Why Sullivan Lost

Today I sense a great deal of frustration in East Bay over the failure of several compelling candidates to unseat long-reviled incumbents.

Nowhere is this more clear than in Oakland's 3rd City Council district, where City Council member Nancy Nadel will hold on to her seat in spite of a terrible track record. I thought I'd take a moment to explain to people why Nadel won.

It's simple political science theory, really. This election was an "off" cycle election. The presidential primary took place months ago, and the general election isn't until November. Off cycle elections are well known to produce low turnouts. So, it's totally unsurprising that all it took to win a city council seat in Oakland's third district was a little over 3,000 votes.

Traditional political theory held that low-turnout elections bring out radicals, since they are the only ones willing to investigate the issues without the major media push of a general election. In local elections, however, this is not exactly so.

When a candidate needs only 3,000 votes to win a local election, the process becomes swayed more by those who have a direct vested interest in the election's outcome. I'm speaking, of course, of such groups as public-employee unions, those on the public dole and other "special interest" groups who receive money and favors directly from the government.

You can be certain that in an off election, each and every one of these people will come out and vote. And, each and every one of them will vote for the incumbent who as either provided them or promised them emoluments in the weeks before the election.

That's as against maybe 20% of those uncommitted voters whom the opposition courts. It's really no contest.

I don't specifically know which interest groups turned out for Nadel. I'm aware that the police officers' union endorsed Sullivan, but this is probably moot because few of them live in the district. It would probably require some digging to determine exactly who swung the election -- digging that really isn't worth the effort, from my perspective.

Hopefully this explanation will put to rest the repeated questions about "who were those 3,000" people and the suggestion that those people somehow didn't care about the outcome.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Their votes were a business decision. To them, Nadel equals money. End of story.

There is a solution to this problem, but the liberals among you aren't going to like it.

The solution is less government.

The less money the government has to allocate, the less this kind of thing happens. Money, like power, breeds corruption. There's no way around it.

The more money you give the government, the more you wind up with an entrenched oligarchy which pays off just enough of the population to keep being re-elected.

Sound familiar? Maybe it's time to give this "conservatism" thing a try. Fiscal conservatism anyway.

I for one welcome our new overlord. Welcome back, Ms. Nadel! Many happy returns!

Oakland's Election 2008: Who cares?

It's election-endorsement time. Time for this humble blogger to lobby for the votes of my devoted readers.

I say “you” because, as a matter of policy, I do not vote in California. I changed my voter registration to my eastern headquarters in Nevada some time ago. I maintain this other HQ to permit a quick move of residence should California's taxation climate turn as nasty as I think it might.

Like most election cycles, this year we must decide whether to vote based on principle or on what will provide us the most political theater.

It would seem my fellow bloggers have the principled-voting bases covered. So, I'll leave that to them.

Statewide

What could be better theater than watching our local liberals struggle with the end of rent control? Anyone with a reasonable understanding of economics knows it's a failed policy that randomly redistributes wealth.

You might not realize, however, how much local pain is a direct consequence of rent control. Ever wonder how Oakland's killing fields manage to remain so static and ungentrified?

Ending rent control will not end poverty, but it will permit Oakland to export some of its antisocial element to the surrounding communities. This is not only good for Oakland, but it will provide great theater.

So, I urge a vote for Proposition 98 and against Proposition 99.

Oakland City Council

Every candidate with any chance of winning is a union-loving liberal, so far as I can tell. So, the question comes down to whether to support the incumbent Leftists, or bring in a new set of Leftists.

After thinking about this matter long and hard, I've concluded the right approach is to vote for the most popular non-incumbent candidate in each race. In particular, I urge a vote for Sean Sullivan and Patrick McCullough against Nancy Nadel and Jane Brunner.

I am mindful that it was Nadel who put this blog on the map by engineering the Mandela Foods fiasco. Still, I think she and Brunner have run their course as public self-humiliators, and it's time to let someone else take their places.

I do not actually think Sullivan and McCullough will be able to make any meaningful change in Oakland. Their philosophies are both too rooted in failed Leftist theology. McCullough is a lawyer (we know what that means), and Sullivan works at some sort of non-profit. Not exactly impressive stuff.

But, both are new faces. Both will bring their own set of scandals and foibles for us to enjoy. Neither will make much of a difference, but hopefully neither can stop Oakland's gradual gentrification.

Oakland School Board

Here, your vote is irrelevant. No candidate is willing to do what it takes to improve the situation.

While I'm a big fan of political theater, I would rather not impose it on children.

So, lacking a better candidate, I suggest you vote for me, The Boss.

If elected, I promise to push singlemindedly and singlehandedly for my magnet schools proposal. It will fail, naturally, but at least we can get it some more publicity.