Officail election results and blanks
A few surprises like the number of blanks for At-Large 3,242
Perhaps voters didn't like two of the candidates and since it was a close race... the blankers would have made a difference.
Long/Norton wasn't as close and only had 23 blanks
Finlay/Morales was a no brainer... with 25 blanks
Incumbent Steiner got 202 blanks
Incumbent Cannon had 202 blanks with 21 write-in's.
Case/Alexander had 21 blanks another no brainer IMO
Open seat Phil O had 174
Shepard/Lynch had 12 ... not sure how he could have lost considering everything
Stefanini/Alvarez.. the shocker race. with 3 blanks. John should be concerned about this narrow victory
Bryant/Cuellar13 blanks, but only 271 total votes
|
posted by Jim Pillsbury @ 10:34 AM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
Alvarez played nice and was stupid for doing so. He should have gone negative right out the gate. People in that area know John. The counts already tell that. But for those who didn't know him some constant reruns of the library video, the gerrymandering, John's WTF moment during the charter meeting, his sleazy office arrangement that OCFP called him out in violation for , could have made for different results. Now all of us have to spend the next few years listening to that arrogant windbag complain about everything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
John is not perfect, but Alvarez was not a viable choice. Watch the candidate forum. He was clueless on many things. If nothing else, John knows Framingham and he was the right choice against the candidate who ran against John. But I agree, the narrow margin of victory against a candidate not fit for the job should be concerning to John.
3242 blanks for at large? If I were one of those candidates I would be pretty pissed off as that number of uncast votes could have changed the outcome significantly.
Stefanini is FAR from perfect. Who trusts him? Alvarez might have been a newbie but he had the potential to learn and people trust him.
Does a blank ballot mean those voters actually didn't vote for anyone in the at large race. How many do you think bullet-voted? If so, do you think it's because people didn't care or were they just undecided and/or turned off by all the candidates?
my guess is a bunch of voters didn't like or know much about the other two candidates.
Bullet-voting has been around a long time and it appears that many voters just didn't fill in at least one other circle other than than George King.
With such a slim margin of victory for Janet, that bullet practice made all the difference. Could voters really be making a statement? I guess they could, but for what reason we may never know. Would have been a good question for the local media source to ask.
Here's a question for you Jim, do you believe the outcome of any race would have changed had the Jason Smith matter become public before the election?
Ah. Duh.
First, I couldn't publicize something about an opponent that was sent to me anonymously, true or not. I couldn't verify any of it.
Would voters have changed their vote in light of that information.. I would have hoped so. But I've run in the ruling party before and as an outsider of the blue machine, I didn't stand much of a chance against him.
I do think that whomever knows where the skeletons are buried may send to the print media what they sent me years ago.
Jason should resign and take anyone who knew and condoned this behavior with him. Good guys or not.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home