.
BREAKING STORY — CONTINUALLY UPDATED (AND OCCASIONALLY CORRECTED) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
Julio Perez started the weekend down by 606 votes to Republican Joe Moreno for the right to enter into the top-two runoff for the 69th A.D. seat. As Joe noted earlier today in his letter of complaint, it was the acts of supporters of Tom Daly’s own campaign that left him vulnerable to Julio’s catching up to him.
While processing of provisional ballots continued today until 5:00, the plan was that at 3:30 p.m. they would gather up all of the votes approved (without opening the envelopes) up until that point and spend the next 90 minutes tabulating them for the daily report — which came out today a little after 5 p.m. I’m calling it four or five hour
s of work (starting at about 10:00, after instructions were conveyed, minus a half hour for lunch); it could be less than that as they got the wheels of the counting machines rolling — probably not more than that.
In all, 304 ballots were counted — roughly 15% of what has been estimated will be ultimately tallied in the race. Of those, Daly picked up 81 votes, Moreno 32 votes, Julio 111, Michele Martinez 69, and Paco Barragan 11.
Julio thus cut the margin by which he trails Moreno by 79 votes, 26% of those votes cast. (Julio picked up 36.5% of the additional ballots, but Moreno picked up 10.5% — higher than I expected.) A few hundred of other ballots did remain to be counted going into the day, so that 26% may not reflect Julio’s support in provisionals alone. More importantly, if Moreno’s votes came from the non-provisional ballots, then he would not be expected to keep pace with Julio’s success among provisionals in the days ahead.
If Julio continues that 26% rate of gain, he would catch Moreno if 2027 more provisional are counted. (Of course, a recount would likely be appropriate at a level far below that.) If Julio’s percentage for provisionals alone is 30%, he’d be expected to catch Moreno after counting another 1757 ballots. If Moreno is an almost total flop in provisionals and Julio leads him by 35%, Julio would be expected to take the lead in 1506 ballots. In almost any scenario, it’s likely to be close.
In the 72nd district, which had a LOT of provisional ballots this time, Travis Allen had led Joe Dovinh by 245 votes for second place and Dovinh led Long Pham by 96 for third. After today, those numbers are now 221 and 82 — not, so far, on a pace to change the results.
In AD-72, 302 more votes were counted. Of them, leading candidate Troy Edgar got 51 (16.9%), Travis Allen got 47 (15.6%), Joe Dovinh got 71 (23.5%), Long Pham got 85 (28.1%), and Albert Ayala picked up 48 (15.9%) more votes. Again, it is hard to know whether today’s portion of the ballots are really representative of the massive numbers of provisional ballots yet to come, so these percentages are not necessary predictive of future performance. (The inclusion of non-provisional ballots in today’s totals is more likely inflate Edgar’s and Allen’s likely expected percentages, as non-first-generation and immigrant voters are historically less likely than those in immigrant communities to have the problems with registration that lead to the need to cast provisional ballots.)
Meanwhile, we can already do some rough calculations. If Dovinh picks up a net of about eight votes out of every 100 over Allen, then he passes Allen in about 2750 votes. If Pham picks up about 13 votes out of every 100 from Allen, then (currently being behind by 303 votes), he passes Allen in about 2400 votes. And, using the above figure, if Pham is picking up about 5 votes out of every 100 on Dovinh, he passes Dovinh in about 1650 votes.
I think that I’d better color code this: starting from today’s vote totals, let’s look at what we might expect to happen over the next 1000 and then 1500 (i.e., 500 more) and then 2000 votes (i.e., another 500 more) votes, based on today’s percentage gains to get a sense of where they might stand:
Allen: 12,347 + 156 = 12,503 + 78 = 12,581 + 78 = 12,669
Dovinh: 12,128 + 235 = 12,363 + 118 = 12,481 + 117 = 12,598
Pham: 12,044 + 281 = 12,325 + 141 = 12,466 + 140 = 12,606
Of course, if Allen only gets, say, 12% of the rest of the provisionals, then after 2000 more votes he only ends up with 240 more, rather than 312, for a total of 12,587. Dovinh and Pham also probably up their shares accordingly. And bear in mind: Allen probably has people out challenging any provisional ballot with a Vietnamese name on it that could possibly be disqualified — and some of those disqualifications won’t stand.
As you can see, the race is currently way too close to call based on today’s added numbers, which may have a lot of noise in them. If Allen’s percentage of the vote was (as I expect) overestimated, then at some point Dovinh passes Allen and at some later point Pham passes Dovinh.
That later point — where we’re very close to a three way tie — is probably awfully close to the total number of ballots we have remaining in AD-72. And, whoever you’re rooting for, if you care about either politics or math that’s pretty exciting.
UPDATE, TUESDAY 12:40: I put this into a comment, but I’ll also add it to the story text.
Joe Hill at Liberal OC states that the “Registrar of Voters indicates that, as of this morning, there are 1,575 ballots in the 69th and 2,120 in the 72nd remaining to be counted.” He also notes that “about 10% of the provisional ballots were counted yesterday, with 14,030 left to count.”
I find it hard to believe that both sets of numbers are simultaneously true. We have 6-1/2 Assembly districts in OC; if the number is equal in all districts, we’d expect the joint number of provisionals in 69 and 72 to be 2/6.5, or 4/13, or 31%. If there are 14,030 left to count, the predicted proportion of about 3700 ballots in these two districts would be less than their share — and my experience yesterday suggests that these districts are overrepresented rather than underrepresented among provisionals. It could happen, though!
Joe HIll also reports that “provisional ballots (1,432) made up 59.64 % of the 2,041 total ballots counted yesterday. the Votes counted today should primarily be provisional. In the 69th, Perez pulled 36% of the ballots counted compared to Moreno’s 10.49%.”
If true, this is important — and excellent — news for Perez. Presuming that Perez pulled in about his normal 20% and Moreno his normal 22% of the non-provisional ballots — which may not be a safe assumption, but it’s the best we have — that means that if AD-69 also had 60% provisionals then the 40% of the ballots that were non-provisional gave Moreno 8.8% of the vote (10.5% for the day) and Perez 8% of his total (36% for the day.)
That would mean that Moreno only got 1.7% of his vote from the 60% of the ballots in the provisional stack, meaning that he was getting only about 1% of the provisionals! Perez, by contrast, would have gotten 28% of his vote from the 60% in the provisionals stack, meaning that he’d be pulling in over 45% of the provisioanls.
So, if there’s 1500 ballots left and Perez has a 44% advantage in them (45%-1%), Perez should make end up closing the gap by 660 votes — meaning a 130 or so vote victory.
“It takes a long pull to get there…..but we are ready for the judgment day…..for the judgment day…..” From Porgy and Bess…of course! From the Tony’s last night.
We told you the count will be over in three days…..and 79 is about all you are going
to get….if that. Better chance that – that number will reverse.
Go Joe Go! We mean: “Vaya Jose Vaya!”
I was told that it the count should end Wednesday or Thursday. Based on the relatively limited amount of apparent progress today, I would not be surprised if it ended on Thursday.
For every 100 votes counted, Julio is lowering the margin by 26. That will probably accelerate once we move into “pure” provisionals, if we haven’t already. I don’t know if he’ll pass Moreno, but he’s going to pick up way more than 79.
Joe Hill at Liberal OC states that the “Registrar of Voters indicates that, as of this morning, there are 1,575 ballots in the 69th and 2,120 in the 72nd remaining to be counted.” He also notes that “about 10% of the provisional ballots were counted yesterday, with 14,030 left to count.”
I find it hard to believe that both sets of numbers are simultaneously true. We have 6-1/2 Assembly districts in OC; if the number is equal in all districts, we’d expect the joint number of provisionals in 69 and 72 to be 2/6.5, or 4/13, or 31%. If there are 14,030 left to count, the predicted proportion of about 3700 ballots in these two districts would be less than their share — and my experience yesterday suggests that these districts are overrepresented rather than underrepresented among provisionals. It could happen, though!
Joe HIll also reports that “provisional ballots (1,432) made up 59.64 % of the 2,041 total ballots counted yesterday. the Votes counted today should primarily be provisional. In the 69th, Perez pulled 36% of the ballots counted compared to Moreno’s 10.49%.”
If true, this is important — and excellent — news for Perez. Presuming that Perez pulled in about his normal 20% and Moreno his normal 22% of the non-provisional ballots — which may not be a safe assumption, but it’s the best we have — that means that if AD-69 also had 60% provisionals then the 40% of the ballots that were non-provisional gave Moreno 8.8% of the vote (10.5% for the day) and Perez 8% of his total (36% for the day.)
That would mean that Moreno only got 1.7% of his vote from the 60% of the ballots in the provisional stack, meaning that he was getting only about 1% of the provisionals! Perez, by contrast, would have gotten 28% of his vote from the 60% in the provisionals stack, meaning that he’d be pulling in over 45% of the provisioanls.
So, if there’s 1500 ballots left and Perez has a 44% advantage in them (45%-1%), Perez should make end up closing the gap by 660 votes — meaning a 130 or so vote victory.
Were you like, a kid who spent all of late December trying to figure out what was in that package under the Christmas tree?
No, Vern, a thousand times no! I completely dispute that assertion! I never did that!
(We celebrated Chanukah.)
I do like to get my math geek on sometimes, though!
By a similar analysis, if there are really 2120 votes left to count in AD-72, and if 40% of the total from yesterday (in which Allen already didn’t do well) was from non-provisional ballots, then Travis Allen is a dead duck. He must be doing terribly among provisionals — and Dovinh and Pham should both overtake him. Which beats which is still up in the air, though, and I would expect a recount.
Of course, as with the AD-69, this conclusion relies on a lot of assumptions!
If Julio makes it to #2, we’re gonna have a lot of work between now and November, when you consider that probably everyone who voted for Tom will vote for him again, and probably most of the people who voted for Joe will vote for Tom (as being closer to a Republican.)
Tom won’t have the same kind of money advantage in the fall — and eventually Dems will have to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves whether they really prefer that AD-69 be represented by a non-Latino, given the importance of Latinos to our party nationally. That was a discussion that was largely put off this time, as most people (with the notable exception of Chris Emami) did not expect Moreno to finish 2nd.
JOBSPAC has really hurt themselves, not only politically but potentially legally, with their devious anti-Moreno flyers. If Julio wins, he has to send flowers to Chevron. Ha-ha-ha!
@ Vern:
A few key questions to ask and answer will be:
1) Why is it that other labor organizations and labor leaders have not and do NOT support nor endorse Julio?
2) What is it that they know ABOUT JULIO from dealing with him intimately that caused them and causes them to not support Julio?
3) What is it that they know about JULIO’s VIEWS that caused them and causes them concern?
4) Is it because they understand that there are TWO types of UNIONS: State GOVERNMENT employee unions, and LOCAL TRADES unions, and that the interests of the State GOVERNMENT employee unions (which are Julio’s biggest supporters) are NOT necessarily aligned with the interests of the local trades unions or of working families and job creation?
5) Is it because they believe and are concerned that Julio will roll-over and be pushed by the interests of Sacramento vs our local interests?
I think that unless these questions are answered fully and satisfactorily and concerns allayed, no amount of hard work will overcome these concerns.
Paco Barragan
Paco, I’m not sure how much you know about the political split among the union movement in Orange County, but the Teamsters, Carpenters, and Ray Cordova’s group (which he calls AFL-CIO but I’m told that the AFL-CIO does not recognize; I have not asked Ray about that) often take a different political position than the rest of the OC Labor movement. The Teamsters recently withdrew from the OC Labor Federation (perhaps, I surmise, because of the AD-69 race.)
I have a lot of respect for Doug Mangione of the IBEW (part of the “building trades”), so I was concerned by your assertion and I looked up Julio’s endorsements. They contradict your assertion that Julio is primarily supported by state government employee unions as opposed to trade unions. Here’s the list of Labor endorsements only (there are many others) from his website:
Yes, there are teachers and CSEA and SEIU and AFSCME and firefighters and probation officers — and there are also CWA and Nurses and Laborers and UFCW (food and commercial) and domestic workers and electricians and stagehands and UNITE HERE and electrical workers and roofers and sprinkler fitters and waterproofers.
The Flag Day celebration that you and I attended on Saturday is a slice of the local labor movement, and one extremely influential within the local Democratic Party establishment, but to be honest it’s a relatively small slice of a large pie. Compare Julio’s labor endorsements to those of Tom Daly:
John Hanna — who might easily be worth a whole union local by himself, also endorsed both Daly and Julio.
I take it that someone may have given you some relevant background at the Flag Day luncheon. It is entirely understandable that you would accept it as presented in good faith — but I think that you received a skewed and inaccurate report. Whoever it was, next time that person tells you something about the OC Labor movement, you may want to consider the source — and refer to the websites showing where labor actually stands on the race.
@ Greg D:
It seems that it is still the case that State GOVERNMENT employee unions “are Julio’s [BIGGEST] supporters” as compared to the type of unions that endorse Tom Daly.
And the questions that I raised, I think will still need to be answered satisfactorily.
Paco,
I used to think that you were well meaning but just naive. I need to reexamine my opinion now. You apparently have no concept about the labor movement and absolutely no insight to Orange County. The single largest contributor to Julio’s campaign is UFCW. Last I looked there weren’t any government run grocery stores. Ask those few unions, and by few I mean three, that endorsed Daly if they truly believed he was a better labor vote than Julio and see what they say. You may want to switch your focus now and send thank you notes to the 500 people that accidentally voted for you when they assumed Eric Estrada’s character from CHiPs was running for office.
Oh and by the way Paco, 2 of the 3 unions listed as supporting Daly also represent GOVERNMENT employees, Teamsters 911 and 952.
Paco, the “type of unions” that endorse Daly are essentially the Teamsters and the Carpenters — historically conservative unions. The “type of unions” that endorse Julio are essentially … everyone else.
You’re heading down an unhappy road, though — the road to Wisconsin — if you start demonizing state government employee unions generally. Will they always be right in every battle? Of course not. I’m an attorney; I know that an individual group that is a professional advocate will sometimes tend to look at things very much from their own perspective and will have to be constrained by people viewing the world from other perspectives. But are they generally right? Yes, I think there are. Teachers are not generally overpaid for the work they do; where people are overpaid it is generally at higher levels that can help negotiate their own salaries.
It is an ugly society that wants to get something for nothing from their public employees. Fairness is enough. I think that people despair of getting justice when it comes to crazy and out-of-control CEO salaries and huge consultant fees and crony sweet deals — and so they beat up on the smaller but closer target — the teacher, fire fighter, or bus driver who has a little nicer life, thanks to unions, than they would have without them. That — and not the objection to people who become powerful pigs and pirates — is the true “politics of resentment” in our society.
I’ll answer your questions separately.
1) Why is it that other labor organizations and labor leaders have not and do NOT support nor endorse Julio?
The few labor organizations that have not endorsed Julio are more conservative and are happy with a candidate who shovels public money to private industry (because they expect some of it to come back to them) and happy to make common cause with Chevron and Philip Morris.
2) What is it that they know ABOUT JULIO from dealing with him intimately that caused them and causes them to not support Julio?
That he is scrupulously honest, is smart as hell, works like a champion prize fighter, and is capable of great things that might displace them.
3) What is it that they know about JULIO’s VIEWS that caused them and causes them concern?
See above. He’s not a mere stereotypical union hack. On consumer issues, on women’s issues, etc., as well as labor issues, he’s a true leader.
4) Is it because they understand that there are TWO types of UNIONS: State GOVERNMENT employee unions, and LOCAL TRADES unions, and that the interests of the State GOVERNMENT employee unions (which are Julio’s biggest supporters) are NOT necessarily aligned with the interests of the local trades unions or of working families and job creation?
No, it is demonstrably not, once you look at his and Daly’s respective endorsements.
5) Is it because they believe and are concerned that Julio will roll-over and be pushed by the interests of Sacramento vs our local interests?
Paco, let me tell you a story. When I worked as Jerry Brown’s OC coordinator in 2010, I met a lot of people. When I dealt with Julio, he told me that to avoid problems with improper campaign coordination, he could only talk with me about certain things until a certain date, and other things not at all — and then he stuck to his word. We had no communication at all for two months or so other than friendly nods in passing at events. Meanwhile, others were showing themselves to be, in my opinion, a lot less scrupulous.
I know Julio, Paco. He’s the best we have in politics. I don’t think that you know him. You should sit down with him and get to know him — and then I hope that you’ll go back to whoever is feeding you crap about him and tell them to piss off.
*What is Julio’s message again….for the Assembly? We know he has no money.
Better be a pretty strong message…..to beat our man Jose!
Julio doesn’t need any particular message to beat Jose. That will be settled within the next few days based on votes already cast. He will need a strong message to beat Daly — presuming that he gets that chance. Luckily, he has one.
Julio actually raised the MOST money in direct contributions to candidates and not just from unions but from hundreds of small individual donors and local activists and 69th AD residents/small business owners. In fact, Perez raised probably twice as much as Daly and certainly more than Martinez. But Daly got the most in independent expenditures from the likes of Chevron, insurance companies and tobacco. Michele and Tom got a ton of Sacramento money and Julio got a ton of local individual support…still managing to come first in fundraising.
If you want to know the interests a candidate will represent, you should look at their donor lists as it tells you a lot about them.
*Message….again? Can’t anyone say what he wants to do on HSR, on Pensions, 3 @50 Retirement and Health Benefits? What does he want to do on the Deficit? Does he support Downtown Jerry Brown….all the way?
Things like that!
@R&AW:
From the debate that we had, and unless he changed his views from about 2 1/2 months ago:
1) Julio wants to build HSR, and it seems without regard to the high costs estimates that have been published.
2) He wants to raise taxes period.
3) He wants to eliminate all assistance (whether targeted financial incentives or technical assistance) to small and medium-sized businesses.
Somehow he seems to think that anything that has a “corporate” connotation is bad.
To me, whether someone is unionized or incorporated is not an issue.
What is at issue is whether the particular activities of a corporation or a union are at odds with the needs of the rest of society.
Each one has its own “shareholders” to look after and with the goal to MAXIMIZE the “profits” for its members which often times is too focused on the short-term horizon.
But I prefer to take the “stakeholders” approach which has the goal of SATISFYING a certain level of “profits”, but which in the long-term is more “profitable” and beneficial to all.
Paco
Thanks for the reply addressing the merits, Paco. In response:
1) You may want to consider why so many other countries (notably China) have been building HSR — and why they don’t seem to regret it. The increasing price of fossil fuel is going to price people out of the market for long-distance driving; HSR (combined with ZipCar type programs) provides an alternative that, if we don’t build, we will wish that we had. I agree that a country shouldn’t do it just for a job program — but it’s justified on its own merits. (We might also ask why the cost estimates here are so high — and what we can do about crony capitalism.)
2) Right now, “raise taxes, period” makes sense because the wealthy and large commercial enterprises in California are so undertaxed. In another political moment, it may well not make sense — but we’re talking about policies that apply now. Of course, we should not raise taxes irresponsibly or willy-nilly; we should choose the right ones, the smart ones, that will generate revenue we need with minimal problems. I’ve suggested (a) the Governor’s compromise tax, (b) an oil severance tax, (c) a split roll on Prop 13 property taxes so that commercial properties don’t keep their taxes artificially low while the humans that Prop 13 was intended to help have their taxes rise, and (4) regulating marijuana like wine. You make it sound like raising taxes is gratuitous if not sadistic; at this point, targeted tax raises are good government to address a floundering state economy.
3) I’ll bet that Julio could be persuaded in individual cases, or possible with trade-offs to ensure that such incentives don’t simply benefit shareholders to the detriment of anyone else. (That corporations can create jobs with assistance does not mean that they will, and if that’s not the way to maximize profits they generally won’t.)
Yes, just as corporations can, unions can look at things from their own parochial perspectives — and be advocates rather than impartial judges. That’s why I don’t promise to be a guaranteed vote for any union proposal that comes my way, although I will always hear them out. But we are not at some philosophical point outside of history where we can deal with the struggle between unions and corporations in purely theoretical terms.
We’re at a point where the influence of corporations is rampant and unions are beleaguered; we’re at a point where we literally face the prospect of losing control over our own system of government thanks to corporate excess and unions are one of the few social institutions that can serve as a counterweight.
Look and see whose spending perverted the outcomes of just-completed elections — here, in Wisconsin, and elsewhere. It’s not unions who are driving the problem, Paco; they are reacting to corporate excess. Look at the fundraising information on the Secretary of State’s website; trace where the contributions laundered through ersatz intermediate groups are coming from.
There’s a saying in the labor movement: “which side are you on?” It’s not always an appropriate demand to make of others. Now, though — in the historical moment when you, I, Julio, and others are running for office — it is. Theoretical even-handedness when a large fighter is pummeling a smaller one through perversion of the rules is not truly even-handed in practice.
@ Greg D:
1) HSR:
I concur with you when you say:
“I agree that a country shouldn’t do it just for a job program — but it’s justified on its own merits. (We might also ask why the cost estimates here are so high — and what we can do about crony capitalism.)”
I also believe that HSR can be justified on its own merits, but I am bothered by the ever-increasing costs, which makes me think there are a lot of behind the scenes shenanigans happening.
Proposition 1A approved the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would PARTIALLY fund an 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In 2008, when voters approved the measure, the estimate for the total cost of the project was $40 billion. In 2011, the California High-Speed Rail Authority issued a new cost estimate for the entire project, saying that it will cost between $98.5 billion and $118 billion.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Act_%282008%29
Current estimates are about .10 cents/mile in CA for HSR vs .44/mile in Europe’s train which have experience with this. So they could be seriously understating the costs, to then have them Quadrapuled requiring greater taxpayer subsidies, but again with manipulative shenanigans to inflate the costs.
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2012/03/21/study-high-speed-rail-needs-billions-in-subsidies/151540/
2) I also concur with your following statement, and I wish so did Julio, because this did not appear to be the case with him:
“Of course, we should not raise taxes irresponsibly or willy-nilly; we should choose the right ones, the smart ones, that will generate revenue we need with minimal problems:
There is a world of difference between raising TAXES and raising REVENUES. And someone saying that they will raise taxes period is not about “choosing the right one or the smart ones.”
a) We can tax out of state services too, which may encourage individuals or companies to come back to the state.
b) We can also tax online purchases, which will be happening either this Fall, or next year depending on what the federal govt does. But, we need to refine this, and EXCLUDE necessary online purchases i.e. some medical device goods or items related to education ie. books.
c) Per the California Budget Project (CBP), “California ranks relatively high with respect to personal and corporate income tax collections, and relatively low with respect to tobacco and alcoholic beverage taxes.”
“Who pays taxes in CA” This document is an overall great read.
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120413_Who_Pays_Taxes.pdf
The problem we have now, is that we have more of an open economy, where corporations or businesses are leaving not just the state but also the country, and if they do stay, they have an incentive, because of the relatively high taxes – although they have declined over time, to come up with structures in which they avoid paying a Fair amount of taxes.
So yes, we have to be strategic on HOW we raise REVENUES which again is different than raising TAXES.
b) CA’s Tax system” -by CBP – see page 6.
http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/0902_Californias_Tax_System.pdf
3) Julio says he wants to eliminate the Enterprise Zone Credits, and so does the governor to save about $600 million per year. I disagree.
The problem is not that the EZ credits don’t work, but that they don’t work the way they have been currently structured.
We need to refine them and implement other measures to ensure job creation and to ensure EZ credits help small and medium sized businesses which create 90% of the jobs.
a) For example, currently the EZ credit is received for New Hires vs New Jobs created. I would modify it to grant this for New Jobs created. Otherwise, if the focus is still on New Hires companies will hire and then fire people as the credit is phased out, so that they can get a new EZ credit with a new hire, but with no jobs created.
b) I would also change the EZ credit to grant it to companies that are BELOW a certain dollar threshold i.e. those that are BELOW $5-10 million in revenues or $5-10 million in Assets. Currently, about 75% – 90% of the EZ credit is used by large corporations with $1 Billion or more in Assets.
4) The framing of the question about “which side are you on” is not about just corporations or unions, but about corporations, unions AND working families AND small and medium sized businesses.
Greg, most people talk about the 1% vs the 99%;
I think it is more like the 10% (the large fighters) vs the 90% (the small fighter and it is the 90% – the majority of our society that is at greatest risk).
Greg, for example, talk to part-time teachers and part-time college professors. And see how the system is stacked up against them in terms of low-pay and bad working conditions, and no representation against the larger established system.
As a society we should always question any new policy or idea as:
i) Does it ADD to the overall well-being of our society, or are only a privileged few benefiting?
ii) Does it result in a net gain for the LONG-TERM for our society, or are some benefiting in the short term at the expense of society?
I do believe that you will be more impartial than not and that is why I wish you success!
Paco Barragan
69th AD prediction:
-There will be roughly 3,300 to 3,400 additional votes tallied for the 69th AD: This will be roughly 22.3 to 22.7 percent of the remaining votes talliedcounty wide;
-Julio will outperform Jose Moreno by between 18 to 30 percent of the remaining vote;
-Julio will win by between 75 to 262 votes;
-There will be a recount if Julio loses; there will not necessarily be a recount if Jose Moreno loses (unless it is funded by Daly’s campaign or JOBSPAC).
“Julio will outperform Jose Moreno by between 18 to 30 percent of the remaining vote;”
That prediction presupposes that the Demo’s in the 69th went to the polls and voted.
The precincts in the 69th that have majority Demo’s also have low turn outs, and the precincts more evenly matched have Rep voting 2 to 1 over the Dem’s.
Here’s the most relevant data point, cook: Julio reportedly picked up 36% of the vote yesterday, of which only 60% were provisional ballots. He has to be making an absolute killing in provisionals. Dems may have low turnout — but we probably had ENOUGH!
*Normally, they send in those Mail in Ballots and Provisionals AFTER Election Day….in the hundreds..and then hope no one pays attention to the dates…they try to not have any date stamps..
They have been doing this for years…..hopefully this time Neal Kelley has caught on
to their nonsense! Both parties do this by the way. Normally, the Dems cast Republican ballots and Republicans cast Democratic ones. Cute…..eh?
maybe there was a purpose to greer’s visit today. tom daly and bret barbre are good friends. greer is friends with barbre. maybe it has nothing to do with the 72nd
Hm.. that name Barbre rings a bell too … something from Bushala … something crooked Barbre did with Tom Daly. I wish Tony would come by more, he’d have it off the top of his head.
Brett Barbre is on one of the Water Boards. Paid political lobbyist. Works for Athens services, the private street sweeping firm that got $70 million in CA government bond money and is now running around underbidding trash services. Costa Mesa just contracted with them. Athens likes to donate to city council races.
The conservatives must be up in arms about this — probably on the wrong side.
my recollection is that barbre worked for daly and did the sports history museum
just hope the government employees union guy loses.
*Go Joe Go….excuse us….Vaya Jose Vaya……and The American Republican will prevail…..
The fight to be the losing canidate in Nov.
Greg,
If Tom Daly’s brother was Speaker, do you think he would have more support from those on the lists above? Just asking???
Um… you don’t think Julio and John (and Rosie and Manny and George and Diana and Hilton) are brothers do you?
I think you mean to say “… were Speaker”. Past subjunctive tense, not past indicative.
Example: “If Speaker John Perez were Julio’s brother, Jose Solorio would not have had the cajones to try to get Tom Daly to run in AD-69, but Julio was born into a different family than John Perez.”
I see that Vern beat me to it (or at least to implying it.)
Well done, counsellor, but – I hate to bring this up, after your painful Rochambeau defeat – it is cojones.
I was referring to Solorio’s drawers — “cajones.” After the Rochambeau I can’t bear to write the other word.
*”Ain’t no sunshine…..when she’s gone…..only darkness every day….Ain’t no sunshine when she’s gone……I know…..I know….you better leave our yound Jose alone….Ain’t no sunshine when she’s gone!’
How many more votes to count? We keep waiting and waiting….
I’m trying to find out now, but initial reports are that this is it, that it’s over with Moreno and Allen retaining their leads, neither third-place candidate is within half a percent.
Here’s the report today:
Today’s report. Seems like a small batch — 261 in AD 69 and 540 in AD 72 — so I don’t know if this is the end of it. Perez still down by 242; Dovinh still down by 419.
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 69th District
Completed Precincts: 159 of 159
Vote Count Percentage
TOM DALY 10,939 39.2%
JOSE “JOE” MORENO 5,980 21.4%
JULIO PEREZ 5,738 20.6%
MICHELE MARTINEZ 4,651 16.7%
FRANCISCO “PACO” BARRAGAN 605 2.2%
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 72nd District
Completed Precincts: 320 of 320
Vote Count Percentage
TROY EDGAR 18,060 28.0%
TRAVIS ALLEN 12,851 19.9%
JOE DOVINH 12,432 19.3%
LONG PHAM 12,409 19.2%
ALBERT AYALA 8,816 13.7%
*There is every real chance that Joe can and will beat Daly. Daly is going to have to spend some of that big political capital he has garnered. Chances are pretty good that the OCGOP is not going assit Joe in any shape or form. He will get our small donation and a lot of other small contributors.
“There is every real chance that Joe can and will beat Daly”
I don’t agree, Daly will buy the seat and pay off with the safe vote on the important issues that the special interest paid the price.
Enough Dems will fall in line, and enough money will pour in, that this Dem district will elect the “Dem.” And Solorio and the Pulido cabal, including Michele, will figure out how to make Tom palatable enough to Latinos.
Despite the best efforts of JOBSPAC to knock down Moreno’s vote, the original plan of Solorio and the GOP (barely) worked.
Moreno will not raise enough money for campaign signs or a mailer. Daly will have the GOP behind him — they’re happy with Solorio-lite, so to speak — and the influential slice of the Dem party that supported him. Other Dems have other races to be involved with, as does Labor. Most will vote for Daly, some will vote against him, a lot won’t vote. Turnout will be strikingly low but it won’t matter. Life goes on.
Interesting to find out, from the Voice of OC, that it was TIM WHITACRE who recruited Moreno. Joe never mentioned that to me. It makes sense. Tim is something of a rebel in the OC GOP. He used to blog here back in the day when Art was still a Republican.
He’s very conservative, a big tea partier. And he sticks up for the party’s racists like Pauly and Davenport, which is why I put him in this fun story:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/04/in-the-wake-of-davenport-and-grose-the-ocgop-race-samizdat-parties/
Still, it’s been tempting over the years to sympathize with his crusades against Scott Baugh and the OC GOP establishment. Tim is a Marine, a hardcore Christian, and was one of the first to insist that corrupt Sheriff Carona had to go, while Baugh and the insiders were still defending him. Here’s what I wrote when he was running for chairman back in aught-ten:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/01/whitacre-takes-on-baugh-who-do-you-think-should-lead-the-oc-gop/
I’m sure Moreno’s recruitment gave Scott heartburn, and I’m sure that was part of the intention. Still, Scott’s arm was twisted enough to pay Joe’s filing fees. He’s obviously gonna let Joe founder and flounder now.
I knew that it was Tim Whitacre, but I didn’t know much about him. So is Joe M. down with Whitacre’s agenda?
I still think it would have been hilarious if JOBSPAC would have been the ones to foil the plan to keep Julio out of the runoff. IDIOTS, YOU SHOULD HAVE SPENT ANOTHER $1,000,000 ATTACKING MORENO! Oh, the might-have-beens….
Joe Moreno writes me to say that Tim Whitacre DID NOT recruit him. Instead, Joe says that he contacted Whitacre after Robert Hammond pulled out of the AD-69 race and asked if any Republican was planning on running for the seat. He said that if no one else was running, he’d consider doing it. Moreno did ask Whitacre to pay his filing fee (which I think is what happened), but that’s not the same as Whitacre recruiting him.
I can’t vouch for any of this, but it is what Moreno wrote to me today.
Well I believe Joe. How come he didn’t write me though?
Are you his Facebook friend? He just sent me the request a week or two back.