Election Night Live

The liberal candidates deserve credit for their campaigns and their success. While Sorensen and Bertagna could still nudge up to victory it's important to recognize that the liberal candidates acheived much last night.

Being out-spent and out-endorsed on the media front, they proved again the importance of a solid ground game in Chico elections. They have a lot to be proud of. Their wins extend through all of the local elective public offices.

Beyond the campaign mechanics, is the actual vote. The liberal message must have resonated with the majority of voters or else they would not have achieved this victory. As a democracy we can all be content knowing that Chico's direction has been determined by a majority of the populace.

Conservative candidates should also be thanked for taking the time and effort to campaign on behalf of their supporters. Losing is not fun, but you can't lose if you don't try, and we're all better off when citizen's stand up and take part in the civic process.

Lon Glazner

Posted by Lon at 09:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Despite many late absentee ballots and provisional ballots left to be counted, here are my midnight observations:

1. Mary Flynn and Scott Gruendl will maintain the top two spots. Now the big question is whether Tom Nickell can hold onto his 40 vote lead over Mark Sorensen for the third seat. I do not think incumbent Dan Herbert can overcome his 729 vote deficit behind Nickell once all the ballots are counted.

2. It's also too close to call between Maureen Kirk and Steve Bertagna. There's a 234 vote margin which is still within striking distance for Bertagna to overtake Kirk, but my bet is that she holds onto her lead.

3. My biggest surprise is how badly Anthony Watts fared. I felt that Andrea Lerner Thompson and Kathy Kaiser would fight for the third seat, but both of them might join incumbent Rick Rees as winners. Watts is behind Lerner Thompson by 736 votes and Kaiser by 763 votes, which is a significant margin. But since the school district is larger than the City voting base, there might be enough uncounted votes for him to catch up. I doubt it, but it's possible.

4. If the News & Review endorsed Nickell, I suspect he'd be up by 300+ votes over Sorensen considering how many more votes Flynn and Gruendl currently have over incumbent Herbert. Right now, Flynn received a whopping 2,227 votes more than incumbent Herbert, while Gruendl received 1,883 more votes that his soon-to-be former colleague Herbert.

5. But increasingly, newspaper editorial endorsements have less influence on our local elections. If the City Council and Supervisor races hold up, the E-R editors will probably wonder why more voters aren't in agreement with them.

And not surprisingly, some of my predictions held on and others were off the mark.

Posted by Dan at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With 100 percent of Chico precincts counted, candidates Scott Gruendl, Mary Flynn and Tom Nickell appear to have won the three seats on the City Council.

The results are far from final -- the Butte County Clerk-Recorder's office is reporting there are up to 13,000 votes remain to be counted across the county. Officials say it may be before Thanksgiving before the results are made official.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

99.43 percent of the Butte County vote has been counted, according to the latest results.

Update at 11:37 p.m. -- Aaaaaaaaand we're done (for now). Upwards of 13,000 absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted in Butte County.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just woke up to check the results. Not good so far. You've got to give Mary Flynn credit for a good campaign.

As for the rest... I suspect we'll see homeless campgrounds built and people removed from the park in the next couple of years. Good times, good times. Hey wait... aren't these voting machines supposed to be fixed by Diebold or something?

Posted by Lon at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

By E-R Staff

Several local races remain extremely competitive with 90.3 percent of Butte County votes counted as of 10:34 p.m.

Just 16 votes separate the two candidates running for Butte County's 3rd District supervisor. With 78.8 percent of the votes counted, Maureen Kirk holds on to a tenuous lead with 4,765 votes, just 16 ahead of fellow Chico City Council member Steve Bertagna.

Click to read full E-R article

Posted by Ryan Olson at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been so busy looking at the City Council and Supervisor race that I overlooked the CUSD race.

With 60 of 72 precincts reporting, Anthony Watts is only ahead of Andrea Lerner Thompson by 20 votes and ahead of Kathy Kaiser by 41 votes.

This is a bad sign for Watts. I still think he'll win one of three seats, but Watts should be worried right now considering that the other incumbent, Rick Rees, is far ahead as the top vote getter.

Posted by Dan at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Many news agencies are predicting that the Democrats will claim control of the U.S. House. In the race for statewide races, Republicans appear to be doing quite well.

Are you surprised by tonight's results? What will happen next? Let us know in the comments.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Seventeen out of 45 precincts have reported.

Kirk pulls ahead. Nickell and Gruendl moving up.

Flynn and Sorensen holding on. Herbert dropping. Dailey continues to be a a non-factor.

But Britney Spears is moving up as a write-in candidate.

If the trend line continues, it looks like the deteriorating situation in Iraq may have impacted our local elections. I'm kidding.

Posted by Dan at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm devastated. Britney Spears is divorcing her husband K-Fed.

I'm at a loss. I no longer care what happens with the elections tonight.

Posted by Dan at 09:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The first Chico Unified School Board precinct results confirm what many expected.

This is a race between Andrea Lerner Thompson and Kathy Kaiser for the third seat.

Posted by Dan at 09:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There may be some confusion on where to get the results for Butte County. On the county Registrar of Voters' Web site, the results link changed when it went live.

The current results may be found here. We're waiting for the latest update -- the first post was at 8:28 p.m. and there hasn't been a peep since.

Update at 10:38 p.m. -- There have been more fast and furious updates since the original post. More than 90.3 percent of the votes have now been counted.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 09:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Local Republicans should be worried with the initial local election results that were just posted.

With one of 45 precincts reported, Flynn is on top right now with absentee voters that traditionally swing more votes to more "conservative" candidates.

I expect Dailey to continue to fall behind as the night goes on, but the other candidates are all in the mix.

Posted by Dan at 09:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm blogging from the Hooker Oak Alliance campaign party (at the Market Cafe). We're all happy that this election is over. It's time to get back to barbeques and just hanging out with friends. The great thing is that the organization we built has led to a lot of friendships and new connections. Regardless of the election results we all feel like we took part in the civic process, and did our best to make a difference. I've had my first and last beer of the night and am getting ready to head home and make sure the kid gets to bed OK. It's 8:43PM and election returns are starting to come in from the county. Only 2% are in so there's no real news.

Posted by Lon at 08:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We welcome you to add your election experience to this blog. Please use the comments link at the bottom of this post.

Here is a round-up of election observations by Enterprise-Record staffers Steve Schoonover and Barbara Arrigoni:

At the polling place in the Congregational Church on East First Avenue, the long ballot resulted in delays in mid afternoon, which are unusual for that voting place.

But poll workers reported that the voting machines were a big hit, especially with senior citizens. One older gentleman was certainly delighted, almost to the point of being giddy.

He stayed on in the lobby after voting to enthusiastically tell those waiting how much fun voting was. He said he'd planned to start voting absentee but had changed his mind because he'd enjoyed the machine so much.

Glenn County assistant director of elections, Susan Alves, reported people seem to be more educated in how to use the voting machines today. The machines were introduced at the June primary.

Alves also said there have been a few lines reported at the precincts today, which wasn't seen at the last election. She guessed today's turnout will be about 62 percent.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 08:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It took The Associated Press just two minutes after polls closed to call the California governor's race in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 08:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been having conversations with a lot of famous people these last few days. Some left messages, others actually took the time to talk to me. I found that much more appealing than the various candidates that called me. Three in particular really made my day. Arnold called, who has the distinction of being both famous and a candidate. I didn't really listen too much to what he said. I just remembered how much I liked the original Conan. He had my vote immediately. Next came Clint Eastwood (see pun above). I tried to tell him that I stayed at his hotel one night but he didn't seem to be interested in that. I hung up pretty quickly. The last famous guy, Ben Stein, was likeable and so fun that not only did I vote for his recommended candidate, but I even wrote in "Bueller" for Chico School Board. That guy has got pure star power.

Posted by Lon at 06:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Results are starting to trickle out as polls close on the East Coast. The Associated Press has the story, which includes extensive coverage of the national races.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 05:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are a number of scenarios that result from tonight's elections. The fact that two council seats could be vacated in one fell swoop is an essential part of figuring out where Chico heads tomorrow. Maureen Kirk has vacated her seat to run for 3rd District Supervisor. Steve Bertagna will leave his seat vacant if he wins. The conservatives (Dailey, Herbert, and Sorensen) need to win two of the three council seats to gain a majority or break even (if Bertagna wins). The liberals are in a stronger position for the council if Bertagna wins. If they only take one of the three seats, a Bertagna win leaves a deadlock (3-3). Conservatives failing to win 2 seats, and a win by Bertagna in the supe race leaves Chico with a 5-2 or 6-1 liberal council. In one of those scenarios we might also see Kirk reappointed to the council. On the other hand Bertagna making up the differential in votes as compared to the previous supervisorial election might show a change in voter preferences, that could pull along other conservative candidates. A loss by Bertagna increases the chance of the 4-3 status-quo continuing, as he'll return to his seat, and only one of three conservatives will need to win. Watch Bertagna. Lon Glazner

Posted by Lon at 03:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This is your chance to sound off about how things went for you at the polls today. Please feel free to hit the comments link and provide your reflections.

How were things at your local polling precinct? Any problems with the touch-screen voting machines? Did you forego the polls and mail in an absentee ballot?

We'd love to hear from you. Thanks.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Historically in local and national politics Republicans had the edge in absentee voting with older, more conservative voters tending to vote absentee at a higher rate than other demographic groups.

Now there is much more parity as a increasing number of voters - regardless of political orientation - vote absentee by mail.

Butte Couty Elections data confirm that a high percentage of Democratic voters turned in absentee ballots.

Specifically, 47% of Democrats who were issued absentee ballots had already voted, compared to 51% for Republicans. This is still a 4% point advantage for Republicans, but a smaller spread than in years past.

The absentee voting advantage is the reason why historically early to mid evening released voting numbers typically show the more "conservative" candidates leading.

In fact, I would not be surprised to see Herbert, Sorensen, and Dailey leading after the first voting numbers are posted, as well as Bertagna.

If the spread over the other candidates is small, however, then it won't be a good night for local Republicans.

But the biggest variable of all is the large number of independent, decline to state voters. Who will they vote for?

Posted by Dan at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a surprise move the Chico State Young Republicans have endorsed all of the liberal slate! Not really. But Chico State students registered as republicans received this letter purported to be from the "Young Republicans" yesterday. This is an FPPC violation, and very deceitful. It's nice to see we're ending the election season on a positive note. The most telling evidence that this was a forgery is that there were no graphs and charts typical of work done by republican college students. Also, republican college students don't like creeks and stuff. They enjoy conversations about GAAP, and the principles of supply and demand. Lon Glazner

Posted by Lon at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

I hesitated about making local election predictions.

But I figure we might as well have fun since election day is not only about "get out the vote" (GOTV), but also about speculating what's going to happen.

So if you want to say after the election "I told you so" or "Dan, you don't know [fill in the blank], then by all means go check out my jaw dropping predictions.

Okay, they're only jaw dropping if you're reading my predictions while somehow fitting a bowling ball into your mouth.

Posted by Dan at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Field Poll predicts turnout at 51.5 percent of registered voters, with the percentage of eligible voters dipping to 36 percent, even lower than the percentage who voted in the 2002 gubernatorial race.

So half of registered voters who bothered to even register will likely not vote, while close to two-thirds of eligible voters have basically checked out of our political system.

That means in California alone, with roughly 22.6 million eligible voters, the political direction of our state will be determined by roughly 8.16 million voters.

I think Butte County citizens historically tend to vote at a higher percentage than statewide, but it will likely still be a pathetic percentage of voters determing our local elections.

Posted by Dan at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I read an interesting story on polls yesterday. The point of it was that poll takers are finding it particularly difficult to separate the real voters from the rest of the populace in their phone polling. For example in a recent ABC/Washington Post poll 80% of respondents said they were registered voters. Only 66% of eligible voters are actually registered to vote. 95% of those polled say they always, almost always, or usually vote in mid-term elections. That would be about 69% of eligible voters. The reality is that mid-term elections have never recruited more than 40% of eligible voters to actually show up and vote. The voter turnout in any election has never been greater than 72%. What this ends up meaning is that 1/3 of people polled are not telling the truth about their voting habits. They are saying what they think the pollster would like to hear. Locally, polls are too expensive for most campaigns. A good scientific poll would require about 1/3 of the money any council candidate has raised in this election. And it would still have the problems I mentioned above. Automated phone polling is less expensive (about $1200), but who in their right mind would stay on the line and answer the questions? The national media creates polls to generate news leading up to the actual election. I think it's reasonable to assume the general direction of the polls presented in the press is fairly accurate. Trending of the polls is probably accurate as well. But it's not too hard to see the benefit to the media of a "close race". It should be understood that the people that create and present the polls are essentially creating and presenting the news. The only poll that ever matters is the one on November 7th. Today. The big news occurs tomorrow. Lon Glazner

Posted by Lon at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Stay tuned to this blog throughout Election Day Tuesday for news updates from the polls. Bloggers Lon Glazner and Dan Nguyen-Tan will sound off as results pour in after 8 p.m.

We would love your input. Throughout Tuesday, we'll ask people to submit their reactions and observations.

See you Tuesday. Please remember to vote.

Posted by Ryan Olson at 02:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)