Much to my amusement the council majority of Ruth Asmundson, Stephen Souza, and Don Saylor have repeatedly and publicly objected to the use of the term “Council Majority” as though it were an epithet rather than an accurate descriptor. Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmunson at a recent workshop not only only objected to the use of the term “Council Majority” but actually suggested it was inaccurate. As evidence she drew upon the various coalitions that voted with each other in a 4-1 vote.
A 4-1 vote of course is hardly the appropriate test of any coalition, the real question is what a 3-2 tightly divided vote looks like. I agree there is not a typical 4-1 vote, except in the last council when the pro-developer councilmembers held a 4-1 edge, you would not expect a consistent 4-1 coalition to emerge on a 3-2 council. It is also true that many issues end up with a 5-0 vote. Many of those are non-controversial votes on non-controversial issues, as such they do not define the council nor the coalitions. Those claiming otherwise know it. What is interesting is that even within some of those 5-0 votes, the coalitions and voting blocks hold in terms of efforts to amend and shape the final vote.
However, even a cursory look at the hot-issues, those most tightly divided issues, reveals a starkly consistent pattern. There are two basic coalitions–the “Council Majority” (Souza, Saylor and Asmundson) who primarily represent and support development interests, and the Progressives (Mayor Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek). (To imply that this is somehow the Greenwald faction suggests that Heystek follows the lead of the Mayor and I guarantee even the Mayor would agree that this is not an accurate description).
This council was installed in July of 2006, and since then there has been exactly one 3-2 vote on a major issue that saw one of the Majority join with the Progressives, that was Stephen Souza who voted as a swing vote to block the lowering of the windows of the Anderson Bank Building. That’s it. That’s a stronger coalition than the ones that hold on the US Supreme Court.
So the descriptive power of “Council Majority” is completely accurate. Is it pejorative and leading to incivility on the council? No more than a whole host of things that the Council Majority seemingly has no problem with. Then again, Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson once complained that the use of the term, surrogate, was pejorative.
The writer of the letter to the editor goes on to suggest, “Like it or not, the majority on the council suggests that the Greenwald Faction is supported by a somewhat smaller number of citizens than is the majority.”
That’s possibly true, but it is very close. There is also a further question as to whether the majority on council are also supported by a large number of citizens on key issues.
To explore this question, we have to go back actually to the 2002 Davis City Council Election. There we saw Ruth Asmundson and Ted Puntillo overwhelm the progressives to regain a council majority that would eventually grow to 4-1 in the next election. However, other than the 2002, most of the elections have been very close and turned on key but small factors.
The nucleus of the current council majority is Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, each elected in 2004, each finishing behind Sue Greenwald. The key to that election was Steve Gidaro whose Independent Expenditure campaign helped to defeat sitting incumbent Mike Harrington and Stan Forbes. Without that last minute intervention, would the council look different today? We cannot say for sure, but it seems likely.
Another key to look at are two initiatives, both of which were strongly supported and backed by the then-council majority with 4-1 votes, first Covell Village in 2005 and then Target in 2006. Covell Village was not only supported by the council majority, they openly campaigned for it. And it went down by a huge margin of nearly 4000 votes and nearly 20 percent. So you have 80 percent of the council supporting the measure but only 40 percent of the public voted for it. That is an indicator that the council majority is not exactly aligned with the general public on these kind of issues. Target won its vote by just under 700 votes or 3 percent of the vote. And while it did win, 80 percent of the council supported it compared with just over 50 percent of the public. Had the opposition not just had to run against Covell Village and also for the Council Elections, it is quite possible that Target could have been defeated as well.
The point here is that with two public votes, the council is not necessarily aligned with the broader population, thus putting the point made in the letter in doubt.
Looking at the 2006 council election, the vote was heavily split. Ruth Asmundson the only incumbent finished first by 123 votes and .5% of the vote over Lamar Heystek. Mike Levy supported by the council majority finished around 300 votes and one percent of the vote behind Mr. Heystek, and Stan Forbes aligned with the progressives finished 68 votes or .25% behind Mr. Levy. That would appear to give the Council Majority a small advantage. But Rob Roy was also in the race, and he was most closely aligned with the progressives in this race particularly on the police issue. When you add it all up, it’s very close, but the progressives probably had a slight advantage in 2006.
Regardless of how you want to interpret that result, it seems rather clear that the divide is pretty close between the two sides at this point and that the public is clearly not as pro-development as the council majority and clearly not as slow-growth as the progressives.
The letter suggests a strong divide between old and new Davis as a culprit for this bitterness. There is a clear divide between old and new Davis, you can see it clearly on any map. On the other hand, it is not clear it is a steep divide. It is also not clear that the degree of contentiousness on the council is matched in the community. That seems to be more the function of individual personalities on the council. Each side will point the fingers at each other.
For my part, I would place some portion of the blame on all parties except for perhaps Mr. Heystek who generally stays out of the personal frays. At the end of the day, one side has been talking a lot about civility, but they fail to practice it themselves. They also fail to police their allies when the issues get heated. So from what I can see this is less of a point about civility as opposed to a point about politics.
I do not believe that a division on key issues necessarily has to lead to the kind of bitter divide and rancor that we have seen in the last few years in Davis politics. The fact that it has needs to focus blame on those participating in it.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
There is no evidence whatsoever that a majority of citizens support the policies of the current council majority, even slightly.
What you have to remember is that:
1) Most candidates run on generic platforms that make it impossible to determine how they will actually vote.
2) Those candidates with backing from developers and the business people and politicians connected with the growth industry have an easier time raising money.
3) Hence, it was been easier to find “good” candidates who are supported by the developers and growth-related interests.
4) “Good candidates” are those with many social connections, such as children who are in or who have been through the school system or have other such involvement in the community. This means that they have a head start merely because they know so many people. Other personal characteristics aside from policy leanings also play a large role.
I have many friends who have voted for candidates in the past because they knew them personally, only to be surprised by their allegiances once elected. In short, I do not feel that there is a majority for the policies of the current council majority. Rather, I feel that there is a shortage of good candidates who represent the policy leanings of the current council minority.
This is why I support district elections. I feel that district elections, with all of their inherent limitations, act as the functional equivalent of publicly financed campaigns. Like publicly financed campaigns, they don’t guarantee that everyone spends the same amount of money, but they do guarantee that many more people can run an adequate campaign with a couple of friends and some good ideas..
I believe that the cost and difficulty of at large elections strongly favors those backed by special interests, and limits the number of candidates who are not backed by special interests.
There is no evidence whatsoever that a majority of citizens support the policies of the current council majority, even slightly.
What you have to remember is that:
1) Most candidates run on generic platforms that make it impossible to determine how they will actually vote.
2) Those candidates with backing from developers and the business people and politicians connected with the growth industry have an easier time raising money.
3) Hence, it was been easier to find “good” candidates who are supported by the developers and growth-related interests.
4) “Good candidates” are those with many social connections, such as children who are in or who have been through the school system or have other such involvement in the community. This means that they have a head start merely because they know so many people. Other personal characteristics aside from policy leanings also play a large role.
I have many friends who have voted for candidates in the past because they knew them personally, only to be surprised by their allegiances once elected. In short, I do not feel that there is a majority for the policies of the current council majority. Rather, I feel that there is a shortage of good candidates who represent the policy leanings of the current council minority.
This is why I support district elections. I feel that district elections, with all of their inherent limitations, act as the functional equivalent of publicly financed campaigns. Like publicly financed campaigns, they don’t guarantee that everyone spends the same amount of money, but they do guarantee that many more people can run an adequate campaign with a couple of friends and some good ideas..
I believe that the cost and difficulty of at large elections strongly favors those backed by special interests, and limits the number of candidates who are not backed by special interests.
There is no evidence whatsoever that a majority of citizens support the policies of the current council majority, even slightly.
What you have to remember is that:
1) Most candidates run on generic platforms that make it impossible to determine how they will actually vote.
2) Those candidates with backing from developers and the business people and politicians connected with the growth industry have an easier time raising money.
3) Hence, it was been easier to find “good” candidates who are supported by the developers and growth-related interests.
4) “Good candidates” are those with many social connections, such as children who are in or who have been through the school system or have other such involvement in the community. This means that they have a head start merely because they know so many people. Other personal characteristics aside from policy leanings also play a large role.
I have many friends who have voted for candidates in the past because they knew them personally, only to be surprised by their allegiances once elected. In short, I do not feel that there is a majority for the policies of the current council majority. Rather, I feel that there is a shortage of good candidates who represent the policy leanings of the current council minority.
This is why I support district elections. I feel that district elections, with all of their inherent limitations, act as the functional equivalent of publicly financed campaigns. Like publicly financed campaigns, they don’t guarantee that everyone spends the same amount of money, but they do guarantee that many more people can run an adequate campaign with a couple of friends and some good ideas..
I believe that the cost and difficulty of at large elections strongly favors those backed by special interests, and limits the number of candidates who are not backed by special interests.
There is no evidence whatsoever that a majority of citizens support the policies of the current council majority, even slightly.
What you have to remember is that:
1) Most candidates run on generic platforms that make it impossible to determine how they will actually vote.
2) Those candidates with backing from developers and the business people and politicians connected with the growth industry have an easier time raising money.
3) Hence, it was been easier to find “good” candidates who are supported by the developers and growth-related interests.
4) “Good candidates” are those with many social connections, such as children who are in or who have been through the school system or have other such involvement in the community. This means that they have a head start merely because they know so many people. Other personal characteristics aside from policy leanings also play a large role.
I have many friends who have voted for candidates in the past because they knew them personally, only to be surprised by their allegiances once elected. In short, I do not feel that there is a majority for the policies of the current council majority. Rather, I feel that there is a shortage of good candidates who represent the policy leanings of the current council minority.
This is why I support district elections. I feel that district elections, with all of their inherent limitations, act as the functional equivalent of publicly financed campaigns. Like publicly financed campaigns, they don’t guarantee that everyone spends the same amount of money, but they do guarantee that many more people can run an adequate campaign with a couple of friends and some good ideas..
I believe that the cost and difficulty of at large elections strongly favors those backed by special interests, and limits the number of candidates who are not backed by special interests.
The true tenor of the Davis electorate will be measured when Council candidates can no longer get away with mouthing platitudes like “slow growth”, “civility”,”fiscal responsibility” and,Saylor’s favorite, “I LOVE Davis” but rather obfuscate when asked to tell us what their positions will be on the most important issues.
Answers to the following need to be explicitly answered by the Council candidates:
1. Will you defend Davis’ sole right to determine growth on its periphery as defined in the Pass-Through Agreement?
2. Will you press for a further evaluation of the Surface Water project with alternatives and outside expert opinion fully explored?
3. Will you vote to have Measure J presented as it is currently worded when it is presented to the Davis voters for a mandatory vote in 2010?
4. What is your position on Davis withholding infrastructure hook-up to a possible County-sponsored development on our periphery if the Pass-Through agreeement is cancelled by the County and the proposed project is rejected by a Davis Measure J vote?
The true tenor of the Davis electorate will be measured when Council candidates can no longer get away with mouthing platitudes like “slow growth”, “civility”,”fiscal responsibility” and,Saylor’s favorite, “I LOVE Davis” but rather obfuscate when asked to tell us what their positions will be on the most important issues.
Answers to the following need to be explicitly answered by the Council candidates:
1. Will you defend Davis’ sole right to determine growth on its periphery as defined in the Pass-Through Agreement?
2. Will you press for a further evaluation of the Surface Water project with alternatives and outside expert opinion fully explored?
3. Will you vote to have Measure J presented as it is currently worded when it is presented to the Davis voters for a mandatory vote in 2010?
4. What is your position on Davis withholding infrastructure hook-up to a possible County-sponsored development on our periphery if the Pass-Through agreeement is cancelled by the County and the proposed project is rejected by a Davis Measure J vote?
The true tenor of the Davis electorate will be measured when Council candidates can no longer get away with mouthing platitudes like “slow growth”, “civility”,”fiscal responsibility” and,Saylor’s favorite, “I LOVE Davis” but rather obfuscate when asked to tell us what their positions will be on the most important issues.
Answers to the following need to be explicitly answered by the Council candidates:
1. Will you defend Davis’ sole right to determine growth on its periphery as defined in the Pass-Through Agreement?
2. Will you press for a further evaluation of the Surface Water project with alternatives and outside expert opinion fully explored?
3. Will you vote to have Measure J presented as it is currently worded when it is presented to the Davis voters for a mandatory vote in 2010?
4. What is your position on Davis withholding infrastructure hook-up to a possible County-sponsored development on our periphery if the Pass-Through agreeement is cancelled by the County and the proposed project is rejected by a Davis Measure J vote?
The true tenor of the Davis electorate will be measured when Council candidates can no longer get away with mouthing platitudes like “slow growth”, “civility”,”fiscal responsibility” and,Saylor’s favorite, “I LOVE Davis” but rather obfuscate when asked to tell us what their positions will be on the most important issues.
Answers to the following need to be explicitly answered by the Council candidates:
1. Will you defend Davis’ sole right to determine growth on its periphery as defined in the Pass-Through Agreement?
2. Will you press for a further evaluation of the Surface Water project with alternatives and outside expert opinion fully explored?
3. Will you vote to have Measure J presented as it is currently worded when it is presented to the Davis voters for a mandatory vote in 2010?
4. What is your position on Davis withholding infrastructure hook-up to a possible County-sponsored development on our periphery if the Pass-Through agreeement is cancelled by the County and the proposed project is rejected by a Davis Measure J vote?
One can clearly see the divide in city politics if one looks at the vote break down for both Covell Village and Target. Areas with clear and predominant votes of Yes were in the newer areas. As has been pointed out on this site previously, building high density expensive homes only brings more Republicans to your area. (Granted, the Target issue was more complex and garnered yes votes from the some of the city’s working poor and some progressives, But overall yes voting area was smaller than total no voting area.)
If the council members were elected from precincts or distrcits, as opposed to ‘at large’, I would suggest that the majority would more accurately reflect the city.
I was recently returned to Davis in 2002 after an extended hiatus. Had there been a good city blog at the time (thank you Vanguard)perhaps I would not have been suckered by several of the candidates, even while trying to read between the lines in the Enterprise. They truly have the disinformation campaigns down to a science and are well financed by the developers.
One can clearly see the divide in city politics if one looks at the vote break down for both Covell Village and Target. Areas with clear and predominant votes of Yes were in the newer areas. As has been pointed out on this site previously, building high density expensive homes only brings more Republicans to your area. (Granted, the Target issue was more complex and garnered yes votes from the some of the city’s working poor and some progressives, But overall yes voting area was smaller than total no voting area.)
If the council members were elected from precincts or distrcits, as opposed to ‘at large’, I would suggest that the majority would more accurately reflect the city.
I was recently returned to Davis in 2002 after an extended hiatus. Had there been a good city blog at the time (thank you Vanguard)perhaps I would not have been suckered by several of the candidates, even while trying to read between the lines in the Enterprise. They truly have the disinformation campaigns down to a science and are well financed by the developers.
One can clearly see the divide in city politics if one looks at the vote break down for both Covell Village and Target. Areas with clear and predominant votes of Yes were in the newer areas. As has been pointed out on this site previously, building high density expensive homes only brings more Republicans to your area. (Granted, the Target issue was more complex and garnered yes votes from the some of the city’s working poor and some progressives, But overall yes voting area was smaller than total no voting area.)
If the council members were elected from precincts or distrcits, as opposed to ‘at large’, I would suggest that the majority would more accurately reflect the city.
I was recently returned to Davis in 2002 after an extended hiatus. Had there been a good city blog at the time (thank you Vanguard)perhaps I would not have been suckered by several of the candidates, even while trying to read between the lines in the Enterprise. They truly have the disinformation campaigns down to a science and are well financed by the developers.
One can clearly see the divide in city politics if one looks at the vote break down for both Covell Village and Target. Areas with clear and predominant votes of Yes were in the newer areas. As has been pointed out on this site previously, building high density expensive homes only brings more Republicans to your area. (Granted, the Target issue was more complex and garnered yes votes from the some of the city’s working poor and some progressives, But overall yes voting area was smaller than total no voting area.)
If the council members were elected from precincts or distrcits, as opposed to ‘at large’, I would suggest that the majority would more accurately reflect the city.
I was recently returned to Davis in 2002 after an extended hiatus. Had there been a good city blog at the time (thank you Vanguard)perhaps I would not have been suckered by several of the candidates, even while trying to read between the lines in the Enterprise. They truly have the disinformation campaigns down to a science and are well financed by the developers.
i agree with the mayor on the district elections idea, and hope that when we get into city charters down the road, the idea of district elections is given due consideration. it would make races both easier to pull off in a retail voting, knock on doors sort of way, and would likely make it much cheaper to pay for a fifth of the mailings, signs, etc., than the current at large getup.
to that i would add an elected at-large mayor.
ultimately, city politics shakes out rather differently in the electorate than it does on the council. i think sue is right on #4 that most people tend to vote for candidates that they know socially, and that a significant % if not an outright majority bases their decisions here more than any ideology. any analysis of city politics has to take that into account, especially along the lines of neighborhoods, new residents v. old residents, and civic orgs. for example, lois wolk knew a lot of people from AYSO and her husband bruce, back when she first ran; mike corbett wasn’t known to newcomers in the covell village vote, and so his endorsement of the project didn’t have the impact it might have had a decade or two ago.
to that i would add that one cannot really assume that the votes on target or covell village were all made for the same ideological position, for or against development. from my conversations with people around town, friends and family, over both votes, the reasons for both people’s support or opposition were pretty diverse, with a healthy dab of ambivalence or internally conflicted opinions. lots of “one the one hand, on the other hand” muddling.
i agree that there is such a thing as a stable council majority here, although i suspect that were the topic to be something other than development issues, things might shake out a bit differently.
i agree with the mayor on the district elections idea, and hope that when we get into city charters down the road, the idea of district elections is given due consideration. it would make races both easier to pull off in a retail voting, knock on doors sort of way, and would likely make it much cheaper to pay for a fifth of the mailings, signs, etc., than the current at large getup.
to that i would add an elected at-large mayor.
ultimately, city politics shakes out rather differently in the electorate than it does on the council. i think sue is right on #4 that most people tend to vote for candidates that they know socially, and that a significant % if not an outright majority bases their decisions here more than any ideology. any analysis of city politics has to take that into account, especially along the lines of neighborhoods, new residents v. old residents, and civic orgs. for example, lois wolk knew a lot of people from AYSO and her husband bruce, back when she first ran; mike corbett wasn’t known to newcomers in the covell village vote, and so his endorsement of the project didn’t have the impact it might have had a decade or two ago.
to that i would add that one cannot really assume that the votes on target or covell village were all made for the same ideological position, for or against development. from my conversations with people around town, friends and family, over both votes, the reasons for both people’s support or opposition were pretty diverse, with a healthy dab of ambivalence or internally conflicted opinions. lots of “one the one hand, on the other hand” muddling.
i agree that there is such a thing as a stable council majority here, although i suspect that were the topic to be something other than development issues, things might shake out a bit differently.
i agree with the mayor on the district elections idea, and hope that when we get into city charters down the road, the idea of district elections is given due consideration. it would make races both easier to pull off in a retail voting, knock on doors sort of way, and would likely make it much cheaper to pay for a fifth of the mailings, signs, etc., than the current at large getup.
to that i would add an elected at-large mayor.
ultimately, city politics shakes out rather differently in the electorate than it does on the council. i think sue is right on #4 that most people tend to vote for candidates that they know socially, and that a significant % if not an outright majority bases their decisions here more than any ideology. any analysis of city politics has to take that into account, especially along the lines of neighborhoods, new residents v. old residents, and civic orgs. for example, lois wolk knew a lot of people from AYSO and her husband bruce, back when she first ran; mike corbett wasn’t known to newcomers in the covell village vote, and so his endorsement of the project didn’t have the impact it might have had a decade or two ago.
to that i would add that one cannot really assume that the votes on target or covell village were all made for the same ideological position, for or against development. from my conversations with people around town, friends and family, over both votes, the reasons for both people’s support or opposition were pretty diverse, with a healthy dab of ambivalence or internally conflicted opinions. lots of “one the one hand, on the other hand” muddling.
i agree that there is such a thing as a stable council majority here, although i suspect that were the topic to be something other than development issues, things might shake out a bit differently.
i agree with the mayor on the district elections idea, and hope that when we get into city charters down the road, the idea of district elections is given due consideration. it would make races both easier to pull off in a retail voting, knock on doors sort of way, and would likely make it much cheaper to pay for a fifth of the mailings, signs, etc., than the current at large getup.
to that i would add an elected at-large mayor.
ultimately, city politics shakes out rather differently in the electorate than it does on the council. i think sue is right on #4 that most people tend to vote for candidates that they know socially, and that a significant % if not an outright majority bases their decisions here more than any ideology. any analysis of city politics has to take that into account, especially along the lines of neighborhoods, new residents v. old residents, and civic orgs. for example, lois wolk knew a lot of people from AYSO and her husband bruce, back when she first ran; mike corbett wasn’t known to newcomers in the covell village vote, and so his endorsement of the project didn’t have the impact it might have had a decade or two ago.
to that i would add that one cannot really assume that the votes on target or covell village were all made for the same ideological position, for or against development. from my conversations with people around town, friends and family, over both votes, the reasons for both people’s support or opposition were pretty diverse, with a healthy dab of ambivalence or internally conflicted opinions. lots of “one the one hand, on the other hand” muddling.
i agree that there is such a thing as a stable council majority here, although i suspect that were the topic to be something other than development issues, things might shake out a bit differently.
anon 12:51 –
most of the new developments have lower, not higher density. and i suspect that you’re missing the impact of the student vote, both undergrad and grad students, on both covell village and target.
the party that’s growing in davis isn’t republicans, it’s decline to state.
anon 12:51 –
most of the new developments have lower, not higher density. and i suspect that you’re missing the impact of the student vote, both undergrad and grad students, on both covell village and target.
the party that’s growing in davis isn’t republicans, it’s decline to state.
anon 12:51 –
most of the new developments have lower, not higher density. and i suspect that you’re missing the impact of the student vote, both undergrad and grad students, on both covell village and target.
the party that’s growing in davis isn’t republicans, it’s decline to state.
anon 12:51 –
most of the new developments have lower, not higher density. and i suspect that you’re missing the impact of the student vote, both undergrad and grad students, on both covell village and target.
the party that’s growing in davis isn’t republicans, it’s decline to state.
無名 – wu ming said…
The party that’s growing in Davis isn’t republicans, its decline to state.
9/4/07 1:10 PM
Decline to state and republican are the same thing. In this town, to admit to being republican is like admitting you are evil. To be decline to state means you are interested in open discussion and thoughtfulness. Who in Davis would admit to being the devil?
無名 – wu ming said…
The party that’s growing in Davis isn’t republicans, its decline to state.
9/4/07 1:10 PM
Decline to state and republican are the same thing. In this town, to admit to being republican is like admitting you are evil. To be decline to state means you are interested in open discussion and thoughtfulness. Who in Davis would admit to being the devil?
無名 – wu ming said…
The party that’s growing in Davis isn’t republicans, its decline to state.
9/4/07 1:10 PM
Decline to state and republican are the same thing. In this town, to admit to being republican is like admitting you are evil. To be decline to state means you are interested in open discussion and thoughtfulness. Who in Davis would admit to being the devil?
無名 – wu ming said…
The party that’s growing in Davis isn’t republicans, its decline to state.
9/4/07 1:10 PM
Decline to state and republican are the same thing. In this town, to admit to being republican is like admitting you are evil. To be decline to state means you are interested in open discussion and thoughtfulness. Who in Davis would admit to being the devil?
Great take on the council. I find it interesting that Mayor Ruth has concerns about incivility. During the Target purchase of the election/ campaign she served as a shill heading up the corporate front group Davis Cares. Whoring for a big corporate to buy a local election. Now there is a real unifying move. Hey Ruth – if you are out there when is the next meeting?
Great take on the council. I find it interesting that Mayor Ruth has concerns about incivility. During the Target purchase of the election/ campaign she served as a shill heading up the corporate front group Davis Cares. Whoring for a big corporate to buy a local election. Now there is a real unifying move. Hey Ruth – if you are out there when is the next meeting?
Great take on the council. I find it interesting that Mayor Ruth has concerns about incivility. During the Target purchase of the election/ campaign she served as a shill heading up the corporate front group Davis Cares. Whoring for a big corporate to buy a local election. Now there is a real unifying move. Hey Ruth – if you are out there when is the next meeting?
Great take on the council. I find it interesting that Mayor Ruth has concerns about incivility. During the Target purchase of the election/ campaign she served as a shill heading up the corporate front group Davis Cares. Whoring for a big corporate to buy a local election. Now there is a real unifying move. Hey Ruth – if you are out there when is the next meeting?
if that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in davis in 2004? republican registration runs about 22%. that leaves 3% coming from elsewhere, be they dems, libertarians or decline to staters,
most of those decline to staters are younger democratic-leaning voters, from my experience. the real shift in town politics is within the democratic party, IMO, as the city gets more affluent.
if that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in davis in 2004? republican registration runs about 22%. that leaves 3% coming from elsewhere, be they dems, libertarians or decline to staters,
most of those decline to staters are younger democratic-leaning voters, from my experience. the real shift in town politics is within the democratic party, IMO, as the city gets more affluent.
if that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in davis in 2004? republican registration runs about 22%. that leaves 3% coming from elsewhere, be they dems, libertarians or decline to staters,
most of those decline to staters are younger democratic-leaning voters, from my experience. the real shift in town politics is within the democratic party, IMO, as the city gets more affluent.
if that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in davis in 2004? republican registration runs about 22%. that leaves 3% coming from elsewhere, be they dems, libertarians or decline to staters,
most of those decline to staters are younger democratic-leaning voters, from my experience. the real shift in town politics is within the democratic party, IMO, as the city gets more affluent.
Interesting on how very few people realize that voting yes on Measure K wasn’t a vote FOR Target. Absolutely no where on the ballot did it say “You’re voting (yes or no) for a 137,000 sq ft. Target store to be built in Mace Ranch.” It actually said that the zoning will be changed to allow a 137,000 sq ft store to be built and a second ordinance allowed the rezoning of 9 acres from light industrial to commercial retail.
Now I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble but there always remained the possibility that Target could pull out even after a slim margin vote and sell the land to oh …say Wal-Mart. Yup. That’s right. Davis could see it’s very own Wal-Mart or K-Mart or any other big box store and we will have absolutely no say on who that is. How I’d love to see the sour looks on people’s faces who so proudly carried around balloons and displayed lawn signs thinking “Target CARES about ME!”
Target doesn’t give a crap about you, just your money. You people didn’t VOTE on a Target. I don’t know what’s going on now but I certainly don’t see a Target there or even being started. Kinda makes you go “Hunh.”
Interesting on how very few people realize that voting yes on Measure K wasn’t a vote FOR Target. Absolutely no where on the ballot did it say “You’re voting (yes or no) for a 137,000 sq ft. Target store to be built in Mace Ranch.” It actually said that the zoning will be changed to allow a 137,000 sq ft store to be built and a second ordinance allowed the rezoning of 9 acres from light industrial to commercial retail.
Now I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble but there always remained the possibility that Target could pull out even after a slim margin vote and sell the land to oh …say Wal-Mart. Yup. That’s right. Davis could see it’s very own Wal-Mart or K-Mart or any other big box store and we will have absolutely no say on who that is. How I’d love to see the sour looks on people’s faces who so proudly carried around balloons and displayed lawn signs thinking “Target CARES about ME!”
Target doesn’t give a crap about you, just your money. You people didn’t VOTE on a Target. I don’t know what’s going on now but I certainly don’t see a Target there or even being started. Kinda makes you go “Hunh.”
Interesting on how very few people realize that voting yes on Measure K wasn’t a vote FOR Target. Absolutely no where on the ballot did it say “You’re voting (yes or no) for a 137,000 sq ft. Target store to be built in Mace Ranch.” It actually said that the zoning will be changed to allow a 137,000 sq ft store to be built and a second ordinance allowed the rezoning of 9 acres from light industrial to commercial retail.
Now I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble but there always remained the possibility that Target could pull out even after a slim margin vote and sell the land to oh …say Wal-Mart. Yup. That’s right. Davis could see it’s very own Wal-Mart or K-Mart or any other big box store and we will have absolutely no say on who that is. How I’d love to see the sour looks on people’s faces who so proudly carried around balloons and displayed lawn signs thinking “Target CARES about ME!”
Target doesn’t give a crap about you, just your money. You people didn’t VOTE on a Target. I don’t know what’s going on now but I certainly don’t see a Target there or even being started. Kinda makes you go “Hunh.”
Interesting on how very few people realize that voting yes on Measure K wasn’t a vote FOR Target. Absolutely no where on the ballot did it say “You’re voting (yes or no) for a 137,000 sq ft. Target store to be built in Mace Ranch.” It actually said that the zoning will be changed to allow a 137,000 sq ft store to be built and a second ordinance allowed the rezoning of 9 acres from light industrial to commercial retail.
Now I don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble but there always remained the possibility that Target could pull out even after a slim margin vote and sell the land to oh …say Wal-Mart. Yup. That’s right. Davis could see it’s very own Wal-Mart or K-Mart or any other big box store and we will have absolutely no say on who that is. How I’d love to see the sour looks on people’s faces who so proudly carried around balloons and displayed lawn signs thinking “Target CARES about ME!”
Target doesn’t give a crap about you, just your money. You people didn’t VOTE on a Target. I don’t know what’s going on now but I certainly don’t see a Target there or even being started. Kinda makes you go “Hunh.”
Please delete Don Imus’ comment at 2:36PM. It is very offensive, regardless as to how you feel about the Mayor Pro Tem. That word has no place here.
Please delete Don Imus’ comment at 2:36PM. It is very offensive, regardless as to how you feel about the Mayor Pro Tem. That word has no place here.
Please delete Don Imus’ comment at 2:36PM. It is very offensive, regardless as to how you feel about the Mayor Pro Tem. That word has no place here.
Please delete Don Imus’ comment at 2:36PM. It is very offensive, regardless as to how you feel about the Mayor Pro Tem. That word has no place here.
無名 – wu ming said…
If that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in Davis in 2004?
9/4/07 3:16 PM
So you’re saying that if you voted for bush in 2004, it would have been impossible to vote for a candidate for city council in Davis.
無名 – wu ming said…
If that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in Davis in 2004?
9/4/07 3:16 PM
So you’re saying that if you voted for bush in 2004, it would have been impossible to vote for a candidate for city council in Davis.
無名 – wu ming said…
If that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in Davis in 2004?
9/4/07 3:16 PM
So you’re saying that if you voted for bush in 2004, it would have been impossible to vote for a candidate for city council in Davis.
無名 – wu ming said…
If that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in Davis in 2004?
9/4/07 3:16 PM
So you’re saying that if you voted for bush in 2004, it would have been impossible to vote for a candidate for city council in Davis.
Anonymous said…
無名 – wu ming said…
If that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in Davis in 2004?
9/4/07 3:16 PM
Say it the other way wu.
25% of the voters in Davis Voted for George Bush in the 2004 Presidential election.
Anonymous said…
無名 – wu ming said…
If that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in Davis in 2004?
9/4/07 3:16 PM
Say it the other way wu.
25% of the voters in Davis Voted for George Bush in the 2004 Presidential election.
Anonymous said…
無名 – wu ming said…
If that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in Davis in 2004?
9/4/07 3:16 PM
Say it the other way wu.
25% of the voters in Davis Voted for George Bush in the 2004 Presidential election.
Anonymous said…
無名 – wu ming said…
If that’s the case, then why did bush only get 25% of the vote in Davis in 2004?
9/4/07 3:16 PM
Say it the other way wu.
25% of the voters in Davis Voted for George Bush in the 2004 Presidential election.
Ruth Asmundson, Stephen Souza, and Don Saylor have repeatedly and publicly objected to the use of the term “Council Majority” as though it were an epithet rather than an accurate descriptor.
Descriptor?
In the last council when the pro-developer councilmembers held a 4-1 edge, you would not expect a consistent 4-1 coalition to emerge on a 3-2 council.
It is perjorative to call anyone in Davis “pro-developer” and your use of the term here is meant to be derisive. The fact is that even Mayor Greenwald has some developers she favors — as was seen in the Signature Property case — and there are other developers whose projects are opposed by those you call “pro-developer.”
There are two basic coalitions–the “Council Majority” (Souza, Saylor and Asmundson) who primarily represent and support development interests, and the Progressives (Mayor Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek).
Your characterization of the majority as “primarily representing development interests” is unfair. They try to primarily represent the majority of people in Davis who voted them into office over and over again. They may misunderstand what the people want on some issues, but to suggest they are there to do the bidding of special interests is out of bounds.
So you have 80 percent of the council supporting the measure but only 40 percent of the public voted for it. That is an indicator that the council majority is not exactly aligned with the general public on these kind of issues.
No, it is not ‘these kind of issues.’ It was just that one single issue.
Ruth Asmundson, Stephen Souza, and Don Saylor have repeatedly and publicly objected to the use of the term “Council Majority” as though it were an epithet rather than an accurate descriptor.
Descriptor?
In the last council when the pro-developer councilmembers held a 4-1 edge, you would not expect a consistent 4-1 coalition to emerge on a 3-2 council.
It is perjorative to call anyone in Davis “pro-developer” and your use of the term here is meant to be derisive. The fact is that even Mayor Greenwald has some developers she favors — as was seen in the Signature Property case — and there are other developers whose projects are opposed by those you call “pro-developer.”
There are two basic coalitions–the “Council Majority” (Souza, Saylor and Asmundson) who primarily represent and support development interests, and the Progressives (Mayor Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek).
Your characterization of the majority as “primarily representing development interests” is unfair. They try to primarily represent the majority of people in Davis who voted them into office over and over again. They may misunderstand what the people want on some issues, but to suggest they are there to do the bidding of special interests is out of bounds.
So you have 80 percent of the council supporting the measure but only 40 percent of the public voted for it. That is an indicator that the council majority is not exactly aligned with the general public on these kind of issues.
No, it is not ‘these kind of issues.’ It was just that one single issue.
Ruth Asmundson, Stephen Souza, and Don Saylor have repeatedly and publicly objected to the use of the term “Council Majority” as though it were an epithet rather than an accurate descriptor.
Descriptor?
In the last council when the pro-developer councilmembers held a 4-1 edge, you would not expect a consistent 4-1 coalition to emerge on a 3-2 council.
It is perjorative to call anyone in Davis “pro-developer” and your use of the term here is meant to be derisive. The fact is that even Mayor Greenwald has some developers she favors — as was seen in the Signature Property case — and there are other developers whose projects are opposed by those you call “pro-developer.”
There are two basic coalitions–the “Council Majority” (Souza, Saylor and Asmundson) who primarily represent and support development interests, and the Progressives (Mayor Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek).
Your characterization of the majority as “primarily representing development interests” is unfair. They try to primarily represent the majority of people in Davis who voted them into office over and over again. They may misunderstand what the people want on some issues, but to suggest they are there to do the bidding of special interests is out of bounds.
So you have 80 percent of the council supporting the measure but only 40 percent of the public voted for it. That is an indicator that the council majority is not exactly aligned with the general public on these kind of issues.
No, it is not ‘these kind of issues.’ It was just that one single issue.
Ruth Asmundson, Stephen Souza, and Don Saylor have repeatedly and publicly objected to the use of the term “Council Majority” as though it were an epithet rather than an accurate descriptor.
Descriptor?
In the last council when the pro-developer councilmembers held a 4-1 edge, you would not expect a consistent 4-1 coalition to emerge on a 3-2 council.
It is perjorative to call anyone in Davis “pro-developer” and your use of the term here is meant to be derisive. The fact is that even Mayor Greenwald has some developers she favors — as was seen in the Signature Property case — and there are other developers whose projects are opposed by those you call “pro-developer.”
There are two basic coalitions–the “Council Majority” (Souza, Saylor and Asmundson) who primarily represent and support development interests, and the Progressives (Mayor Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek).
Your characterization of the majority as “primarily representing development interests” is unfair. They try to primarily represent the majority of people in Davis who voted them into office over and over again. They may misunderstand what the people want on some issues, but to suggest they are there to do the bidding of special interests is out of bounds.
So you have 80 percent of the council supporting the measure but only 40 percent of the public voted for it. That is an indicator that the council majority is not exactly aligned with the general public on these kind of issues.
No, it is not ‘these kind of issues.’ It was just that one single issue.
i assume i’m talking to the same anynomous poster here (please guys, couldja just pick a pseudonym?).
yes, it is true that davis is not completely devoid of republicans. it’s in the top 25 lowest republican % cities statewide, however. as a % of the city electorate, it’s growing, but not by all that much. decline to staters are growing much faster, and lean overwhelmingly to the left.
at any point, you’re moving the goalposts; you were just claiming upthread that decline to staters are republicans in disguise. if they are, then why was bush’s total only 3% higher than the % of registered republicans in town? by my count, that leaves something like 83% of the decline to staters still voting for kerry.
i assume i’m talking to the same anynomous poster here (please guys, couldja just pick a pseudonym?).
yes, it is true that davis is not completely devoid of republicans. it’s in the top 25 lowest republican % cities statewide, however. as a % of the city electorate, it’s growing, but not by all that much. decline to staters are growing much faster, and lean overwhelmingly to the left.
at any point, you’re moving the goalposts; you were just claiming upthread that decline to staters are republicans in disguise. if they are, then why was bush’s total only 3% higher than the % of registered republicans in town? by my count, that leaves something like 83% of the decline to staters still voting for kerry.
i assume i’m talking to the same anynomous poster here (please guys, couldja just pick a pseudonym?).
yes, it is true that davis is not completely devoid of republicans. it’s in the top 25 lowest republican % cities statewide, however. as a % of the city electorate, it’s growing, but not by all that much. decline to staters are growing much faster, and lean overwhelmingly to the left.
at any point, you’re moving the goalposts; you were just claiming upthread that decline to staters are republicans in disguise. if they are, then why was bush’s total only 3% higher than the % of registered republicans in town? by my count, that leaves something like 83% of the decline to staters still voting for kerry.
i assume i’m talking to the same anynomous poster here (please guys, couldja just pick a pseudonym?).
yes, it is true that davis is not completely devoid of republicans. it’s in the top 25 lowest republican % cities statewide, however. as a % of the city electorate, it’s growing, but not by all that much. decline to staters are growing much faster, and lean overwhelmingly to the left.
at any point, you’re moving the goalposts; you were just claiming upthread that decline to staters are republicans in disguise. if they are, then why was bush’s total only 3% higher than the % of registered republicans in town? by my count, that leaves something like 83% of the decline to staters still voting for kerry.
“But Rob Roy was also in the race, and he was most closely aligned with the progressives in this race particularly on the police issue.”
It’s very likely that the second vote with any Rob Roy went to either Stan or Lamar, so the implication that Rob “stole” votes away from either one doesn’t hold water. I’d wager that most of the people who voted for Rob Roy wouldn’t have voted in the city council election at all had he not run. Rob Roy helped Stan and Lamar by “rocking the vote.”
“But Rob Roy was also in the race, and he was most closely aligned with the progressives in this race particularly on the police issue.”
It’s very likely that the second vote with any Rob Roy went to either Stan or Lamar, so the implication that Rob “stole” votes away from either one doesn’t hold water. I’d wager that most of the people who voted for Rob Roy wouldn’t have voted in the city council election at all had he not run. Rob Roy helped Stan and Lamar by “rocking the vote.”
“But Rob Roy was also in the race, and he was most closely aligned with the progressives in this race particularly on the police issue.”
It’s very likely that the second vote with any Rob Roy went to either Stan or Lamar, so the implication that Rob “stole” votes away from either one doesn’t hold water. I’d wager that most of the people who voted for Rob Roy wouldn’t have voted in the city council election at all had he not run. Rob Roy helped Stan and Lamar by “rocking the vote.”
“But Rob Roy was also in the race, and he was most closely aligned with the progressives in this race particularly on the police issue.”
It’s very likely that the second vote with any Rob Roy went to either Stan or Lamar, so the implication that Rob “stole” votes away from either one doesn’t hold water. I’d wager that most of the people who voted for Rob Roy wouldn’t have voted in the city council election at all had he not run. Rob Roy helped Stan and Lamar by “rocking the vote.”
FWIW, Davis used to be a solidly Republican town up until the late-1960s. Back then, it was a pro-civil rights, somewhat liberal Republicanism, dominated by farmers and ag interests. In the 1964 primary, Davis Republicans were overwhelmingly for Governor Rockefeller over Senator Goldwater. When Goldwater won the nomination, Davis Republicans crossed the aisle and voted for Johnson in the general election.
From 1966 on, with more and more liberal arts professors moving into town, and agriculture starting to take a back seat at UCD, Democrats began to dominate local elections. And that growth of the Democratic Party kept up for decades, getting to the point by the late 1980s that no Republican could get elected in our town. (I think Jerry Adler was the last, unless you count Stan Forbes, who apparently never voted for a Republican in his adult life.)
FWIW, Davis used to be a solidly Republican town up until the late-1960s. Back then, it was a pro-civil rights, somewhat liberal Republicanism, dominated by farmers and ag interests. In the 1964 primary, Davis Republicans were overwhelmingly for Governor Rockefeller over Senator Goldwater. When Goldwater won the nomination, Davis Republicans crossed the aisle and voted for Johnson in the general election.
From 1966 on, with more and more liberal arts professors moving into town, and agriculture starting to take a back seat at UCD, Democrats began to dominate local elections. And that growth of the Democratic Party kept up for decades, getting to the point by the late 1980s that no Republican could get elected in our town. (I think Jerry Adler was the last, unless you count Stan Forbes, who apparently never voted for a Republican in his adult life.)
FWIW, Davis used to be a solidly Republican town up until the late-1960s. Back then, it was a pro-civil rights, somewhat liberal Republicanism, dominated by farmers and ag interests. In the 1964 primary, Davis Republicans were overwhelmingly for Governor Rockefeller over Senator Goldwater. When Goldwater won the nomination, Davis Republicans crossed the aisle and voted for Johnson in the general election.
From 1966 on, with more and more liberal arts professors moving into town, and agriculture starting to take a back seat at UCD, Democrats began to dominate local elections. And that growth of the Democratic Party kept up for decades, getting to the point by the late 1980s that no Republican could get elected in our town. (I think Jerry Adler was the last, unless you count Stan Forbes, who apparently never voted for a Republican in his adult life.)
FWIW, Davis used to be a solidly Republican town up until the late-1960s. Back then, it was a pro-civil rights, somewhat liberal Republicanism, dominated by farmers and ag interests. In the 1964 primary, Davis Republicans were overwhelmingly for Governor Rockefeller over Senator Goldwater. When Goldwater won the nomination, Davis Republicans crossed the aisle and voted for Johnson in the general election.
From 1966 on, with more and more liberal arts professors moving into town, and agriculture starting to take a back seat at UCD, Democrats began to dominate local elections. And that growth of the Democratic Party kept up for decades, getting to the point by the late 1980s that no Republican could get elected in our town. (I think Jerry Adler was the last, unless you count Stan Forbes, who apparently never voted for a Republican in his adult life.)
John Munn, who was on the school board, is a Republican, but I doubt many knew that when he ran for that job. Nonetheless, it is the case that he was the last GOPer elected in Davis, not Adler.
John Munn, who was on the school board, is a Republican, but I doubt many knew that when he ran for that job. Nonetheless, it is the case that he was the last GOPer elected in Davis, not Adler.
John Munn, who was on the school board, is a Republican, but I doubt many knew that when he ran for that job. Nonetheless, it is the case that he was the last GOPer elected in Davis, not Adler.
John Munn, who was on the school board, is a Republican, but I doubt many knew that when he ran for that job. Nonetheless, it is the case that he was the last GOPer elected in Davis, not Adler.
that’s interesting, rich, because the last time yolo county voted for a republican president was eisenhower, IIRC (and even then only once, i think). dave leip’s election atlas used to show earlier data, but then it went behind a subscription wall and i couldn’t justify paying for something i used occasionally just out of curiosity.
from 1960-2004, yolo has been one of the three most reliably democratic counties (tied with alameda and san francisco counties) in the state, FWIW. i wonder if davis was balanced out by the farmers in the county back then?
that’s interesting, rich, because the last time yolo county voted for a republican president was eisenhower, IIRC (and even then only once, i think). dave leip’s election atlas used to show earlier data, but then it went behind a subscription wall and i couldn’t justify paying for something i used occasionally just out of curiosity.
from 1960-2004, yolo has been one of the three most reliably democratic counties (tied with alameda and san francisco counties) in the state, FWIW. i wonder if davis was balanced out by the farmers in the county back then?
that’s interesting, rich, because the last time yolo county voted for a republican president was eisenhower, IIRC (and even then only once, i think). dave leip’s election atlas used to show earlier data, but then it went behind a subscription wall and i couldn’t justify paying for something i used occasionally just out of curiosity.
from 1960-2004, yolo has been one of the three most reliably democratic counties (tied with alameda and san francisco counties) in the state, FWIW. i wonder if davis was balanced out by the farmers in the county back then?
that’s interesting, rich, because the last time yolo county voted for a republican president was eisenhower, IIRC (and even then only once, i think). dave leip’s election atlas used to show earlier data, but then it went behind a subscription wall and i couldn’t justify paying for something i used occasionally just out of curiosity.
from 1960-2004, yolo has been one of the three most reliably democratic counties (tied with alameda and san francisco counties) in the state, FWIW. i wonder if davis was balanced out by the farmers in the county back then?
Vigfus Asmundson served as mayor from 1970 to 1972. Vigfus was the Republican husband of Ruth Asmundson. She is registered as a Democrat, but if she could get away with it and still be elected she would register as a Republican. Her record is that of a Republican.
Vigfus Asmundson served as mayor from 1970 to 1972. Vigfus was the Republican husband of Ruth Asmundson. She is registered as a Democrat, but if she could get away with it and still be elected she would register as a Republican. Her record is that of a Republican.
Vigfus Asmundson served as mayor from 1970 to 1972. Vigfus was the Republican husband of Ruth Asmundson. She is registered as a Democrat, but if she could get away with it and still be elected she would register as a Republican. Her record is that of a Republican.
Vigfus Asmundson served as mayor from 1970 to 1972. Vigfus was the Republican husband of Ruth Asmundson. She is registered as a Democrat, but if she could get away with it and still be elected she would register as a Republican. Her record is that of a Republican.
Burt said…
無名 – wu ming said…
9/4/07 7:34 PM
You are still saying that the national and local elections are interlocked. That is a false statement. Is it possible that I am a decline to state and that I voted for Kerry in the general election and asmundson in the local election. If you total the 25% of declared republicans and 25% of the decline to state voters, does that equal the current council majority? Maybe in reality Davis is a republican town in all but name.
Burt said…
無名 – wu ming said…
9/4/07 7:34 PM
You are still saying that the national and local elections are interlocked. That is a false statement. Is it possible that I am a decline to state and that I voted for Kerry in the general election and asmundson in the local election. If you total the 25% of declared republicans and 25% of the decline to state voters, does that equal the current council majority? Maybe in reality Davis is a republican town in all but name.
Burt said…
無名 – wu ming said…
9/4/07 7:34 PM
You are still saying that the national and local elections are interlocked. That is a false statement. Is it possible that I am a decline to state and that I voted for Kerry in the general election and asmundson in the local election. If you total the 25% of declared republicans and 25% of the decline to state voters, does that equal the current council majority? Maybe in reality Davis is a republican town in all but name.
Burt said…
無名 – wu ming said…
9/4/07 7:34 PM
You are still saying that the national and local elections are interlocked. That is a false statement. Is it possible that I am a decline to state and that I voted for Kerry in the general election and asmundson in the local election. If you total the 25% of declared republicans and 25% of the decline to state voters, does that equal the current council majority? Maybe in reality Davis is a republican town in all but name.
i wonder if davis was balanced out by the farmers in the county back then?
Wu, I don’t know.
I should have added that, beyond farmers and farm interests which were mostly Republican in Davis before the mid-1960s, small business in Davis was also quite important in local politics and it was also Republican-leaning. As such, the clubs and organizations like Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Kiwanis, Elks, Odd Fellows, Moose, Soroptimitsts, etc aided in the cause of getting local Republicans elected. But by the early 1970s — 10-15 years after UC Davis had become a full fledged campus — the nature of the citizenry had changed, and business conservatives had far less appeal than liberals like Black, Skinner, Holdstock and Poulos. Yet during the 1970s, Davis elected and re-elected Jim Stevens, who was every bit as conservative as the Chamber candidates of earlier times.
i wonder if davis was balanced out by the farmers in the county back then?
Wu, I don’t know.
I should have added that, beyond farmers and farm interests which were mostly Republican in Davis before the mid-1960s, small business in Davis was also quite important in local politics and it was also Republican-leaning. As such, the clubs and organizations like Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Kiwanis, Elks, Odd Fellows, Moose, Soroptimitsts, etc aided in the cause of getting local Republicans elected. But by the early 1970s — 10-15 years after UC Davis had become a full fledged campus — the nature of the citizenry had changed, and business conservatives had far less appeal than liberals like Black, Skinner, Holdstock and Poulos. Yet during the 1970s, Davis elected and re-elected Jim Stevens, who was every bit as conservative as the Chamber candidates of earlier times.
i wonder if davis was balanced out by the farmers in the county back then?
Wu, I don’t know.
I should have added that, beyond farmers and farm interests which were mostly Republican in Davis before the mid-1960s, small business in Davis was also quite important in local politics and it was also Republican-leaning. As such, the clubs and organizations like Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Kiwanis, Elks, Odd Fellows, Moose, Soroptimitsts, etc aided in the cause of getting local Republicans elected. But by the early 1970s — 10-15 years after UC Davis had become a full fledged campus — the nature of the citizenry had changed, and business conservatives had far less appeal than liberals like Black, Skinner, Holdstock and Poulos. Yet during the 1970s, Davis elected and re-elected Jim Stevens, who was every bit as conservative as the Chamber candidates of earlier times.
i wonder if davis was balanced out by the farmers in the county back then?
Wu, I don’t know.
I should have added that, beyond farmers and farm interests which were mostly Republican in Davis before the mid-1960s, small business in Davis was also quite important in local politics and it was also Republican-leaning. As such, the clubs and organizations like Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Kiwanis, Elks, Odd Fellows, Moose, Soroptimitsts, etc aided in the cause of getting local Republicans elected. But by the early 1970s — 10-15 years after UC Davis had become a full fledged campus — the nature of the citizenry had changed, and business conservatives had far less appeal than liberals like Black, Skinner, Holdstock and Poulos. Yet during the 1970s, Davis elected and re-elected Jim Stevens, who was every bit as conservative as the Chamber candidates of earlier times.
Ruth Asmundson is a liberal Democrat by any intelligent measure. Asmundson is:
Pro choice
Pro gun control
Pro tax
Pro gay rights
Anti war
Endorses all Democrats
Votes Democratic
Reared Democratic children
Nothing about her is Republican in any conventional standard. There would be no more a place for her in the Republican Party than there would be for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I can’t think of one issue in which she disagrees with either of them.
Calling her Republican because she married a Republican is sexist b.s. (note: John Kerry married a Republican.) And by the way, Stan Forbes was a Republican for many years, until he decided it was a liability. But he remained anti-choice and took other Republican positions yet you give him a pass just because he was anti-growth, which is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue.
Ruth Asmundson is a liberal Democrat by any intelligent measure. Asmundson is:
Pro choice
Pro gun control
Pro tax
Pro gay rights
Anti war
Endorses all Democrats
Votes Democratic
Reared Democratic children
Nothing about her is Republican in any conventional standard. There would be no more a place for her in the Republican Party than there would be for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I can’t think of one issue in which she disagrees with either of them.
Calling her Republican because she married a Republican is sexist b.s. (note: John Kerry married a Republican.) And by the way, Stan Forbes was a Republican for many years, until he decided it was a liability. But he remained anti-choice and took other Republican positions yet you give him a pass just because he was anti-growth, which is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue.
Ruth Asmundson is a liberal Democrat by any intelligent measure. Asmundson is:
Pro choice
Pro gun control
Pro tax
Pro gay rights
Anti war
Endorses all Democrats
Votes Democratic
Reared Democratic children
Nothing about her is Republican in any conventional standard. There would be no more a place for her in the Republican Party than there would be for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I can’t think of one issue in which she disagrees with either of them.
Calling her Republican because she married a Republican is sexist b.s. (note: John Kerry married a Republican.) And by the way, Stan Forbes was a Republican for many years, until he decided it was a liability. But he remained anti-choice and took other Republican positions yet you give him a pass just because he was anti-growth, which is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue.
Ruth Asmundson is a liberal Democrat by any intelligent measure. Asmundson is:
Pro choice
Pro gun control
Pro tax
Pro gay rights
Anti war
Endorses all Democrats
Votes Democratic
Reared Democratic children
Nothing about her is Republican in any conventional standard. There would be no more a place for her in the Republican Party than there would be for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I can’t think of one issue in which she disagrees with either of them.
Calling her Republican because she married a Republican is sexist b.s. (note: John Kerry married a Republican.) And by the way, Stan Forbes was a Republican for many years, until he decided it was a liability. But he remained anti-choice and took other Republican positions yet you give him a pass just because he was anti-growth, which is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue.
“Decline to state and republican are the same thing. In this town, to admit to being republican is like admitting you are evil. To be decline to state means you are interested in open discussion and thoughtfulness. Who in Davis would admit to being the devil?“
Anonymous – Not only is your comment ridiculously inaccurate, it is insulting on several levels.
I registered as DTS on the day I turned 18 because I found “business as usual,” as practiced by both the donkeys and elephants (aka “Republicrats”) to be disgusting and counterproductive.
Nothing has occurred in the decades since to change my opinion.
DTS = Republican? Bulls**t.
But thanks for sharing.
DTS
“Decline to state and republican are the same thing. In this town, to admit to being republican is like admitting you are evil. To be decline to state means you are interested in open discussion and thoughtfulness. Who in Davis would admit to being the devil?“
Anonymous – Not only is your comment ridiculously inaccurate, it is insulting on several levels.
I registered as DTS on the day I turned 18 because I found “business as usual,” as practiced by both the donkeys and elephants (aka “Republicrats”) to be disgusting and counterproductive.
Nothing has occurred in the decades since to change my opinion.
DTS = Republican? Bulls**t.
But thanks for sharing.
DTS
“Decline to state and republican are the same thing. In this town, to admit to being republican is like admitting you are evil. To be decline to state means you are interested in open discussion and thoughtfulness. Who in Davis would admit to being the devil?“
Anonymous – Not only is your comment ridiculously inaccurate, it is insulting on several levels.
I registered as DTS on the day I turned 18 because I found “business as usual,” as practiced by both the donkeys and elephants (aka “Republicrats”) to be disgusting and counterproductive.
Nothing has occurred in the decades since to change my opinion.
DTS = Republican? Bulls**t.
But thanks for sharing.
DTS
“Decline to state and republican are the same thing. In this town, to admit to being republican is like admitting you are evil. To be decline to state means you are interested in open discussion and thoughtfulness. Who in Davis would admit to being the devil?“
Anonymous – Not only is your comment ridiculously inaccurate, it is insulting on several levels.
I registered as DTS on the day I turned 18 because I found “business as usual,” as practiced by both the donkeys and elephants (aka “Republicrats”) to be disgusting and counterproductive.
Nothing has occurred in the decades since to change my opinion.
DTS = Republican? Bulls**t.
But thanks for sharing.
DTS
“Asmundson is:
…Votes Democratic…“
Anonymous 3:37 –
You don’t know how Ruth votes. You only know how she says she votes.
Until the last several years, I would have said that the only significant thing that divides progressives and moderates (or whatever tags you wish to apply) is land use planning. Sadly, events of the last few years (Buzayan case, dismantling of the HRC, etc.) have shown that
there is at least one other significant area.
Ruth a good Democrat? I don’t think so. Ruth’s City Council votes (which we do know) and comments on these issues suggest that she talks the talk (of a social liberal) in generalities, but doesn’t walk the walk when the chips are down.
Ruth made no attempt to be even-handed when she presided over the Council as mayor. Even in her inauguration speech, she likened herself to being a “mother” for all of Davis. (Note to all elected representatives: We elect you to represent us, not to lecture us to “shut up and eat your vegetables.”) Starting next year, we’ll have two more years of that.
I never thought I’d miss Susie Boyd.
“Asmundson is:
…Votes Democratic…“
Anonymous 3:37 –
You don’t know how Ruth votes. You only know how she says she votes.
Until the last several years, I would have said that the only significant thing that divides progressives and moderates (or whatever tags you wish to apply) is land use planning. Sadly, events of the last few years (Buzayan case, dismantling of the HRC, etc.) have shown that
there is at least one other significant area.
Ruth a good Democrat? I don’t think so. Ruth’s City Council votes (which we do know) and comments on these issues suggest that she talks the talk (of a social liberal) in generalities, but doesn’t walk the walk when the chips are down.
Ruth made no attempt to be even-handed when she presided over the Council as mayor. Even in her inauguration speech, she likened herself to being a “mother” for all of Davis. (Note to all elected representatives: We elect you to represent us, not to lecture us to “shut up and eat your vegetables.”) Starting next year, we’ll have two more years of that.
I never thought I’d miss Susie Boyd.
“Asmundson is:
…Votes Democratic…“
Anonymous 3:37 –
You don’t know how Ruth votes. You only know how she says she votes.
Until the last several years, I would have said that the only significant thing that divides progressives and moderates (or whatever tags you wish to apply) is land use planning. Sadly, events of the last few years (Buzayan case, dismantling of the HRC, etc.) have shown that
there is at least one other significant area.
Ruth a good Democrat? I don’t think so. Ruth’s City Council votes (which we do know) and comments on these issues suggest that she talks the talk (of a social liberal) in generalities, but doesn’t walk the walk when the chips are down.
Ruth made no attempt to be even-handed when she presided over the Council as mayor. Even in her inauguration speech, she likened herself to being a “mother” for all of Davis. (Note to all elected representatives: We elect you to represent us, not to lecture us to “shut up and eat your vegetables.”) Starting next year, we’ll have two more years of that.
I never thought I’d miss Susie Boyd.
“Asmundson is:
…Votes Democratic…“
Anonymous 3:37 –
You don’t know how Ruth votes. You only know how she says she votes.
Until the last several years, I would have said that the only significant thing that divides progressives and moderates (or whatever tags you wish to apply) is land use planning. Sadly, events of the last few years (Buzayan case, dismantling of the HRC, etc.) have shown that
there is at least one other significant area.
Ruth a good Democrat? I don’t think so. Ruth’s City Council votes (which we do know) and comments on these issues suggest that she talks the talk (of a social liberal) in generalities, but doesn’t walk the walk when the chips are down.
Ruth made no attempt to be even-handed when she presided over the Council as mayor. Even in her inauguration speech, she likened herself to being a “mother” for all of Davis. (Note to all elected representatives: We elect you to represent us, not to lecture us to “shut up and eat your vegetables.”) Starting next year, we’ll have two more years of that.
I never thought I’d miss Susie Boyd.
“But by the early 1970s — 10-15 years after UC Davis had become a full fledged campus — the nature of the citizenry had changed, and business conservatives had far less appeal than liberals like Black, Skinner, Holdstock and Poulos.”
The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972, and the restriction on when students could vote at their college-town residence was overturned. So suddenly Davis had a whole bunch of politically active student voters. Though I don’t think those four ran as a bloc, they were perceived as such.
“But by the early 1970s — 10-15 years after UC Davis had become a full fledged campus — the nature of the citizenry had changed, and business conservatives had far less appeal than liberals like Black, Skinner, Holdstock and Poulos.”
The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972, and the restriction on when students could vote at their college-town residence was overturned. So suddenly Davis had a whole bunch of politically active student voters. Though I don’t think those four ran as a bloc, they were perceived as such.
“But by the early 1970s — 10-15 years after UC Davis had become a full fledged campus — the nature of the citizenry had changed, and business conservatives had far less appeal than liberals like Black, Skinner, Holdstock and Poulos.”
The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972, and the restriction on when students could vote at their college-town residence was overturned. So suddenly Davis had a whole bunch of politically active student voters. Though I don’t think those four ran as a bloc, they were perceived as such.
“But by the early 1970s — 10-15 years after UC Davis had become a full fledged campus — the nature of the citizenry had changed, and business conservatives had far less appeal than liberals like Black, Skinner, Holdstock and Poulos.”
The voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972, and the restriction on when students could vote at their college-town residence was overturned. So suddenly Davis had a whole bunch of politically active student voters. Though I don’t think those four ran as a bloc, they were perceived as such.
As one of the few registered Republicans in Davis, I find all of the discussions on Davis Republicans somewhat amusing. First, I swear I’m not the devil (I’m not really religious, so technically, I don’t think I can be something that I don’t believe in). Second, I voted for Sue in the last election (conservation is conservative). Third, Davis politics have nothing to do with State/National party affiliations. Fourth, people in the community do need to get a better idea of what the candidates stand for, rather than vote on them based on whether they know them or some genric platform. Who in Davis would ever admit to being pro-growth?
Finally, I’d like to make a small plea on behalf of my fellow Republicans in Davis – please don’t stereotype us! I am pro-choice, pro-environment and support gay rights, but I’m also pro-local control, pro-individual choice, against raising taxes, against government doing everything for society and taking care of everybody…I’m definitely a Rudy Republican. I also love Davis – I just wish people wouldn’t be so quick to criticize Republicans without hearing out the person – we’re not all Sam Brownbacks and we definitely don’t believe in industrializing every square inch of town.
As one of the few registered Republicans in Davis, I find all of the discussions on Davis Republicans somewhat amusing. First, I swear I’m not the devil (I’m not really religious, so technically, I don’t think I can be something that I don’t believe in). Second, I voted for Sue in the last election (conservation is conservative). Third, Davis politics have nothing to do with State/National party affiliations. Fourth, people in the community do need to get a better idea of what the candidates stand for, rather than vote on them based on whether they know them or some genric platform. Who in Davis would ever admit to being pro-growth?
Finally, I’d like to make a small plea on behalf of my fellow Republicans in Davis – please don’t stereotype us! I am pro-choice, pro-environment and support gay rights, but I’m also pro-local control, pro-individual choice, against raising taxes, against government doing everything for society and taking care of everybody…I’m definitely a Rudy Republican. I also love Davis – I just wish people wouldn’t be so quick to criticize Republicans without hearing out the person – we’re not all Sam Brownbacks and we definitely don’t believe in industrializing every square inch of town.
As one of the few registered Republicans in Davis, I find all of the discussions on Davis Republicans somewhat amusing. First, I swear I’m not the devil (I’m not really religious, so technically, I don’t think I can be something that I don’t believe in). Second, I voted for Sue in the last election (conservation is conservative). Third, Davis politics have nothing to do with State/National party affiliations. Fourth, people in the community do need to get a better idea of what the candidates stand for, rather than vote on them based on whether they know them or some genric platform. Who in Davis would ever admit to being pro-growth?
Finally, I’d like to make a small plea on behalf of my fellow Republicans in Davis – please don’t stereotype us! I am pro-choice, pro-environment and support gay rights, but I’m also pro-local control, pro-individual choice, against raising taxes, against government doing everything for society and taking care of everybody…I’m definitely a Rudy Republican. I also love Davis – I just wish people wouldn’t be so quick to criticize Republicans without hearing out the person – we’re not all Sam Brownbacks and we definitely don’t believe in industrializing every square inch of town.
As one of the few registered Republicans in Davis, I find all of the discussions on Davis Republicans somewhat amusing. First, I swear I’m not the devil (I’m not really religious, so technically, I don’t think I can be something that I don’t believe in). Second, I voted for Sue in the last election (conservation is conservative). Third, Davis politics have nothing to do with State/National party affiliations. Fourth, people in the community do need to get a better idea of what the candidates stand for, rather than vote on them based on whether they know them or some genric platform. Who in Davis would ever admit to being pro-growth?
Finally, I’d like to make a small plea on behalf of my fellow Republicans in Davis – please don’t stereotype us! I am pro-choice, pro-environment and support gay rights, but I’m also pro-local control, pro-individual choice, against raising taxes, against government doing everything for society and taking care of everybody…I’m definitely a Rudy Republican. I also love Davis – I just wish people wouldn’t be so quick to criticize Republicans without hearing out the person – we’re not all Sam Brownbacks and we definitely don’t believe in industrializing every square inch of town.