Well, the votes are all in and the winners and loser are clear. To the extent that people did not participate, they and we lost; to those who did, and read San Jose Inside, thanks for what you do and the diligence you apply to it. Adlai Stevenson once said that, after a loss, it was like stubbing your toe—it hurts too much to laugh and you’re too old to cry. We should all cry for the depths that our city has fallen; we should decry the timid and dishonest campaigning for the top spot in the city. Current council members should have the sense to understand repudiation and be ashamed for their active or tacit part in the past disgraceful performance of this council.
Yet, there is much for us to be thankful for and to praise. Five candidates put themselves out there and went for it. The debate finally got to some things that are important to the future of the city. Chuck Reed had a fine showing finishing first; Cindy Chavez was a battered second and David Pandori, with a third of the money, little time, and a clear message, was a powerful third. I thought the resonance of his message that I felt so strongly in the neighborhoods of the city would propel him to a runoff spot. Reed, however, astonished with his absentee strength. Dave Cortese was squeezed from both sides and never could build on his early, decisive positions.
Michael Mulcahy, and his Chamber of Commerce-fueled campaign kamikaze act, positively cratered. It was closer to “Ferris Bueller’s Mad Campaign Adventure” than a reasoned effort—it definitely damaged them and Mulcahy’s hopes for a District 6 berth in the Yeager-free seat. And the big “what if” is that without Mulcahy’s feckless campaign, Chavez might have been eliminated from a runoff with the Willow Glen votes going to Reed, who deserved the Chamber endorsement, or Pandori. This was a hopeless job by the “Chris Schumb wine cellar” branch of the Chamber.
It was also a decisive whipping for the labor bosses, Coyote developers and the lobbyist clique that has so dominated City Hall as Sam Liccardo finished first downtown in District 3 over the ethically-challenged labor shill Manny Diaz, and Pete Constant crushed the labor candidate, Jay James, in District 1. Hold the bulldozers boys, no Coyote land scam for a while. There is a lot of hope in the city today, but the battle is far from over.
Thank god, the power of the building lobby and the unions may be gone from the city. It has been a huge business since Gonzales and Chavez have been running the city with most of the rest cowering and following like sheep. This may finally break the back of their 16 year control of city hall.
Chavez 24%
Reformers 76%
In addition to Labor, you’ve got to admit that Pat Dando and the CoC have come out as huge losers in this campaign. Pat was the one who pushed to get Mulcahy in the race, thinking that she would return to SJ and emerge as the hero. What a mistake!
As I said in an earlier post, Pat will probably be looking for a new job sooner than later. Maybe she needs to get back on the Arnie bandwagon!
I truly didn’t expect Reed to do better than 3rd place. Clearly, the voters are paying attention and want a change from the current regime.
Too bad we can’t just have the runoff right away like some other places so we can get Cindy out of the picture ASAP.
I can’t imagine anything happening that will stop me from voting for Reed in November. I’d like nothing better than for him to do such a great job as mayor that I’d be willing to give him a second term.
First, congratulations to all those who ran for public office. Just because you lost an election doesn’t make you a loser.
If you look at the vote totals, each candidate had someone, other than themselves, agree they were the best candidate for the job.
As with all elections though, there are those who win a job or the right to keep campaigning.
First, losing Westly on the State level does not bode well for retaking the Governorship. Phil is a good man, but I don’t think he can compete with Arnold.
San Jose—boring wins. Chuck Reed’s get out there first campaign wins wire to wire. Though you might note he didn’t win on election day, he won on the strength of early votes by Absentee Ballot.
Had the campaign gone on for another week, both Cindy and David Pandori might have caught him.
Tom is right. Cindy was battered in the primary—in most cases—with that many capable candidates, she should not have survived at all. The General election allows her to sharpen the distinction. The General election will also have a higher turnout—which generally favors Democrats.
Pandori ran a spirited campaign, I was surprised by Cortese losing to Reed. Mulcahy is so damaged he can’t run—he put out a good effort. If he had not been endorsed by the Chamber, he might have done better.
Who would have thunk that Pad Dando, after having decided not to run, would be the biggest loser?
Congratulations to Ken Yeager.
Dolores Carr is in the driver’s seat for DA. That is a very good sign. It is an agency that really could use some reform.
Bustamante only received 70% of the Democratic vote statewide against an unknown. Poizner is in good position there.
John Garamendi v. Tom McClintock—that should be a good one to watch statewide—especially in the Governor’s race turns into a snore.
We have Jerry Brown back—always good copy for reporters.
Again congratulations to all the candidates, it is tough to run for public office and even if you did not win, you made a difference by engaging in the debate.
Note: it is inevitable that some “winners” tonight will lose in the fall. But, again, that does not make them losers—as in a horse race showing and placing can still make a difference to the fickle crowd.
Speaking of which, I am off to the racetrack to bet on longshots. Chuck Reed has inspired me.
Chuck Reed – boring win? I think that it speaks volumes that he beat Cindy outright. He won’t even need the supporters of the other 3 to beat her in November. Way to detract from a clear victory Rich by saying that he didn’t beat her on election night – the spin never stops….
Congrats to Chuck – the people think that he is what the city needs and I hope that they are right. He is an ethical person with fiscally conservative ideas which would be a nice change – he has my vote.
#6 Richard .. “Cindy was battered in the primary… The General election will also have a higher turnout—which generally favors Democrats.”
Don’t get you’re hopes up. I’m by every definition a liberal Democrat (yea Jimmy Carter!) but come November I’ll be voting for Reed. I, like most of my friends, believe Cindy will just continue the culture of secrecy that exists at City Hall. The best evidence of that is her continued denial that there was anything wrong about how she handled the Grand Prix deal. The sad part is, if the council had just postponed the vote for 2 weeks (and yes, I know the GP organizers said they had to know immediately, but they had said the same thing months before) this issue wouldn’t have the legs it has now. The fact that Cindy and Ron were the only 2 on council that knew about it ahead of time just reinforces the “Cindy=Ron=secrecy” mentality. So here’s one Democrat who will be voting for (and giving money to) Chuck Reed.
Major typo error—
Mulcahy is NOT so damaged that he can’t run again.
Sorry about that. . .he ran a good race and had very good people with him.
I can’t believe how wonderful the election results were. Reed’s high score [so what if it came from absentee voters like me] and the defeat of evil measure A means that the voters still have some common sense. I hope that Pandori, Coretse, Mulcahy et. al. will come together behind Reed and send CindyGon packing in November.
Here’s another liberal Dem who will be voting for Reed. The time for open government and fiscal responsibility is now.
Too bad, Rich. You were right the first time.
An interesting thing happened on the way to June 6th.
People started paying attention.
This was an incredibly rich & complex mayoral election for San Jose.
Primary voters are conscientious.
But they’re also busy people. They’re squeezed by declining disposable incomes…and over-filled schedules…and a million other daily-life priorities.
Against that, they were faced with nuanced positions and inter-changeable slogans.
Remarkably—and quite meaningfully—yesterday did not become a popularity contest.
It was an election in the very best sense.
Why? Because it was about issues.
Those of us with Pandori signs in our lawns will play “What if” for a long time.
In Reed’s HQ, datatrackers need to understand the gap between early absentee voting and June voters.
Chavez obviously has major challenges to tackle.
For now, those are just internal details.
Enjoy today for this simple reason: Yesterday was the start of something powerful & positive for San Jose.
November won’t devolve. It will be puncuated by great debates. People will engage in the civic discussion. They’ll care. The issues will become uncluttered. The choices will be clear.
It promises to be good.
(And somehow we got to keep the Pandori momentum alive!)
Feeling wistful / feeling optimistic,
PHM
#6, How can you be surprised that Cortese lost ground to Reed? Pandori and Mulchay both took votes away from Cortese. Much could be said for Reed taking votes from Cortese since they were after the same thing…CHANGE in the way things are being done by the Mayor and his followers (e.g. Chavez, Campos, Pyle).
I certainly agree with a point Mr. McEnery makes with regards to citizens NOT voting…how sad to do nothing when you had the opportunity to be heard (“speak now or forever hold your peace”), especially if you were concerned / unhappy with the state of our local government.
Last but not least, in watching the election coverage last night (don’t know which station it was on) a reporter was interviewing Chavez as the returns were being communicated and she was asked if she was surprised she was in second place (behind Reed) after most polls had her in first place. She blamed it on the Chamber’s “250,000 dollar campaign” against her. She said they ran a negative campaign against her and this was the result. PLEASE Cindy, take some ownership as to the fact that what they pointed out was right about you. A separate issue is that they pro-actively came out against you. If she had just said I’ve made some mistakes in the past, but I have learned from them…that would have been a far better approach, from a “leader”, than to just redirect BLAME. She suffers from the same arrogance as her friend the Mayor does.
GOOD luck San Jose, we’ll need it!
I never thought I would be such a Chuck Reed fan. Maybe it’s the tie that won it for him?
The televised debate Sunday sealed Reed’s upset victory. Why? He was the only one of the debate participants to oppose the sales tax increase.
I was leaning Mulcahy until he opened his mouth and backed the tax. In fact, he didn’t sound very business-like at all – besides the tax increase, he wanted public housing subsidies to city union members. On the plus side, he a Republican-looking Gavin Newsome.
I called all the campaigns with two simple questions:
1) will city cops enforce immigration laws?
2) will the city recognize Mexican consulate IDs”
Not a single one had the courage to call me back with an answer.
My congratulations to Chuck Reed, he will make a fine mayor come November.
Tom, no mention of the defeat of Prop. A? Carl Guardino’s smokescreen didn’t work this time. Voter sensibility is on the rise.
Cindy Chavez still doesn’t have a clue.
I watched a seething Cindy Chavez and her husband interviewed a number of times last night by local reporters. Both claimed her poor showing was caused by the chamber’s negative campaign against her.
Its too bad she wants to be a victim instead of taking responsibility for her many bad decisions. I voted against her yesterday and will again in November, chamber or no chamber.
Does anyone know what happens when the Norcal indictment is handed down to Chavez? If she withdraws, is Reed declared the winner?
Too bad they didn’t release the Quakes memo yesterday. I think we all know how Reed voted.
Maybe now we can get down to some basic issues in San Jose. After all, ethics and open government should be table stakes, not a campaign platform. I never voted for a candidate who pledged to be unethical! Where will the city be in 8 years? That’s my burning question…
Hey ABCers,
We need to give Liccardo a hand in D3. Diaz got far too many votes. They are separated by only 300 votes.
Tom, maybe you should give Bill Chew blog time. Imagine waking up to find that you got 40% less votes than a guy in a cowboy hat on roller skates.
Don’t count Cindy out of this yet regardless of her poor showing. It’s a long way until November and there’s still the buzz about Gonzo resigning, which would put Cindy already in the Mayor’s chair from which she could possibly push through some initiative(s) that has the potential to win over a good chunk of voters and that she can take full credit for accomplishing.
There is plenty of time for a lot of situations to change before the fall elections. Reed needs to be ready for whatever obstacles Cindy’s camp will be attempting to place in his path to being our next Mayor.
Looks like a vote for Mulcahy – not Pandori – was a vote for Cindy. Without him in the race, either Pandori or Cortese would be in the runoff with Chuck. Thanks Mulcahy and thanks Chamber of Commerce.
I will not vote for Cindy. I sure hope Cuck has a copy of David’s book.
I agree, Diaz received way too many votes. Sam is the best candidate for the position. He is in tune with not only residents but the business owners of D3. We need a council member who will come up with a workable solution for the downtown clubs and resturants. This will entail working with SJPD, the residents and the business owners. I think a staggered closing is a great idea. Vote for Sam!
Got two today.
1. Now that Ken Yeager is in the County Supervisor spot, who will represent District 6? How do they choose?
2. Now that Dennis Kyne has lost his hat, will he ever post on SJI again?
#25, Manny is just as in tune with a good chunk of D3 residents too. The ones who will mark their ballots next to any hispanic surname and not vote on the issues. Sam has to overcome that situation if he’s going to win.
Some morning after-thoughts:
1. Congratulations Chuck! (City Council incumbents, take note. There is a message in these results for you.)
2. #3 has it right, 76% voted for reform. If those numbers hold, and they probably will, Cindy is in for a rough night the evening of November 7th.
3. KPIX should get out of the polling business. Their first poll neglected to include 3rd place winner David Pandori, their 2nd poll put chuck Reed in 4th place. Oops!
4. RE Measure A: If you want to push a BART tax don’t dress it up as funding for hospitals, etc. Voters aren’t stupid. Then again, how much county-wide support REALLY exists outside of San Jose for a BART tax?
5. Let’s hope David Pandori and Michael Mulcahy stay involved in local politics.
6. It was nice to see the two biggest special interest groups in local politics, Labor and the Chamber, getting their comeuppance. Hooray for the voters!
7. Rich #6, this is one of those rare times when I agree with pretty much everything you are saying except for your comments about Chuck Reed. His upset victory was anything but boring, and an absentee vote is still a vote. (Didn’t some 40% of voters send in absentee ballots in this election? That’s substantial.) I also wonder if Pat Dando was entirely supportive the Mikey Fox’s COMPAC shenanigans. From what I hear Fox Jr. has seriously PO’ed a lot of the Chamber’s members. Still, the buck has got to stop somewhere…
8. Arnold vs. Phil? All it will take is one photo of the two standing side-by-side and Arnold wins. It shouldn’t work that way, but it will as long as Los Angeles is part of California.
8 1/2. The Westly-Angelidies brawl has already provided Arnold an extra 20 points. When will the Democrats ever learn?
9. Congratulations to Sam Licardo. Manny didn’t have a lock on District 3 after all. Still, a lot could happen between now and November. Manny is slick…don’t count him out.
10. If you add the Shore/Buller vote to Dolores Carr’s totals in the DA race Karen Sinunu may as well start looking for office space for her new private practice. I guess George Kennedy’s “endorsement” didn’t work out so great, eh Karen?
Why has this become a Dennis Kyne bashing session? Whether or not you agree with his politics, he deserves your respect that he got off his ass and is trying to do something. Cut him some slack.
While we recover from disappointment over not having David Pandori to vote for in November, I focus on what a great campaign he waged. It was principled, focused and issue oriented. We had such a fine leader and such a fine platform, it was a privledge to support him.
I just hope that the issues David brought forward will remain part of the discussion in the fall. Chuck Reed can only benefit from listening closely to what David had to say.
23 – Pandori had just slightly more votes than Mulcahy, even with the Merc endorsement, so relax. Turns out SJ will get what it deserves, more of the same. Too bad our citizens are to comfy to care enough about change to get out and vote.
My old friend, Rich, is beginning to sound a lot like Larry Gertson, but he is a member of the Political Science Alumni Association of San Jose State, and the group had a good showing last night.
Yes, I am for Cindy. The thought of Chuck Reed as a reformer is akin to Pat Robertson as a National Secuirity Rxpert.
Ken Yeager did quite well. However, Rich, you had Linda in second, and that did not happen. Pat Mahan continues to screw up your predicitions,. Why don’t the two of you have ice cream sometime?
I see that Pete Constant won as did Sam L., and that bodes well for San Jose.
Jamie McLeod, the newest member of the Santa Clara City Council showed us that she can do well working for candidates. Anna Song has replaced Aldyth Parle as the biggest vote getter in Santa Clara.
What I am fascinated by is the level of effort the voters in San Jose made to make political reform a top priority. The city worker in San Jose that tries to tell us all in Santa Clara what an expert he is in politics ought to read the votes last night and figure out that 90% of the bloggers on this pape that live in San Jose know a lot more about politics than he, I, or a lot of other people.
Good job, San Jose Insiders!!!
Amen #17. Seems Tom is in shock that the county voters didn’t take what the status quo gave them with Measure A. Measure A’s defeat for me felt like Prarie View A&M beating Duke and UNC in the NCAA basketball tourney. Beating two titans in the SVLG and SBLC was NOT an easy task.
As Volunteer Coordinator for the fight against Measure A, it was amazing to use only 8 volunteers (versus over a hundred of the usual labor forces) to get the facts out on voting against Measure A. I personally was at every SJ Mayoral debate (where the voters can be found) stumping against Measure A.
The public who attended these forums lapped up all the info on the facts against Measure A. Even Carl noted my persistence at the last Mayoral debate at Parkside Hall. Not one Measure A supporter was to be found at any SJ mayoral debate or street festival last weekend where I had my volunteers work.
Donald Trump ought to have fired the Volunteer Coordinator for Yes On A for relying too heavily on TV and radio ads to get the word out, and lack of on-street hustle. Maybe there is hope for fiscal responsibility and open, honest government in the Smartest Place On Earth…
#29
Who is Dennis Kyne anyway?
Well it looks like AM 1590 called it right, see
http://www.kliv.com/comment/comm052606.html
And it looks like this BLOG’s editorial staff and the Mercury news didn’t have enough influence to get Pandori through the primary.
Defeated BART. Now we defeat Chavez.
Thank God for exposing him and CC.
Sorry Cindy fans, but Reed will be next to impossible to beat in November. Defying all the pundits, including the totally confused Rich Robinson (who recently said on this blog that Reed had no chance), Reed put a real hurting on the political establishment in SJ. Chavez refused to distance herself from the despised Gonzales. Say bye-bye, Cindy.
As for Pandori, his showing was impressive. Entered late, little money, lacking name ID and finishing ahead of Cortese was a stunner.
Look for an interesting 8 years with Reed at the helm.
I all the hubbub, did everyone forget that District 9 gets four more years of Judy (Who?) Chirco?
Will a city charter expert let us all know what happens now in Dist. 6?
It’s hard to see where Cindy goes to get the other 27% she will need in November. I don’t think people walked into the polling booth deciding whether to vote for Pandori-Cortese-Mulcahy or Cindy.
If Cindy indeed blamed the CofC mailer for her poor showing, then it appears that the mailer served the Chamber’s purpose: the ethics behind the content and the decision to run with it, being an entirely different issue.
I don’t think we should second guess anyone’s decision to stay in or withdraw from the race (I am obviously biased in Michael’s favor). None of the candidates really knew how this was going to turn out before yesterday and they all had something important to say. Too bad more people didn’t listen and go out to vote.
PS Chris Schumb doesn’t belong to the Chamber.
Thank God. Thank you.
#31 Al Maden
Pandori got 64% more votes than Mulcahy received. We can all point fingers but the sad fact is we could have had a real change. Time will only tell how we will put our egos and disappointments aside and work for a better San Jose.
#26 – As I understand the city charter, the position will be filled in one of two ways:
1. The council decides to vote in someone.
2. The council authorizes a special election.
What they WILL do (or are more likely to do), however, is a mystery to me.
As far as the rest, read #29 and leave the guy alone. You gotta give him credit for even putting himself out there and trying. With only 30-40% of REGISTERED voters turning out, we can use all the involvement we can get!
Two take-aways from the ominous day, one good, one bad:
1) Any 2 of the 5 candidates for mayor could have prevailed yesterday, i.e. a very competitive race with no foregone conclusions.
2) With 9 of 11 our council endorsing Chavez and her only receiving 23% of the popular vote, does it appear that our council is way out of touch with the electorate? Shouldn’t there be some correlation between the popular vote and the council vote?
A few notes of interest
Only 27% showed up to vote to cast a ballot in San Jose in one of the most contested and important elections of our time.
Chuck Reed started with 34% of the AB vote and went down. Cindy started with 18% and went up. When looking at momentum, people should factor that into consideration.
Cindy was attacked from all angles and still made the run-off in a five person race.
The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters is a nightmare. Not only were they late in getting AV Ballots out, 6 counties had 100% of their precincts reporting by 10 pm.
Maybe if the Board of Supervisors had chosen better machines. . .but I digress. However, it is embarrassing to say we are the high tech center of the universe with the current Registrar.
Humility for winners and civility for those who were not successful seems to be a lost trait.
As for humility, and as an example. I will be eating a large dish of crow for dinner tonight for discounting Chuck Reed’s chances at winning.
He is an anomoly, but he richly deserves to be congratulated on his victory. I do so with no rancor. Nice job Chuck.
31 – I’m no math major but how do you figure that Pandori “had just slightly more votes than Mulcahy”—Pandori finished with 17.85% to Mulcahy’s 10.83%. That is a significant difference and proves that the only thing Mulcahy brought to the table was as an enabler to Chavez limping into the runoff.
What will he do now to atone? Stay in politics? Get out of politics?
We must not under estimate the significance of Pete Constant beating the labor machine in D1. This race got very little media attention compared to D3.
Pete raised and spent much less than Jay James, and had fewer – but more dedicated – volunteers. They worked harder and smarter – qualities that are much needed on the 18th floor.
Don’t miss the impact of this:
Pete got over <u>500</u> more votes then Sam and Manny combined!
Pete got <u>1000</u> more votes then Nora in an uncontested race!
Pete got <u>600</u> more vote then Madison in an uncontested race!
Pete got a <u>higher percentage</u> of votes then Judy who ran against 2 relatively unknowns.
Pete’s <u>percentage of votes</u> nearly equals the percentage of Chuck, Cindy, & David combined.
If ever there was a clear mandate, this is it!
Congratulations Pete!
What ever happen with Mr. Reality Check? And will Cindy rotate her campaign staff now?
#31 Al – do the math – Mulcahy got 10,000 votes, don’t ya think if those votes went to Pandori or Cortese, they would have surpassed Chavez for #2 spot. He will forever be know as the Nader of San Jose!
Looks like we’ll have to endure five long months of R Rs lengthy cindygon BS. The labor/developer money is not going to go away. Just get more intense.
Cindy’s $700,000. so far is nothing.
Will we get what they pay for?
Being a BART supporter myself, this is hard to say…but I really think we have to revisit the proposed extension into SJ. Perhaps a different route should be adopted for BART to SJ (direct connection to SJC/no Santa Clara street $ubway); or maybe an entirely different mode of transit altogether (Caltrain Metro East?). Bottom line…with the rejection of Measure A, the proposed BART extension to San Jose (at least in its current form) WILL NEVER BE BUILT!
#29
I wasn’t picking on him as much as I was observing that he never really posted on this blog until he became a candidate. I was insinuating that he was trying to use the blog for his own end, failed, and now we won’t hear from him anymore. But I do see the point that ‘at least he tried’. With that, I will shut up!
The Voters Spoke – Are We Listening?
We must not under estimate the significance of Pete Constant beating the labor machine in D1. This race got very little media attention compared to D3.
Pete raised and spent much less than Jay James, and had fewer – but more dedicated – volunteers. They worked harder and smarter – qualities that are much needed on the 18th floor.
Don’t miss the impact of this:
Pete got over <u>500</u> more votes then Sam and Manny combined!
Pete got <u>1000</u> more votes then Nora in an uncontested race!
Pete got <u>600</u> more vote then Madison in an uncontested race!
Pete got a <u>higher percentage</u> of votes then Judy who ran against 2 relatively unknowns.
Pete’s <u>percentage of votes</u> nearly equals the percentage of Chuck, Cindy, & David combined.
If ever there was a clear mandate, this is it!
Congratulations Pete!
All this chest-beating about mandates and “the voters have spoken” dribble.
With a 27% turnout, no one can claim a mandate.
Given that 50% of the eligible voters are not even registered and that Chuck won with 28% of the vote,—that means Chuck got a total of 1.8% of the total possible vote—out of an estimated 1.5 million potential votes.
That’s democracy? That’s a message?
Kinda makes representative democracy look a little foolish.
If there is a message for politicians it is—we don’t care.
I’m still no math major, but Rich, how does a city with a population of about 978,000 have a potential of 1.5 million voters?
Rich, I couldn’t agree more with your #54 there. For a change we had a very interesting 5-way contest for Mayor along with a well financed but ill-conceived Measure A to get out and vote against, and still such a low turnout.
I’ve said it before, SJ is the capital of apathy valley. I don’t know what kind of race it would take to get people out to vote, but at least we know in November there will be more people doing it. I hope they’re all going to vote for Chuck.
#55-
Graveyards ???
#54 (Richard), You are RIGHT ON with your last comment!!!! As I said earlier, the APATHY of the citizens in San Jose is a disgrace! Unfortunately, those of us who care voted (whether our candidate won or not is beside the larger point) and there were obviously too few at that.
#45/Richard,
To your second paragraph: What order the votes are counted in has NOTHING to do with a candidate’s momentum. I refer you to recent polls that showed Mr. Reed not doing so well. Then he pulled it out. That is momentum.
Don’t confuse types of voters and their methods with trending. For instance, conservatives tend to vote absentee. Labor tends to vote in person. Now, if Chuck’s 34%—>28% movement last night were over a sequence of votes or tracking polls over a few days, then we could have a conversation on this stuff. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke and trying to see trends in Cindy’s favor where there are none.
Chuck was no doubt helped by early polls that showed he actually had a chance. A friend and long-time fan and constituent of Chuck’s called and requested a lawn sign once he knew that Chuck was in the running. I quote, “I didn’t think an honest guy had a shot! Now that I see he does, I’ll take a sign!”
Early polling, and high numbers of undecideds meant that for once, the fix was not in.
Clearly, the situation for Chuck’s campaign (moment, strategies, ‘angles,’ etc.) will be different with Angelides, Chavez, and Diaz on the ballot at the same time this fall, and with Campos and Chirco already in the chute for another term.
And Amen #47, Congrats to Pete.
Good to see two good men do so well last night.
Last, to Richard’s post #54:
There are ~1.7 million residents (men, women, children, both citizens and non-citizens) in Santa Clara County, and nearly a million in San Jose. How could the mayor’s race possibly have 1.5 million “potential votes”? I would think that in a city as diverse as San Jose (lots of non-US citizens here), ~400,000 is the limit. I do agree that turnout was pathetic, though. Your point is made, just with faulty stats. See my note above.
Yeah, who is Dennis Kyne? Glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t know.
Thanks for the 4-1-1, BD #43
Rich – you sound like a sore loser – or a Kerry supporter – finding ways to belittle Chuck’s victory. He WON plain and simple – everyone quit making excuses that Cindy was battered or it wasn’t true democracy because no one voted. People believed in Chuck’s vision enough to make him the winner. He has earned my respect with that and I expect him to roll to victory in November.
By the way, Cindy had the endorsement of every major democrat including the council as someone else added. It really shows the weight that the Democratic party holds these days.
Dennis Kyne was running for the D3 seat. SJSU grad, military guy, seemed to be what I would deem a libertarian. Had some decent ideas but got his press for getting kicked out of a council meeting for taking more than his 2 minutes to speak and yelling at Gonzales that he was censured.
#52 Of course he was posting on here to promote himself and his ideas for D3 – I don’t see anything wrong with that – do you? Sorry, I just got a little tired of people bashing those running for office because they want to make a difference and not for more selfish purposes.
Tony D #51, that Caltrain Metro East proposal is the way to go. See this analysis:
http://www.sfcityscape.com/transit/rail_maps/alternatives_south_bay.html
Unfortunately, Carl “raise your taxes, not mine” Guardino will keep pushing this stupid, over designed, mis-routed BART plan till Hell freezes over.
SJ LOver #44—do you think the council will take the hint…or will it be business as usual?
Rich # 45—you spin very well. You are a MASTER of spin. But you “forgot ” to mention the SBLC money and their feet on the ground; i.e., how INeffective they turned out to be. You also “neglected” to mention Cindy’s $708k losing to Chuck’s $413k. But that’s what spinmeisters do—they “forget” or “neglect” to mention important stuff on the other side when they LOSE. That’s why they are spinmeisters, and we’re not.
Last half of your post shows you have another side, though, which is laudable.
#47 & #53—conjoined twins?
Rich #54—where did you learn math? When did I fall asleep and wake up to “1.5 million potential votes” in a city of fewer than i million total, of which at least 25% are not of voting age? Rich, I doubt there are one million potential votes in the entire county, let alone the city of San Jose. remember, Chuck was running in SAN JOSE. Guess all that spinning made ya dizzy. Or were you thinking of Boston or Chicago, where dead people account for at leat 10% of the votes cast? Oops, that still doesn’t get you to anywhere near 1.5 million.
Mark T #56 is math-challenged, as well. Did you pass the exit exam, Mark?
Yeah, there IS a lot of apathy out there…but who cares? ( I think that’s a very old George Carlin line)
#54 Mr. Robinson:
2004 census estimates at the US Census Bureau web site show San Jose with a population of 638,542 people 18 years old or older. A little over 98,500 voted for mayor. Where did the 1.5 million voters come from? This is not Chicago. If it was Chicago, the turnout would have been about 650,000. but they could not possibly get it up to 1.5 million. Some of those corpses would have been dead by the end of the day after voting that many times.
With all the surveys and opinion polls on almost anything, people are made to believe that their concerns are being heard. The mistake in this kind of thinking however is that opinion polls don’t hire good public servants and neither do their kick out the bad ones- only elections do.
#64,
Of course Carl will try again. He is in desperate need of some kind of win. In the past he has hitched his wagon to Grey Davis & Gonzo, ignored the standard procedures of his own organization in an attempt to get a parcel tax for education on a previous ballot and now this super-funded tax blew up in his face. Why does he keep trying? I believe it is because his contract pays him bonuses for successfull ballot measures
How about a moment of silence for Lou’s Donuts?
Has this site become a podium from which RR can pontificate?
It seems our forelorn consultant Rich Robinson skipped math classes in addition to missing his civics lessons. Doing the math will show you that Reed won both the absentee votes and the live vote yesterday.
It’s irrelevant, anyway. An absentee vote counts the same as a vote cast at a polling place. Trying to draw some differentiation between them is silly.
# 7 RR are you saying you’ll be betting on Cindy as the longshot? For as long as you have been a consultant, you of all people should know that unless Camp Cindy doctors up a picture of Reed next to a farm animal, November will be all his: Reed’em and weep…
I stand corrected, their are about 1.5 million potential voters Countywide.
So, Chuck got around 3 % of the eligible voters in San Jose—I’m sure that makes you all feel better about his mandate.
This is not sour grapes, I congratulate him.
Just don’t call it a mandate or a message.
This holier than thou tone regarding this sacred democracy rings a little hollow when less than 15% of the people make the decision.
Now if they all competed for San Jose Idol, we might get some active interest.
Just quit Cindy. U have no chance. Thank God.
Tom, It was difficult to watch the numbers as they came in last night and we could not get over the hump to make the runoff. I hope we all learned something from this election so that we can apply it the next time David decides to run for public office. Our government sorely needs someone of his charecter, ability, and commitment to the people of San Jose. I look forward to working with David on his next campaign and wish him and his family the best.
#69
Are you speaking of the old site or new? What is up?
76 – The current site. In today’s Merc it says the owners are going to hang it up after 50+ years:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/14759463.htm
#77………Thanks for the 411
Lots of folks bemoaning the poor turnout. I’m not one of them. Voter apathy is largely a myth. Non-voters are no more indifferent (apathetic) to the direction of their local government than they are to the physics behind their microwave ovens. I’m sure they want good government (and hot popcorn) as much as the next guy, but they—unlike all you egalitarians—realize they lack the knowledge that contributes towards achieving those ends. Those members of the clueless majority who do vote tend to do so based on a form of reasoning common to the average mob.
Our representative-type government, though meant to serve him, was not the product of the common man. Understanding the issues requires time, interest, and ability. Best we leave the disinclined, distracted, and deficient to seek their own level. Better they exhaust their limited cognitive resources picking lotto numbers, NASCAR drivers, or the next American Idol than participating in an election and delivering to us another incarnation of more of the same.
Judging from what I see of the culture, demographics, and the state of higher education, any election with over a 3% voter turnout only brings us closer to our doom.
# 79, Amen Brother (Comrade)!!
What if Mulcahy had really believed his message of change and had dropped out and supported one of the other candidates of change? We wouldn’t have Cindy to kick around for another few months and we’d have a high level race between Reed and Pandori. The city would be better off with either of them than with Chavez. But, Mulcahy didn’t do that. He piloted his self-destructing spoiler brigade right into oblivion. He could have done so much more by dropping out—maybe ego played a role, maybe he was expecting a miracle, maybe he didn’t really believe his message. We might never know what could have been. Too bad.
Sorry folks but I didn’t vote for Chuck Reed because of any vision thing. He strikes me as one of those over-earnest neighborhood activists. His “vision”, as I understand it, is fluff.
Pandori came across as another over-earnest type, but as a technocrat, Mr. Bureaucracy.
Cortese seemed Mr. Rich Kid, local boy who had it easy and parochial.
Chavez was Ms. Democratic Machine, the anything-but-a-virgin Union Maid, with a veneer of liberal bleeding heart amalgamated with Affirmative Action Minority Group. No Thanks!
Again, Mulcahy was the South Bay’s Republican Gavin Newsome but was too willing to compromise with the Evil Empire to grab power.
As I’ve posted above (#16), the differentiating factor was increasing taxes – yes or no? Everyone agreed that the City has been blowing money through either incompentence or corruption yet every candidate but one wanted MORE money?
The choice was simple – the only guy against the tax hike.
As to the Merc, I cancelled that rag after 6 years of reading it as a new resident because it refused to explain to me what was going on in local politics. Why pay to remain clueless? This site is so much more useful and it’s free!
Rose Garden Dad,
If you want to use polling data instead of going through the voting process I agree:
John Kerry would still not be President though, as he would have had to wait until Al Gore finished his second term.
I doubt if 27% of the electorate, (mostly, fat, rich and happy) is indicative of the overall electorate—but that’s who votes.
Rich-
It’s really not that complicated: no matter how you count the votes, Chuck still got more of ‘em than Cindy.
If you don’t grasp the concept there will be a refresher course in November.
Carl Guardino , President and CEO Silicon Valley Leadership Group announces an November initiative to assess business parking in Silicon Valley to pay for BART to San Jose and local public transit by taxing parking spaces at hi-tech companies
I am getting dizzy by all the spinning around here!
I think this 5-way mayor’s race was a good reason why San Jose should adopt San Francisco’s ranked choice voting. Clearly, this was a race where one can assume that there were many “anyone but Chavez” voters out there.
Let say the 2nd choice votes of Mulcahy and Cortese supporters would be split equally between Pandori and Reed. We would get a Reed v. Pandori match up for November which, I assume, is probably closer to the mood of the electorate.
Mr. Richard Robinson! I am highly offended by your comments and I resemble that remark! And, if you must know, I only earn $45,000 per year. So please refrain from using simular comments in the future. It’s not like you to lose your temper.
Sam Liccardo did wonderfully well on Tuesday, he is definitely the candidate to keep an eye on and to support.
It’s remarkable that Metro’s Fly managed to say so little about Sam in the election aftermath but did manage to mention Tom. BTW, Tom, rumor has it you were at Sam’s party seeking out Don G – are you a fan?
C’mon richard robinson. Re: #83, you dig yourself even deeper into your Bad Argument Hole. I realize having elections not go your way is disappointing, but this site deserves better than recycled daily kos-isms. To set the record straight:
* low voter turnouts to do not favor any particular demographic. And ‘fat, rich, and happy’ veers kinda close to stereotyping, this site deserves better.
* low voter turnout is usually representative of overall intent of the populace.
* Kerry did not lead in the polls going into the last election.
Wikipedia has good info on low voter turnout and links to lots of good academic studies on the above. Rasmussen reports has the ‘04 tracking polls in archives. http://www.rasmussenreports.com
Enough about Kerry – he LOST – get over it!
Tom, I had a flash of brilliance about BART to San Jose. Given that the voters saw through Guardino’s Measure A smokescreen, how ‘bout we get those who will benefit to pay for BART? Gosh, I guess that would mean Alameda County commuters and the Silicon Valley big businesses represented by Guardino. Seems fair to me.
Thought I would check in with you all at the end of the “day after.”
I will blog, if there is something worth blogging about. Today there is.
Today I am proud to announce, my campaign was the ultimate success.
In January, when I first posted on this blog, I mentioned our neighbor in D3, Eddie Gale.
I was accused of pandering to minorities and associating with a Black Jazz man. You can read Leonard McKay’s blog in early January to refresh yourself on the dialogue. Of course, it was from some anonymous type.
So, here it is for those of you who don’t know who I am, and I am assuming you have no idea who Eddie Gale is.
On January 10th, when the illegal Grand Prix deal was done, I was at the city hall explaining to them how idiotic it was to dump 4 million on a race, and in the same breath talk about the value of the Jazz Festival, when…….Eddie Gale, who was annointed the Ambassador of Jazz of San Jose, by Mayor Norm Mineta has never played the festival.
So for three decades he has been the Ambassador of Jazz and Cindy and Ron signed a paper re-annointing him recently.
I told them that Eddie Gale had never played at the San Jose Jazz Festival….and guess what ladies and gentleman….
Eddie Gale will be playing the Jazz Festival this year, for the first time EVER.
You want change, sometimes it comes in small ways, on long days.
I hope you all, who dare to say you love this city, and you love what it stands for, will be at the Festival and watch a hero to many of us here in San Jose, play his trumpet. He is a master of music and a leader for world peace, he is our neighbor and is someone our youth can look up to.
Peace be upon you all, it has been great getting to know those of you who actually do post your names.
Mr. Robinson’s spinning has made him dizzy and he’s lost track of his critical faculties. The Low Voter Turnout = No Mandate nostrum is old, tired, and utterly disproven. The reality, as any statistician will tell you, is that 27% of any sampling universe is plenty big and probably very indicative of the overall voter universe. In fact, many studies on the subject suggest that the people who vote in elections, in fact, comprise a very representative sample of the whole electorate. Unless Mr. Robinson has some data to suggest that the 27% voting are somehow not representative, he should go try to get a job on the Florida Supreme Court where, I hear, they are more open to casting aspersions on fair election results.
RR # 73—wrong again on the math, Rich. With only 1.7 million residents of all ages countywide, there are not 1.5 million potential voters.
Wonder Woman #70: This site has not BECOME a podium for RR to pontificate; it has been one from the git-go
Interesting reading about the backgrounds of Carl and most of Silicon Valley Leadership Group staff – most former state political staffers – explains their lack of common sense.
Carl
I’m just excited by the fact that the election proved just how truly worthless this site and all you mindless, mudslinging fools are. Pro-Pandori, anti-everyone else, and who comes out with the win? Chuck Reed!!! The least talked about candidate! And why did he win despite the overwhelming blog chattering in support of Pandori? Because the absentee elderly, the only ones who actually voted, couldn’t care less what any of you say! Because they don’t know how to use the internet! Oh, its just too funny, we wasted all this time reading and writing and getting worked up on this site, and in the end the only substantial voter base wouldn’t have read any of it even if they could have found their glasses. And though I still get a bit heated when I read how horribly and unfairly you all scapegoat Michael Mulcahy for your own campaign woes and shortcomings. I find relief in the fact that in the end, the voters aren’t listening.
#96 It wasn’t just this blog that didn’t talk about Chuck. All the polls and media coverage was on Pandori and Chavez too. The people on this blog felt that David had the best ideas – which many have said on and off this blog. Don’t think that most were anti anyone but Chavez really – so she must be your candidate.
Pandori’s candidacy and the discussions on this blog were not a waste because Pandori helped change the face of the election and ensured that Cindy did not win the primary and will not win in the general election. Mulcahy just ran for the attention and fame and he almost got it. Yes, it is kind of annoying when Chavez could have been knocked out if Mulcahy wasn’t in there.
#96
I come here to learn, laugh and exchange ideas with others that also care about San Jose. We may chose different candidates
but we all want to make a better San Jose .
Though I am a Pandori supporter I do not believe you are part of Chucks camp. I think you are only here to offend those who voted for David in an attempt to turn us against Chuck. No one is as stupid and offensive as Progressive acts to be. Please tell Cindy her little plan didn’t work.
Progressive #96: “mindless mudslinging fools”? Checked your mirror lately?