Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Did Election Office SNAFU Cost Anderson?

In catching up with the news and The Sound after a few days off, I noticed a story where Sheriff Anderson says the Election Office mismatched voter names to addresses. The Elections Office admits to the error but did it cost Anderson the election? Richard Cochrane, Anderson's consultant who originally faulted partying students, seemed to think so. Did the Anderson camp do their due diligence and test the list before they sent it? Did they run it versus prior lists of county voters? Maybe that's immaterial but it's hard to believe that one mailer would make a difference. What do you think?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

All that counts is that Anderson is gone. Doesn't matter how it happened.

12/07/2006 6:50 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

No difference.

Cochrane was just dumb to rely on the faulty data misalignment on the mailing list. The Anderson dregs are becoming as pathetic and desparate as the offensive spin by Huff n Puff, Travisty, and Nipster.

12/07/2006 6:54 PM  
Blogger cookie jill said...

They didn't test the list.
Cochrane wanted special handling of the information they were requesting from the Elections Office. Cochrane didn't want just the information, the campaign the list sorted in very particular ways. The Elections Office gave them the best customer service they could by trying to provided the customer what they were demanding, however, sometimes mistakes happen in spreadsheets.

Anderson lost. Simple. How many ads did you see on TV? I only saw Brown ads? How many flyers and ads did you see Anderson do for the Hispanic voters? I saw plenty of Brown's.

Anderson's camp ran a lousy race. People didn't like Anderson and wanted a change....they voted for one.

Cochrane is just trying to give himself an excuse for "losing" an election so he can go onto other "gigs"

12/07/2006 8:29 PM  
Anonymous dd said...

It's one of those intangibles that no one will ever know. In the long run, it doesn't matter. Change was in the air, lots of incumbents were defeated and everyone's moved on except Cochrane. I can't fathom anyone, who has any brains, hiring that firm, ever! dd

12/07/2006 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Valerio said...

Cochrane definitely has to be the campaign manager for Stoker.

Blog that.

12/07/2006 11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that the flyers did go to the right addresses and on time. Some had the wrong names. Don't know about you, but I never checked to see if my name was on an election flyer - just tossed it anyway. I hear Mike Brown hired Anderson to do a county job of some kind. Spiking his retirement???? When the people fire someone, why is Mike Brown keeping them? Perhaps some skeletons in Mike Brown's closet? Stay tuned.

12/08/2006 6:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with cookie jill. Cochrane is just trying to excuse his own loss, trying to "feather his own nest" if you will. He's just blaiming others for his own lousy campaign management, hoping someone else will be dumb enough to hire him. I'd be willing to bet that Anderson really has nothing to do with it. It's just Cochrane and his buddy Simmons trying to improve his (Cochrane's) political standing for the next race.

12/08/2006 8:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and now Anderson is lobbying to become a "specially appointed" Executive!!???? This is an outrage and no supervisor worth a dime would support this. Anderson LOST and if he has any shred of class left he will go off into the sunset.

12/08/2006 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Mike Brown has hired Anderson, he (Brown) should be fired.... It's clear that the County administrator doesn't give a damn about the public but hiring the fair and square election loser would be going too far!

12/08/2006 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Working Poor Critical Workforce Working Families said...

Good job by McManigal today to get that story.

Per that article, this is all about an insider sweetheart deal Anderson wants so he can spike his pension another
$37 thousand a year to a total of
$186 thousand per, as just a pension!!

That obscene pension would be paid by the County taxpayers and also by taking away from the newer pension contributors of all the county employees.

Anderson lost the election. He is thusly out of a job, and that has consequences. Why is not his current pension of "only" a mere $149 thousand per year good enough? He wants a spike greater than the whole salary for many County workers who actually are working!

12/08/2006 2:51 PM  
Anonymous dd said...

If Sara prints the article on Anderson I sent about his attempt to get the OES job,I will go on a tear about it.

For those in the know, it's "AAA" and its disgusting. dd

12/08/2006 3:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But Janet Rose, I mean Susan Wolf said there "is no crisis" in our county employee retirement system. So calm down everyone! everything is under control.

12/08/2006 5:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No class, boy ain't that the truth!

12/08/2006 6:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara, Jim Anderson is supposedly coming to the Sheriff's Council meeting on 12-13 at 9:00 a.m. at the Bacara. Why don't you come too?

12/11/2006 7:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home