Blogging Bayport Alameda

November 17, 2020

The space between

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:06 am

So I know that the County is not done counting quite yet but here’s an interesting little tidbit from the vote currently available around the vote for Auditor and Treasurer.

One would think that they would get a fairly close number of votes if not right on the dot. But this year there was a huge gap in the number of votes received by Kevin Kennedy and Kevin Kearney:

About 1301 more votes for Kennedy than Kearney. Add to that 133 more voters wrote in a different candidate for Treasurer than they did for Auditor. In the past the votes for both these seats have been nearly identical. I’m not including the vote for 2016 because it was the first time in a while that these two seats had opposition candidates.

You can see in 2012 the votes were nearly identical even though there were a fair number of under votes.

Same in 2008, nearly identical:

I don’t have any reason as to why the the sudden change in people’s voting habits. Maybe it’s that people don’t know what an Auditor actually does and therefore decided not to vote rather than vote for an office they didn’t understand.

23 Comments »

  1. I’m much more interested in the almost 3000 vote difference between Oddie and Vella. Both are charter violators, both firmly in bed with unions, both endorsed by the Democratic Club. If you voted for one, surely you voted for the other as well, right?

    And if there was a difference in votes, it looked like Oddie should have had the advantage. He at least apologized for the charter violation and dropped his claim for legal fees. (Though a portion was paid before that). Vella was angrily defensive and refused to drop her claim, and generally behaved with contempt toward voters and toward process.

    That vote difference is a much more interesting topic than a couple of unopposed races with long tenured parties.

    Comment by dave — November 17, 2020 @ 7:04 am

    • wow, Dave would you like some cheese and crackers with your Whining, maybe your grapes are just very sour.

      Comment by Bidenismypresident — November 17, 2020 @ 7:58 am

      • Inquiring about a vote difference between 2 very similar candidates is whining?

        Comment by dave — November 17, 2020 @ 8:09 am

        • you know what whining is, you were whining.

          Comment by Bidenismypresident — November 17, 2020 @ 9:49 am

        • It was a serious question about vote difference between two strongly similar candidates. I guess where I screwed up was in expecting a serious answer.

          Comment by dave — November 17, 2020 @ 12:01 pm

    • Let’s look at the overall results Dave. No way progressives win if more people vote, and if one of the three challengers (Amos, Trish, Gig) had not run, Vella would have lost too. The progressives were there own worst enemy by putting Measure Z (60% No) on the ballot.

      “There were 70,474 votes cast for Council (each voter could vote for two candidates). Of this total, 41 percent went to the two “progressive” contenders (Council members Jim Oddie and Malia Vella) versus 59 percent to the center-right candidates (former Mayor Trish Spencer and newcomers Amos White and Gig Codiga). It doesn’t seem like a coincidence that the breakdown between “Yes on Z” and “No on Z” votes matched this split pretty closely.”

      https://alamedamgr.wordpress.com/2020/11/15/a-post-mortem-on-measure-z/

      Comment by Nowyouknow — November 17, 2020 @ 10:10 am

    • Sounds like sour grapes, Dave. All Vella did was attend a meeting with both Oddie and the city manager, she did not submit a letter of recommendation, which was the main violation Jim Oddie committed, nor was she the one who made that comment with Police Chief Rolleri. Give the voters of Alameda more credit than this, they can figure out the nuances and discern the degree of differences rather than trying to paint with a broad brush as you’re trying to do.

      Comment by JRB — November 17, 2020 @ 10:57 am

      • There are legitimate and meaningful differences between what the two did. And it is true that Vella “did not submit a letter of recommendation”. It is also true that she was not “the one who made that comment with Police Chief Rolleri”. But the statement, “All Vella did was attend a meeting with both Oddie and the city manager”, is simply not true. Not even close. Dave’s question is legit.

        Comment by MP — November 17, 2020 @ 12:26 pm

        • MP – the grand jury did not do a satisfactory job of separating the actions of CM1 from CM2 in their finding, or explaining how or why the two should be cobbled together as if they were a single entity. This is where the Jenkins investigation did a superior job in properly assigning fault based on actual wrongdoings. You have an experienced investigator and a group of mostly retired volunteers, one came with a different conclusion than the other (it also helps that Mr. Jenkins interviewed Vella and Oddie, but the grand jury did not), and the voters voted accordingly.

          Comment by JRB — November 17, 2020 @ 2:45 pm

        • JRB – Step #1, Jenkins did not have the benefit of the tape recording. The Grand Jury did. So do we. We know what we heard. She did not just “attend” the meeting.

          Comment by MP — November 17, 2020 @ 3:14 pm

        • JRB – Do you have a mailbox in Alameda? I do, and I also got internet commercials. I do think she ran a good campaign, like I just said. That includes her mailers and internet ads. I did not read them in depth – and doubt many people did – but I thought the photos, overall layout and key phrases were outstanding and I assume she had a role in that. That’s all I meant. It was not a comprehensive analysis of her victory.

          Comment by MP — November 17, 2020 @ 3:21 pm

        • In the Jenkins report, Vella explicitly denies talking with Oddie about the hiring question on the way to a wedding. (Page 37, footnote 102)

          On the tape, which Mr Jenkins didn’t listen to, she clearly admits talking about the hiring question on this car ride with Oddie (transcript page 24).

          Hmmm

          Comment by dave — November 17, 2020 @ 3:51 pm

    • It’s a non-serious answer but I think it may have legs: Malia Vella’s advantage was definitely Theo and his many serious lewks.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 17, 2020 @ 12:14 pm

      • Malia Vella ran a good campaign. Her mailers were quite good (and I’m sure the same is true re other less visible parts of her campaign).

        Comment by MP — November 17, 2020 @ 12:31 pm

        • MP – I hardly noticed Malia’s campaign at all. I don’t think I ever got a mailer, maybe the one from the firefighters. Campaigns don’t always win or lose based on the campaigns themselves, sometimes the candidate is very strong with a proven track record of success. Give credit where it’s due. Alameda is very lucky to have Malia Vella serve another term.

          Comment by JRB — November 17, 2020 @ 2:35 pm

        • JRB – Do you have a mailbox in Alameda? I do, and I also got internet commercials. I do think she ran a good campaign, like I just said. That includes her mailers and internet ads. I did not read them in depth – and doubt many people did – but I thought the photos, overall layout and key phrases were outstanding and I assume she had a role in that. That’s all I meant. It was not a comprehensive analysis of her victory.

          Comment by MP — November 17, 2020 @ 3:21 pm

    • They are two different people who apparently have left different impressions with certain voters. It is also easy to imagine voters that wanted to vote for Amos in the year of George Floyd and Mali Watkins. To the average voter he surely could be seen as the baggage-free, non-Republican candidate. Spencer and the Codiga may have been unacceptable to many voters. Vella kept the activist base and was likely more acceptable to the crowd that gravitated toward Amos but could not vote with the hardcore ACT voters. Whether that is because she is a woman, API, or less bruised by the Fire Chief hiring, or some combination, she did much better than Oddie. This also challenges the notion that if one of the challengers had not run, then Vella would surely have lost. The large discrepancy in the two incumbents’ vote shares indicates that the electorate sorts less cleanly than the readers of this illustrious blog.

      Comment by cw — November 17, 2020 @ 5:11 pm

  2. I conclude from this that as between Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kearney, My Kennedy is – by an overwhelming longshot – the more polarizing figure. He generated almost 0.4% more of an “other” vote than Mr. Kearney.

    Comment by MP — November 17, 2020 @ 7:52 am

  3. The other election story that’s interesting is how the turnout, over 40,000 ballots, influenced the result of Measure Z. Prior to Election Day there had been some noise about the original A/26 being voted by a relatively low turnout, and that said low turnout did not indicate “the will of the people.”

    What should we conclude from this year’s result and turnout?

    Comment by dave — November 17, 2020 @ 8:00 am

    • That the majority of Alameda voters want to retain A/26 and therefore we should take steps, like what is happening tonight, to understand how to enact the will of the voters by not continuing to undermine and circumvent A/26 and what our legal exposure will be by doing just that.

      Comment by Lauren Do — November 17, 2020 @ 8:28 am

  4. Maybe people got confused they are both named Kevin and Kearney and Kennedy are not much different. Maybe I should run against one of them.

    Possibly why Vella got more votes against Oddie is more women voted. I don’t know because I don’t know the breakdown. I would have thought more women would have gone out to vote because of Trump and the way he treats them. 2 women received the most votes. I don’t like Trish, so my vote was for Vella and Oddie which is what Dave sort of expected.

    Comment by joelsf — November 17, 2020 @ 1:29 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.