Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Election Night Results

In early, vote-by-mail results -- Doreen Farr is in the lead for the 3rd District seat (with pappas surprisingly in second) and John McKinnon has the most votes for Superior Court Judge thus far. It also looks like Measure V might just win.

For returns throughout the night, check the County Elections Office website.


Anonymous augusto den said...

Kinda makes all the paranoia about Bearman from Farr's camp seem really silly.... it was Pappas all along. Those of us out on the ground knew Pappas was way stronger in IV than Bearman.

Pappas versus Farr... the votes up for grabs are Smyser's, and for sure they'll go to Pappas, because Farr sold out to the unions.

Supervisor Pappas, my friends.

6/03/2008 10:27 PM  
Anonymous Nader aka Bearman said...

Shame on Dave Bearman!! Doreen Farr clearly would have taken this race tonight if not for his stubborn refusal to get out of the race. Now we can all look forward to another expensive, draining supervisorial fall campaign. Thanks, Dave, hope it was worth it to you.

6/03/2008 11:10 PM  
Anonymous augusto den said...

Do the math, nader. Bearman 9.91%, Farr 35.71%, add them together, you get 45.62%, which is less than 50%.

If Bearman hadn't existed, Farr still wouldn't have gotten 50%.

The real story is that Pappas, as a former Republican, got lots of support in Isla Vista... the Daily Nexus supported him, and IV was swarming with his blue-t-shirted troops on election day.

And Pappas got a lot of the Valley vote that Farr and Smyser counted on.

For those of us who are reality-based, Farr has turned out to be a phlegmatic candidate, who lashes out at folks that would have supported her in the general. She's driving them to Pappas.

6/04/2008 4:35 AM  
Anonymous Bye, bye bama said...

Clinton supporters are taking their votes to McCain, and in a race that shows Obama either losing or only tied with McCain in polls lately, this reasonable defection from Obama will be fatal. Misogyny reached unparalled heights this campaign season. Obama lost more votes to the Democratic Party than he brought in new ones.

Every vicious sterotype against women was projected on Clinton: grasping, emotional, lying, bitchy, duplicitous, irrational, vindictive can’t go the distance, and all eagerly embraced by the media and the Obama campaign.

Yet, when Clinton was actually viewed in these alleged acts of gender failure, she came across as intelligent, reasonable, articulate, gracious, warm, savvy and contextually accurate. Clinton was the overall winner on all counts and she can go the distance. But you would never learn this reading the media or listening to the Obama crowd.

You can start with the frothing over her “breaking down and crying” in New Hampshire to realize she only had a small and reasonable catch in her voice at a particularly appropriate time, to the hyperbolic overkill on again the contextually accurate Kennedy assasination reference to see how willing the media and Obama is ready and eager to manufacture, exploit and exacerbate negative female stereotyping.

It was good to see this all come out and see on the national stage how much hatred about things ‘female” have all to do with the misogynist reporter and absolutely nothing to do with the intended target. And anyone rising to defend against this double standard was immediately reviled for claiming blame and victimhood.

Yet something else was happening outside the media furor. Women were quietly marching with their feet and away from Obama and away from the Democrats. And the shift is permanent. If this is what Obama’s change is all about, we are only too happy to support McCain where we already know what the rules are. The devil we know is far superior to the devil we don’t or can’t know and who comes badly dressed in sheep’s clothing, yet left us with bloody wounds from his sharp teeth.

Clinton comported herself perfectly under these manufactured circumstances. She clearly won every debate, so Obama refused to debate her any more. She clearly won the popular vote and the important states and Obama insists he has the anointed mandate.

Obama barely scraped by with a marginal technical delegate victory. He did not win the hearts and minds of a vast number of Democrats and certainly not any Republicans. He stands with a hollow and meaningless victory and is only the darling of the media who do not vote in sufficient enough numbers to even matter in November.

He did expose the depth, breadth, complicity and tenacity of the anti-female agenda. And the odd thing is he is married to someone who actually does live out every single female negative stereotype. Go figure. Something deep is happening in America. I guess you have to break a lot of eggs before you can make an omelet. But in the final analysis, it is the Obama crowd who will wake up with egg on their faces.

6/04/2008 10:37 AM  
Anonymous shoreline shark said...

Is this my cue to cut and paste my 8th grade essay on the causes of WWI?

6/05/2008 11:06 PM  
Anonymous Obama stump speech tactics said...

Wow, it all became clear on PBS Now with Bill Moyers with that cool gal from the Annenberg School - Obama gets his juice always using "we" instead of "I". This is how he gets his rabid mob responses, mindless devotion and cult status. Just substituting a few words and offering nothing else. First he trots out a chick with his name across her breasts to catch the lonely internet boys with their candy bars and lack of sunlight. This was his first buzz.

Then he attracts the next group of young, lonely, rootless, disenfranchised, unchurched with his "yes we can" rallies that look far more Hitleresque with his grim and cynical rhetorical rants and chants than any fundamental poliical change of substance.

He proved over and over again he is weak on substance and experience and merely a product of Chicago machine politics and brutal hard-ball obliteration of opponents, again not on merits but on the politics of personal destruction at any price.

Yet because he using the black church evangelical oratorical device of the inclusive "we", instead of the more accountable "you", or the egotistical "I", he is drawing in the politically naive in droves.

He has exposed something is very wrong with America by the sheer numbers of those who are duped with so little, yet in so much need of something. Because they never look beyond their feeling of inclusion in this Obama gang, they feel their political commitment has been fulfilled.

There was such a strong sense of a cadre of stormtroopers with groupthink when Obama came to town early in his campaign and got the crowd to mindlessly chant meaningless things while he, grim faced, never cracked a smile, facetiously comforted the "fainting lady" from a non-diagnostic distance, and left a trail of lies about crowd size and a total lack of substance behind.

This is your choice Dems, but somewhere along the line more and more people are going to ask tough questions about what "we" are really going to do and it will be time to put some actions on the table.

First thing "we" could do is drive slower. If there is really going to be the "change" Obama promises, "we" will all start driving 55 mph. The change then will be obvious. But being in the middle lane driving 65 mph yesterday and passed by whizzing cars in both the fast and the slow lanes on both sides, my guess is Obama is all smoke and mirrors and the worst demogogue this country has seen since Joe McCarthy.

6/07/2008 9:19 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home