I think this adequately sums up how I feel about the presidential election:
I think that I’ll be okay. But as a woman and a person of color, I write those words with a lot of hesitancy. I should be okay since I live in the bubble of the Bay Area. But, for the first time in my life, I’m really frightened about the future of this nation. And I wonder if all the progress that we have made as a country will be undone in less time than it took to make that progress. The progress that, if undone, will be most keenly felt for those that are not (1) male, (2) straight, (3) white, (4) able, (5) Christian, or (6) any combination thereof.
But I should be okay, and you, reader from Alameda should be okay as well because of our bubble status, but that doesn’t mean that just because we’ll probably, maybe be okay that we should be okay if we see injustice happen because people now feel emboldened given who this country just elected as president.
But, speaking of that bubble, and I’m writing this at nearly midnight because it’s been impossible for me to get to sleep and I probably won’t be able to get up the next morning, with nearly 85% of the vote in it looks like Alameda voters, dear sweet Alameda voters have dumped Tony Daysog, retained Marilyn Ezzy-Ashcraft and brought in Malia Vella for the City Council race:
Unless something dramatically changes between now (midnight) and 6:00 when this auto publishes this lead should hold.
As should the vote margins in the School Board race which shows Jennifer Williams, Gray Harris, and Ardella Dailey maintaining healthy margins as well.
The Parcel Tax measure is holding strong as is the Utility Modernization ballot measure:
L1 looks to be headed toward a victory and, despite the enthusiasm and willpower of the Renter Coalition, the deluge of negative mailers did its job and M1 is heading for defeat.
What it interesting about this election is that, unintentionally, this local election was a bit of a repudiation of Mayor Trish Spencer. Her candidates of choice: Tony Daysog and Jennifer Roloff failed to be elected even with her campaigning during commute hours holding signs for both. The parcel tax measure that she actively campaigned against and wrote the argument against in the voters guide has passed. She was the only City Council member to be against K1 and wrote the argument against that measure as well and that passed.
Hopefully voters that rejected Trish Spencer’s picks for the City Council and ignored her endorsements against B1 and K1 will remember to turn out in two years.
And I already know I got Mike McMahon’s voter survey way way wrong. I actually thought the power of Tony Daysog’s name recognition would get him his seat back. I am glad to be wrong about that.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Plenty of us straight white men are saddened and horrified along with you.
Comment by dave — November 9, 2016 @ 6:41 am
I used to think that you had a fairly good grasp of US history and the fundamentals this country was formed on. I used to think that you were a supporter of capitalism and more of a Hayek than Keynes fan. Yet now you side with a ruptured brand of socialism and are saddened and horrified that someone who holds your previous noted beliefs has been elected to the Presidency.
Evidently you’ve become a head nodder to socialist causes and in support of the NEP of today.
Comment by jack — November 10, 2016 @ 7:02 pm
Haven’t commented on this blog in a long time, but grief brings us together. Hope you figure out a way to fight for your vision of the nation as fiercely as you fought to defeat Tony (and, hopefully, as successfully).
Comment by eg — November 9, 2016 @ 7:06 am
Elections have consequences, tony!!!
Comment by John P — November 9, 2016 @ 7:50 am
I hope the response to the awful presidential result is calm and measured and that strategy to defeat him in 2020 does not start from, and focus on, the deplorables premise. I don’t think it will work. But what do I know, I thought Trump had very very slim chances.
Keep an eye out for attempts to make election/voter registration law changes. Trump expressed much paranoia about those things.
Comment by MP — November 9, 2016 @ 8:55 am
It seems that turnout drove things both nationally and locally. I heard on NPR that Hillary got 7MM fewer Democrats that Obama din in ’12. Trump git a few thousand fewer votes in Wisconsin than Romney did, and yet he carried the Badger State. etc etc
Locally, M1 got fewer votes than the number of signatures that got it on the ballot.
Final numbers till coming in but it sure looks like complacency killed both Hillary and M1, et al.
Is that a fair reading?
Comment by dave — November 9, 2016 @ 10:18 am
For M1 I think that a lot of people signed to give it a chance on the ballot but may not have been ultimately supportive of the measure itself.
For Hillary Clinton, I think a part of the problem may have been that in the close margin states that she should have won: PA, WI, NC there was a systematic unraveling of voter protections. Thanks John Roberts.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 9, 2016 @ 10:35 am
Lauren can you expand or clarify on the unraveling thing ?
Comment by MI — November 9, 2016 @ 11:01 am
LD thinks this country is so racist that minorities need special protections to vote, but then why wouldn’t a so called woman of color believe anything except the truth that her candidate is and was truly a pile of warmed over lying guano.
Comment by jack — November 9, 2016 @ 11:11 am
From Slate.
Comment by Lauren Do — November 9, 2016 @ 11:12 am
Yes, please explain what you mean by “systematic unraveling of voter protections.” As an active member of the non-partisan Election Integrity Project, I have not received any emails regarding this. But I did receive a personal email from the ACROV telling me that my absentee ballot was received & counted. It seemed that they were trying harder to make everyone’s vote count this time.
Comment by vigi — November 9, 2016 @ 12:53 pm
I guess she’s talking about the supreme court decision Shelby County v. Holder 2013. That’s when Roberts decided racial discrimination had ended.
Comment by jack — November 15, 2016 @ 10:30 am
Nah, the voters are sick of the Clintons and would have voted for their neighbor’s pet dog before putting the bubba crew back into office.
Comment by jack — November 9, 2016 @ 11:04 am
Lauren, Been reading articles and the voter suppression had a much bigger impact than I thought it might. I was riding on ruling to re-enroll 4000 voters in North Carolina but it looks like a drop in the bucket.
Comment by MI — November 15, 2016 @ 9:50 am
Did it ever occurr to you that the reason M1 didn’t get as many votes as it did signatures is due to the fact that many Alameda residents have been displaced and were no longer eligible to vote for it?
Comment by Disappointed and Disgusted — November 9, 2016 @ 12:31 pm
I don’t think M1 was turnout, I think a lot of minds changed and feelings cooled between the signature campaign and election day. Definitely a ton of money behind No on M1, but I have also spoken to people who changed their minds based on individual analysis.
Comment by ajryan — November 9, 2016 @ 10:59 am
Though its importance is obviously much smaller, M1 losing so decisively is a bigger shock than the Trump win. I wasn’t terribly surprised by Trump but M1 really seemed like a sure thing, at least it did to me.
Comment by dave — November 9, 2016 @ 12:01 pm
I voted against M1 and signed the petition. It was never going to pass. If L1 were not on the ballot (confusion + alternative choice) and no money was spent by landlords to defeat it, it would have been close, imo. If Tenants Together had been a tiny bit savvier and gone w/ 100% of CPI and no rent Board, it might have passed even w/ L1 & outside $$$.
Comment by BMac — November 9, 2016 @ 12:36 pm
You didn’t vote for it did you, free market advocate that you are?
Comment by jack — November 9, 2016 @ 1:02 pm
Of course not. Just surprised it didn’t pass.
Comment by dave — November 9, 2016 @ 1:13 pm
Does that mean your #1 was just a small ‘shock’ and that you’re not really ‘horrified’ when you look in the mirror and see Mr. ‘sad deplorable’?
Comment by jack — November 9, 2016 @ 1:56 pm
Does anyone know how many individuals voted in Alameda?
Comment by MP — November 9, 2016 @ 2:22 pm
between 25-30% of the votes cast are not counted yet, based on history. Thus far, 34K votes cast for City Council Candidates (but you can vote for two) and 18.3K votes in the Treasurer/Auditor races. Figure some people voted for only one council candidate and some didn’t vote in the lifetime appointment for the Kevins races. 19-20K ballots counted thus far? Add in late absentee and provisionals, probably means about 25K Alamedans voted.
Comment by BMac — November 9, 2016 @ 2:34 pm
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138621/trump-needed-huge-drop-turnout-win-thats-exactly-happened
Comment by MP — November 9, 2016 @ 3:10 pm
Before attributing the defeat of M1 to the mailers and advertisements, I would want to know more. There were other Bay Area cities with rent control measures on the ballot of varying similarity to M1. Some passed. Some did not. I assume, but would want to know before reaching conclusions, that the campaign spending on those measures was similar to the spending in Alameda. So there were likely other things going on. I know that here there was also a lot of open debate, at times raucous, and at times 30,000 ft above the level of the national debate, that happened online, at LWV and other forums, and person to person that reached into policy details and touched on local issues to a much greater extent than the advertising. I don’t know how influential all those other things were, but I’d bet some people – not all, maybe not even most – were more affected directly or indirectly by that debate than by the content of mailers.
Comment by MP — November 9, 2016 @ 12:17 pm
To my mind, it was the disgusting amount of shrill anti-M1 fliers (insane amounts in my mailbox), plus just the basic fear-mongering that crowd spewed non-stop. And I’m sure there were many renters who were AFRAID to vote for it, due to direct pressure from their landlords. MY landlord went so far as to tape a note to all doors in the building basically TELLING everyone to vote against M1…that just completely pissed me off beyond anything else that happened in this shit-hole of an election. NOBODY tells ME how to vote. Pigs.
Comment by It's Germany 1933 All Over Again! — November 9, 2016 @ 5:17 pm
Wait, did I say “national debate”? I’m not sure there really was one.
Comment by MP — November 9, 2016 @ 12:40 pm
Jack your a big history buff ( as well as honorary troll here at Blogging Bayport). Chew on this.
View at Medium.com
Comment by MI — November 10, 2016 @ 1:23 pm
awe shit. the attachment didn’t post
Comment by MI — November 10, 2016 @ 1:24 pm
View at Medium.com
Comment by MI — November 10, 2016 @ 1:25 pm
Maybe switching computers will help. It is a long article going back centuries to plagues and various other examples making explanatory comparisons of Brexit and Trump elections.
Comment by MI — November 10, 2016 @ 1:28 pm
I think the angry voters in rural areas, the small towns that feel left behind as their jobs have gone overseas, will soon feel betrayed. Because the Donald isn’t going to be able to bring the jobs back. Trump’s protectionism is a threat to all Amercans, But what will happen to the expectations of those he hornswoggled into voting for him?
Comment by OmbudsBen — November 9, 2016 @ 1:56 pm
“Trump’s protectionism is a threat to all Amercans, But…” Yeah but what about the rest of us?
Comment by jack — November 9, 2016 @ 2:03 pm
L1 was slickly packaged as a feel-good way to protect tenants, with very effective lies about elements of M1. It was an intentional circumvention of the democratic process for the sole purpose of confusing voters, led by Tony & Trish, and funded to the hilt. Yet, L1 (a symbolic vote for some level of tenant protection) passes with 56% of the vote. The anti-tenant candidates, supported by the mayor, lost. More tenant-friendly candidates won. ARC was very successful in generating support for tenants, in some form. They won.
Comment by alison — November 9, 2016 @ 8:36 pm
M1 lost because it was simply unfair. Voters recognized that fact and saw through the rhetoric that the M1 campaign used. And, there was another proposition that found middle ground for both sides. L1 is a compromise. M1 was one sided and went for greed. The challenging thing now is that being a landlord, my first impulse now is to maximize future rent increases so if another M1 comes along, I am in better shape to weather it. This entire debacle could actually end up encouraging rent increases so landlords are better protected should it come up again. Prior to this, my rent increases were 1-2% a year, back when there wasn’t the specter of rent control.
Comment by Brian K — November 9, 2016 @ 10:38 pm
yeah, I voted for M1 thinking it would lose but wanting to bolster the numbers. It had the kitchen sink in there and was just too extreme to pass whether you think it was fair or not. I think over reach is about right.
Comment 10 is right on the money.
Comment by MI — November 10, 2016 @ 1:17 pm
Gee…way to be the kind of landlord that started this whole mess.
Comment by You Are The Problem — November 10, 2016 @ 7:22 pm
“Gee…way to be the kind of landlord that started this whole mess”
I did say my first ‘impulse’ is to maximize rent increases. That doesn’t mean I necessarily will follow my first impulse. When the time comes, I’ll evaluate the situation and see what might be on the horizon in terms of future rent control. I’m hardly one of the landlords who started this mess given my tenants pay well below market rate and my increases have been in the $30 – 40 range. Can you blame me though for wanting to get in a better position so I don’t get shafted later?
Comment by Brian K — November 10, 2016 @ 8:18 pm
“Can you blame me…?”
If your concern is only for your own bottom line and benefit, definitely I would blame you. If your tenants’ lives and families and the well-being of the community don’t factor into your equation, then you are doing exactly what started the whole mess. It’s about putting some HUMANITY into the equation. And now, after Tuesday night, that is something that is going to be needed more than ever.
Comment by You Are The Problem — November 10, 2016 @ 10:27 pm
I think the problem with M1 was that it was not properly vetted through the community process. Alameda likes things to be vetted through our community process. Neither side likes the L1 Measure, but it was seen as a compromise – a measure that went thru an extensive community vetting process
I’m sure both sides want to see changes to L1 — hopefully both sides have learned some lessons from this process.
Comment by Karen Bey — November 11, 2016 @ 7:15 am
Thank you millennial’s ! Thank you for not wanting to think and instead suggest we feel the Bern. Thank you for thinking that you are entitled and you don’t have to actually work . Blogging is not a career. Live within your means ! Save some money! Protesting now doesn’t change the fact the you didn’t vote for Hilary ! You may not be able to afford Alameda ! You may be responsible for Trump! I’m talking to you assholes that spend all day online thinking your changing the world. If you can’t support yourself with your “art” then you are not part of a higher cause that we idiots who work just don’t get. Get off your ass and go do something ! At this point we can’t allow a president to be toppled , that’s called a coup asshole! It is because of your lazy unproductive asshole self we have a reality star for president. Then thank all these democrats that tried to cater to your needs and votes. Thank you Barbara Lee, Bonta and Ashcraft
Comment by Teddy — November 14, 2016 @ 10:47 am
A lot of assumptions in one badly written screed, Teddy!
Comment by BC — November 14, 2016 @ 11:01 am
This blog that you are ALWAYS on doesn’t matter.
It does not matter how knowledgeable you are or how well you write. You are like a child with their first computer. You go work .
Comment by Teddy — November 14, 2016 @ 1:08 pm