Well this is embarassing! David Gauny loses by the 32 votes that I thought he would win by. Here is one possible explanation.
In the last 608 votes David Gauny received marks on 291 ballots (48%) and Frank Ferry received marks on 254 ballots (42%). This was much narrower than the spread on election day ballots of nearly 16 full percentage points (54 vs. 38) and David G needed all of that to hold to maintain the victory.
What is the answer? One possibility was identified by SCVTalker Mike Devlin, part of the SCVTalk election brain trust, who predicted that the vote by mails dropped off on election day would more closely resemble the aggregate vote by mails (in other words, people filled them out weeks ago and just neglected to mail them) than the ballots on election day, which seemed foolish to myself and even Ferry partisans. It appears Mike D was right.
While these numbers are not exact, breaking the total of the 608 down to 393 vote by mails and 215 provisionals, applying vote by mail percentages to the drop offs and poll day percentages to the provisionals one would predict 265 votes for David Gauny and 264 votes for Frank Ferry, VERY close to actual.
Now I have to rewrite my column for Sunday. Sheesh!!!!
Loading ...
No that you have more data is it time for you to issue a new prediction?
SS:
I guess I really shouldn’t have stake YOUR life on that last prediction
Hey stop teasing Tim. This year was tough on his model, which is usually really accurate. I certainly appreciate his insight here. Few, save for the mysterious Mike D, are handicapping Santa Clarita elections with their name on the line.
I never had any doubt. The absentee vote tells the story and even though it was that close the story ended the same way it always does. TM was correct in his original assertions that the incumbents would win. He should have stuck with it.
C’mon, c’mon, Meyers made so many predictions that in the end, yes, he could say he was “right.” (But will he actually say “I was wrong”?) And he was so sure of his infalibility that he said the only reason he could be wrong was to call the process into question. (Hubris!) But can’t a “good predictor” take a little good natured joshing when 19 of his 20 predictions are wrong?
And, c’mon, are we going to let Meyers off the hook so easily when he also pushed for Johnny Pride because he thought that would be funny?
Gauny worked hard, raised decent money, made a person financial investment, was well known in his neighborhood, had some key establishment support, put up lots of signs, kissed lots of babies, knocked on lots doors and shamelessly jumped on every issue bandwagon that came along (hint: read his candidate statement on votesantaclarita.com and you’ll see most of the issues he cared about when that was written he never talked about in the campaign). On the other hand, Ferry did little of that, raised little money and put up a few recycled signs from his past campaigns. And, still, Ferry won. Period.
The lesson – relearned – is that incumbency is the best tool in a candidates toolbox. But I’m sure we’ll all be taught this again in Meyers’ column in the Signal on Sunday.
Tim,
After reviewing the new ballots by precinct, I posted this morning that Ferry would win be between 20 and 30 votes. In fact, my figure was 24. That was the most that Gauny was going to get to based on election day balloting. The result is not that the vote by mails mirrowed their overall result. If that was the case, Frank would have increased his lead. The result was simply based on where these new ballots were. Spread throughout the City, including strong areas for Frank. No big bump in the Summit.
In spite of all that, Frank is fortunate to win. If Gauny trys to be a consensus guy for the next two years, rather than the angry guy who opposes everything and lashes onto political issues of month like illegal immigration, he could easily win. If not, he will have strong opposition which has learned he must be taken seriously.
Bertha’s fault, period.
How is this Bertha’s fault?
It’s Berta jack***.
If anything I and the others making phone calls up until the last minute gained him votes.
If you want to “blame” anyone for the close count on the votes, blame the person (s) who put David Galvan on the ballot to siphon David Gauny’s votes off and those voters too apathetic to bother to vote since “it won’t make any difference anyway” according to them.
It’s insulting to voters to say they can’t tell the difference between David Galvan and David Gauny. People are not that stupid and, if they were, they could vote for both just to make sure they got the right David. But, hey, if that makes you feel better then go for it!
SS – Your statement is very naive. Yes, some people are that stupid. Well a nicer term would be misinformed or uninformed. People consistently vote for the candidates at the top of the ballot when they don’t know who’s who as well. Kathy Colley is a good example.
I truly doubt Gauny voters mistakely would vote for Galvan instead, because Galvan is a hispanic name.
Berta,
Thank you for your service to our community. Because of your actions and initiative, we dodged a bullet today.
Agreed. Berta, you are to be commended for your openness and ethics which, in your disclosure, shed a dim light on Boydston, Katz and Gauny. You helped everyone see how imperfect all of them are. Thank you!
TAKE NOTE DAVID FOR NEXT TIME, BOOT BERTA. DAMN, COST YOU AT LEAST 200 VOTES
Berta passed along a lie.
I passed along an email. Only you and Harrison know if it was a lie or not.
I kid Berta, but in all seriousness, I don’t think her leak cost Gauny the election. It came very late in the election season, scarcely a week before election day. Gauny had a huge election day. His worst days, we now know, were behind him. If this letter had an effect, it would stand to reason that it would adversely affect Katz, Boydston and possibly Gauny, in descending order. We already know that Boydston improved on his VBM take more than anyone else on election day. So I’m not buying it.
Clearly the lost opportunity with Gauny is that whatever he (or someone) did to mobilize the precinct voters, he (or they) didn’t do the same with VBM voters. It wasn’t a matter of chronology, but a matter of strategy. They thought that they could perform some miracle with turnout of election day. They almost did. You could hear it in the voices of him and his supporters as they denied Myers’s several predictions. They nearly proved him wrong, but if they followed his advice all along, they might have won this thing.
I’m glad they didn’t.
No wonder you’re so defensive, you screwed David royally. Very suspicious actually. Any future run for David needs to lose Berta. Nice one idiot.
I can understand why you would call me an idiot since you have no grasp on the situation at all. Nor do you apparently know what the term ethics means.
David Gauny was not involved in any deal making nor did the email I forwarded imply he was. He was not tainted in any way by that email or anything contained within it. I did not cost him any votes, on the contrary but he can certainly “lose” me on his next campaign if that is his choice.
I will work with whoever is on this or any other Council for the betterment of Santa Clarita.
Either you are uniformed or your personal bias towards me is clouding your judgment. Either way, your opinion of me does not matter.
I did what I believe was the right thing to do. The voters have the right to know and make their own assessment.
I supported someone I respect and believe in. I still do.
Well because of your ego (don’t try and say this was about ethics), the candidate you claim to respect lost the race. If you had not made the executive decision from your phone banking chair to take David’s campaign negative, surely he would have picked up 70 more votes.
I just hope candidates in future races watch out for ego maniacs like Berta that are more interested seeing their name in print than helping anyone get elected.
You are entitled to your opinion James Conaway, or whatever your real name is, but I do not need an election to get my name in print. Anyone can write a letter to the editor, genius. I get plenty of “air time” here and elsewhere so, I do not need the additional “publicity” but thanks for your concern. I also do not need the additional unfair criticism.
You are not even consistent in your criticism. Yesterday according to you, I cost David 200 votes. Today that number is 70 votes. Maybe by tomorrow you will get it right.
I cost David ZERO votes. I have already explained, but understand you are not interested in the facts getting in the way of your comments.
As I mentioned previously I do not think you understand the meaning of ethics. I cannot then expect you to understand how that would apply in this situation.
No saboteur, I’ve been consistant. You probably cost David around 200 votes at least with your decision to make his campaign a negative one without his permission. Had you not taken his campaign into the gutter(a place you are obviously familiar with), he would have picked up the 70 votes needed to win.
You proved my first point bragging about your “air time.” Just realize that you took David down with you in this case of trying to get attention. Its too bad Santa Clarita has to suffer because of your insecurity issues.
I’m going to agree with everyone else. Bertha probably cost Gauny the election.
The beauty of a close election is that EVERYONE can take credit or fault for the outcome.
I don’t argue for a recount, but I would like to see the final vote totals for all 5 of the top finishers as of the close of today’s vote counting activities.
As of 4:15PM on Wednesday April 21, 2010 votesantaclarita.com still had up the vote totals from April 13, 2010.
As of 4:15PM no media outlet had “today’s final vote totals” for the top 5.
Seeing the numbers trend upwards, candidate by candidate, between 4/13 and 4/21, in a consistent way, would certainly lend some level of comfort to those who are not totally comfortable with the factual (as opposed to mathematical) result.
Tim has pointed out that on votesantaclarita.com the numbers are now “up to date”. However, the red titles above the numbers are misleading because they still refer to the 4/13/10 election night results.
Personally I believe all the fault goes to the previous administration (BUSH)
Hi, Mike.
I am surprised you are actually sort of defending me. Thank you.
Believe it or not, I agree with most of what you are saying regarding the campaign. I said as much to David on several occasions that his campaign was almost the campaign that was not.
I was not involved in his campaign in the early stages and only jumped in the final few weeks. I, and others, felt that we should have started much sooner on some of the action items including making phone calls to reach as many potential voters as possible. Those of us who volunteered did a yeoman’s (yeopersons?) job but opportunities early on were missed that affected vote by mail counts.
While I understand you did not support David and are happy he was not elected, I am disappointed but the people have spoken and I abide by that decision.
Besides, as I have said before, I will continue to work for the betterment of Santa Clarita regardless of who is sitting on the dais.
I congratulate the winners and look forward to working with them and all of the challengers who remain involved in civic endeavors. We all need to work together to meet the challenges we face as a community.
Well if you are going to be working with the incumbents, we could have a slate of newcomers elected in two years. Thanks Berta.
As usual, your “logic” is faulty. I have been working with the “incumbents” for the past 17 years or so.
According to you that means all incumbents are “doomed” which makes about as much sense as the rest of the crap you spew.
Thanks for proving what a horse’s derriere you are. Wow…