Registration and Turnout |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Reg/Turnout |
Percentage |
Total Registered Voters |
1,481,881 |
|
Precinct Registration |
1,481,881 |
|
Precinct Ballots Cast |
136,081 |
9.2% |
Early Ballots Cast |
766 |
0.1% |
Vote-by-Mail Ballots Cast |
192,204 |
13.0% |
Total Ballots Cast |
329,051 |
22.2% |
Top
Governor |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
JOHN H. COX (REP) |
118,608 |
36.6% |
GAVIN NEWSOM (DEM) |
80,118 |
24.7% |
TRAVIS ALLEN (REP) |
39,204 |
12.1% |
ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA (DEM) |
35,422 |
10.9% |
JOHN CHIANG (DEM) |
28,094 |
8.7% |
DELAINE EASTIN (DEM) |
6,215 |
1.9% |
AMANDA RENTERIA (DEM) |
4,387 |
1.4% |
ROBERT C. NEWMAN, II (REP) |
2,367 |
0.7% |
MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER (DEM) |
1,624 |
0.5% |
PETER Y LIU (REP) |
1,476 |
0.5% |
YVONNE GIRARD (REP) |
882 |
0.3% |
J. BRIBIESCA (DEM) |
685 |
0.2% |
ZOLTAN ISTVAN (LIB) |
677 |
0.2% |
THOMAS JEFFERSON CARES (DEM) |
606 |
0.2% |
GLORIA ESTELA LA RIVA (P-F) |
514 |
0.2% |
JOSH JONES (GRN) |
492 |
0.2% |
NICKOLAS WILDSTAR (LIB) |
440 |
0.1% |
ALBERT CAESAR MEZZETTI (DEM) |
391 |
0.1% |
ROBERT DAVIDSON GRIFFIS (DEM) |
346 |
0.1% |
CHRISTOPHER N. CARLSON (GRN) |
281 |
0.1% |
JEFFREY EDWARD TAYLOR |
272 |
0.1% |
AKINYEMI AGBEDE (DEM) |
250 |
0.1% |
HAKAN “HAWK” MIKADO |
248 |
0.1% |
JOHNNY WATTENBURG |
220 |
0.1% |
KLEMENT TINAJ (DEM) |
197 |
0.1% |
DESMOND SILVEIRA |
190 |
0.1% |
SHUBHAM GOEL |
128 |
0.0% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Lieutenant Governor |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
COLE HARRIS (REP) |
79,816 |
25.7% |
ED HERNANDEZ (DEM) |
61,081 |
19.7% |
ELENI KOUNALAKIS (DEM) |
55,104 |
17.8% |
DAVID FENNELL (REP) |
27,971 |
9.0% |
DAVID R. HERNANDEZ (REP) |
27,344 |
8.8% |
LYDIA ORTEGA (REP) |
24,222 |
7.8% |
JEFF BLEICH (DEM) |
17,673 |
5.7% |
GAYLE MCLAUGHLIN |
6,367 |
2.1% |
TIM FERREIRA (LIB) |
4,517 |
1.5% |
CAMERON GHARABIKLOU (DEM) |
3,724 |
1.2% |
DANNY THOMAS |
2,490 |
0.8% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Secretary of State |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
MARK P. MEUSER (REP) |
135,643 |
43.9% |
* ALEX PADILLA (DEM) |
126,160 |
40.9% |
RAUL RODRIGUEZ JR (REP) |
18,141 |
5.9% |
RUBEN MAJOR (DEM) |
13,690 |
4.4% |
GAIL K. LIGHTFOOT (LIB) |
6,829 |
2.2% |
MICHAEL FEINSTEIN (GRN) |
4,295 |
1.4% |
C. T. WEBER (P-F) |
2,407 |
0.8% |
ERIK RYDBERG (GRN) |
1,633 |
0.5% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Controller |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* BETTY T. YEE (DEM) |
142,841 |
48.6% |
KONSTANTINOS RODITIS (REP) |
139,848 |
47.5% |
MARY LOU FINLEY (P-F) |
11,504 |
3.9% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Treasurer |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
FIONA MA (DEM) |
101,854 |
33.3% |
GREG CONLON (REP) |
87,148 |
28.5% |
JACK M. GUERRERO (REP) |
78,670 |
25.7% |
VIVEK VISWANATHAN (DEM) |
32,526 |
10.6% |
KEVIN AKIN (P-F) |
5,448 |
1.8% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Attorney General |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* XAVIER BECERRA (DEM) |
111,400 |
36.0% |
STEVEN C BAILEY (REP) |
100,436 |
32.5% |
ERIC EARLY (REP) |
62,522 |
20.2% |
DAVE JONES (DEM) |
35,095 |
11.3% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Insurance Commissioner |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
STEVE POIZNER |
148,686 |
50.9% |
RICARDO LARA (DEM) |
99,486 |
34.1% |
ASIF MAHMOOD (DEM) |
31,177 |
10.7% |
NATHALIE HRIZI (P-F) |
12,531 |
4.3% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Member, State Board of Equalization 4th District |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
JOEL ANDERSON (REP) |
97,545 |
32.8% |
JOHN F. KELLY (REP) |
56,607 |
19.1% |
MIKE SCHAEFER (DEM) |
48,440 |
16.3% |
DAVID DODSON (DEM) |
38,426 |
12.9% |
KEN LOPEZ-MADDOX (DEM) |
37,607 |
12.7% |
JIM STIERINGER (REP) |
11,351 |
3.8% |
NADER F. SHAHATIT (REP) |
7,093 |
2.4% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
UNITED STATES SENATOR |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* DIANNE FEINSTEIN (DEM) |
113,886 |
36.5% |
JAMES P BRADLEY (REP) |
35,878 |
11.5% |
ARUN K. BHUMITRA (REP) |
22,042 |
7.1% |
KEVIN DE LEON (DEM) |
21,474 |
6.9% |
PAUL A TAYLOR (REP) |
19,692 |
6.3% |
TOM PALZER (REP) |
17,935 |
5.7% |
ERIN CRUZ (REP) |
14,845 |
4.8% |
PATRICK LITTLE (REP) |
9,994 |
3.2% |
JERRY JOSEPH LAWS (REP) |
7,452 |
2.4% |
ROQUE “ROCKY” DE LA FUENTE (REP) |
6,163 |
2.0% |
PAT HARRIS (DEM) |
5,541 |
1.8% |
ALISON HARTSON (DEM) |
5,372 |
1.7% |
JOHN “JACK” CREW (REP) |
5,366 |
1.7% |
KEVIN MOTTUS (REP) |
4,155 |
1.3% |
DERRICK MICHAEL REID (LIB) |
2,985 |
1.0% |
ADRIENNE NICOLE EDWARDS (DEM) |
2,570 |
0.8% |
DOUGLAS HOWARD PIERCE (DEM) |
2,360 |
0.8% |
HERBERT G. PETERS (DEM) |
2,094 |
0.7% |
LING LING SHI |
2,067 |
0.7% |
MARIO NABLIBA (REP) |
1,682 |
0.5% |
DONNIE O. TURNER (DEM) |
1,147 |
0.4% |
GERALD PLUMMER (DEM) |
1,098 |
0.4% |
DAVID HILDEBRAND (DEM) |
1,033 |
0.3% |
JASON M. HANANIA |
798 |
0.3% |
DAVID MOORE |
797 |
0.3% |
LEE OLSON |
762 |
0.2% |
DON J. GRUNDMANN |
733 |
0.2% |
JOHN THOMPSON PARKER (P-F) |
698 |
0.2% |
RASH BIHARI GHOSH |
571 |
0.2% |
COLLEEN SHEA FERNALD |
511 |
0.2% |
TIM GILDERSLEEVE |
412 |
0.1% |
MICHAEL FAHMY GIRGIS |
281 |
0.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 38th District |
Completed Precincts: 9 of 9 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
RYAN DOWNING (REP) |
992 |
53.1% |
* LINDA T. S�NCHEZ (DEM) |
876 |
46.9% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 39th District |
Completed Precincts: 246 of 254 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
YOUNG KIM (REP) |
13,883 |
25.5% |
GIL CISNEROS (DEM) |
9,864 |
18.1% |
PHIL LIBERATORE (REP) |
7,574 |
13.9% |
ANDY THORBURN (DEM) |
4,646 |
8.5% |
SHAWN NELSON (REP) |
4,494 |
8.3% |
SAM JAMMAL (DEM) |
3,151 |
5.8% |
MAI KHANH TRAN (DEM) |
2,371 |
4.4% |
BOB HUFF (REP) |
2,292 |
4.2% |
STEVEN C. VARGAS (REP) |
1,701 |
3.1% |
HERBERT H. LEE (DEM) |
1,560 |
2.9% |
SUZI PARK LEGGETT (DEM) |
859 |
1.6% |
JOHN J. CULLUM (REP) |
742 |
1.4% |
ANDREW SAREGA (REP) |
347 |
0.6% |
KAREN LEE SCHATZLE |
312 |
0.6% |
STEVE COX |
295 |
0.5% |
SOPHIA J. ALEXANDER (AI) |
221 |
0.4% |
TED M. ALEMAYHU (AI) |
62 |
0.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 45th District |
Completed Precincts: 337 of 395 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* MIMI WALTERS (REP) |
47,792 |
53.4% |
KATIE PORTER (DEM) |
17,884 |
20.0% |
DAVE MIN (DEM) |
15,395 |
17.2% |
BRIAN FORDE (DEM) |
4,942 |
5.5% |
JOHN GRAHAM |
2,120 |
2.4% |
KIA HAMADANCHY (DEM) |
1,446 |
1.6% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 46th District |
Completed Precincts: 194 of 233 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* LOU CORREA (DEM) |
20,862 |
59.7% |
RUSSELL RENE LAMBERT (REP) |
12,298 |
35.2% |
ED RUSHMAN |
1,045 |
3.0% |
WILL JOHNSON |
741 |
2.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 47th District |
Completed Precincts: 131 of 159 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* ALAN LOWENTHAL (DEM) |
11,982 |
48.6% |
JOHN BRISCOE (REP) |
6,510 |
26.4% |
DAVID MICHAEL CLIFFORD (REP) |
6,180 |
25.0% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 48th District |
Completed Precincts: 323 of 415 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* DANA ROHRABACHER (REP) |
27,911 |
30.4% |
HANS KEIRSTEAD (DEM) |
15,920 |
17.3% |
SCOTT BAUGH (REP) |
15,346 |
16.7% |
HARLEY ROUDA (DEM) |
14,939 |
16.3% |
OMAR A. SIDDIQUI (DEM) |
4,520 |
4.9% |
JOHN GABBARD (REP) |
2,742 |
3.0% |
RACHEL PAYNE (DEM) |
2,002 |
2.2% |
PAUL MARTIN (REP) |
1,511 |
1.6% |
MICHAEL KOTICK (DEM) |
1,443 |
1.6% |
LAURA OATMAN (DEM) |
1,355 |
1.5% |
SHASTINA SANDMAN (REP) |
1,342 |
1.5% |
DEANIE SCHAARSMITH (DEM) |
787 |
0.9% |
TONY ZARKADES (DEM) |
743 |
0.8% |
BRANDON REISER (LIB) |
479 |
0.5% |
STELIAN ONUFREI (REP) |
378 |
0.4% |
KEVIN KENSINGER |
374 |
0.4% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 49th District |
Completed Precincts: 36 of 96 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
DIANE L. HARKEY (REP) |
5,991 |
31.8% |
MIKE LEVIN (DEM) |
3,643 |
19.4% |
SARA JACOBS (DEM) |
2,295 |
12.2% |
DOUG APPLEGATE (DEM) |
1,490 |
7.9% |
BRIAN MARYOTT (REP) |
1,309 |
7.0% |
KRISTIN GASPAR (REP) |
1,286 |
6.8% |
ROCKY J. CH�VEZ (REP) |
1,085 |
5.8% |
PAUL G. KERR (DEM) |
603 |
3.2% |
MIKE SCHMITT (REP) |
414 |
2.2% |
JOSHUA SCHOONOVER (REP) |
201 |
1.1% |
CRAIG A. NORDAL (REP) |
161 |
0.9% |
DAVID MEDWAY (REP) |
129 |
0.7% |
ROBERT PENDLETON |
92 |
0.5% |
DANIELLE ST. JOHN (GRN) |
60 |
0.3% |
JOSHUA L. HANCOCK (LIB) |
51 |
0.3% |
JORDAN P. MILLS (P-F) |
13 |
0.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Shall Josh Newman be recalled (removed) from the office of State Sentator, District 29? |
Completed Precincts: 328 of 369 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
39,966 |
59.7% |
No |
26,944 |
40.3% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Candidates to succeed Josh Newman if he is recalled, for the duration of the term ending |
Completed Precincts: 328 of 369 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
LING LING CHANG |
21,720 |
34.6% |
BRUCE WHITAKER |
12,774 |
20.4% |
JOSEPH CHO |
12,393 |
19.7% |
JOSH FERGUSON |
7,060 |
11.2% |
KEVIN CARR |
5,572 |
8.9% |
GEORGE C. SHEN |
3,246 |
5.2% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
STATE SENATOR 32nd District, Full Term |
Completed Precincts: 41 of 46 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
RITA TOPALIAN (REP) |
1,371 |
33.3% |
VANESSA DELGADO (DEM) |
601 |
14.6% |
ION SAREGA (REP) |
417 |
10.1% |
TONY MENDOZA (DEM) |
399 |
9.7% |
ALI S. TAJ (DEM) |
307 |
7.4% |
VICKY SANTANA (DEM) |
285 |
6.9% |
BOB J. ARCHULETA (DEM) |
262 |
6.4% |
VIVIAN ROMERO (DEM) |
256 |
6.2% |
RUDY BERMUDEZ (DEM) |
160 |
3.9% |
DAVID CASTELLANOS (DEM) |
63 |
1.5% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
STATE SENATOR 32nd District, Short Term |
Completed Precincts: 41 of 46 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
RITA TOPALIAN |
1,297 |
32.0% |
TONY MENDOZA |
560 |
13.8% |
VANESSA DELGADO |
534 |
13.2% |
ION SAREGA |
448 |
11.1% |
ALI S. TAJ |
288 |
7.1% |
VICKY SANTANA |
282 |
7.0% |
BOB J. ARCHULETA |
221 |
5.5% |
VIVIAN ROMERO |
182 |
4.5% |
RUDY BERMUDEZ |
154 |
3.8% |
JOHN PAUL DRAYER |
60 |
1.5% |
DARREN JOSEPH GENDRON |
21 |
0.5% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
STATE SENATOR 34th District |
Completed Precincts: 307 of 339 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* JANET NGUYEN (REP) |
41,527 |
59.8% |
TOM UMBERG (DEM) |
18,345 |
26.4% |
JESTIN L. SAMSON (DEM) |
5,920 |
8.5% |
AKASH A. HAWKINS (DEM) |
3,607 |
5.2% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
STATE SENATOR 36th District |
Completed Precincts: 137 of 255 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* PATRICIA C. ‘PAT’ BATES (REP) |
32,719 |
59.7% |
MARGGIE CASTELLANO (DEM) |
22,069 |
40.3% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 55th District |
Completed Precincts: 122 of 127 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* PHILLIP CHEN (REP) |
14,204 |
47.2% |
GREGG D. FRITCHLE (DEM) |
6,191 |
20.6% |
JAMES G. GERBUS (REP) |
4,200 |
13.9% |
MELISSA FAZLI (DEM) |
4,194 |
13.9% |
SCOTT LEBDA (REP) |
1,334 |
4.4% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 65th District |
Completed Precincts: 238 of 271 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* SHARON QUIRK-SILVA (DEM) |
19,487 |
50.9% |
ALEXANDRIA “ALEX” CORONADO (REP) |
18,811 |
49.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 68th District |
Completed Precincts: 260 of 270 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* STEVEN S. CHOI (REP) |
33,440 |
60.2% |
MICHELLE DUMAN (DEM) |
22,139 |
39.8% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 69th District |
Completed Precincts: 105 of 127 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* TOM DALY (DEM) |
14,590 |
100.0% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 72nd District |
Completed Precincts: 213 of 231 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
JOSH LOWENTHAL (DEM) |
19,722 |
36.5% |
TYLER DIEP (REP) |
16,104 |
29.8% |
GREG HASKIN (REP) |
11,013 |
20.4% |
LONG PHAM (REP) |
4,340 |
8.0% |
RICHARD LAIRD (REP) |
2,785 |
5.2% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 73rd District |
Completed Precincts: 137 of 255 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* WILLIAM (BILL) BROUGH (REP) |
25,042 |
46.3% |
SCOTT RHINEHART (DEM) |
21,308 |
39.4% |
ED SACHS (REP) |
7,718 |
14.3% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 74th District |
Completed Precincts: 201 of 280 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* MATTHEW HARPER (REP) |
23,328 |
41.8% |
COTTIE PETRIE-NORRIS (DEM) |
15,384 |
27.6% |
KARINA ONOFRE (DEM) |
6,834 |
12.2% |
KATHERINE DAIGLE (REP) |
6,434 |
11.5% |
RYAN TA (DEM) |
3,820 |
6.8% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 13 |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* THEODORE R. “TED” HOWARD |
210,116 |
79.1% |
FRANKLIN DUNN |
55,438 |
20.9% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
MARSHALL TUCK |
128,234 |
45.9% |
TONY K. THURMOND |
74,381 |
26.6% |
LILY (ESPINOZA) PLOSKI |
44,259 |
15.8% |
STEVEN IRELAND |
32,577 |
11.7% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
County Superintendent of Schools |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* AL MIJARES |
216,206 |
100.0% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Member, County Board of Education Trustee Area 2 |
Completed Precincts: 293 of 340 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
MARI BARKE |
25,999 |
39.8% |
* DAVID L. BOYD |
23,948 |
36.6% |
MATT NGUYEN |
15,441 |
23.6% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Member, County Board of Education Trustee Area 5 |
Completed Precincts: 222 of 375 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
LISA SPARKS |
39,139 |
56.9% |
MARY NAVARRO |
16,610 |
24.2% |
KIMBERLY CLARK |
6,475 |
9.4% |
DAN DRAITSER |
4,125 |
6.0% |
MIKE DALATI |
2,407 |
3.5% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
County Supervisor 2nd District |
Completed Precincts: 327 of 386 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* MICHELLE STEEL |
44,497 |
63.7% |
BRENDON PERKINS |
16,808 |
24.1% |
MICHAEL MAHONY |
8,564 |
12.3% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
County Supervisor 4th District |
Completed Precincts: 265 of 299 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
TIM SHAW |
10,347 |
21.4% |
DOUG CHAFFEE |
10,158 |
21.0% |
JOE KERR |
9,685 |
20.0% |
LUCILLE KRING |
8,188 |
16.9% |
ROSE ESPINOZA |
5,606 |
11.6% |
CYNTHIA AGUIRRE |
4,407 |
9.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
County Supervisor 5th District |
Completed Precincts: 198 of 343 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* LISA BARTLETT |
55,252 |
100.0% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Assessor |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* CLAUDE PARRISH |
192,890 |
69.7% |
RICHARD B. RAMIREZ |
47,702 |
17.2% |
NATHANIEL FERNANDEZ EPSTEIN |
36,170 |
13.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Auditor-Controller |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* ERIC H. WOOLERY |
199,009 |
75.0% |
TONI SMART |
66,402 |
25.0% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Clerk-Recorder |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* HUGH NGUYEN |
215,432 |
78.7% |
STEVE ROCCO |
58,348 |
21.3% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
District Attorney-Public Administrator |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* TONY RACKAUCKAS |
114,285 |
39.6% |
TODD SPITZER |
100,898 |
35.0% |
BRETT MURDOCK |
62,284 |
21.6% |
LENORE ALBERT-SHERIDAN |
10,858 |
3.8% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Sheriff-Coroner |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
DON BARNES |
144,575 |
50.8% |
DUKE NGUYEN |
85,663 |
30.1% |
DAVID C. HARRINGTON |
54,547 |
19.2% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
Treasurer-Tax Collector |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
* SHARI L. FREIDENRICH |
241,773 |
100.0% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
68-AUTHORIZES BONDS FUNDING PARKS, NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION, CLIMATE ADAPTATION, WATER QUALITY |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
148,481 |
48.4% |
No |
158,027 |
51.6% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
69-REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN NEW TRANSPORTATION REVENUES BE USED FOR TRANSPORTATION |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
239,147 |
77.2% |
No |
70,812 |
22.8% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
70-REQUIRES LEGISLATIVE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE APPROVING USE OF CAP-AND-TRADE RESERVE |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
122,227 |
40.9% |
No |
176,752 |
59.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
71-SETS EFFECTIVE DATE FOR BALLOT MEASURES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
229,692 |
76.3% |
No |
71,353 |
23.7% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
72-PERMITS LEGISLATURE TO EXCLUDE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED RAIN-CAPTURE SYSTEMS FROM PROPERTY-TAX |
Completed Precincts: 1276 of 1561 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
260,154 |
85.1% |
No |
45,704 |
14.9% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
A-City of Cypress, Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 |
Completed Precincts: 25 of 32 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
3,514 |
65.0% |
No |
1,893 |
35.0% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
B-City of Irvine, Ordinance No. 17-08, Facilitating Veterans |
Completed Precincts: 79 of 101 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
8,068 |
37.3% |
No |
13,571 |
62.7% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
C-City of Irvine, Requiring a 2/3 Vote of the City Council to Propose Taxes |
Completed Precincts: 79 of 101 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
16,318 |
76.9% |
No |
4,904 |
23.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
D-City of Irvine, Prohibiting Voter Approval Requirements on Fiscally Beneficial Projects |
Completed Precincts: 79 of 101 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
9,685 |
46.9% |
No |
10,975 |
53.1% |
* Indicates Incumbent Candidate, if any
Top
E-City of Westminster, A Measure to Change the Term of Office for the Office of Mayor |
Completed Precincts: 30 of 32 |
|
Vote Count |
Percentage |
Yes |
4,620 |
52.2% |
No |
4,223 |
47.8% |
|
Shawn Nelson was a big winner too. He finally bled on the battlefield.
And how! I just didn’t want to rub it in; I liked him best of the Kim/Nelson/Huff trio.
He coulda been a judge this cycle, too!
Nelson’s been looking for “a hill to die on” for 8 years. Looks like he finally found it.
Do you remember his first couple years as Supervisor Dave? Of course you do, you couldn’t talk to me then. You were always in the corner smirking at me.
NONSTOP he would talk about what a SACRIFICE guys like him were making to be public servants, and how he couldn’t wait to get back to his hugely profitable private life. Well, now he has his wish I guess…
Yes, that “I’m making a HUGE sacrifice” talk got real old in a real hurry. He used it to rationalize all sorts of self-serving shenanigans.
I look forward to your having a candidate that you favor (rather than sneering at), IF that ever happens again. You’re right, a vulnerable target, a bit of money, and minimal scruples are all one needs. I’ll bet that I can suspend my scruples and find someone to sponsor some signs.
Tell us if you ever care about supporting anyone again, Surf Nazi. I’m sure that they’ll be vulnerable.
*Some interesting numbers to be sure. The sad results are that it looks like Mimi and Dana are going back for another 2 years! Our non candidate Doug Parker was like Harrington, nothing but a Rabbit in the Race from the beginning. As usual, those that do not respond to our e-mails are failures at the polls. Diane Harkey looks like the shoe in now. Hans would be great but he just doesn’t have the infrastructure to get out the vote in his behalf. We were wrong about Harley, evidently in person he is less impressive than his TV ads. Hans did have some good ads too, however! We wish him luck. Hey, it could have been a heck of a lot worse. Our bud Lou, the Kevin McCarthy of the South….gets a walk-in too! But hey, Lou still have great parties ….you have to admit. As you state some of the Dems are on the bubble. Sharon Quirk Silva and Linda Sanchez for instance. They better start swapping spit with some big money folks, cause these races could be very expensive. Our good bud Matt Harper evidently is thinking too much like the Winship’s on some issues and that has the big boys sending a message to “Dummy Up” on certain things! We like Matt a lot. He is a real guy and we certainly hope the folks in his district help him out. Prop. 68? What happened there? Josh Newman? Does that mean the Bruce Whitaker will be in a run-off with “What’s her face?” Don’t know! The latest polls say 87% of Republicans love Trump! Pretty discuss ting to be sure! Opioids? Date with Ivanka? We are going to stop watching CNN, MSNBC and FOX…..they are all paid off by Big Pharma that is for sure. Guess it it back to the History Channel for us during the next six years! As they used to say: “Pardon me Roy….is that the Chattanooga Chew Chew” Remember that Chinese Joke?
*We also have to admit that Ling-Ling is cute with those blonde streaks in her hair! Sort of a “We don’t mind Gai Genes!” look.
re Gil Cisneros: “he’s not going to have the fanatical volunteer force he’d need to beat Young Kim.”
I don’t know about that. I never saw much evidence of Thorburn’s volunteers in the field.
The biggest ‘fanatical volunteer force’ by far was fighting a valiant effort to save Newman: their canvassers were devoted, creative, and brought everything (including dog treats to appease my three excitable yappers, winning points with my family in the process). I bumped into them often, shared supportive smiles frequently: we knew we were really on the same team.
Newman is freed from his work in Sacramento: I hope he’ll devote himself to a counterpunch in the 39th – and bring those amazing troops along. Probably dispirited right now; but they’ll be angry all summer, and hopefully unite enough to win a bigger prize than even a California supermajority. And they’ll like Gil, and Team Gil.
The next most fanatical volunteers I saw (other than our own) was Team Tran: I saw evidence of their work on doorways almost everywhere I went (and I was in Buena Park, Fullerton, Chino Hills, Hacienda Heights, Brea, and Yorba Linda). A pity that didn’t translate into votes, but it wasn’t from lack of effort. Way I see it: she was the sweet, graceful lady who stayed dignified in this primary slugfest.
But Team Gil had an army of pretty fanatical (but utterly stable, cool, and positive) volunteers too – from every age group, demographic, and background imaginable. We probably knocked on more doors than all the other teams put together. If you think it was a ‘walk’ these last weeks…well, yes, it was a lot of walks…about 6-10 miles a day, in those dispersed housing projects where everyone thought they were the only Democrat on the block (nope, there are 4 others!)
*Good points,,,as Gil’s Name Recognition rises and if he can engage Kim in several community sponsored Debates (four at least)….he will be able to even his chances and put himself out there. Personalities do matter in these things….as with the Katie Porter/Mimi Walters race……It will be the one with the more likable Personality that will win at the end. The Rohrabacher, Hans and Harley race is very interesting. Which one will get the phone call and accept the dough? Pretty funny!
We think the biggest disappointment was Doug Parker however. He has more or less guaranteed that he will never be elected to public office…by simply NOT running and having his name on the ballot….instead of throwing his support to someone that could realistically, truly challenge a past elected official.
“It will be the one with the more likable Personality that will win at the end.”
Was Royce really so likable? I never met him, so I lack much of a basis for comparison, but I have met a number of senators and congressional representatives over the years.
I met him a long time ago. Yeah I guess he’s charming.
I was trying to get him to debate his challenger, at a “meet-and-greet” at the Orange Circle. I think it was 2004 or 6, and the challenger was Florice Hoffman. I told him the story of Lincoln and Douglass, how young unknown Lincoln kept pestering Douglass to debate him, and Douglass finally gave in, and Douglass actually won that race, partly because people admired him for agreeing to debate. Royce said “I want to debate YOU!” I said, I’m not your opponent. He just repeated himself again.
He is as short as a munchkin and has giant blue eyes. And loves the reaction he gets from race-baiting.
*Actually, Ed was rather engaging. His dad who got the Water Quality job was very kindly and charming. Anyway, Ed was and is more a less a no nonsense panty hose kind of guy. He doesn’t joke much and keeps on point, while making sure the person he is talking to actually has a grip on the facts.
No wonder he decided to step away from the Legislative Vehicle at this time.
We had a good interview with him on veterans that went fairly well, back in the day! From that point on…..he was acknowledging but not exactly palley!
Well, I am wondering if/when the debates come what folks will make of Cisneros v. Kim.
But no matter what Kim says, she’d be 90-100% Trump (Liberatore was always the 110% Trump guy, Nelson seemed the least Trump guy…no idea where Huff came down). I wonder how he’s faring in the district…
He’s affable, but there’s no evidence that he’s a good debater. He lucked out in getting the weakest of what we *thought* were the three leading Republican opponents. But at best he’ll equal her, while Thorburn would have slaughtered her.
I hope that he *doesn’t* debate her. When she whines, she can be reminded about Royce ducking debates for over a decade, with which she was just fine.
“He’s affable [Gil], but there’s no evidence that he’s a good debater.”
Depends on how one defines ‘good.’ Hillary pounded Trump’s face, but didn’t wind up drawing much support for all of that (unless you buy the claim that she had it in the bag until Russians/FBI/etc. took it from her).
Think the Winship’s are right: a lot comes down to likability for most voters. Thing is, Gil is that guy you talk to, who listens closely and thinks carefully. I’ve never seen evidence of him as a quipslinger, a wonk, or a comedian, the classic attributes of a debater.
Royce was well-liked, therefore was likeable. He was sort of mike the impression of Jeff Sessions on Saturday Night Live.
Young Kim will look good on a debate stage. Gil doesn’t, asI recall. Don’t debate her, citing Royce’s Precedent. One problem is that — especially after the Newman recall, Royce will be appearing all over the district with Ling-Ling introducing her to voters. Who’s going to introduce Gil? The most popular Dem in that district is Dianne Feinstein, and she’s busy.
Maybe DCCC an do a vicious report on Young Kim for him — or was it’s job finished when it stabbed Thorburn?
Was there a single item in the Thorburn attack that wasn’t available by checking Westlaw or Lexis, or a few other databases?
Granted, it could be nobody in Orange County can afford to use those databases, except for the DCCC…that no other lawyers use what lawyers in LA, NY, and much of the rest of the country use. But I doubt it. There are close to 10,000 of us in the OC, and a whole lot more in LA. Not unrealistic to expect any one of them did it. Quite realistic to assume that all of the guys who would bother work for the same employer.
@Greg, SQS.
“Who’s going to introduce Gil? The most popular Dem in that district is Dianne Feinstein, and she’s busy.”
I sort of like the optics of Sharon Quick-Silver (freakin autocorrect!) doing so.
“Hi, Young! How’d you like it when I beat you last time, despite all those nasty flyers you sent out about me as a silly school teacher?”
“Hiya, Sharon. Oh, it’s been fine, I went back to my boss, we planned his retirement party…you know, the usual…don’t worry, Sharon, we will do much nastier things about you after I lose this race. I think we kept all the hacks handy who got Newman…i even have three friends named Sharon who resemble Latinas…”
Sharon’s not going to be going around introducing Cisneros evetehere. She had her own race to fight. Two races, in fact: the one this November, and the recall election that Republicans will file against her as early as this December, because they like their election to had the smallest turnouts possible — just like the (slaveholding) Founders intended.
Politics just got bloody, folks. It ends up with the Lege starving OC of as many discretionary funds as possible. OC has asked for no-holds-barred partisan fighting. Here’s what it looks like: a blue boot stomping on a red-orange face.
Coto Joe Kerr a “winnner?” That’s pathetically comical. He ran as a favorite, a “Fire Hero” with huge union support. Well at least he won’t have to pay movers to take anything back to his mini-mansion in Coto de Caza.
Once again a carpetbagger bites the dust in north OC.
Well, as Paden pointed out, it’s not a done deal, he’s only 200-something votes behind Shaw, and lots left to be counted. We shall see…
Surf Nazis can’t accomplish real things, so they focus on keeping out “foreigners.” It’s a pathetic ideology, but at least it’s an ideology of sorts.
“Winner” is a relative term, obviously (well, obviously to perceptive readers): presuming for a moment that he does lose, he will be well positioned to get one of his major “planks” adopted by a member of the Board anyway.
One great pleasure of life, if Kerr does edge out Shaw, will be seeing Zenger promoting police brutality apologist Doug Chaffee over Kerr for Supervisor because Chaffee’s a local and so he gets to stay on Surf Nazi Zenger’s beach.
Well there you go again. Everybody has to be sorted into your sifted and sorted pigeon hole or the world’s not right.
You can call me a Nazi to my face when next we meet. That will be fun.
You’re not a Nazi; you’re a “Surf Nazi.” Erin can probably explain the term if it’s unfamiliar to you. It started in Huntington Beach to describe people who decided that, being proximate to the beach there, they had s moral right to bar others entry to it, often violently.
If you couldn’t process that explanation, could you have Tony beat me to death rather than doing it yourself? Like me, like Vern, like others, you’re not a fruitful target to have my survivors sue.
Actually, come to think of it, Tony is an even bigger (or at least more con$equntial) Surf Nazi than you are. Maybe if we even meet again, I can tell him so, get beaten to death, and cut out the useless middleman.
Wait, back up.
First of all, what has Joe Kerr publicly stated that leads you to conclude that he (a lifeong beneficiry of public employee union largesse) wpuld be even marginally better than Chaffee on this issue? And second, how exactly do you zing Zenger given your backing of Jan Flory In 2012? She campaigned against your signature issue – dispensaries – and attacked everyone who didn’t defend the FPD to the hilt (while backing the pro Coyote Hills development measure W) but I didn’t hear a peep out if you over her tactics.
“LARGESSE.” you ruptured gourd? We can argue about salaries and pensions, but you have to be out of your freaking mind to say that a firefighter like Kerr has been a beneficiary of largesse. Plenty of Republican middlemen — and lots of Democrats too — have been beneficiaries of far greater “largesse,” in that investing money in opportunities your advisers arranged to be available to you and those like you is a far inferior contribution to the community than is being willing to risk one’s own life to save others’ lives and property. You need to be a special kind of stupid not to see the fundamental difference.
What Flory did there was to support positions. You do see the difference between that and “tactics,” right? Her virtues — no surprise to me — were well-evident in her time representing Fullerton on the OC Water District, where she was absolutely masterful. (Not that you care about actual good governance, of course.) We have disagreed on a variety of issues — development of Coyote Hills being a big one — but I don’t equate her with Chaffee, whose filth-eating grin when he put on the cops association t-shirt while on the dais and dreamed of endorsements remains burned into memory. I wasn’t as upset about it then as I would be now, but I recognized it as awfully inappropriate and unseemly. If you didn’t hear a peep from me about her position on Coyote Hills, you weren’t listening. (Or reading here.)
My position on the Kelly Thomas killing was that the City was likely to be held responsible unless some collusion was found between the Slidebar and the cops — the very thing of which Tony Rackauckas blocked the investigation by taking over the trial himself, prior to booting it so badly that it seemed that it must have been intentional. I thought that the Keystone Kops were either reckless or negligent in their “apprehension” (well, torture) of Kelly Thomas — but that they were probably acting within their training and neither wanted nor expected to kill him by squeezing his lungs and diaphragm until he suffocated. That was their stupidity, but the city’s negligent hiring, negligent training, and negligent supervision — and that’s why I was able to say from just about Day One that they were not likely to be convicted (given POBOR) and that the closest we’d likely get to justice would be for the city to lose a fat wrongful death suit.
As I said, I’m shocked to now be the one that holds Zenger — who, with Bushala and others, seemed on the verge of creating a new religion centered on the martyrdom of Kelly Thomas — could actually prefer DOUG CHAFFEE for the Supervisor’s seat over Joe Kerr. Kerr is a decent man; Chaffee — well, not in my book. But beyond that, Kerr at worst got some extra funds for firefighters — enough to earn the hatred of the Sheriff’s Deputies, who want that money for themselves, while Chaffee practically spit on Kelly Thomas’s grave while giving lap dances to the FPD. And this is because — wait for it, because it will sounds like a joke — “carpetbagging” is a bigger sin in Zenger’s book than anything Chaffee ever did.
Hey, Zenger can have whatever foundational principles he want. I’m just shocked — non-sarcastically shocked — that I’M the one of the two of us still keeping the Kelly Thomas flame burning, at least as this election is involved. while making sure that a local (ANY local) stays in charge is the principle he raising above slavering praise on police brutality.
I hope that that clears things up for you, Sean. Do you favor Chaffee over Kerr too? Too bad, if so. Caring about the police brutality — or pretending to? — was one of your better traits.
I was there when Sean personally came down to an OCWD meeting to thank Flory, on his own and Whitaker’s behalf, for what a good job she was doing on the board defending Fullerton from Poseidon.
It was unlike anything I’m aware of before or after in her career – a broken clock staying correct for a year or two. Later when she wanted to stay on the board after leaving council, she told the council that she would back whatever their majority opinion was on Poseidon if they let her stay – that was a little jarring, after a tenure of speaking so much truth and sense.
So Whitaker got the gig, thanks to Jesus crossing party lines. (Chaffee wanted it, and was shamelessly pro-Poseidon.)
Oh, just a second, I didn’t answer your first question; my mistake. He’s going to be better as regards police and sheriff’s unions because the sheriff’s unions just spent big lying about him because they don’t want firefighters to get some of that sweet sheriffs’ money. In fact, I reprinted here the very mail where Kerr said that. (Pay better attention, Paden.)
So yeah, he’d be “marginally better” — and a whole lot more. Buuuuuuuut: Coto!
Sean, stop making obvious sense.
Might cause someone to have a conniption.
Greg was wrong about Flory and he’s right about Chaffee.
And I couldn’t see Zenger ever supporting Chaffee even if he hated Chaffee’s opponent; he doesn’t do the lesser evil thing. (Except with DA’s expected to die sooner.)
You agree with me that Flory was a great Water Board member, Vern.
The ISSUE, Vern, is how two “evils” measure up: sucking up to and defending deadly police brutality, versus moving (back) to a district in order to run for office.
I have a feeling, Vern, that you probably would join me in having a MUCH bigger problem with the person sucking up to police brutality — right? Zenger flat-out doesn’t care. PLEASE defend your buddy here on that score. I look forward to it.
Please provide evidence that Joe Kerr doesn’t suck up to police brutality.
I’ll wait.
Well… wouldn’t it be more appropriate for you to provide evidence that he does or has?
Anyway, did anyone here actually say they’d prefer Chaffee to Kerr? (Which is looking more and more like a moot question anyway.)
No Vern, it wouldn’t.
I’m not the one stating that one candidate is better than the other based on an unfounded fungible policy position.
I know that Kerr either lied about where he really lives or he abandoned the family to run for office, both positions I find unethical.
Diamond wants to represent that Kerr’s unethical actions compare positively with Chaffee’s alleged policy positions without proving Kerr’s position or Chaffee’s position.
I think that’s pretty weak.
Moving less than an hour away for work, which is essentially what this is at WORST, is not “abandoning one’s family,” for God’s sake.
I know that you want Shaw to win, but don’t be a knave about it.
Do it, Greg.
See how long your wife sticks around.
Until then, keep bullshit conclusions like that to yourself.
[Note: Ryan responds privately to inform my that I misinterpreted his “Go do it” comment — which was aimed at Joe Kerr moving away for work — due to its mention of “your wife.” I still disagree strongly with his sentiment, for reasons I wind follow here and now — but I want to acknowledge that the direction in which I went below was not one related to his actual argument.]
My wife doesn’t go on the occasional rampage of deleting comments and even posts, Ryan, because my wife doesn’t have (or want) access to the controls of this blog. Vern’s wife does — and used them avidly while Vern was in rehab all that time, during which time I took the insults and assaults from other hostile anonymous cowards as the person responsible for purging criticism. I took that abuse because Vern’s wife had enough crap to deal with then, without having me explain to her our commenting policy and asking her to heed it.
I know magnitudes more about the commenting policy than Vern’s wife (no insult intended there, she knows massively more than I do about other things), and frankly much more than Vern does — because I developed it, I routinely police it, and that’s why our comments section doesn’t suck.
When someone with a name don’t know shows up from a familiar seeming ISP address (I won’t give the details here and now) and acts both hostile and familiar, that sets me off on s little investigation. Usually, I send those letters privately, but in this case I was in more of a hurry because the topic was one that I know to be near and dear to the heart of our county’s leading larcenists and legislation was about to go to Committee.
It turns out that Vern and his wife did Know this person, who hadn’t given hundreds upon hundreds of hours to fighting these larcenists (as both Cynthia and I have done), and so this guy was not part of a black-hat group. Great! But Vern’s wife then threatened to pretend to have an Ambien-style-fueled rampage through the site’s archives. Vern understands the consequences of such a threat; his wife may not.
Vern doesn’t want to comment on her threat, just on my not knowing who his friend with the possibly calamitous plan is — whose identity I badly wanted to know quickly due to the rush of events regarding the bill M.Aly and his group are pushing.
Vern will deal with both my threat (“better identify yourself pronto, stranger!”) and Donna’s (“I think that maybe I’ll ‘accidentally’ set your library on fire”) if, when, and as he wishes. [Reference to Ryan deleted as inopportune.]
“Vern doesn’t want to comment on her threat…” I did comment on her “threat,” I called it “an obvious late-night LAMPOON of what you said to Darren.”
You’re going on about her deleting some comments (and a post) in October or so. As I understand, this was during your “my esteemed colleague Vern is gross and lecherous but would never assault Lorri Galloway, and it sure wasn’t ME who did it!” phase. And the post in question was a weekend open thread consisting solely of nasty things anonymous commenters were saying about us on other blogs – things Donna felt did not need our amplification.
You are needing to take a major chill pill right around now.
Great job completely missing my point Greg.
Someone who backed Flory over Kiger despite clear documented differences between the two on polIce brutality/ use of force doesn’t get to lecture others about not taking the issue seriously. And the Poseidon vote is irrelevant – If Zenger can’t prioritize other issues then you can’t either, per your own logic.
Also, you were asked by me and Ryan to confirm anything Kerr actually said which would show he was any better on the issue and you still haven’t.
And third, according to Transparent California Kerr made over $240,000 this year in salaries and benefits (https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2011/orange-county-fire-authority/joseph-kerr/) Glad you’re so well off that this sounds like chump change to you but 97-98% of Californians would say otherwise.
I have, if anything, moved more in the tax-saving direction since then. But I’s Still prefer Flory to Travis. If Bushala and Zenger wee pushing the “Kerr makes too much money!” argument as their main one, I might have some sympathy, but in any case I wouldn’t have contempt for them. But they’re not — they’re arguing that long-term residence in a district is “THE #1 THING!” That’s ridiculous and I don’t even think that THEY really believe it.
Yeah, you’re right — who wants to pay market rates for competent senior firefighters? After all, people here don’t even want to pay to keep major arterial bridges from collapsing, “because socialism!”
No you didn’t, no they aren’t, and you wildly missed the point on my last post.
It’s amazing what a few hundred bucks in campaign signs can accomplish. But of course you need to have a vulnerable target.
What is a surf Nazi?
Like a peasant farmer attached to his land with bad facial hair?
Explained in response to Zenger’s comment. It’s funny, because Vern and I grew up in HB and so wouldn’t have been targets — nor perpetrators — but Zenger and Bushala would have been.
Once you’ve read my explanation, if you have a better term for me to use for Zenger and Bushala than “Surf Nazis,” I’ll consider it. (But it has to be comparably catchy.)
Essentially, it’s someone whose bigotry against people with as much legitimate right to have the benefits of using or moving to a given area, but who who have not lived there as long, leads them to try to deny them (or to try to hobble their ability to engage in) the effective exercise of their rights. Teen street gangs are certainly a better example than German fascists, but the term (which has been around for 40 or so years) is obviously metaphorical. Or, if not obviously, I don’t mean it as a literal description of our local cockeyed xenophobes, where “xeno” means “more than a few miles away from me.
What Zenger and Tony do is much closer to stupid than evil, but Zenger is just so PROUD of being able to use Tony’s money for it that it still wannants being pissed on. God, I REALLY can’t wait to see Zenger promoting Doug “lemme put on this police association t-shirt at City Council in the wake of the Kelly Thomas hearing” Chaffee over Joe Kerr if Kerr defeats Shaw. After all, celebrating police brutality is a MUCH lesser offense than moving back to North OC from South OC to run for office, right? Ironic, huh?
I think your term is ill considered. I wouldn’t use it unless you’re purposely just trying to make people upset.
First, of course, I don’t give a damn what you think about it. Your party has wielded the term “feminazi” for years, and I don’t recall your ever risking so much as a fat lip over it. I’ve clarified that I don’t intend to allege that Bushala and Zenger are REAL Nazis, though Zenger has reminded us here that he is a thug. Come back and tut-tut at me about my supposed deportment when you’ve built up some cred.
But if you can come up with a better term for someone who can argue with a straight face — as a member of a street gang might — that THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT MATTERS ABOUT SOMEONE IS “WHERE THEY LIVE” AND NUMBER TWO IS FOR HOW LONG — which is the distillation of the Bushala/Zenger philosophy when evaluating candidates, and I’ll certainly consider adopting it.
Until then, I’ll continue to use the term Surf Nazi because they —with their punk anthem with the shouted lyrics “MY BEACH! MY SURF! MY WAVES! GO HOME! … GO HOME!” —are literally the only group I can think of who have fetishized residency as a prerequisite for a fellow-citizen’s free exercise of right with comparable vehemence.
Consider that bridge burnt then, Greg.
Hope it was worth it.
If that was about “Surf Nazis” and “feminazis,” well — it’s true, and I value my right to speak candidly. But you’re not a long-term residency fetishist, so far as I know, and I’ve never seen or heard you use the term “feminazi.” I wish that you could have mustered a substantive response to my question, but refusing to do so is your rightful choice.
Demagogue is coming back with his sofa. The boot camp is offering discounted fees to prepare for another epic OJB duel.
Ricardo,
This isn’t a duel. It’s not going to be one, either.
David Zenger is a friend of mine and doesn’t deserve to get called ridiculous names on this blog or any other.
This is a disagreement about common courtesy. It’ll stop and end there.
Greg, the thing with carpetbaggers is they often DON’T bother moving into the District they wish to represent, and when they leave their family in the home once shared by all, it is a pretty good indication they have not actually done more than change their voter registration, and if they have indeed moved into the temporary apartment, it is ONLY for the purpose of running for office, which indicates an appalling disrespect for the intelligence of the people who live there.
It also means they probably don’t have the best grip on the local issues and their leadership ability is as questionable as their moral compass.
So I don’t think Tony and Zenger deserve the name calling here. But as you point out, we all do indeed have rights in equal measure. You are making use of yours to be wrong but it is your God-given and Constitutionally protected right to do so.
The making of long-term residency into THE #1 CRITERION FOR OPPOSING A CANDIDATE has been stupid for a long time — and now I am done with it. I’m happy to see Kerr (if he makes it) debate 4th District issues with either Shaw or Chaffee —part of his job has been to know the Supervisoriak districts, while Chaffee’s job has been to know Fellerton alone — and to suck up to police associations. I’m shocked, in this company, to be the only person here who is more disgusted by Chaffee’s preening from the podium as he slathered love onto the police association in the wake of the Kelly Thomas killing than Kerr’s crime if … not having lived here for a while? This is the most shocking development of the election to me.
Cynthia, you and I know that Ryan is one of the best wordsmiths around. If he can come up with s better akternative than “Surf Nazi” for this insane and intellectually lazy fetish of Zenger’s and Bushala’s, I’d be happy to adopt it. But I am not going to take deportment lessons from representatives of a party that has for decades thrown around “feminazli” with a mean snarling guffaw.
*Bob Huff…..gosh….he didn’t do all that well either. OK, maybe a State Commission or Board is in his future. We hope so.
*Look like Hans accepted the call…..and has gained a little on Harley. Will Harley demand a recount….too tough to call…..but Hans should probably reach out to Harley and ask for his help in the General. This is classic OC Politics…..OMG!
I’d prefer to see him doing migrant farm work.
The craziest reason why Cole Harris won…is with 22 Lt. Gov. Candidates, many folks simply hit the first name on the ballot. Cole! Hilarious, never have even seen this guy
say “Boo”! What does he stand for?
Anyway, we generally agree 90% with everything that Dr. D. had to say on this….
The story is simple: Will the Republicans take their “Soma”….allow their inter-active
TV’s to brainwash them with Trumpster World and wait for the Ball to Drop?
Amazing really….it is “1984” and we just watch The Trumpster 24/7 like nodding doggies in the window! Good Grief…is there no escape?
That’s only the OC votes, Ron. Check the Sec of State’s site for state results.
*Got it…..funny stuff……Elini and Ed….alright white man! Classic.
It seems to me that the disagreement about carpetbagging or carpetbagging fetishism is not about common courtesy. It is about our different political approaches. Terms like “union goons” and the demonizing of unions is insulting for me, but I understand why it is being said. Do I think that David or Sean are not courteous when they use those terms? No I don’t. We may have much more in common fighting the fascistic tendencies of the Trump administration, rather than fighting over candidates’residences.
“We may have much more in common fighting the fascistic tendencies of the Trump administration, rather than fighting over candidates’residences.”
For my part, I hope that is so, and recognized broadly. The fascists prevail by shifting an ‘adversary’ into an ‘enemy,’ silencing civilized discourse.
If you think the arrogance required to tell the public you live somewhere that you don’t for the sole purpose of gaining political power isn’t the same flavor of narcissism exuding from 1600 Pennsylvania, you’ve got another thing coming.
Don’t excuse abusing the faith of the electorate as inconsequential because you would prefer to talk about something else.
Are you serious? Are you equating the candidates’ residence issue with embracing mass deportations as Shawn Nelson insinuated?
If you need to ask that question, you’ve got reading comprehension issues.
Maybe next time, Ricardo.
Don’t bother, dude. Instead let’s recount:
Ackerwoman ’09
Sidhu ’10
Galloway ’10
Kang ’16
Kerr ’18
Bushala is 5-0 against north OC interloping carpetbaggers. That’s called batting 1.000.
I completely understood your deflection, try again with another condescending reply.
It wasn’t a deflection.
So, obviously, you errored.
No Ryan, Ricardo is right on the money there. You’re suggesting seeking power by claiming to reside in a district is an act of narcissism in the same flavor as Trump. Is it really? Let’s count the ways Trump’s narcissism works (as Ricardo started, and many of us could continue)…you’ll find that Shaw BETTER reflects those narcissistic tendencies than Kerr by any measure.
Are you really offended by whether or not Kerr bought a residence in an apartment – refusing to buy a house? That’s not ‘residency’ – that’s socio-economic discrimination. Or is it that he bought it recently? That’s also not residency – that’s age discrimination. Or that his children might be elsewhere? Failed to enroll in the schools you think they should have been in for him to earn your trust?
The carpetbagger/scalawag slurs are critiques with no greater depth or resonance than ‘he’s a man, and therefore, patriarchal’ or similar idiotic reductions (but it is interesting that they’re so often lobbed against Democrats, given their historical origins as slurs).
Btw Zenger’s list was of 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats (one of which, Sukhee Kang, was attacked for the benefit of a better Democrat, Josh Newman.)
None of what you just wrote has anything to do with any statement I made being a deflection.
Thus, you’ve missed the point.
Dave’s right. I’m wasting my time.
This discussion isn’t interested in discussing anything that transcends left or right.
It’s simply interested in promoting the left. In any shade. That’s fine, but I don’t have anything of value to add.
*The story of “Carpetbagging”? Hmmm. As some have mentioned in passing….it depends on WHO is doing the Carpetbagging and how much
name recognition they have. Back several year ago, our dear friend B-1 Bob Dornan came into the OC from LA and a high visibility Radio Talk show. Where he reigned we might add until the Sanchez sisters came upon the scene. One thing is sure: If Tom Selleck moved from Malibu to Newport Beach and wanted to run for City Council, Orange County Supervisor, State Senate or the Assembly or maybe Clerk Recorder..
he would be welcomed with open arms. Carpetbagging has always been in the eye of the beholder.
“Don’t excuse abusing the faith of the electorate as inconsequential because you would prefer to talk about something else.”
You show me an electorate that puts its faith in a candidate’s real estate, rather than a candidate’s positions, credentials, and competence – and I’ll show you an electorate that will bring folks like Trump to power (even if the OC voted against him in 2016…he hasn’t exactly endeared himself to California).
See above. There’s five examples from the same electorate.
That electorate didn’t vote for Trump. Your statement is false and misses the point.
Look Donovan, you seem like a reasonably well informed individual, but you are constantly talking past me, which means you’re largely talking to yourself.
I don’t think that’s a productive use of time for either of us.
“but you are constantly talking past me, which means you’re largely talking to yourself.”
Ricardo made a good point. I made a different but also good point. Both points are directly rebutting your own position in different ways (Greg’s points too, but I ken a greater frustration/exasperation). Rather than engage the points which are made, you reiterate and evade.
I’m perfectly aware how OC voted in 2016 (even referred to that directly, why bother to repeat me?). And as I said, an electorate that accepts real estate as proof of loyalty will have its faith abused routinely, and will fall under the sway of narcissists. As OC is. And perhaps you’ve even helped bring that about in one recent race, helping restore a candidate you may not like much to office in Senate District 29.
You both made good points? I must have missed them.
I guess I got lost in the massive gorge between the point and whereever it is you drove the conversation. Could be policy, could be discrimination, could be engagement. I really don’t know. I could have sworn this was supposed to be about basic personal ethics, but you’d rather offer “good points” on the topics of your own choosing.
I just can’t keep up. Sorry. Feel free to add value without me.
“Terms like “union goons” and the demonizing of unions is insulting for me…”
Rick, what would you call a former union president who faked an address to run for office in a district he didn’t live; who used his extensive and long-time connections to garner endorsements from all the big public employee unions to scare off any real local candidates who may just have been interested in running for office?
(The fact that it failed sure wasn’t for Kerr’s lack of trying.)
Perhaps there is a better word than goon. But I really can’t think of it.
Dave,
It isn’t a question of just words. It is the point one tries to make, and it is secondary whether it is insulting or not for some people. I process what I don’t agree or like, and move on.
The objection to carpetbaggers is an appealing one, and more power to Tony if he has successfully helped to defeat them. On the other hand, the residence criteria is not the fundamental one for some.
If it were true that he had no basis to say that he lived there, it would be vote fraud if he voted for himself while being ineligible. That’s why Zenger and Ryan talk about crimes. But at least Ryan leaves open the possibility that Kerr moved there for work — County Supervisor being a job, after all — which if true clears him of any crime. Ryan does argue, though, that moving down the 5 and up the 57 makes him a BAD FATHER. That — given my memory of my son-in-law considering having to move from Manila to Saudi Arabia to provide for his family, and my having once had to consider moving back to New York to pursue an opportunity to provide for mine (and my RIGHT NOW considered a move to take a job in Sacramento that would take me from my family without changing my domicile — makes me (after revising the intensity of the following clause downward four times) think less of Ryan, and is deeply, deeply disappointing (and in some ways obscene.)
Greg, stop being obnoxious.
This guy moved, if he moved, for his own glory. Not to provide for his family.
He makes a quarter million a year for life doing nothing.
Shilling isn’t a becoming color. Stop.
“… for his own glory.”
Man, that’s totally screwed up. Maybe in your party, that would have to be. his reason. Maybe in segments of my party, too. But SOME people who want to be in government want to do so in order to serve — and “glory” has nothing to do with it.
I know that being spanked feel obnoxious, but you’re going to have to get used to it. No, this “glory-hogging” fire fighter — because for what OTHER reason could anyone try to be a fire fighter? — isn’t out to provide for his family. He’s out to provide for hard-working people in his county who have been screwed for decades upon decades by corrupt and misbegotten Republican rule.
And if you think that he’s made his money for doing nothing — you should have the decency, or maybe just the lack of fear — to listen to him explain what he HAS done for his salary. Then I’d love to compare him in that respect to some of YOUR heroes.
We can agree on one thing: Tony is undefeated against arrogant and egotistical carpetbagging office hounds (and phony carpetbaggers) of both parties who try to muscle in on north Orange County. The funny thing is that they never seem to learn.
While it may not be a a fundamental issue for some, it seems to be an important issue to many.
In the case of Kerr what is really funny is his Fire Hero pitch: “I run toward danger!” And yet the heroic and courageous thing for him to have done is to run against his own Supervisor – Lisa Bartlett – instead of going for what he assumed would be the safer and easier route of running for an open seat somewhere other than his district of resident. Some hero.
This is incredibly stupid. Tony (by which you mean Zenger, speaking of pushing for one’s own glory) gets credit for the Fullerton recall. The rest is paying for signs aimed at people’s lowest nature.
I think it’s darling that you think that people are chained to where they live. The Fourth District has a job open: anyone who is willing to move here can run for that job. That’s the law. If people don’t like it — if, for example, they think that he can’t possible represent our interests if he doesn’t have the Pure Blood of 4th District heritage running through his veins — then they can vote against him.
But that is a stupid conclusion (especially with respect to Kerr), and if you’re basing your antagonism not even on that sort of conceivably rational conclusion, but just on some reptile-brained “BUT HE’S NOT FROM HERE!” reflex, then you are indeed a Surf Nazi and should come to realize that you don’t actually own THIS beach.
Let me spell something out for you: NO DEMOCRATIC IS LIKELY TO WIN THE 5TH DISTRICT. THERE IS, CONTRARY TO YOUR EVIDENT BELIEF, NO LAW REQUIRING PEOPLE TO MAKE STUPID CHOICES WHEN THEIR DESIRE IS TO IMPROVE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. YOU ARE EITHER ACTING STUPID OR BEING IT.
As I recall, you had the goods on Lorri Galloway years ago about her not actually residing in her stated address. You have a lot invective and assertions about Kerr, but I don’t see a goddamned note of evidence that he doesn’t live exactly where he says he does — and so is legally entitled to run for and hold this office.
Have you gone so far round the bend that you no longer think that you have to prove (or even offer serious evidence for) the proposition that someone actually committed a crime because in your mind legally moving to another district to run for office is not merely unsavory (in your territory-obsessed opinion) but ACTUALLY ILLEGAL? You’re mixed up, at best.
Cynthia Aguirre and Rose Espinoza are both local Democratic candidates who weren’t “scared off” by Kerr’s connections — and getting endorsements from unions (and wealthy grudge-holding political entrepreneurs, for that matter) is STANDARD PRACTICE; if Kerr did legally move, according to the law, then there is seriously NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, just like Chaffee gets to scare people off with his money and Shaw with his years of being Bob Huff’s waldo in La Habra. Your criticism only makes sense if you have evidence that he does not legitimately live where he says — evidence that you don’t even go through the motions of trying to offer, let alone go through the pains to actually PROVE, as Steve Young did with Mimi Walters.
You know, “goon” has a comic as well as a sinister definition, and you’re looking like a goon here yourself. Assertion isn’t evidence, Zenger? You KNOW THAT, right?
The election had winners and losers. The losers lost; the winners won.
Gas Tax Josh and Coto Joe Kerr lost. End of story. No amount of gassy verbal diarrhea and hysterical wailing will change it.
The End.
Yeah, that’s pretty much how I felt when Sharon beat Norby and Flory beat Travis. But I still seem to recall the sounds of great gnashing of teeth somewhere….
(By the way, this is where a crypto-fascist would threaten to beat me up if I said this to his face.)
I would never threaten to beat you up. What a very strange idea.
Of course — Real Men don’t threaten violence: they just do it.
So what were you indicating that you would do if I called you a “Surf Nazi” to your face — pout at me? I think that we can rule out “engage in intelligent debate.”
OK, I will bite. Nobody tried to prevent Kerr from running. Nobody threatened legal action or threatened to feed his dogs to his lawyer. A citizen exercised their rights to communicate with the electorate, hanging signs that complied with FPPC regulations and reporting revenues and expenditures under the law. After getting the message that Kerr was a Coto Carpetbagger, the electorate agreed this IS an issue for them and declined to elect the gentleman. Political name-calling is NOT the same as “Surf Nazi” behavior, in which those locals in the water physically prevent others from using “their” waves, to the point of violence. Greg, find another phrase.
Actually, the signs were probably a drop in the bucket compared to the effect of the Sheriff’s Deputies’ mailers — mostly, people around here were going around wondering what the hell a “coto” is — but Tony wanting to think otherwise is fine.
The central idea behind “no carpetbagging” — that is, no *legal* changing of residency by moving to a new district to run for office from there — is that there is some right of longer-term residents to prevent “outsiders” from exercising their legal rights on one’s own turf. Sometimes the question of whether Joe legitimately changed his residence to the degree required by law IS raised — and if that WERE the issue at hand than someone SHOULD have filed an FPPC complaint and taken him to court — but it is clearly NOT the basic issue, which is that no one has theoral right to come onto Tony’s turf and run for office because Tony sez they ain’t lived here long enough. It’s a capricious and illegitimate decree of moral rights — like who gets to surf at “our” beach.
I drew up in HB; I know that most of the interaction was telling non-locals to “get the fuck off our beach.” Tony’s signs say “get the fuck out of our election” if you’re not a “local” by Tony’s standards. If he’s not violent — putting aside the exception often made for property damage when it comes to campaign signs — then that’s great. But the notion that someone moving their residence to run for office is itself repugnant
There’s nothing wrong with telling voters that a candidate is a newbie, if one wants. And there’s an argument to be made that being a newbie is AN issue when it comes to deciding how well they can represent a district. But asserting that it is THE OVERRIDING ISSUE — as has been suggested here — is more than just nuts: it’s offensive.
There may be a better analogy made to street gangs; I just csn’t think of what term they use for their ultra-xenophobia. Got any ideas?