That time again! Most of you have already voted, being who you are, so it’s time to kick back with another round of the Town Dandy’s Official Election Predictions. There have been pretty good years and pretty bad years, and I make no promises as to which this will be. As David Letterman used to say, this is not a substitute for actual voting.

If you want the nut graph, it’s this: My overall prediction is that there’s gonna be a whole lot of November this year. I’m guessing that every major race will end with everyone below 50 percent, except for the one race where only two guys are running.

Tune back into the Blogthing tonight! We’ll have people at all the victory parties, and also at the defeat parties, so we’re going to be able to get you anecdotes from the scene and amusing pix. Journal correspondent John Osborn is gonna plant himself at the Elections Office, so’s we can get the most up-to-date of the up-to-datest information to you.

See you then! And now, the predictions:

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Gallegos: 43

Jackson: 39

Hagen: 18

Start with Jackson. At minimum, she has the hardcore Republican vote locked. Throw in a small handful of law & order Democrats and independents. If recent Humboldt County electoral history is anything to go by, that gets her into the high 30s.

Hagen has a solid base in Arcata and the county’s Arcata-oriented professional class — a minority of the electorate by any measure. The question is: How much of that minority will melt away at the polls, when everyone knows that Hagen has small chances of winning? My sense is that very little of it will; there are plenty of left-liberals who are pretty much over the Gallegos mystique.

But such is not the case with the general public. Take away the Jackson and the Hagen vote and you’re left with the Gallegos faithful — a plurality. Between now and November, Jackson will have to move mountains to interrupt the Hagen voters’ natural gravitational pull back into the Gallegos fold.

FIFTH DISTRICT SUPERVISOR

Sundberg: 41

Cleary: 31

Higgins: 24

Lytle: 4

Unlike the gleeful handrubbers at the Humboldt Herald, and unlike one particular Friday afternoon dirt merchant, I very much doubt that the last-minute revealing of Ryan Sundberg’s recent DUI arrest will have any substantial effect on the outcome of the race. Sundberg, the home-town boy, has run strong in McKinleyville from the beginning. Driving at double the legal limit is pretty deplorable — no argument here — but will having been arrested for doing so change anyone’s vote? Doubtful.

Patrick Cleary, who had the resume and the backing to walk away with this thing early on, has run a surprisingly lackluster campaign. His radio spots are good, as would be expected, but his people haven’t been able to generate the buzz.

Unlike Higgins, who went from low expectations to much higher ones. He’s a darling of the hard left and has most of that vote sewn up, though his contrary position on the Marine Life Protection Act has cost him a small measure support from that quarter. There’s some excitement about his campaign; still, I’m guessing that Cleary finishes ahead of him.

Jeff Lytle is a smart guy, if somewhat excitable, and he came off well in the debates. But his disdain for politics as usual — and what’s not to disdain? — will mean that politics as usual disdains him right back.

FOURTH DISTRICT SUPERVISOR

Bass: 38

Neely: 38

Leonard: 24

Obviously, Jeff Leonard is the X-factor. His campaign is 100 percent ground game, without the backing of any political faction, and he is quite plainly getting some traction on both sides of the aisle. But it is near-impossible to gauge with any degree of confidence. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up with half the vote I’ve alloted him here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he ended up with double it. (OK, I would be surprised if he ended up with double it.)

Apart from that, you’re stuck with the same old story of Eureka in the last six years: Divided cleanly down the middle. I’d guess — maybe counterintuitively, given some of his positions — that Leonard draws more from the Neely base than the Bass base. I’d be shocked if we all don’t get to find out if that’s true come November.

SHERIFF

Downey: 55 percent

Hislop: 45 percent

Tough one — each candidate’s supporters come from all over the political map. But think of the Sheriff’s Office of today: When’s the last time you heard of anybody with a serious beef? What was the last major scandal? Contrast that with the Sheriff’s Office of 10 years ago, when it was the focal point of activist hatred.

Hislop has been a good debater and he’ll get a boost from Gallegos supporters, but I think Downey and the status quo will take this one.

ASSESSOR

Rodoni: 46 percent

Brooks : 29 percent

Wilson: 25 percent

Johanna Rodoni draws from the same solid core of support that Allison Jackson does — the county’s rump Republican Party — but she has perhaps been a little bit more successful in gathering friends outside that circle over the years.

The left has taken up the flag for Brooks, and so you’d expect that to be the counterweight. But there’s a potential problem: The man had little name recognition before now, and outside of the county’s substantial political junkies no one much cares about this contest. Wilson has few friends, politically speaking, but when people step into the ballot box not knowing anything about the job of the assessor, or anything about the candidates, their natural tendency will be to check the box next to the line that says “assistant assessor.”

I think the Brooks people have gotten his name out there enough to overcome that hump, but we’ll see tonight.

Join the Conversation

38 Comments

  1. Sounds about right Hank.

    Only disagreement is that Higgins has a very good chance of pulling in more than you said.

    Enough to take it? Well, he’s got a GOTV effort on par with the County campaigns and the 4th District. In a primary, if the turnout is on the lower end, that could make the difference.

    It is a long shot, but he’s got a shot.

    Kaitlin S-B

  2. Like Kaitlin, I agree Higgins will do better than you give him credit for. In addition a runoff in the 4th and the DA race with city races throughout the county would be insane but lets give Virginia the 50+1.

    I think Wilson will do better than some expect her to with her title and such. I still think it is Brooks and Johanna.

    Meg in Humboldt with 60% to Poizner’s 28%

    Cheers, Mike Harvey

    5th District:
    Sundberg 44
    Higgins 28
    Cleary 26

    4th District
    Bass 50+1
    Neely 33
    Jeff 17

    Sheriff
    Downey 62
    Hislop 38

    Assessor
    Johanna 38
    Brooks 32
    Wilson 30

    DA
    Gallegos 48
    Jackson 37
    Hagen 15

  3. THERE YA HAVE IT, FOLKS!

    If Kaitlin and Mike agree on an outcome, I’m tempted to change my predictions to reflect that. But I will hold firm.

  4. Mike – aw, thanks for tossing that in.

    Hank – ha ha! We shall see…

    Looking forward to the results tonight. Will ya’ll be doing a live blog with commentary or anything like that?

    Kaitlin

  5. Yep yep — we’ll have people out in the field pretty much everywhere, and we’ll throw things up as they come in.

  6. For the record, Hank, I’m not a big fan of either Higgins or Cleary (or the Hunchman for that matter), so I’m not at all “gleeful” about Sundberg’s DUI episode, OR the fact that it was not revealed until after many absentee votes were already in the mail.

    I’m pissed that Sundberg tried to get one over on the voters, and that he got away with it, at least with the absentee voters who had already sent their ballots in.

    If the anonymous tipster (aka “dirt merchant”) purposely withheld the story until the last minute, I’ll be pissed at them, too, and for the same reason.

  7. I remember when Nancy Flemming was running against five guys for Eureka mayor in 1990. Everyone was betting runoff. And she squeaked by in the primary with just over 50%. That said,I think you’re safe with your predictions of run-offs, with some modifications:
    Hagen, low teens, Gallegos higher 40s, Jackson about 40.
    Cleary high 40s, maybe not enough. Sundberg, low 40s.
    Neely high 40s, Bass low 40s, Leonard less. Hank, did you really predict Leonard 12-48%? Statistically, no fair.
    Sheriff, agreed.
    Rodoni 40, Brooks 30.
    But … I could be wrong. I haven’t seen any of those polls.
    Anyone else?

  8. “Wishful thinking”

    There’s always a lot of that going around on Election Day.

  9. Yes, I agree with Reasonable Anonymous, that you are showing a great deal of hypocrisy, Hank, in calling out Richard Salzman with hefty coverage in the past for much lesser crimes, while until now (too late), maintaining a news blackout on this very salient Sundberg issue. Salzman did not commit a crime that potentially endangered lives. Sundberg did. Salzman was not running for public office. Sundberg is. Sundberg drove home with a BAC of twice the legal limit, failed to appear in court, had a bench warrant issued four days after announcing his run, and will be on probation for the next three years, whether he is elected or not. He tried to conceal his crime, and when exposed, tried to justify it. This is an issue of incredibly poor judgment that has clear ramifications for his performance if elected supervisor. All of his potential constituents deserve to know about this, and not only did Ryan Sundberg drop the ball, you have too, by abdicating your responsibility to report the news to your readers. So why the double standard, Hank?

  10. I agree with K8lin- Pat Higgins has outworked the rest and got his roots on big time in the 5th district. His little signs are everywhere. That being said, I think Ryan takes 45%, Higgins 33%, Cleary 18% and the rest to Lytle.

    Bass +1 GAME OVER

    Hank is right about the rest.

  11. AJ: Nothing but the gut.

    Neal: I’m writing about that for this week’s paper, minus the strange comparison with the Salzman story.

  12. My analogy to Salzman is in regard to the fact that you chose to heavily cover the rather trivial crimes of one politico in the county, while virtually ignoring another much more important crime of another, one that has great ramifications for potential constituents. Such a practice brings to my mind the phrase “poison pen.” And a suggestion, Hank: careful with the flip characterizations (“gleeful”) of those with whom you may respectfully disagree. It betrays a strident self-justification that, over years of reading your work, seems to have become your journalistic calling card.

  13. Jeez, neighbor. Chillax. If I had time to go sort through the Herald comments that were indeed gleefully predicting that this would kill the Sundberg campaign, I would do so. For you. But you have already read them, so you know what I mean.

    That’s what I was talking about, right? That was my instinct. I fully accept that I may be wrong.

  14. True, some might have been gleeful. But most were just concerned and angry, I would say, justifiably so. This is a big story and you guys missed the boat, big time. Thank goodness for Heraldo, he’s been turning over all the rocks you guys used to reliably flip. I miss the old Journal, the one Upton Sinclair would have been proud to put his arm around, were he around.

    Anyway – peace out, neighbs.

  15. My prediction:

    51% My candidate
    38% That guy I don’t like so much
    11% That spoiler dude

    These carefully considered numbers allow for a double digit margin of error. Any required eating of crow will be the responsibility of the administrator of this blog.

  16. From my visit to the voting booth this morning I heard a lot of talk about Jeff Leonard. I think you underestimated his Door-to-Door campaign. This approach wins voters over. Saying that I predict Bonnie does much worse than you predict. My long shot bet is Leonard and Bass run off with the vote.

  17. Well, I’m reading the Assessor’s race much differently, perhaps because everyone I know personally is voting for Brooks. His campaign did start off a little slow, but he’s come on strong in the last month.

    On the other hand, Rodoni also has her act together, with lots of ads to boot.

  18. Neal:

    Upton Sinclair, eh?

    Look, you want to hear my beef with blogland? It’s this. The Journal can publish all kinds of stuff that would have warmed the old codger’s heart on a regular basis — stuff like Ryan Burns’ airport expose or his reports from the craziness at College of the Redwoods or Heidi Walters’ story about the Fortuna woman who beat City Hall or the J-students’ exhaustive examination of search warrants or Jerry Rohde’s incredible historical work, or even somewhat lighter stuff like Ryan’s Loleta dirtbag operetta or Kym Kemp’s weed stories — and blogland doesn’t give a shit, because it’s not about who’s zooming who and it doesn’t help anyone win their election.

    Upton Sinclair, indeed! Wash your mouth out!

  19. Sorry Hank, but no soap necessary here. Although the first three stories you linked to would have definitely made my boy Upton smile, my original criticism stands: In recent years you seem to have either completely taken a powder on stories that are natural extensions of what you used to cover, or, if you deign to mention them at all (after the fact), you tend to miss the point completely by dismissively mocking them, as if only you get to decide what constitutes news.

    Two examples spring immediately to mind: One: You have yet to unambiguously call out, in a real investigative piece, Security National for their bad-faith foot-dragging on the cleanup of the Balloon Track, while for months their parallel well-funded and -disseminated disinformation campaign rolls on, blaming their opponents for problems they have knowingly manufactured for themselves, while ever more backing themselves into a corner. This same (apparently successful) disinformation campaign has literally been the centerpiece of two major local political campaigns, with huge ramifications. Four years ago, this would have warranted a cover story, a natural Part III to your own “Blown Off Course” and “On Different Tracks (’04 and ’05) pieces, which were fantastic. It’s still not too late, buddy.

    Now this Sundberg thing. You can call it zooming (dunno what that is), but you will find that nearly everyone whom you discuss it with will find what happened incredibly important and salient to whether this person should be the Fifth District supervisor. In my opinion, that is the definition of “news.”

    I eagerly await your next issue.

  20. It’s gonna be a good ‘un! Massive Uptonian cover story, a big yawner blog-wise.

  21. We’ll I’ll be looking forward to the NCJ’s coverage of the Sundberg DUI. Of course it will be a couple of days late to have any effect on this election.

    Of course if someone did indeed hold the story until Friday night (as opposed to they had just learned the facts) then that person is partly to blame for the fact that many voters may not even hear about this until after they have alreay cast their votes.

    But Sundberg, who had the facts all along and chose to keep quiet, deserves most of the blame, and Humboldt County’s media outlets also deserve a share. Don’t worry, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

  22. blogland doesn’t give a shit… big yawner blog-wise

    Wait, are you complaining that blogs don’t throw enough links to Journal stories? Is the problem that not only are we assholes who should be shunned as not real journalists but also that we don’t do our part to drive traffic to the NCJ website?

  23. Yeah Hank, tell Judy she owes me a nickel for every extra hit you get on the blog today. I’m rich!!!

  24. Jeez, is everyone a bit tense today or what? “Assholes who should be shunned”? WTF?

    I don’t worry my pretty head with who links to what. My only point, in response to Neal, was that this great lament about our non-Uptonian qualities is undermined by the fact of the many, many Uptonian stories we run on a regular basis.

    My suspicion is that my friend Neal — like yourself, like much of the chattering class — doesn’t think those stories count, simply because they’re of no immediate utility in his own battles.

  25. And also, like the works of the great man himself, they require a longer attention span than the one we have all become accustomed to having.

  26. doesn’t think those stories count, simply because they’re of no immediate utility in his own battles.

    Au contraire. Those stories matter. Burns’ piece on the airport in particular. Just because it wasn’t blogged about doesn’t mean bloggers think it unimportant.

  27. Hank, my comment was not about what you have been covering, but what you have consciously chosen not to.

  28. Most likely, with the exception of Sheriff, they will all be runoffs. Plenty of time to debate a DUI in 09.

    I look forward to Meg Whitman and Abel Maldonaldo to represent CA. Much better than two liberal Bay Area mayors connected by one “f**ked up” bridge.

    Off to Ryan’s victory party…although I predicted a plurality and not a majority.

  29. Because many absentee voters never heard about the DUI before they sent their ballots in, many election-day voters never heard about it because there was only ONE newspaper report (page 2 of Sun T-S) and because some people probably just don’t much care about the issue, or will buy into Sundberg’s “victim of dirty politics” spin.

  30. If we could wager on this, I’d bet a few extra dollars on Higgins pulling ahead. It’s somewhat of a longshot.

    My safe wager was Sunberg in the lead, but not with over 50 percent, follwed by the two Pats closely tied.

  31. Heraldo; We all know who Hank is, while you hide behind your blog. Faceless, nameless and with NO accountability.

  32. ” Is the problem that not only are we assholes who should be shunned as not real journalists”

    Uhhmmm, that’s rightm HeraldoS, you guys are NOT journalists who have to throughly vet a story before it goes to print; you can print any old thing, and if it sticks, great, if it doesn’t, oh well, its just a blog, and you all are nameless and faceless.

    So, yep, your summarization is spot on, Heraldos.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *