So Many Votes, So Many Questions

Dear Readers,

The prognostications (the ones on this blog, anyway) were a bit off. I predicted that Kathy would win with about 52% of the vote, Tom Gagliardo predicted that she would win by 200 - 300 votes. Instead she won by 457 votes, capturing 60% of the tally. Tom wrongly guessed that Seth would carry Ward 1, but he correctly predicted that he would win in Ward 4. That’s according to the not-quite-final ward-by-ward vote tally from late Tuesday night.

Ward 4? How did Seth get that one? Ward 4 is predominated by high-rise apartment buildings, in contrast to the single-family homes that characterize the other wards. Though some of the Ward 4 apartment buildings have turned condo, most of the ward residents are low-income renters. I find it curious that Seth's fiscally conservative campaign found such support there. Maybe it was something else in his agenda. Maybe Ward 4 residents have a beef against the incumbent. Perhaps it was the influence of the their council member, who like Seth is a Sustainable Takoma member and who posted public e-mail list comments defending Seth's proposals to review city services.

Maybe it's because they don't read the Takoma Voice! The local newspaper, after much soul-searching, I understand, endorsed Kathy Porter for mayor. How much of a factor in her win that was, I don't know. What do you think, reader?

The heaviest vote was in Ward 1, Seth's home ward, so it was a little surprising that Kathy got the majority in that ward. Tom G. predicted that Seth would take it by 300 votes, but he lost by about 50 (again, I should mention the ward votes I have are from an incomplete count - about 90% of the vote). My speculation is that Ward 1, while a hotbed of progressive fiscal conservatism (Pro-Cons), is also home to many diehard moderate pro-Porter establishment types (Mods). The Mods are the "take it easy, let's not be extreme" folks that used to be on the right-hand side of Takoma Park's political equation, but in this election found themselves on the left, sort of.

Speaking of the local political spectrum, has Sustainable Takoma become a defacto political party? Was the Grimes campaign ST's high-water mark, or just a step towards taking power? Does this election show that the city rejects their ideas, or will the ideas be adopted by the council and mayor? If they do, will ST have a reason to exist?

What was the message of the voters, anyway? We know 40% want change. They want a focus on fiscal responsibility, they want more vision, they want more police, they are angry with the current mayor, they are willing to consider reducing the number of services the city provides. Sure, 60% of the voters rejected that message and voted their support for the status quo, but, how steady is that support? 40% is a minority, but it represents a big erosion of the mayor's backers, and it may grow, especially if any more of the ongoing and upcoming issues: WAH, Metro development, the Community Center, gym, and Old Towne development, go sour. The last time she ran against an opponent (2001), she got 1676 votes, 335 fewer than she garnered this time, a whopping 73% compared to this election's 60%.

If I were her, that would take a bit of the edge off the victory celebration.

What will be the effect of having Seth's ally Colleen Clay on the council? Will we now see the council form into pro-and anti-Porter factions? Who will be on what side?

In that Ward 2 race, to get back to prognostications, I predicted that Eilleen Sobeck would defeat Colleen Clay with 54% of the Ward 4 vote. Big fat raspberry for ME! Colleen Clay took it with about 53% of the vote.

I find the vote in ward 2 curious. It was a split vote - Seth's council ally won, yet Seth lost the ward. Who are these voters who liked Colleen but didn't like Seth, and what were their reasons?

While we're raising questions, how did voters choose between Colleen and Eilleen? Each had similar positions, and I thought Eilleen had the edge since she was a longer-term resident. Unfortunately, the staff here at Granolapark is too busy to conduct a telephone public-opinion poll, and the candidates and other in-the-know individuals have not answered these questions I've posed to them via e-mail. I'll be generous and assume that everyone is too burned out by the election to answer, and that it's not that responsiveness is no longer necessary now that the votes are counted. It couldn't possibly be that Granolapark is too rinky-dink to bother with.

Hmmmm, . . . . Naw!


- Gilbert