Back in June of last year (2014), when it became clear that Dan Wolk was not going to be a finalist for the State Assembly Seat, there was a belief that Dan Wolk and fellow Davis resident, Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza, had split the vote. The point, at least on its surface, seems reasonable in that if Mr. Krovoza were not in the race, at least some of his Yolo County votes would have gone to Dan Wolk and that might have been enough to get him to second place.
I was surprised to receive several angry texts and phone calls from people who questioned Joe Krovoza’s even being in the race. The idea was that since he was non-competitive, he should have known a year before that he would be non-competitive and should have deferred to Dan Wolk, who would be a better representative for the district and community than Bill Dodd.
Flash forward to the present, and we are starting to see the same argument crop up. Don Saylor is running against Dan Wolk. Don Saylor has no chance to win the Assembly seat. Don Saylor could end up splitting the vote with Dan Wolk. Don Saylor is just a spoiler.
Implicit in that comment is the presumption of entitlement that I don’t think is fair to either candidate. If, as one person put it, Dan Wolk has earned the right to run for Assembly based on the work done in the last year or four years on the council, hasn’t Don Saylor equally earned the right to run for Assembly based on the work he has done in the community for the last 20 years?
For their parts, when the Vanguard directly asked about splitting the vote, Don Saylor and Dan Wolk dodged the question.
Don Saylor told the Vanguard, “I am glad we live in a country where anybody is free to step forward to be considered by their peers for service. I admire any person who steps forward to be considered for elective office. I am not a fortuneteller and I do not speculate on hypotheticals, especially considering that this election is still over 10 months away. I am confident that my public service record and experience will appeal to voters across the district. I look forward to a positive campaign that highlights the issues that matter to voters.”
Dan Wolk simply responded, “I am excited to have the unexpected opportunity to run again for Assembly in 2016. I have secured key endorsements in Yolo County and across the district to strengthen my position in the race. In 2014, Don Saylor gave me a glowing endorsement. I hope he will do so again in 2016.”
If I were advising Mr. Wolk, I would have suggested he leave the last part out of the response as it seemed a bit glib, but both candidates stopped short of suggesting that vote-splitting possibilities rendered one candidate an illegitimate spoiler.
But there is an analysis that is missing here – more evident in 2014 than 2016. I read a comment in Bob Dunning’s column where Mr. Dunning quotes “Rich,” who said, “In that Don has a much longer track record in local elected office, it would seem to me Saylor ought to be seen as first in line for the Assembly among Davis Democrats.”
The missing piece of analysis is the fact that Davis politics remains splintered into factions. For all of the talk about a unified Davis getting behind Dan Wolk, that certainly did not happen in 2008. When Christopher Cabaldon announced his run for the Assembly, he did so at the Davis Train Station, flanked by then-Davis City Councilmembers Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson, with Supervisor Helen Thomson there as well.
Lois Wolk, on her way to becoming Senator Lois Wolk, backed Mayor Cabaldon over fellow Davisite Mariko Yamada. Ms. Yamada would win the seat with only the support from electeds in Davis being Lamar Heystek, Jim Provenza and Sheila Allen. Steven Souza perfectly illustrated the split nature of Davis politics by supporting both candidates.
Getting a Davis candidate elected in 2008 clearly was not the priority of Lois Wolk or many of her supporters.
Davis politics was divided in 2008, it was divided in 2014 and it remains divided in 2016.
The weird thing about the Dan Wolk-Don Saylor match up isn’t that Davis is likely to be divided once again – it is that Don Saylor and Dan Wolk have basically, throughout their careers, been on the same side.
It will be very interesting to see how this race unfolds because, on the issues, I’m not sure there is any difference – certainly not enough to hang your hat on. In fact, the strengths of the two candidates on the issues are well aligned. Dan Wolk wants to focus on kids, Don Saylor served on the school board for eight years. Dan Wolk wants to focus on social services, Don Saylor has worked in the county since 2011.
Don Saylor is going to want this to turn on his experience while Dan Wolk is going to play on his youth and being the voice of the future. In the end, this race may well come down to a factor no one will expressly articulate. Dan Wolk’s greatest strength remains the name recognition bestowed by the fact that his mother has served for 14 years in the State Legislature. His biggest liability is that he has only served four years on his own behalf.
Don Saylor will attack this vulnerability not head on, but by illustrating his breadth of experience and his knowledge of public policy. Dan Wolk will mitigate this by focusing on his accomplishments during his tenure of office.
As Dan Wolk put it, “I am very proud of the many things we’ve accomplished as a community in my time on the City Council. Key accomplishments include bringing fiscal stability to the city, leading the regional surface water project through a thicket of legal, political and financial challenges, furthering economic development and creating jobs, promoting renewable energy and improving public health through the Healthy Families Initiative.”
I might have hammered his role in brokering peace on the surface water project a bit more heavily – and I’m sure they will do it more as the campaign wears on.
On the other hand, I was surprised that Don Saylor essentially punted on the issue – that should have been his strength – by stating, “There are numerous initiatives and projects that I have had the privilege and pleasure to work on – too many to mention here. Most of these projects required the help, assistance and teamwork of others – staff, community members, and elected officials from across this region. I am proud of the work that we have done together to make this community, county and region a better place.”
Instead, he focused on a person project – his “Soups On” events. He stated, “These events have helped raise money for many groups that are in need, including local foster care, food banks, suicide prevention programs, outdoor youth education programs, and groups that are helping those dealing with mental illness. Too often these programs are left behind in budget battles and I will continue my work to champion these worthy causes.”
It is a decent answer and he deserves credit here, but he failed to exploit his main strength in this race by not going into detail on some of the projects he worked on.
In the end, I suspect most people believe that Dan Wolk has a rather sizable edge and that may be right. But I have learned not to underestimate the tenacity of Don Saylor. He may not have the campaign organization to match the Wolks, but it won’t be for lack of effort.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“These events have helped raise money for many groups that are in need, including local foster care, food banks, suicide prevention programs, outdoor youth education programs, and groups that are helping those dealing with mental illness. Too often these programs are left behind in budget battles and I will continue my work to champion these worthy causes.”
How ironic that in a community as wealthy as ours , that these groups are ” in need”. We are told by some that one benefit to bringing in more private businesses is an increase in philanthropy. And yet both Davis and Woodland have grown greatly in both population and businesses, since my first arrival in 1979, and yet these very worthy and necessary groups continue to be “in need”. This to me, is a very telling statement of how we do not step up as a society, whether through governmental programs nor private philanthropy to meet our societal needs despite diligent efforts for decades by Mr. Saylor, and for years by Mr. Wolk. Both men hold the view that there is a place for both governmental and private action in addressing our social needs. Both have demonstrated this through their actions in their official capacity as well as through their words.
I feel that both candidates are worthy of consideration for the office they are seeking. We see this argument against “the spoiler” at all levels of government. I certainly was against Ralph Nader’s last run. However, I believe that we must maintain a system in which anyone who has the determination and courage to run for public office in order to advance their ideas should not be silenced by their own ideologic or political partners. To allow this premature stifling of a candidate, is to me a far greater risk to an open society, than is the risk of splitting the vote in a single election.
“This to me, is a very telling statement of how we do not step up as a society, whether through governmental programs nor private philanthropy to meet our societal needs despite diligent efforts for decades by Mr. Saylor, and for years by Mr. Wolk.”
IMO to assume that there is any way a society can meet all societal needs though gov’t and philanthropy is naive at best. Societal need will always be a bottomless pit, especially for those with mental illness for instance.
“Societal need will always be a bottomless pit, especially for those with mental illness for instance.”
I think that this is an unnecessarily bleak view of human capabilities. Many would have said that it would be an impossibility for men to ever leave our home planet. Obviously this was not true. I do not think that we should be limiting ourselves by artificial constructs of what is and what is not possible given how many “impossibilities” that we have already overcome.
Just a bit???
yeah, not sure how that one got past the campaign advisers.
In a perfect world, where we are really seeking the promotion of what is best for our community, perhaps they should endorse each other.
Tia,
In a perfect world, if politicians wanted to do what is best for our community, perhaps they should tell us how they really feel about the other.
Or, in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be politicians.
In a perfect world, politicians would stick to telling the people what they stand for, what they will do for the citizens, and skip talking about other politicians.
Anon,
“In a perfect world, politicians would stick to telling the people what they stand for, what they will do for the citizens, and skip talking about other politicians.
Now here we are in agreement, and I would add two additional thoughts. Wouldn’t it also be great if posters here on the Vanguard would also stick to promoting what they stand for. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if people also stuck to alternative solutions to problems instead of blanket statements that a problem is too big, or too deep or too long standing or too……to address.
“In that Don has a much longer track record in local elected office, it would seem to me Saylor ought to be seen as first in line for the Assembly among Davis Democrats.”
while it seems the vanguard wants to play nice here, the reality is we remember covell village. we remember the vote to not read the fire report. the thousands received in bundles by the firefighters. the decision to shut down the hrc. many of us have been on the receiving end of saylor’s incivility. in short, he is a polarizing figure in this community and perhaps the only person on the ballot that would make me consider voting for wolk.
for those who believe that wolk has earned his spot here, watch his demeanor on the council the last few months, his lack of comments on key issues, lack of leadership, lack of interest. the fact that he shows up without reading the staff report. etc.
he may win this because of his mother and because don saylor is a wretched human being, but that is not earning it.
However I may or may not feel about Don Saylor, the above comment (“don saylor is a wretched human being”) is the perfect illustration of why there should be no anonymous commenters on the Vanguard.
You can say the above if you want, but you should be held accountable by having a true identity.
i’m not going to be held accountable through my true identity. he’s a public figure and i have the right to state my opinion of him.
[moderator] Please review the Vanguard Comment Policy. https://davisvanguard.org/about-us/comment-policy/
Alan–I agree with you. I’m an anonymous poster, and by being anonymous I don’t consider it fair for me to make attacks or disparaging personal comments about article posters, other commentors, or local politicos (though I will disparage national-level politicos)–though I will criticize the words (spoken or written) and thoughts and ideas expressed by all these people.
To the Vanguard:
Please add to the Vanguard’s policy a statement forbidding ad hominem attacks. They offer nothing to the discussion and serve only to impugn a person’s character. They provide no factual information. Please do not provide a forum for people to discredit community members (or citizens of the world, for that matter) by making personal comments that do not appeal to logic. We should be better than that. We can be better than that.
Thank you.
Saylor too often appears bought and paid for. “Soups On” comes across as a clever way to “buy” votes.
Think we need to wait and see who (whom) from Napa area might run. That will change everything, unless Dodd can twist arms so no one from west runs.
one of the questions i have is what kind of deal was cut? lois wolk has endorsed bill dodd over mariko and bill dodd has endorsed dan wolk.
I don’t think there is much mystery there DP. Nor do I think there is any reason for an explicit deal.
Politics is very frequently about alignment of interests, and the alignments in this case are pretty clear. There has been no love lost between Mariko and Lois for quite a while. No open warfare, but no synergies either. Therefore, endorsements of Dodd by Lois and Dan are consistent with history. Further, the 2014 Assembly campaign did not feature much overt sparring between Dan and Dodd, so there are no injuries there … and Dodd’s decision to step up to a battle for a Senate seat left the field open for Dan’s second effort to join the Assembly.
Dodd’s endorsement of Wolk makes practical sense as well. Dodd needs all the Davis votes he can get, and he also needs feet on the street in Davis to secure those votes. What other group in Davis is better prepared to do that for Dodd? Endorsing Dan was a pretty easy (and practical) decision for Dodd.
but why would he give up a safe seat to run against a former assemblymember who will be getting her share of union support?
For me the answers to the following questions are the reason and they are pretty straightforward. How often does an open seat in the Senate come along? If you win such a seat, how often do you need to defend it? How often do you have natural allies in the “other part” of the district?
Add in the uncertainty about whether Dan would choose to take on Dodd a second time for the Assembly seat … this time with no Krovoza in the race … and the “do I want them for me or against me?” factor comes into play. In my opinion, the Dodd-Wolk alignment isn’t one of “strange bedfellows” but rather an indicator of a long-term alliance.
Note, all of the above is speculation on my part. I have no direct knowledge.
Dan lost the last election because the electorate thought he was the third best candidate in the field. I’m not sure where David’s obsession with naming a ‘spoiler’ comes from, but Dan lost the election because of Dan’s campaign. Everything else is just a lame excuse.
The Assembly District is somewhat larger than the confines of the people’s republic, though some clearly choose to forget that itty bitty fact. The important question now is whether or not Dan learned anything from the last campaign, or does he simply share the feelings of entitlement echoed by the author of this piece?
“…the electorate thought he was the third best candidate in the field.”
That’s silly. It’s not how elections work. You can only vote for one candidate. It would be accurate to say “more voters thought two other candidates were the best.” It may seem like a minor difference, but it is a critical one.
If it was like you describe, Dan was “the electorate’s” third-favorite, and Krovoza was its fourth-favorite. If Krovoza wasn’t there, Dan would still be the third-favorite. But that’s not how elections work.
In reality, had Krovoza not been in the race, those who voted for him would have voted for someone else. The largest share of those votes would have gone to Dan. That would have been enough to close the very narrow margin by which Dan lost.
I honestly can’t believe that more than a year later we are still debating this simple fact. Without Krovoza in the race, Dan wins. That doesn’t mean Krovoza was wrong or bad to have run, but nothing changes the fact: Krovoza was the spoiler.
I’m not sure that your analysis is correct: “In reality, had Krovoza not been in the race, those who voted for him would have voted for someone else. The largest share of those votes would have gone to Dan. That would have been enough to close the very narrow margin by which Dan lost.”
It ignores two factors. First, the divide in Davis politics. Second, a belief by at least some that Dan was not ready/ lacked the experience. It is all speculation at this point but I know a number of people whose order of preference was Joe then Dodd not Joe then Dan.
We don’t have enough data on the second choice of Krovoza supporters to know for sure. But it does leave open an interesting possibility that with this formulation of the ballot, perhaps choice voting where people can rank order their preferences would be more beneficial and remove the stain of the spoiler from non-frontrunning candidates.
EP: “Without Krovoza in the race, Dan wins.”
Without Joe in the race, Dan had a decent chance of winning the vote in Davis, but Dodd still wins the election.
DG: “remove the stain of the spoiler”
We don’t need choice voting to get rid of the label spoiler, you just need to quit labeling people by that tag.
Races like State Assembly occupy a “middle ground” in American politics.
In local elections, you are likely to know most of the candidates personally, or are at least familiar with them and their supporters. And you have lots of opportunity to meet them and talk. So you feel like you know them.
In statewide or national elections, the candidates receive extensive news coverage. You don’t typically get to meet them, let alone speak at length with them, but you see them on TV and online so much. So you feel like you know them.
Candidates for State Assembly, on the other hand, are not “local” enough that everyone knows them, but aren’t “famous” enough to be on your TV. So unless they’re from your local area, you might not know who they are when you go to vote, despite their best efforts. For that reason, geography is second only to partisan affiliation in determining who votes for whom in an Assembly election. By and large, Republicans will vote for Republicans, and Democrats will vote for Democrats. If there are multiple party members on the ballot, geography is the most determinate factor in who among them wins.
That is why, all things being anywhere near equal, two Democrats from the same area will split the vote. It’s not nefarious or even that complex. It’s just the way it is.
……and then there are the slick negative mailers…..
HI SODA
“and then there are the slick negative mailers”
Which brings us full circle back to Anon’s point about how refreshing it would be for each candidate to simply address their own qualifications, ideas and positions and let the voters decide based on their perception of the relative merits. When considering whether or not this is possible, I would remind everyone of Rob Davis campaign which earned him the greatest number of votes.
None of the negative mailers came from the campaigns last year, they were all from independent groups. Not to say the campaigns probably didn’t relish seeing their opponent trashed, but none of the campaigns went negative themselves.