor campaign that they squandered their own huge incumbency advantage, embarrassingly large fundraising and endorsement advantage, and political savvy, all shattered against a simple grass roots strategy which didn’t depend on fancy mailers, big fund raisers, the Democratic Party , the teachers union, the endorsement of every politician in town, or firemen knocking on doors.
How about you reconsider how badly you underestimated Spencer, take the high road, wish Spencer good luck, and hope she does a good job as mayor?
Comment by Breathless — November 12, 2014 @ 6:53 am
I never underestimate Trish Spencer as a politician, but her skills as a leader are lacking badly and she’s had six years on the School Board to prove differently.
Also, given how many times she has voted against people’s interests and they still support her shows that some people simply don’t pay attention to the School Board specifics.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 12, 2014 @ 7:14 am
This focus on Trish Spencer’s likability ignores her non-likability (for lack of a better term). I for one could never vote for her. Perhaps if she ran against Idi Amin, I would just abstain. An exaggeration to be sure, but gives you a little insight into how strongly I feel about her.
I can’t remember an Alameda politician who has stirred up such strong positive and negative feelings.
Comment by John B. — November 12, 2014 @ 7:17 am
Ooh, this should be a contest.
Pat Bail? Beverly Johnson during the Theater debate?
Comment by Lauren Do — November 12, 2014 @ 7:22 am
Two of the regular commenters have stated publicly that they would never vote for Trish Spencer. It implies they preferred Marie’s leadership qualities to her agenda. What about the evidence staring you right in your face makes it impossible for you to see. Alamedans wanted someone to slow/halt development. They wanted someone who was less in bed with the firefighters. They wanted someone who wouldn’t roll their eyes or berate them for their ignorance from their position of power. Even with all her negatives (Oh the Irony, John B, etc) and a somewhat unpopular lesson 9 vote, she won. It seems pathological to me that you have to go digging deeper than this to figure it out.
Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 12, 2014 @ 7:31 am
Someone I hate won. Many of my neighbors must have voted for them. I don’t hate my neighbors (not all of them). It must be the fault of the person I hate (who inexplicably won) who did something hateful to dupe my poor neighbors (the ones I don’t already hate).
Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 12, 2014 @ 7:44 am
Alamedans wanted someone to slow/halt development. They wanted someone who was less in bed with the firefighters.
============================================================
This was it.
Comment by dave — November 12, 2014 @ 7:46 am
I definatly underestimated Spencers appeal, both for school board and for Mayor. Having watched her many times at school board meetings I felt that she enjoyed being the underdog and poking at her rival colleagues. Now she will be in the position of having to show that she can lead. She can no longer be disruptive and trying to slow down the process, she will need to be a consensus builder as Mayor, My question is can she do that. For our city I hope she does.
Comment by John P. — November 12, 2014 @ 7:52 am
Typo, in post 8 I meant to say “this was 90% of it.”
Comment by dave — November 12, 2014 @ 7:53 am
Interesting enough- over the last week- I have had dinner with several different friends and 2 who voted for Trish (others did not) were surprised when I mentioned my reasons why I did not. Let’s just say that they were unaware of some of her positions and have since regretted their votes. Both were especially distressed at her association with the anti-gay groups. Too late now. Since the vote was so very close- I hardly think that anyone can claim some “mandate” for her- those who claim that “Alamedans” want- are only talking for 1/2 of the people. For the record- not one of them on either side cared about the firefighters or anything else – it was all about development and traffic.
Comment by librarycat — November 12, 2014 @ 7:53 am
Jim Oddie would have lost had there been anyone to run against him.
Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 12, 2014 @ 8:00 am
Two observations: Low turnout, which means many did not weigh in at all, which is lamentable. The voters were evenly split and the winner will be winning with a hair’s breath. We need to do a lot of work to reconcile the divergent viewpoints and insure that the City goes forward with sensible, measured approaches to governance. The winner will have an opportunity to be either a spoiler or a builder of consensus. I am hoping for the latter.
Comment by Kate Quick — November 12, 2014 @ 8:02 am
Half of less than half of the registered voters in Alameda. The number of registered voters was 44273 and the number of votes cast for the Mayor’s race was 20823, 47% turnout rate. Historically for general elections (aka November elections), Alameda gets into 60%+ turnout .
Comment by Lauren Do — November 12, 2014 @ 8:08 am
You know when Marie won in 2010 there were plenty who tried to discount it by pushing the “it was only a plurality” line. Those people were rightly told to move on. Yet the same ones who resisted that line of thought in 2010 are all of a sudden talking about “lack of mandates” and “low voter turnout”.
Comment by people can be unreasonable ------- — November 12, 2014 @ 8:18 am
I don’t remember anyone talking about mandates back when Marie Gilmore won, just that, she won. In fact a lot of opponents said “oh if we had only had Ranked Choice Voting Marie Gilmore would never have won.”
Just like now, Trish Spencer has won. She won based on our current plurality system. Ascribing her win as what “Alamedans want” is conjecture. The numbers are there for the turnout (lower than typical November elections, even non-presidential November elections). Stating it is just fact. Not a judgment about mandates or lack of mandates or what Alamedans as a whole do or do not want.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 12, 2014 @ 8:27 am
Candidates did not get elected by the people is simply narrowed down by the lack of participation at the pool .
Not by the result any candidate achievement .
So many were confused and turned down by the nastiness of these flyers , they simply walked away , this is a very sad time in American Democracy as a whole , the world look up to us for that , they say 43 Students in Mexico were slaughtered last month by drug gang {so called } for expressing a glimpse of what we have {over 40 000 were murdered by what their very Governement claim to be drug wars or were they drug’s wars or cleansing, Freedom is not Free.
These flyers pointed you should not elect someone who has been termed out ! well why vote for Jerry Brown then ?
So I voted Republican ……It was pointless since Brown was going to be reelected .
Self destruction of the Democratic Party.
An overwelming majority did not even know we were voting for Governor…….
I do love the $2.5 minimum wage increase in Oakland as it will take them 10 years on the average to achieve it otherwize, maybe this could be the ticket to motivate voters
The Billionaire going around the Country blasting ” anyone financing a Democrat candidate ought to be shot” Has ordered 50 lbs of anti acid from a Canadian Pharmacy as it will directly affect His earning ,
next election I will put some {ampoule , a fragile glass vial container used for medication in Europe I will fill them with Vietnamese fish sauce , it’s better than skunk and it is edible }
Actually fabulous taste in BBQ mixed with peanut butter lemon grass and the like {yes Lauren Some have traveled too…….}
Comment by Joel — November 12, 2014 @ 8:58 am
My comment was in no way to point out a lack of mandate. It was quite simply to point out that we live in a community where many are not actively engaged and where those who are engaged enough to vote are just about evenly split. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Such splits require special efforts on those who govern to make an attempt to reconcile the differences to govern effectively. Sometimes, when votes are really lopsided, these special efforts are not so much required but I think in this case they will be.
Comment by Kate Quick — November 12, 2014 @ 9:08 am
can someone translate that for me??.
Comment by John P. — November 12, 2014 @ 9:14 am
sorry Kate, post 17.
Comment by John P. — November 12, 2014 @ 9:15 am
Post 17 translation:
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Comment by Mr. Blutarsky — November 12, 2014 @ 9:17 am
Breathless hits the nail on the head, the rest is partisan’s spinning the meaning of the election to fit their own personal narrative. In July, a poll of Alameda voters was done, 71% said the city was moving in the right direction the highest in 10 years.
As Breathless points out, Spencer’s folks campaigned relentlessly, Gilmore’s campaign was non-existent. (literally everyone I’ve spoken to has said “where was marie?”) 129 votes is a hair. Trying to claim that the voters are sending a message one way or another, beyond “there are lots of opinions on issues” is meaningless.
In the end, Gilmore allowed Spencer’s supporters to paint her with a factually inaccurate brush. Instead of responding or putting out an alternative narrative, Gilmore provided silence. I’ve read a lot of election-related comments from a lot of people who I don’t know in order to gauge what a broad spectrum of voters were thinking. Almost to a person they have cited issues about Gilmore that have zero basis in the reality of what has happened in the last four years.
A city where 71% of Alamedans are happy with the direction the city is headed is not an electorate that is throwing out Gilmore because of development, or traffic (And yep, they say that they are concerned about traffic, but they are happy with what’s been happening). It’s an electorate who never had the opportunity to understand how Gilmore helped shape and guide what it is that they like. That’s on Gilmore, not Spencer.
History is written by the victors whether true or not, we can see it starting already. All that said, Spencer won, fair and square, should be given the chance to succeed in her new position,
Comment by jkw — November 12, 2014 @ 9:29 am
John P., people in person are not always what they appear to be on TV. You might have a different opinion if you actually met & spoke with Trish face to face personally, and didn’t just judge her from AUSD meetings. Hell, if you had just watched Trish dance like a maniac at the California Beach Boys concert at South Shore, you might soften up.
Rodney Gilmore was reportedly seen chasing Trish supporters down St. Charles St., asking them: “Why aren’t you supporting my wife?”
I have “known” Marie Gilmore since the 1990’s. Or should I say, been somewhat acquainted with her. She doesn’t dance on tables. I have never seen her get down with the people. I served on the Planning Board with her, yet riding up to the third floor of City Hall on the elevator with her last year, I could barely get her to make conversation with me. And she didn’t smile at me either. I stand by my previous comments: Marie Gilmore has always been cold & aloof to me, and to many others, including Trish. Gilmore wouldn’t even shake Trish’s hand when offered it at the Registrar of Voters office.
I cannot do anything for Gilmore politically; I presume that’s why she gives me the cold shoulder. 20 years of Stanford snobbery, that’s what she is to me. Not leadership.
Sorry, Rodney. If you want to be mayor, you have to work at getting votes, not just money & endorsements.
If Trish is “nuts”, well GOOD! Like Steve Jobs said:
“Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”
It is probably best for the process that people who didn’t even know we were voting for governor, didn’t vote at all.
Comment by vigi — November 12, 2014 @ 9:38 am
Vigi, weren’t you part of that nasty mob of swivel-eyed crazies who showed up after Gilmore was elected to denounce her before she had done anything? Perhaps your behavior explains why people dislike you. And while you might make a case that you need to be crazy to be a genius, it certainly doesn’t follow that being crazy makes you a genius. I’ll grant your point that Trish is nuts, though.
Comment by BC — November 12, 2014 @ 9:50 am
#6 — You seem to be assuming that just because I could not vote for Trish that I voted for Marie. I didn’t. I was one of those weirdos who cast a write in vote. (That person did not consent to me voting for him/her, but I couldn’t stomach either of the two named candidates. And I think my write in would have been superior to either of them.)
And Lauren, since that was my comment you quoted in your original post, I obviously disagree with you. I agree that Trish is the best retail politician in town but she’s also a nutjob. You will not be able to convince me that Trish would have won if she had been running on the status quo and Marie had been running on Trish’s platform. I think Marie would have won in a blowout if she had campaigned on slowing the bullet train heading in the direction of growth. I totally and enthusiastically would have voted for Marie if that had been the case. And I think I personally could have swayed 70 other Trish “supporters” to go my way — meaning that the results would have been different. (Although I like to overstate my importance in the outcome, most of them probably wouldn’t have needed to be persuaded by me.)
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 12, 2014 @ 10:03 am
My biggest memories of Gilmore is her eye-rolling when someone from the public spoke at council meetings with a dissenting viewpoint. That usually didn’t last long as Russo would jump in to argue and act rude to the speaker. Eye-rolling and disdain doesn’t win votes.
Comment by AJ — November 12, 2014 @ 10:34 am
26. I guess dealing graciously with stupidity is a requisite for political success. But you have to have some sympathy for anyone having to sit there and listen to some (yes, only some) of the speakers at council meetings who are obsessive nutcases who see conspiracies in the mayor’s every action. I’m guessing Spencer will have to confront fewer of this type of speaker for obvious reasons.
Comment by BC — November 12, 2014 @ 11:54 am
I suspect Trish will face many of the same types of speakers but will take their side until someone else dangles another shiny object in front of her.
And now that Gilmore has conceded, Trish is our mayor.
I can’t believe I just wrote that and wasn’t joking.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 12, 2014 @ 12:02 pm
California is known for being The Land of Fruits & Nuts. Get used to it. Meanwhile, BC, I hope you find a cure for your conservatophobia. You probably think every member of the Tea Party is nuts, too; which is in itself is a psychopathology. Not everyone one who disagrees with you is a “nutjob”.
For the record, I have never denounced Gilmore in a public meeting. Why would I? For what? But many people have told me they believed Gilmore was rude to me after I spoke at the podium, regarding various topics..
Comment by vigi — November 12, 2014 @ 12:09 pm
#25 My husband and I did something similar; we voted, but left Mayor blank (didn’t do write-in) for the same reasons you stated. I wonder how many undervotes there were in the mayoral race. Perhaps that data is broken down later?
Comment by Thrilled the robocalls are over — November 12, 2014 @ 12:26 pm
My recollection Vigi (Carol) was that after Mayor Gilmore was elected, you referred to the new City Council as “Carpetbaggers” and made several references to post Civil War and reconstruction as you described the new City Council which was noticeably diverse in race. It caused quite a stir in the community as the local blogs reflected on race and the new council; so much so your leader had to ask for calm.
I respect the way our Mayor handled it – but I suppose since you view her as a carpetbagger, there is nothing she could ever do that would win your support.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 12, 2014 @ 12:59 pm
I hope that Trish Spencer will also do a gracious job of outlining her goals, short and long term for what she hopes to accomplish for Alameda. It would be refreshing to hear specific actions she wishes to take in the many areas of contention during the race. If we were, as a community, to identify things we agree on and set those aside to work cooperatively to find consensus/compromise on areas of disagreement we might be able to heal the apparent 50/50 split in opinion and get us to some really positive ends.
I thought that Marie did a good job in the gracious concession speech she made. No hint of anger or sour grapes and a pleasant wishing well to the winner.
Comment by Kate Quick — November 12, 2014 @ 3:16 pm
Aside from the broader issue of development, I think, looking back, Crab Cove had a huge impact on the casual voter’s view of Gilmore. What most Alamedans “knew” was that Gilmore took land from EBPRD and gave it to Condo builders and everyone signed a petition to stop it. Nuance be damned.
Comment by BMac — November 12, 2014 @ 3:25 pm
In the 2010 Mayor race DeHaan, Gilmore and Matarrese, 25,196 made a selection in Mayor race out of the 28,423 who voted in the election. The undercount for the 2014 election will be published by the ROV when they release the Statement of Vote after they certify the results. It is usually published the first week of December.
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 12, 2014 @ 3:42 pm
Spencer’s thoughts and plans: http://thealamedan.org/news/election-2014-spencer-elected-mayor
Comment by A Neighbor — November 12, 2014 @ 3:45 pm
post #23, vigi, you and I agree on one thing, that is you are batshit crazy. I sat next to you on the planning board for about a year or better. I could hardly ever figure out what you were talking about. If I was Marie riding in an elevator alone with you I would be terrified.
Comment by John P. — November 12, 2014 @ 4:19 pm
Marie Gilmore’s concession speech: http://youtu.be/hT-0bpP3AVM
Comment by Mike McMahon (@MikeMcMahonAUSD) — November 12, 2014 @ 4:59 pm
What a bunch of sore losers…raw nerves sticking out all over the place… Go ahead…Dump on vigi… no class acts here.. #7 is right: haters gonna hate.
As Fruits go, Mr Pizzi, you are the Sour Grapes variety…
I am doing my happy dance with Trish & the gang……Happy Days Are Here Again!
Comment by vigi — November 12, 2014 @ 6:01 pm
Vigi look at the bright side – Lauren do do and her ilk provide a valuable public service in that they are so out of touch with reality, you simply look at who/what they endorse and vote the opposite. It worked to perfection this time.
Comment by Malik USMC — November 12, 2014 @ 6:23 pm
And speaking of sore losers, what do you make of Gilmore not even calling Trish Spencer to concede but instead calling her “press conference” before the results were even final? You have to contrast it with Oakland Mayor Jean Quan calling a joint press conference with her successor to welcome her and offer her support.
Comment by Breathless — November 12, 2014 @ 7:25 pm
so vigi, in your post #29 are you referring to California as the land of ” fruits & nuts” meaning gays, it sure sounds like it to me, which would lead me to believe that you do just think like Trish.
so breathless, you are criticizing Mayor Gilmore for conceding an election before the results are in, in your opinion. Do you know for a fact that she did not call Ms. Spencer before she conceded at city hall. Actually Mayor Gilmore did say that she wanted to work to keep the city moving forward. Breathless you sound very hateful to me. Actually you and vigi sound like extremely sore winners.
Comment by John P. — November 12, 2014 @ 9:08 pm
As an African American woman, I couldn’t be more proud of Mayor Gilmore and all that she has accomplished in her many years of public service in Alameda. Listening to her concession speech and the long list of her accomplishments in her four short years of Mayor – makes me even more proud.
Mayor Gilmore, with the help of her fellow council members, our community and staff, has stabilized our government, improved our bond rating, increased our reserves, and attracted millions of dollars of capital investment to our city (no small feat) – all which gives us a strong foundation from which to grow.
While I’m saddened today, I am glad to hear that she will continue to support the things she believes in and I look forward to her continued community involvement.
To Trish Spencer, our new Mayor, I wish you success in your new position.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 13, 2014 @ 7:58 am
An analysis of this election:
https://alamedamgr.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/election-2014-big-bucks-and-brickbats/
Comment by A Neighbor — November 14, 2014 @ 12:02 pm
#35. In the original Alamedan candidate profile, Spencer pretty much presented a shopping list as opposed to a road map. This “interview” is has even less content. Spencer: ““I see my role as facilitating solutions to the problems that people have”. Wow that’s the kind of “brilliant critical thinking” touted by Paul Foreman in response to my criticism of Trish in the Sun.
Watching candidate videos in the Alamedan was more revealing, but not because of content, just to see live tape of somebody using a lot of words to not say much . When Trish is asked a question she doesn’t want to answer or to which she doesn’t have an answer, she will often recite a by law or ordinance related to the subject to distract people with lots of technical stuff. At first one expects she is doing so because she will then elaborate on how those rules apply to the question at hand, but it never happens. Sort of a smoke screen to make you lose sight of the original question and the fact you didn’t get to an answer. It seems like she knows a bunch of stuff as she rattles on through, like reciting is knowledge or real content. At BOE she has belabored points in this fashion, adding hours to meetings but little substance.
Her response to rent control question was another example of a non-answer. We all know there is a board, but it has no teeth and the question was not, do you think the current rent review board is adequate to address the current situation?, but she doesn’t even give us that answer, though one could infer that is what she thinks. Instead she rambles around how the board exists, how it works, blah, blah. there is no there there, but people are fawning over her. I get that a lot of people want to stop development, but this election is not a mandate for anything and if the turn out had been higher I’m thinking people who didn’t bother to vote to be less activist so if they had voted they would have favored incumbents, as lazy voters often do. But what difference would that have made? A mandate for four more years of Gilmore? Of course not, just another outcome. Better the election result be the voice of people who give a damn, but the result is NOT a mandate.
Interesting that in Lauren’s link above to previous blog post on ROV that there is an academic argument of statistics which actually makes a pretty good argument Marie may have won even with ROV. I had forgotten. that one.
Comment by MI — November 17, 2014 @ 2:21 pm
40. definitely a sore winner comment. Before the result were final? Seriously? If she had waited until final official certification people would be criticizing her for thatas if she had to be dragged off kicking and screaming. Jean Quan wasn’t the one being gracious it was Libby Shaff. Quan couldn’t let go of the spot light and was trying to help spin her loss. The entire press conference was self serving. I’d take that boob Quan over Spencer, but just barely.
Comment by MI — November 17, 2014 @ 2:26 pm
And just what would you do with your bare boob?
Comment by jack — November 17, 2014 @ 4:21 pm
Jaa-ack! that’s just undignified! haw-haw already, but common’ man. keep it in the ball park. I do enjoy witty word play, but it’s obviously first definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boob
Comment by MI — November 18, 2014 @ 5:26 pm