On Tuesday, November 5, Pacifica Index will distribute initial polling results on Pacifica's Measure V beginning
at approximately 8:05 PM and will continue providing updates at
30-minute intervals throughout the evening until the vote count is
completed.
Via Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pacificaindex
Via Twitter: http://twitter.com/pacificaindex
Via Pacifica Index website: http://www.pacificaindex.com/uut.html
Chris Fogel
Editor & Publisher, Pacifica Index
57 comments:
Thank you again Chris Fogel for providing unbiased, essential information to help voters make an informed decision.
I just want to ask everyone to get out and vote tomorrow. And tell your friends and family too. Measure V is going to come down to turnout. If we have higher than normal turnout for an off year measure V is going to fail. Take 10 minutes tomorrow and vote no on V. Don't let the few decide for you.
Chris, when/how are vote-by-mail results released?
If it goes as in years past, vote-by-mail ballots will be the first numbers reported at 8:05 PM.
Polling sites will begin reporting in every 30 minutes thereafter.
I would expect mail-in ballots to be skewed towards the NO side with the YES side closing the gap with walk-in voting.
I think a majority of Pacificans are registered to vote by mail (something like 60-65 percent?). I could be wrong about this though -- this is just off the top of my head.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2013/nov/
Website that provides details on timing of voting results. Vote by mail released 8:05pm
I was a poll worker several years ago, and at that time they said 50% of ballots cast were mail-in ballots. 60%-65% sounds very plausible now.
Thank you Fogel.
http://pacifica.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/mail-in-ballots-course-through-county-5712a855
If 40 percent of the registered voters mail in their ballots, it would be a rite of passage in San Mateo County, says Elections Manager David Tom.
Tom’s team is collecting the ones that began arriving a few days ago, and has counted about 20,000 so far.
“Local elections unfortunately don’t have very high turnouts, although in my opinion they’re very important,” Tom said.
“Local elections affect voters day-to-day lives; we’re talking about school boards, city councils; those are the decisions that make a difference in the every day things.”
He says the reality of it is that a rate of about 29 percent of registered voters is normal for this type of election. In 2009, the turnout rate was 27.8 percent of 278,000 registered voters in the county, according to shapethefuture.org. 18.26 percent of those were mail in ballots.
In 2007, it was a larger set of voters, about 309,000. But the voter turnout rate was only about 24 percent, he said. About 15 percent were absentee ballots, which are commonly mailed in.
The San Mateo County elections office will be entering the data from the they've received from now through 8 p.m. on Election Day. Official results will be announced as they are entered into the computer system
Chris Fogel said:
"I would expect mail-in ballots to be skewed towards the NO side with the YES side closing the gap with walk-in voting."
That is definitely the pattern for taxes, because mail-in voters skew toward retirees and thus conservative voters. But in this case, retiree voters are the ones that will be exempt from the tax. Some believe that the initiative was put on the ballot in an off year specifically because off-year elections have a higher percentage of retiree voters. If that theory holds true, the early mail-in results will lean towards yes votes more than the later results. I am very curious how that will play out tonight.
Ian,
I'm basing my assumptions on the Yes Campaign not beginning its GOTV efforts until a week or two after the mail-in ballots went out.
It appears to me that the GOTV efforts were almost exclusively targeting today's walk-in voters.
The Yes Campaign must feel that they can activate enough of their targeted voters to carry the day and have pretty much based their entire efforts upon this strategy.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I don't believe the yes sides strategy of targeting seniors is going to work. Seniors see through the ploy of buying them off with an exemption. All the seniors I know are sick to death of one tax after the next.
I hope I'm not wrong.
I just checked with the County and the correct vote by mail percentage is 57%
Out of 22,749 registered voters in Pacifica, 12,958 are registered to vote by mail.
Thank you Chris Fogel for this timely reporting.
The Yes people are out in full force in Vallemar.
Just drove thru that intersection @ 4:56 and saw no one. No Yessies, Taxies, or normal people.
Talking about normal.
So far Chris and I are correct. Mail ins dominated by no votes 64% to 35%. But that gap will close. Hopefully not all the way.
Woohoo. Those mail-ins are from the very people targeted by the Yes campaign. Looks like they weren't fooled. Let's hope the Yes group was no more successful at getting the walk-in vote out.
Seniors aren't as gullible as they thought. Duh
Where are those anonimi that were swearing yes sides money and strategy would win this campaign?
In Texas.
We did not get to be senior by being stupid.
Amen to that Tom Clifford! Are you listening Council? Think of this defeat as a performance review. Without a consultant!
Congrats to everyone who worked and voted against this scam. Gerughty, the debaters, Hutch, Clifford and the flyers and all those volunteers, bravo!
Last, but certainly not least, thanks to Nihart and Stone for doing everything humanly possible to make the No Side the righteous underdog in this thing. Truly a masterful performance. There are simply no words.
How do we get the money back for this farce?
@925 it's all good. made us work harder and smarter. got it done. bucked the odds big because most of these things pass.
Godbe truly is an incompetent polling consultant. A group of first semester statistics students at Skyline could have done a better job.
I can only hope the city made a mistake and thought they were hiring Zogby.
925 Where are they? Right here, and this one already offered congrats on a great victory.
So much for Pacifica's council brain trust. A real political juggernaut.
Three 2014 incumbants shot themselves in the foot for next year by promoting this tax. It was no solution. They sewed seeds of distrust by the means which the measure was put on the ballot, using taxpayer dollars. It was soundly defeated. Any challenger next year can point to this collossal Fail. Look at who endorsed Measure V, but more importantly look who didnt.
We want revenue generating development, not NIMBY, faux enviro taxation.
Can you hear us now?
This is the second landslide in a year. First Mike Oneill tromped on Rich Campbell the enviro candidate. Now and even bigger loss for the city. Do you think the people are trying to tell you something?
Thanks to everyone for all your help. You saved Pacificans millions of dollars and told the city to go back and negotiate some real wage reductions before you go putting your hand in our pockets. Now we need some letters to the editor.
@ 644 We want to be careful not to get rid of pro development council and end up with an enviro one for the next 10 years.
I think this gives Mike ONeill more power. He should be the next mayor.
Hutch
What has this council done for developement in Pacifica?
Mary Ann, is Mayor again next year.
So, where's the development? And, please don't point to Beach Blvd. That's Pacifica's perennial project. It's as likely to be developed as an oil well off Linda Mar. Where's the development from this allegedly pro-development City Council? They've had years and they've come up with a library. Are we still looking for the right one? Meaning the right development, of course, not the right Council.
Yes side spent roughly $50 per vote! Wow!
Thank you Tom Clifford but most of all thank you Jim Wagner and Mark Stechbart.
Fool me once, etc. loud and clear.
Not much development yet but no real projects have been proposed. Mary Anne, Len, Mike and Karen are for highway widening and they have worked to streamline the planning process as well as eliminating enviro groups that fight any progress.
Would you rather have Jimmy and Pete back?
So much for seniors being easy to con. That was a big fat No to unrestricted funds, and, yeah, we haven't forgotten that fire tax bait and switch. And that backroom crap needs to stop.
Even though they badly misread public opinion on this type of tax, I still much prefer this council over the ones of the previous 10 years.
705 Yup, "tromped" Enviro Campbell right into reappointment to the planning commission. That and the rest of those reappointments just screams 'Pacifica has changed'. All that's changed is that our newer Councilmembers are better politicians than their predecessors. Still courting the enviro vote. Wouldn't rule out Nimby DNA.
Despite their lack of any real progress, I also prefer this council to the earlier ones. However, I don't think we've reached the evolutionary ceiling for Pacifica City Councilmembers. Not at all.
Look at the people who endorsed Mary Ann and Karen Ervin. The very same people who ran council when Jimmy V and Pete were on council.
Empty chairs.
Hutch, are you suffering from post-electoral euphoria? Well, you are entitled! Still, is it wise for you to speak for council on highway widening, a subject on which they have been remarkably silent? I ask because, according to Judge Gerald Buchwald's court ruling, "..Plaintiff's claim is not yet ripe because the City of Pacifica has, as yet, made no administrative decision to approve or reject the proposed highway construction project." Meaning the suit was premature because the city council has not voted on the project, so there has been no decision and no impact to be suing about. I think someone on here, maybe Sinai, made that exact prediction months ago. I suppose Loeb can appeal, or he, or someone else, can file a new suit when the city council decides to break cover on the issue.
So, where you getting your info? I can find no public statements from Nihart, Ervin or O'Neill indicating they've made a decision on highway widening. Not during their campaigns and not since. Neither Ervin nor O'Neill were on council when the votes were taken to apply for funding and to indicate a median preference. At the time of those votes it was repeatedly made clear that Council was not at that time being asked to approve or reject the widening project. Judge Buchwald seems to agree that Council made no decision on the project. For the record, Pete voted to join the funding queue which made sense since he's always been in favor of the widening.
Again, where you getting your information? Before you whip out the Nimby stick, I'm for widening everything right up to the Slide. I find this Council's reluctance to take any public stand on the project or even to engage the public in dialogue to be ill-advised and pure political self-preservation and, thus, totally in character.
Took the Chamber a while to get involved, but when they did, they meant business! IMHO the flyer with Gerughty's name on it made all the difference. Timed just right for those mail-in ballots, no hysterical claims, and pretty much bullet-proof.
Sinai, that's an interesting observation about council misreading public opinion. IMO they've fallen into that old control-freak trap and it is a serious handicap. They cherry-pick everything to get the desired result, hear what they want, and then sail forth. Better maybe they get in touch with the real residents of Pacifica. I'm not saying set a place for the loons, but after this humiliating debacle, this council clearly needs a more balanced viewpoint.
1230, guess you missed the city council meeting a few months ago when Councilmember Sue Digre attempted to make a motion in favor of city mediation against highway 1 widening. The question in more benign form is on one of those city council agendas, and of course minutes would exist. Ultimately the motion failed because there was no second.
Here's another logical prediction: Council members with exception of Sue Digre will support Highway 1 widening through Pacifica.
1:18
Another safe prediction:
it will be dark tonight.
the sun will rise tomorrow am.
Finally! Someone with a chrystal ball. Thanks for the prediction, Kathy. Are you the source of Hutch's info? Or does he do his own gazing?
Here's my prediction. Council will hide as long as possible on the issue of highway widening. When forced to vote...oh no, not this Swami, not a chance, that one goes to a Higher Swami who handles anything that involves politicians. However, I'm your Swami should the matter reach the CA Coastal Commission. Laughter, raucous, back-slapping laughter. That's my prediction. Come back anytime.
144, as mentioned there was a council meeting. Anyone, including you, could have tuned-in.
Council please get it through your thick heads and listen to the message we just sent you:
"No more taxes to subsidize the NIMBY faux-enviro lifestyle."
It's obvious you are intimdated by Loeb and his ilk but if you can't figure out where the real majority votes are coming from, plan on a short political career. We are all sick of the poverty oath they've imposed on us. We want a vibrant economy and a city that's not falling apart.
I think these are some of the same anonymi that declared the yes on V campaign "superior, well thought out and a sure thing"
Mike and Karen both ran on a platform of supporting highway widening. As Kathy said Len and Mary Ann did not allow Sue to derail the process and have let it move along. They are smart by not holding a public hearing. Loeb might have had a case then.
BTW Peter Loeb was/is a big supporter of this UUT tax on telecommunications. He was talking about it years ago and was listed as a supporter of measure V. So Peter how's it feel to lose twice in one week? Get ready for more.
The city should go after him for court costs.
Hutch, get a grip. You didn't make a prediction of council support of highway widening, you made a declarative statement. It's legitimate to ask what is your source since there has been no vote on the matter. Have you been asked before? Apparently it's a sensitive subject. Kathy helicopters in and you feel the need to blur the issues with nonsense.
This has no connection to my question, but, Hutch, you were on the winning side on V against a better funded and very well organized machine. I voted No. Ever hear about resting graciously on your laurels?
If that info source comes to mind, you should share. I found nothing in any campaign statement or article for Nihart, Ervin or O'Neill that says they have decided. As this process drags on, Council's support or opposition should be public and unmistakable. As comfortable as ambiguity is, it leads to irrelevance.
451 Hutch said about Len and Mary Ann, "they were smart not to hold a public hearing". I'm sure they'll love to read that.
Anonymous 3:44pm said...
Council please get it through your thick heads and listen to the message we just sent you:
"No more taxes to subsidize the NIMBY faux-enviro lifestyle."
It's obvious you are intimdated by Loeb and his ilk but if you can't figure out where the real majority votes are coming from, plan on a short political career. We are all sick of the poverty oath they've imposed on us. We want a vibrant economy and a city that's not falling apart.
--------------------------
How can there be a vibrant economy and a city not falling apart with people being scared into not voting for a measure that would help support just that? If your answer is to build housing on every bit of hillside and big boxes retail, you might consider living somewhere else that already looks like that.
Not to worry, there isn't enough developable land left in Pacifica to develop much of anything. We're already running on fumes. Not even enough commercial development now to support the 38,000 current residents. Looking at years of deeper cuts. Even a good old bankruptcy won't change that. Disincorporation might be our future.
Unless there's a school kid attached to it, voting no on taxes is how Pacifica rolls. How could council with all those former school board members and Nihart the Queen of School Tax Campaigns miss that one? That consultant must have had quite a sales pitch.
Post a Comment