For the second Assembly election in a row, Dan Wolk was unable to overcome a number of factors and make it to the general election. In 2014, he finished third behind eventual winner Bill Dodd and Republican Charlie Schaupp. In a somewhat weaker field, Mr. Schaupp finished first ahead of Winters Mayor Cecilia-Aguiar Curry, fueled by millions in indepedent expenditures.
In a district that heavily tilts toward Democrats, Ms. Aguiar-Curry, despite a relatively lackluster campaign, now becomes the heavy favorite to become the next Assemblymember.
Dan Wolk finished third, about 2000 votes behind Ms. Aguiar-Curry in second. Don Saylor finished 8000 votes behind Dan Wolk. Mark Kropp got 1400 votes to finish fifth.
The big story in this race will undoubtedly be the three million dollars in independent expenditure (IE) money. The money, coming from EdVoice, the oil and tobacco industry and farming interests, actually dwarfed hard money raised by the candidates. The was just enough to push Ms. Aguiar-Curry into the top two and into a November general election.
But there are a lot of sub-stories here that have been less covered. Cecilia Aguiar-Curry ended up spending about $141,000 in her own campaign. Dan Wolk would spend about $216,000 in his. Neither of these numbers are particularly impressive – in fact, combined, they are less than half of what Dodd himself spent back in 2014.
There will be those who point once again to the presence of a second Davis candidate who would split the vote. In 2014, Joe Krovoza, the Mayor of Davis, ran strong in Davis but weak in the rest of the district, causing Dan Wolk supporters to point the finger at the mayor for being a spoiler. This year it was Don Saylor, who finished a distant fourth but received 11,000 votes. No doubt supporters of Dan Wolk will argue that if just a few of those had shifted to Dan Wolk in the absence of Mr. Saylor, Dan Wolk could have overcome other shortcomings.
But there is also a fault to that argument. In 2014, a number of people who voted for Joe Krovoza may not have viewed Dan Wolk as their second choice. The same may well have been true this time. To many, Dan Wolk has been young and inexperienced. Some have criticized him for picking superficial issues, attempting to frame his mayorship in a way to highlight his campaign.
In our view, looking at Dan Wolk’s results by county illustrates the shortcomings of his campaign. Dan Wolk did not fare well at all outside of Yolo County. He finished a distant third in Colusa, Lake, Sonoma and even Solano County where he works. He was only competitive in Napa County, where he still finished third.
In other words, Dan Wolk didn’t finish in the top two in any county other than Yolo County.
Yolo County was also interesting. Overall, he finished 1300 votes ahead of second place Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, but the bulk of that was Davis. He finished first in Davis, about 1700 votes ahead of second place Don Saylor. But in the rest of the county, he finished a distant third behind Charlie Schaupp and Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, and just 750 votes ahead of fourth place Don Saylor.
So, other than in his home town of Davis and in the county overall, Dan Wolk finished no better than a distant third.
The bottom line is that Dan Wolk can point to the numbers. He can complain about the IE campaigns and the presence of Don Saylor, but the numbers also show he just didn’t run strongly enough anywhere other than in Davis itself to be able to overcome any of these obstacles.
The money he raised as a second-time candidate, Mayor of Davis, and son of Senator Lois Wolk was downright pedestrian and, in the end, all of these factors together likely have put an end to Dan Wolk’s aspirations for a political career.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I guess the Wolk name wasn’t enough to get Dan over the hump.
Strange comment… what ‘hump’? Wolk led, Aguilar-Curry came in second… they’ll compete again come November… that could be a true “horse race”… given the demographics of the district, and that Saylor was pretty much appealing to the same folk, 30% is pretty good… I plan to vote for Aguilar-Curry come November…
Wolk finished third, is out of the general election. That hump.
So, you’re “denier” of the County elections office?
http://www.yoloelections.org/returns/226.html
100% precincts reporting… some VBM’s and Provisionals to be counted… do you know something that the county elections folk don’t?
Check your facts before engaging mouth (or posts)… or should we consider this as an indication of your credibility in ANY matter? I stand by what what is reported by County Elections, on their website… jeez!
Where did you get your info? A oujai board? Or do you consider opinions as a higher truth than measurable facts?
I’m going by the article above.
If I’m missing something I will be happy to admit it. That said, you don’t have to be a jerk about it.
pierce, I think you are misreading BP’s comment. I think he is referring to the hump that exists between second place and third place. In both 2014 and 2016 Dan was unable to avoid being on the “you get to go home” side of that hump.
Dan was the highest vote getter, according to the Yolo County Elections web-site… am guessing some folk are relying on the Bees’ report with 51 % of precincts reporting… unless Yolo County Elections is wrong, so much for fact-based decision making… Wolk as 5%-age points ahead of the second-place candidate. Don’t see how that makes him third…
hpierce, I think you’re looking at the results coming in from Yolo County only. The results from throughout the 4th AD (multiple counties) show Wolk coming in third and thus failing to advance to the general election. Aguiar-Curry will be facing off against Schaupp (sp?)
I think we all need to take some deep breaths and some caffeine. It was a long night. Why does it take so long for Yolo County to count votes? That’s a subject for another day …
I was doing that for about three hours last night until I suddenly realized I had to go to the Secretary of State’s website to see the whole district results. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/state-assembly/district/4/
I voted for Wolk. But I’m very pleased to see him go down. I don’t feel he deserved it. I look forward to Misanthrop’s screed against the Vanguard. In the end, he ran a BAD.
See http://www.yoloelections.org/returns/226.html. Facts is facts…
pierce, that is Yolo County only, which is only part of the story. Go to http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/state-assembly/district/4/ for the whole story.
To help end stupid/ill-informed statements, which seem to be proliferating, I offer:
http://www.yoloelections.org/returns/
OK… stand corrected, with the proverbial egg on face. Thanks, Matt.
Apologies?
Maybe you had better check your “oujai board”.
BTW, it’s spelled Ouija. Maybe that’s part of the problem.
Them damn facts…………..
Actually, in a subsequent post, I did apologize to all, and said I’d measure twice, cut once in the future… spent 15 hours working the polls yesterday…
Also, added a mea culpa…
For some reason, that post didn’t “stick”… also admitted I had the proverbial egg on face… will take long shower in a bit…
Still will vote for Aguilar-Curry in November, as I did this time around…
Oh, BP, when you point out others have erred, you’re NEVER a ‘jerk about it’… will attempt to model your “style”
No, I try not to be a jerk on here unless I’m attacked first then I will fight back. Maybe you should try the same course.
Nice try at saving face though.
Maybe you should just let it go………
Let what go? I erred in just looking @ Yolo County results… I freely admit that… I thought you and others erred by relying on the Bee’s #’s @ 54% reporting precincts… I admit I erred on that… I was wrong on both counts. I know you NEVER err. [yeah, right]
Mea culpa.
I like Wolk as a person, but not as a representative… I have enough history with Saylor where I could never vote for him without holding my nose… I voted for Aguilar-Curry.
I’m perfectly content with a race between her and Schupp…
BP, apparently like you, those who attack me, either on facts or opinions, I tend to ‘swing out’ at… a flaw I’m working on, but I admit I’m a ‘work in progress’…
Have a good week, BP, and all… sincerely…
Yeah, I’m being a jerk if I participate in any of this…
No, you were being a jerk when you wrote:
Whether or not I was right or wrong did you have to come at me like that?
BP… give especially apologies to you… 15 + hour day at the polls, with a number of arrogant/argumentative folk (ex. “just because I moved to Woodland 6 months ago, and never re-registered, why can’t I vote on city issues without a Provisional ballot?” [true story], the guy who insisted he registered as Dem, but was listed as NP (no preference, and even though he was entitled to a Dem ballot, which we explained), took the poll workers to task for nearly 5 minutes [also true story] before we were able to convince him that he could vote the ballot he wanted, as a regular voter, but that we couldn’t then and there wave the magic wand and correct his registration… [he still was pissed off, and “shared” with us]
Yeah, those and about another 15 instances, I’ll admit I was “loaded for bear” this morning, after ~ 7 hours of sleep.
You asked for an apology… have given twice… I understand it will never be accepted. OK
Thanks for your service. I could tell at my precinct that the workers were tired too. It was kind of funny, I walked in around 6pm and an older guy who was addressing the people in line on where to go comes up to me and draws a complete blank. After staring at me for what seemed like an eternity I finally asked, “do you want my name or my address?”
He snapped out of it and we both smiled and he asked for my address.
I’m over all of this if you are.
Let’s start fresh.
BP… je d’accord… I agree…
I called this race in order exactly. I figured without Dustin Call in the race and three strong Democrats splitting up their vote, Schaupp would finish first. He did, but barely outpaced the number of votes he won in the 2014 primary. Aguiar-Curry’s total (21,620) is almost the same as Dodd’s (22,168) was in 2014. Wolk’s vote total (19,599) is almost the same as he got in 2014 (19,963). Saylor’s 11,763, though, is somewhat smaller than Krovoza’s 14,993.
Maybe the most surprising result — which could change if more votes have not been counted — is that 6,200 fewer people voted in this race than did in 2014. Two years ago, 83,936 cast ballots in the 4th Assembly district race; this year 76,716.
My wonder: Perhaps some Republicans who don’t care for Trump decided not to show up? The combined GOP total was down by about 4,000 votes. Alternatively, it’s possible that Republican voters are dying off in our region, and that explains the lower GOP turnout this year. If Aguiar-Curry had actually done better than Dodd did in 2014, I could believe moderate Republicans voted for her (since she was largely financed by conservatives). But Ms. Aguiar-Curry received fewer votes than Dodd, and thus that does not explain the reduction in right of center votes.
So FWIW, now Charlie Schaupp gets the chance to get crushed by Cecilia in November.
I’m a registered Republican and almost didn’t bother to vote. The only reason I did was Measure A. Didn’t really care who’s elected to council, they all seem the same, and Trump is a done deal so why bother to show up and vote for him? I don’t like Trump but I don’t like Hillary a lot more.
It is sort of ironic here… Davis is becoming a weaker and weaker regional players as the graying and grumpy stasis demographic ensure Davis stays a weaker player. And hence Davis no longer can promote their favored progressive politicians up the political food chain… thereby causing Davis to have even less regional influence.
Once again having two locals run for the same office hurt them both.
BP has it exactly right. Davis will decide who represents the 4th AD, as long as the Davis Democratic vote is not split in two, as it has been the last two times around.
Meanwhile, Dan Wolk is now without an elective office position for the first time in 5 years, and it seems likely that Cecilia will be our rep in the Assembly for the next 6 years and either Dodd or Yamada will be our state senator. … I guess Dan will run for Supervisor in two years?
By the way … even though Dodd “won” his primary, I would not discount Yamada’s chances of beating him in November. Dodd has to be disappointed that he is not going up against the token Republican, Greg “Coach” Coppes, who finished third.
Rich wrote:
> By the way … even though Dodd “won” his primary, I would not discount
> Yamada’s chances of beating him in November.
I think Dodd is going to going win in a landslide in November.
I don’t think a single Republican is going to vote for Yamada (a liberal Democrat) when they can vote for Dodd (a conservative Democrat and former Republican). I also predict that Dodd will pick up the majority if the voters that wanted Griess (a moderate democrat and Air Force Veteran). I would be interested to hear how Rich thinks Yamada can pick enough of the GOP and Griess voters to beat Dodd.
I agree SOD, us gop’ers in CA have to pick the best Democrat that closest fits our views.
SOD: “I would be interested to hear how Rich thinks Yamada can pick enough of the GOP and Griess voters to beat Dodd.”
Our Senate district voted 2:1 Democrat over Republican in 2012 when there was a Republican (Frank Miranda) on the ballot that November. This year there won’t be a Republican. So my expectation is that a lot of Republicans, seeing two Democrats facing off, will simply not vote in that race. Further, the district itself is likely more Democratic, as Republicans continue to dwindle in California. Additionally, with Trump at the top of the ticket, Clinton is going to win California very easily. Probably by more than 25 percent. Polls will reflect that and thus will depress the Republican vote. So my guess is that 80 percent of the voters will be Democrats or Democratic-leaning voters in the 3rd Senate district.
Let’s then say that Dodd picks up 80% of the Republican + Republican-leaning vote. That gives him a 16% – 4% edge.
So for Yamada to tie Dodd, she would have to get 57.5% of the Democratic and Democratic-leaning vote. That is, .575 x 80% = 46% for Yamada; .425 x 80% = 34% for Dodd.
That does not strike me as easy-peasy. However, her chance of winning will be much greater than Mr. Coppes’s chances would have been, had he finished second. Yamada will have to portray herself as the true Democrat, the true liberal, the environmentalist, the union shill, etc. and portray Dodd as a fake Democrat and a tool of the right-wing conservatives. If she can pull that off, then she might just win.
I’m not convinced that that assessment is accurate. Cecilia out-polled Dan everywhere in the district except Davis. I don’t believe you can look at Don’s votes and assume that an overwhelming majority would have voted for Dan instead. Perhaps the majority of his Davis voters would have, but not the rest. For me, it came down to who has done the best job performing the duties of their elected positions, and of the three, Dan was third.
I disagree, Saylor received 11,763 votes and I believe that the lion’s share of those votes would’ve gone Wolk’s way if Saylor didn’t run. All Wolk needed was to get around 2000 more of those votes than Curry got and he’d be in the general election.
Rich wrote:
> Alternatively, it’s possible that Republican voters are dying off in our
> region, and that explains the lower GOP turnout this year.
Republican voters are dying off “and” in areas with a lot of agriculture skilled Latino workers (who mostly vote Dem.) are taking the place of skilled White workers (who mostly vote GOP). It is amazing how fast this is changing where in the 90’s it was almost all white guys telling Latino guys what to do where today it is mostly Latino guys telling Latino guys what to do.
Latinos in CA are more likely to have extended family living with them so when the white GOP vineyard manager retires and moves to the Sierras with his wife there is a good chance that the new Latino Dem. vineyard manager may bring his parents to live with him so the district loses two GOP voters and gains four Dem. voters.
P.S. To Rich thanks for the 2014-2016 candidate by candidate vote comparison.
In Dan’s defense (and everyone else for that matter) how you going to compete with $2+ million in outside money??–All most all of it supporting the Winters Major… They stuffed the mail boxes and media just like they did for Dodd in 2014 (Same IE groups).
As reported in the Enterprise today I spent less than 75 cents per vote I got, while Aguiar-Curry, with the IE support, spent more than $160 per vote she got. They quoted me saying that is an “Ungodly influence” on this election.
And I just want to say — I have gotten to know Dan over the past several years. We disagree on most things political…but he is a fair & honest person. In fact he’s a great guy!…and I am glad to consider him my friend. I had hoped Dan would have made the run off with me this time–but $2 million in outside influence threw the election runoff to the Winters Mayor. Semper Fi, Charlie Schaupp
And the race begins…………….
And here it goes…poor Charlie.
Charlie, don’t follow Dan Wolk and The Davis Enterprise IE conspiracy lead on this…Dan’s negativity got him nowhere outside of Davis. It was rather embarrassing and desperate.
I’m hoping you put together some semblance of a campaign for the General. It’s not “cool” to brag that you don’t do much in these races. Show up for the party!
Aguiar-Curry knocks you out by 25,000 votes. Minimum. And my money is on the IE’s not having to do much in this race in order to beat you.
You are right about the IE’s not spending much more. $2 million was enough to buy the seat.
“Poor Charlie”? I am not bragging…I held the GOP that was all I needed do in the primary. I am just not a fan of the lobbyist and IE groups and their big $$ influence. And for the record…Dan is a great guy! I would have a beer with him anytime. But these IE groups, everyone of them, are pro GOP leaning. Their goal was to ‘ace him out’ in the primary…Just like they did in 2014. It’s not fair, it’s not right….but its allowed because the ‘Third House’ is able to control the agenda in Sacramento. Semper Fi
In Dan’s defense (and everyone else for that matter) how isanyone going to compete with $2+ million in outside money??–All most all of it supporting the Winters Major… They stuffed the mail boxes and media just like they did for Dodd in 2014 (Same IE groups).
As reported in the Enterprise today I spent less than 75 cents per vote that I received, while Aguiar-Curry, with the IE support, spent more than $160 per vote she received. They quoted me saying that is an “Ungodly influence” on this election.
And I just want to say — I have gotten to know Dan over the past several years. We disagree on most things political…but he is a fair & honest person. In fact he’s a great guy!…and I am glad to consider him my friend. I had hoped Dan would have made the run off with me this time–but $2 million in outside influence threw the election runoff to the Winters Mayor. Semper Fi, Charlie Schaupp
Charlie: While I get your point, my response would be Dan only lost by a few thousand votes, had he raised $500K like Dodd in 2014, he might have overcome this.
If only Dan had raised 500k. Sure, from whom? I guess maybe he could have sold out to oil, tobacco and PGE too. Then he only would have been outspent by $1.5 million. I guess we will have the best government money can buy but I’ll be waiting to see Aguiar-Curry stand up to the oil trains and vote Schaupp in the meantime. Two years of Schaupp will be better than 12 years of PGE’s and Valero’s new best friend in the legislature.
Ah… the logic is clear, the ‘friend’ (whether that judgement is justified or not) of my ‘enemy’ is my friend, and the corollary, whoever is the enemy of my enemy is my friend…
What is Schaupp’s position(s) on oil trains (which we currently have, BTW, along with chlorine, gasoline, other toxic/dangerous cargoes), PG&E, and tobacco? Meant as fair question… do not know the answers…
@Misanthrop How are you feeling today after the loss? Apparently, the District spoke loud and clear outside of Davis. Dan should have listed to me all along-leave the City Limits and reach out to voters in the District you are “trying” to represent. He was knocked in the teeth in Lake County, Colusa and Sonoma counties. As I’ve mentioned, he scrambled to Napa in the final weeks-when he should have been doing it all the while.
Davis being Davis. Worried about “our own” when the rest of the District spoke loud and clear.
Time to shelf the IE pitty party. Give Dan our best.
What do you mean from whom? In 2014, Krovoza raised about $350K and finished fourth. He wasn’t taking from corporate interests. Dan didn’t have to match the corporations 1 for 1, but he really didn’t have the resources to really fight back. That’s on him. His numbers were weak.
I feel pretty lousy today actually. As Charlie points out Aguiar-Curry spent $160 a vote. I don’t know his positions on these issues but I know who her independent funders were and don’t think I will ever support her with my vote. As of today she certainly hasn’t earned my vote. So go ahead and gloat if you want and if it makes you feel better kick em when they are down but magnanimity doesn’t seem to be the word of the day.
David wrote:
> He (Joe) wasn’t taking from corporate interests.
AKT Development is a “Corporation” that owned by the most powerful (and smartest) politically active developer in the region. AKT and Angelo control more land “around” Davis than there is land in the city of Davis.
http://www.electiontrack.com/lookup.php?committee=1357708
Ok, parse my one hour of sleep words. I meant the specific interests that were mentioned – oil, EdVoice, tobacco.
Krovoza, Don
Just want to point out a correction. The $160 and 75 cents were base on numbers early in the evening when the Enterprise called about 8:30PM. The next day I recalculated based on 100% reporting. With each of us receiving about 22000 votes in the end the actually estimated spending per vote was $107 for Aguiar-Curry and 67 Cents for Schaupp (me). Bob Dunning point that out to me and he was correct. I admire Dunning for keeping politicians honest…even when I am the one in the ‘hot seat’…LOL So the spending was around $150 to $1 (Aguiar-Curry campaign with IEs versa Schaupp campaign). It’s really not import except it gives you an idea of the scope of the difference in the campaigns.
In fairness Charlie, you were the only Republican in the race so you got the core Republican vote in the district which was enough in a divided field to place. You didn’t have to spend money to get those votes.
Hpierce:
> (What are Schaupp’s positions). … oil trains (which we currently have, BTW, along with chlorine, gasoline, other toxic/dangerous cargoes), PG&E, and tobacco?
It’s going to depend on each. When it becomes an issue I will listen to the positions of the voters and residents it effects. I would ask if it can be done safely reducing public risk, why it needs to be done in the first place, and if it’s really in the ‘public good’ (with Oil it seems like it would be more efficient to process near the extraction point…but?). But, the bottom line, if elected, it’s not my opinions that will matter…it’s the opinions of the voters I represent.
When I was a young Marine Officer a Colonel once said to me. If you want to lead…listen to your Marines. “A wise man speaks little but listens a lot” … he said. I took that to heart. In other words, when it is a contentious issue or a local issue my job is to listen to the people I represent and not the special interests…and vote as the people I represent ask me to. It’s the basis and foundation of leadership and representative government that I believe in.
David, True (I was the only Republican), and that is why I stuck to my spending/campaign plan (and worried ‘what the heck is going on again?’). I hoped to hold the GOP base voters but $2.3 million in outside spending can really effect outcomes. Just to make it clear, I found out back in December the Lobbyist/IE’s were likely to jump into this race again and I was not happy about it. I let them know it… In fact I was damn pissed. I saw how they ‘stuffed the mail boxes’ with Dodd in 2014 and that is exactly what they did again. If I do get elected…I hope to become known as “That Damn Marine” by those that ‘toss money’ around the Capitol. In other words a ‘pain in their arse’. When I said in the Enterprise their influence is an “ungodly influence”…I meant exactly that.
A PSA, based on BP’s 11:21 post… (made me think about it, NOT from BP’s words, per se)
Yolo Count needs poll-workers… as a group, they tend to be retirees, and some I’ve worked with actually “need” the money (not many, but some). @ ~ 61, I was the youngest (semi-significantly) of my team yesterday… when I started doing this ~ 20 years ago, I was “the baby”.
The “pay” is ‘lousy’… ~ $135-155 for a 15+ hour day… but except for opening and closing, and keeping track of what is going on in between, it is not ‘rocket-science’, and for those of us who are public service oriented, it can be fun and illuminating… you find out how many folk you actually know in town. The “intangibles” can be priceless. You do have to know how to ‘work and play well with others’… and basic math and logical thinking.
If you like dealing with your neighbors/community, I recommend you contact YC elections to ‘volunteer’… the precinct near us was short of folk (you need a minimum of three present at any given time, by State law) and to give the folk breaks to have lunch/dinner, visit the “little poll workers room”, etc., and members of our team filled in for a bit, until others were recruited.
When I was working full-time, I took a day or so per year of vacation leave to work the polls. Only missed one election since I started, due to a medical issue.
Back in the late 90’s we had HS kids (17-18) working in some precincts (getting the $ and ‘social studies/govt class credits, and it was an excused absence), and they did great… please consider doing the poll-worker thing… although I always knew the importance of voting, it has been reinforced by the experience of working the polls… I will never forget working at a polling place where a man with a heavy Russian accent, came to vote… with his grand-daughter in tow (~7), explaining every part of the way what the process was and how important it was. I was struck about how precious this right [and responsibility] of voting is… he had not really had it until he was ~ 30 [yeah, chatted with him].
I was about 3 years old when Mom dragged me to a polling place, in a garage down the street, so she could ‘work the polls’. Lasted until I was in school during polling hours, and my Dad got back from work near when I got home from school those two days/year…
With voting, using a trite analogy, “it takes a village”…
Please consider signing up for November… I think even if you are put on “standby”, as Elections tends to assign ‘veterans first’… with all its downsides, the upsides are so great, I’m not willing to give up my ‘seniority’ to accommodate a “newbie”, but in reality, we need “newbies”… call it succession planning, if you will.
Voting is a ‘right’, and a ‘responsibility’… in my family (and close friends), if you are of age, you are not allowed to gripe about elections outcomes, unless you have voted…
End of PSA…
One of the goals of the top-two open primary system was the selection of more moderate candidates who can garner a wider range of support. That seems to be working for AD4, but I don’t know how well that holds elsewhere. I’m curious about how others feel.
That is the logic of the open-primary top two. However, I don’t think it has actually done that in AD-4, and I don’t know its effect elsewhere. IMO, Bill Dodd (who may or may not be more moderate* than the Davis Democrats) finished in the top two in 2014 only because Wolk and Krovoza split the liberal vote. 2016 was a replay of 2014, with Wolk and Saylor splitting the liberal vote.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/rich-rifkin-didnt-we-witness-this-same-story-two-years-ago/
If Krovoza didn’t run in 2014, Wolk would have won and the top-two system would have been the same. If Saylor didn’t run in 2016, Wolk would have won, again despite the top-two system.
*After Dodd won in 2014, largely being financed by real estate, banking, venture capital and other business interests, he effectively behaved in office as a corrupt, liberal Democrat. He buddied up to all the unions that financed Wolk’s 2014 race, and those same groups organized major fundraisers for Dodd (including a huge one west of Davis at the Glide Ranch). The one big difference with Dodd (from say a Krovoza or Wolk) is that he is not much of an environmentalist (though his campaign ads claim he is). My guess is that Dodd has a less than stellar record on the environment because there is more campaign cash available to him from real estate developers than from environmentalists. I don’t think his voting habits are done out of conviction. He is just following the money and self-interest.
As are all the rest.
Related to your point about the liberal vote split. That makes sense. Seems there are just too many people pursuing their political self-interest on the path of a liberal Democrat.
But then this gets back to Mark’s question. If either Wolk or Saylor had a more moderate/centered platform, might that one made a better showing?
It’s possible. However, in the 2014 race, I think Bill Dodd’s geographic position — being the only candidate who was not from Yolo County — was more important than his possibly more moderate views.
You can’t really say that as much in 2016 with Cecilia Aguiar-Curry. But, she was (by 15 miles) the westernmost of the 3 main Democrats, with Davis on the eastern edge of the district.
I think, had she not received so much help from the oil companies and EdVoice, it would have been very hard for her to get her name out there and (due to the IE ads) have voters make a positive association with her. With just the $150,000 (or so) she raised directly, she probably would have finished in 4th, behind Saylor.
Yet I think the fact that she was the lone woman and the lone Hispanic likely aided her some. I really don’t know the ethnic breakdown of the voters, but I would guess there are some Hispanics who will go for another Hispanic on that basis alone (just the same as happens with most other ethnic groups, especially among those who are recent arrivals). Probably more important to Cecilia’s vote was the female thing, largely because of the Hillary Clinton factor. That is, Hillary swamped Bernie among women over age 30, and since they were voting in the presidential primary, it does not seem unreasonable to think some of those voters would favor the lone woman Democrat in this race.
The reason for spending the money was that there were moderate and conservative voters (independents and republicans) available who might be influenced to vote for Bill (in ’14) and Cecilia (’16). Had this been a straight one-party primary, there would have been no reason for the IE’s to weigh in. So the open primary system encourages groups to support the moderate candidates that are more acceptable to the voters as a whole instead of the straight party line voters.
BTW, David.. is the graphic for this thread the same as it was ~ 7 AM? I don’t think I’d have stepped into the stuff I did, had the current graphic headed this piece… when you use a graphic, it would be helpful to identify the source, i.e. SOS.ca.gov, etc… people can then check the sources before reacting… am not blaming you for my faux pas, but still… this was a public “source” for a ‘reporter’ to share…
I’m not following you. The graphic was from the Sec of State site, what’s wrong with it?
nothing… perhaps sleep deprived, I missed it and the source this morning…
just looked again… the “lead/headline” graphic was of the state capitol… missed the imbedded one… still, my error…
It’s the same graphic.
Ok, this morning, I missed the graphic and the source… sincere apology again. Missed the graphic, but I still see no attribution, either with the graphic, nor in the text…
BTW.. no matter what, there is one who has never issued an apology for being in error for what they wrote on this site, that I have seen… guess who… [and not you BP… think you did that (from time to time)]…
hellooo out there…if anyone looks at my very first postings on this topic, where I predicted the Davis boys would “split the difference” again…well ….
[moderator] comment edited.