Home > elections > (Unofficial) election results

(Unofficial) election results

Humboldt County Supervisor, Fourth District

Virginia Bass….. 4,181 (+825) 55.06%
Bonnie Neely……… 3,356 44.19%

Humboldt County Supervisor, Fifth District

Ryan Sundberg… 5,088 (+154) 50.57%
Patrick Cleary………. 4,934 49.04%

Eureka Mayor

Frank Jager……… 4,500 (+700) 51.59%
Peter LaVallee………. 3,800 43.56%
Marshall Spaulding.. 397 4.55%

Eureka City Council, 1st Ward

Marian Brady…. 4,950 (+1,251) 57.10%
Larry Glass …………3,699 42.67%

Eureka City Council, 3rd Ward

Mike Newman…. 3,629 (+183) 44.18%
Ron Kuhnel ………….3,446 41.95%
Xandra Manns ……. 1,116 13.59%

Eureka City Council, 5th Ward

Lance Madsen 6,257 96.26%

Arcata City Council

Alex Stillman……… 3,222 28.91%
Mark Wheetley…… 3,178 (+424) 28.52%
David Meserve ……….. 2,754 24.71%

District Attorney

Paul Gallegos…….. 25,238 (+2,149) 52.08%
Allison Jackson ……….23,089 47.61%

Assessor

Mari Wilson…………27, 459 (59.13%)
Johanna Rodoni………..18,827 (40.54%)

Full report.

  1. Ron Kuhnel
    November 27, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    It was a close race, but Mike Newman was the choice of the voters in this election in the 3rd ward. I concede the election, and congratulate Mr. Newman.

    Mr. Newman and I ran on much of the same platform — jobs, protecting public safety, and concern for the environment. I trust these will be among his main priorities. Our economy can be greatly improved by modernizing our zoning and building codes, and eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy at city hall. I will do what I can to assist the new city council in accomplishing these objectives.

    I want to thank all my supporters during the recent campaign. I will continue to be active in my role as a civic activist to make Eureka a better place for all.

  2. November 27, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Newman was the choice of less than half the voters but the winner just the same.

  3. Patty Clary
    November 27, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    Ryan Sundberg will be a great Supervisor. Look for the unexpected — and expect to have your voices heard, all you 5th District people.

  4. Decline to State
    November 27, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    Okay then…the people have spoken. Let’s see how this all rolls. Me, I’m afraid.

  5. Andrew Bird
    November 27, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    I concur with Heraldo. But Ron Kuhnel is all class.

  6. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 27, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Did you notice that Lance Madsen had nearly 30% undervotes? Undervotes are ballots where NO choice was marked. Good luck, Lance.

    I have a very hard time believing this council is up to the tasks ahead. It means even a bigger mess for the next one. Hopefully they will find some heretofore unseen positive energy for projects like Jefferson School and the new Open Door Clinic. They campaigned on only one issue, the Balloon Track development. My guess is that is the one that will not get started during their tenure. Life is full of surprises and I hope sincerely that this council surprises us all. Still, if I was a betting man, I know where my money would be.

  7. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 27, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    I am eager to see the vote results by ward. Jeff Leonard LOST to Ron Kuhnel in his own ward last time but won citywide. I suspect the same is true here. It is another great arguement for True Ward Voting.

  8. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    November 27, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    Admirable everyone! Congratulations too. Good Luck over the next four years as societal times will be trying.

    Good words Patty Clary!!!

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  9. November 27, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Progressive District Attorney Paul Gallegos won convincingly! I am proud of civil and bold Humboldters for that! That the Honorable Johanna Rodoni lost overwhelmingly is another credit to astute voters, having elected the more experienced Tax Assessor candidate, who, I presume, has less of a economic-politico agenda. (Although since both admirable candidates are Conservative Republicans, one either had to vote for “the lesser of two evils,” or choose not to vote at all for that elective office, as I decided to do. “FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN!!”)

    And, in all truth, so did other candidates win overwhelmingly, We must note.

    Vote splitters, I think, should think twice. Just as great Ralph Nader wisely did in the purloined Gore v. Bush election. As a pragmatist interested in the installation of resolutions, I don’t think much is to be gained in not holding one’s nose — and voting for the lesser of two evils. But it must be admitted that the third and winning candidate entered the 3rd Ward Ron Kuhnel, Mike Newman race, I understand, AFTER the vote splitter threw her hat in the ring. Ms. Xandra Manns not only ran a great race with solid Green Progressive values, she garnered about 14% of the vote!!

    I still think, however, vote splitters should request their supporters to vote for the losing Democratic candidate near the end of the campaign — facing, thus far in history, that practical reality is blocking We the People.

    I think The Honorable Bonnie Neely will have a great future in Sacramento, just as is The Honorable State Senator Loni Hancock, former mayor of Berkeley.

    Finally, The Honorable Dave Meserve is really an impressive intellectual candidate — and a valuable activist member of this community.

    In any event, when all is said and done, in the final analysis, We the People accept the results, and must all — winner and loser opponents alike — go on as Friends.

    Another good prospect, most likely, is that the Voter Transparency Project will confirm that the election in Humboldt County was honest.

    Signed,

    Amy Goodman
    Julian Assange
    Aldous Huxley

  10. Anonymous
    November 27, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Vote splitter? Yet more hack partisan Democrat garbage and blame-shifting away from taking responsibility for their own campaign.

    When are you fake liberals going to get it through your heads? You don’t own my freaking vote. If I hadn’t voted for Xandra in the 3rd ward, I would have WROTE IN a candidate (as I did in Ward 5) because neither Newman nor Kuhnel represent my views (like No No No on Measures N and O, which both Ron and Mike said they were voting for), like no more cell phone towers in our residential neighborhoods, like no more police shootings (where’s your liberal hero on that issue, oh yeah, he never said a word about it)…

    As for ‘class’ I can’t help notice Kuhnel profusely thanking Mike Newman and expressing his respect…while not saying a word about his other opponent Xandra Manns except to attack her for ‘stealing’ H I S votes, yet more arrogance that makes me even happier to have not supported him.

    You worried about a majority winner, Dem whiners? Then get off your asses on ranked choice voting like Kerrigan said he’d do 5 years ago. Otherwise, you will just keep losing and I will just keep laughing at you pompous asses.

  11. Eric Kirk
    November 27, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Did you notice that Lance Madsen had nearly 30% undervotes? Undervotes are ballots where NO choice was marked. Good luck, Lance.

    So why wasn’t there a progressive opponent?

  12. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 12:05 am

    Why no progressive opponent?
    Well that’s easy Herr Kirk. Eureka’s battered and abused progressive community is so used to the heraldo/andrew bird types (one and the same?) screeching at us to O B E Y the whims of the Central Committee (and getting threatening phone calls from the Salzman hatchetmen otherwise) that they get intimidated out of running in the first place.

    Kudos to Xandra Manns for her strength in resisting their bully tactics and standing up for what she believes in. I only wish another progressive Independent (not another sniveling loser Democrat) would have run in the 5th as well…maybe next time, since the Dems are so freaking out of it that they couldn’t bother to run anyone at all in Ward 5 in two of the last three elections!

  13. Dont be fooled again
    November 28, 2010 at 6:16 am

    On the Recent Comments bar; “deleted on Freedom of Speech”. I’ll say it agin; “DELETED on Freedom of Speech” LMAO! Just par for the crazy course here on Heraldo.

  14. November 28, 2010 at 8:31 am

    If someone wants to post here under the name “Deleted” that’s their business.

  15. November 28, 2010 at 8:39 am

    Anonymous expects to be taken seriously after responding to Eric as “Herr Kirk.”

    As noted in an earlier thread, I appreciated Xandra’s opposition to Measure N. She was the only city council candidate to take that position.

  16. High Finance
    November 28, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Yes Manns was the only opponent to Measure N.

    She also got 13% of the vote.

    I went back & read John Osborn & Hank Sims projections along with the posts by Turtle & Carol, among others, this morning.

    The biggest shock to everybody was the smashing victory by Marian Brady. Everybody predicted a huge win for Glass instead. Why? Talking to my conservative friends it seems the only candidates that were hated were Bonnie & Larry.

    What did Larry do to cause such a visceral reaction? Well there was his personal, petty & mean years long campaign against all things Robin Arkley. The anti Arkley bumber stickers, his opposition to the Marina Center.

    More recently was his attempt to close the zoo & then say he didn’t want to close it. His successful charge to buy Jefferson school makes most people shake their heads. His campaign against Tyson.

    Any other issues come to mind?

  17. Voter
    November 28, 2010 at 10:05 am

    I hope Patty Clary is right. Sundberg’s choice for Planning Commissioner will tell what sort of supervisor he will be and if indeed, all of our voices will “be heard.”

  18. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Let’s wait until the real numbers are in – campaign expenses tell more about who really won than do election results. In Eureka, the winning side was the Chamber of Commerce. Period. And until Eureka returns to majority elections, the Chamber will continue to win because it will be about money. Eureka! Let’s lose it.

  19. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 10:16 am

    I wonder who will be the most “surprised” about Sundberg. I hope it is his republicans and developers who funded his campaign.

  20. Goldie
    November 28, 2010 at 10:18 am

    John C. Osborn’s article in the North Coast Journal comes to my mind. “Interested Parties”
    Introducing the eyebrow-raising group of lockstep donors to conservative candidates.
    Mr. Fi, Perhaps in conversation with your conservative friends the efforts of Bonnie and Larry are not appreciated. When I speak with my friends and people in my neighborhood Bonnie and Larry are well respected and admired.
    http.//www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2010/10/14/interested-parties/

  21. tra
    November 28, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Does Bass’s victory mean that an Option A-style General Plan Update is now Dead on Arrival, or will the Lovelace/Neeley/Clendenan block try to push the GPU through before Bass takes office?

    I recall from a few months ago that the Board of Supervisors approved an “accelerated schedule” for dealing with the GPU that would have resulted in a final vote while the current Supes were still in office…but I haven’t heard anything about this recently.

    Does anyone here have any news on that?

  22. mresquan
    November 28, 2010 at 10:54 am

    “Does Bass’s victory mean that an Option A-style General Plan Update is now Dead on Arrival, or will the Lovelace/Neeley/Clendenan block try to push the GPU through before Bass takes office?”

    We shall see.But one thing that is for sure is that she will now have to read it.And the first time that the issue comes before the Board when she sits at the dais,I’m sure we will all hear about how she can’t make a decision yet because she hasn’t had the time to read it and come to an informed decision yet.

  23. Eric Kirk
    November 28, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Does Bass’s victory mean that an Option A-style General Plan Update is now Dead on Arrival, or will the Lovelace/Neeley/Clendenan block try to push the GPU through before Bass takes office?

    That’s the million dollar question. There’s no way to get it done by January. Neither Bass nor Sundberg were specific during the campaign, and they have a lot of catching up to do.

  24. November 28, 2010 at 11:17 am

    What the hey? They elected an assessor to the Assessor’s Office! Madness!

  25. tra
    November 28, 2010 at 11:38 am

    “There’s no way to get it done by January.”

    That was my prediction back when the Lovelace/Neeley/Clendenan bloc set up the timeline that would have supposedly led to a vote this fall.

    It will be interesting to see if Option A supporters will continue to push to get the GPU done quickly, even though they now may not have to votes to move the Option A-style language.

  26. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    It’s pretty funny how nothing has EVER changed for Eureka, politically.

    The legacy continues with the development community’s funding and winning nearly all their candidates, thanks to the right-wing’s unwavering voter-discipline.

    We will stay-the-course by continuing big box and sprawl developments because public subsidies flowing into the same wealthy speculator’s hands will benefit all. (Formerly called trickle-down).

    No, it’s REALLY going to work this time!

    Not one reporter in local media pressed candidate’s claims of “progress” and “economic benefits” from this model of growth that is failing everywhere.

    If you could continue making millions on subdivisions and big boxes, despite a decayed infrastructure and poverty-wage saturation, wouldn’t your children be less inclined to leave?

  27. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    As a supporter of many of “option A” policies, I really don’t think it’s realistic to push the GPU through before January. I just hope that any new appointment(s) at the planning commission have both a good understanding of the GPU process and a vision for a truly sustainable future (humility and intelligence would also be a plus).

  28. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    My relatives, a couple of kids, and many friends here all make a good living. I notice they all have excellent work ethics and the ability to modify their careers to fit the changing economic trends. Is it really that awful here? I know many many many who have very solid lives here, not super wealthy, some pretty low income, but we all have pretty much the same standard of living. It’s not that bad, in my opinion.

  29. Eric Kirk
    November 28, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I missed the “Herr Kirk” post. Usually it’s “Comrade Kirk” or “Eric the Red.”

  30. Eric Kirk
    November 28, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    My relatives, a couple of kids, and many friends here all make a good living. I notice they all have excellent work ethics and the ability to modify their careers to fit the changing economic trends. Is it really that awful here? I know many many many who have very solid lives here, not super wealthy, some pretty low income, but we all have pretty much the same standard of living. It’s not that bad, in my opinion.

    Well, let me give you a little perspective. Until 2008, I had one client who sought help with a foreclosure against his home. Since 2008, I’ve had over a dozen.

  31. Native Daughter
    November 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    The outcome of local (Humboldt in general, Eureka in particular) elections could not be more disappointing:

    Measure N is/was a painful joke – “there’s no there there” (the issues were/are still a subject for the settled lawsuit, among the coastal commission, city and developers. No one was ever blocking development: only asking the developers to comply with state-mandated clean-up for ANY business on the Balloon Track.

    Glass, Kuhnel and LaVallee were never against Measure N or the development of a Marina Center, because they were smart enough to know that it was a red herring/propaganda measure. The Measure N Arkley/Security National- funded campaign was a ($80,000 + sadly successful) misrepresentation of Measure N goals as being to create a “Marina Center” (less than 10% of the funds for the project are allocated to such a Center). It was also a huge attempt at making something out of NOTHING: trying to fool ignorant voters into thinking that candidates wanting to enforce the developers’ obligation to comply with toxic clean-up were somehow opposed to development in Eureka – a lie and a sad testament for how $$$ influences perception, especially amongst the population who will, in the end, suffer the most for the lack of jobs, locally-based business growth, community development and an increase of environmental degradation.

    Much of this smacks of the 80’s-90’s pitting of environmentalists against local timber workers while Maxam and others make $$$$ (or pay off junk bonds) while clear-cutting our region’s (formerly) most renewable resource. Where are our jobs and forests now?

    This latest round of promises for economic development and jobs is once again parasitic and deceptive. It’s no wonder they don’t want to fund health care or education for the masses…

    Wake-up people!!

  32. etiquette
    November 28, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Now that the election is over, hopefully all the losing candidates will call each other and congrat the victors? Or is this just not going to happen?

  33. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    I wish a work ethic is all it took to achieve a decent standard of living in Humboldt County or elsewhere. I hear one sad story after another and many older folks worrying about their retirement income. But it’s not unique to our area.

  34. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 28, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    When the smoke clears and we get a real look at just how much money the Brady/Newman/Bass camp received and spent, it will give us a better perspective on how they won this thing.
    1. They started early.
    2. They had the bucks to do ‘saturation bombing’ with mailers every few days.
    3. The mailers were full of lies and half-truths that they just kept repeating over and over.
    4. They had plenty of bucks to do saturation TV and Radio ads, many filled with the same thematic lies.
    5. They had payed walkers and sign placers, and campaign consultants.
    6. They wrapped their candidates in Measure N, even though none of them will have anything to do with the Marina Center’s fate.

    Lies they used.
    1.”Larry tried to close the zoo”.
    Larry NEVER advocated closing the zoo. He did ask the question, “Can we afford it?”
    2. “Bonnie wouldn’t ‘sway’ the Coastal Commission to favor the Marina Center, therefore she was opposed to it”.
    Bonnie was the chair of a 12 person panel. She is only one vote as I believe Mr. Arkley will find out.
    She never did have that much power if she had wanted to use it.
    3. “Larry was opposed to and tried to delay the cleanup of the Balloon Track.”
    Larry started CREG specifically to get the site fully cleaned up. He has been a relentless supporter of a complete cleanup. Brady NEVER had a damn thing to do with it.
    4. and the Grandaddy of them all, “The marina center NOW!” Their whole slate wrapped themselves in that one. Measure N and Arkley’s pet candidates will have NO effect on the timeline for whatever might get built on the Balloon Track. Many Eurekans bought that one hook, line, and sinker.

    It all goes to prove that you can fool enough of the people enough of the time if you have enough pricey consultants and enough money to sell your lies.

    Now Eureka gets to live with its picks. Good luck and here we go, back to 1950. Maybe we could burn another streetcar?

  35. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 28, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Oh yeah, lie #6. “Ron Kuhnel supports cell towers in YOUR neighborhood.”
    Fact: Ron voted for the tower on Harris when NO ONE showed up to oppose it. Later, when it was reconsidered and neighborhood notification issues were resolved (thank Larry), he voted AGAINST it.

    Sadly, this was the dirtiest city campaign I have ever seen. I hope you all like MUD.

  36. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    TRUE DAT!!!!!!!!!

  37. High Finance
    November 28, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    First Mouse pretends he is against dirty campaigns, but we all know that isn’t true as he supported Bonnie Neely. Neely’s campaign was the dirtiest in recent local history.

    And Mouse, if you don’t think that Larry Glass tried to close the zoo, then you are dumber than even I thought you were.

    If you have any proof or links or facts that show Bonnie tried to sway the Coastal Commission into supporting the Marina Center, I would be dying to have you post it.

    Then Native Daughter insults 65% of Eureka because they are “ignorant” and didn’t vote the way she thought they should. The election was a shock to smug elitists like you, but you lost. Get over it.

  38. Eric Kirk
    November 28, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    eely’s campaign was the dirtiest in recent local history.

    By far the dirtiest was the recall campaign against Paul Gallegos.

  39. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    “Neely’s campaign was the dirtiest in recent local history.”

    Negative yes, but dirty? Not so much so.

  40. Ditto
    November 28, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Arkley’s Mirror has been gutter campaigning against Neely, Glass and Gallegos since its creation and all for the benefit of Arkley’s political roster since, as has been stated numerous times, there was no need to have a Measure N campaign.

  41. November 28, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Team Arkley used Measure N to push their candidates over the top.

    Brady is a one-issue puppet who appears to think the Marina Center is the only issue before the city council. And even with that single-issue focus she remains clueless about what power the city has over the Balloon Track. The current legal status of that property is a complete mystery to her.

    But at least she has pom-poms. It will make the next four years entertaining.

  42. Eric Kirk
    November 28, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Team Arkley used Measure N to push their candidates over the top.

    And to establish a mandate for the Marina Center, which it has effectively done. The failure to oppose N was a costly miscalculation. In my opinion. I hope I’m proven wrong.

  43. November 28, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Measure N helped the Arkley slate win the election, but now that clown act actually has to govern.

  44. Heidi
    November 28, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    We’ve got what we’ve got and now we operate under these conditions. It has never been perfect and it never will be. We just do our best, and do the next right thing in front of us. If the council members are not up to speed on an issue you believe in contact them, they are public officials, they have been elected to represent us, get them up to speed. There is a clear public process, rules and laws that must be followed. For god sake, Richard Nixon established the EPA in response to public demand for a cleaner environment. We will continue to build a community that reflects who we are as Eurekans providing everyone follows the public process and the public officials represent the public.

  45. Fullerton's ass
    November 28, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    HiFi sez: “His campaign against Tyson.” I think you have that backwards, It was Tyson who used his office and influence to campaign against Glass. Tyson is one of the most corrupt public officials in the State. I hope the Attorney Generals office looks into the Hansen pay off.

  46. Eurekan
    November 28, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    I think Hi Fi’s mask is being ripped from his face.

    Right, John F.?

  47. Anonymous
    November 28, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    The biggest risk for the citizens of Eureka would be if the new council threw out Garr, who’s worked hard to reform and cleaned up the EPD and done so with great success. The Hansen case is an example of the old guard pushing back. The new council would likely look to install an old line insider like Murl Harpham. That would be the worse thing that could happen to Eureka. If anything, this is what the citizens should be voicing their concern to the new council about.

  48. High Finance
    November 29, 2010 at 6:25 am

    I have been called RA, Tom Stewart, Rich Ames and Larry Glass. Now somebody else again?

    And this is important to you why? Up yours “Eurekan”. If you can’t stand people who disagree with you maybe you just should go away or at least grow up.

  49. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 6:38 am

    yep yep Tom Stewart, full blown nutcase

  50. Mitch
    November 29, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Eric Kirk said:

    By far the dirtiest was the recall campaign against Paul Gallegos.

    And, for once, a corporate-cash dirty and negative campaign backfired badly.

  51. November 29, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Measure N helped the Arkley slate win the election, but now that clown act actually has to govern.

    Best line of this entire thread!

  52. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Is eurekan the same cyber bully who drove plain jane away from her pseudo name ? and why doesn’t he try to out Tom P, Matt D and Josh D ?

  53. Big Al
    November 29, 2010 at 8:04 am

    what happened to Jane?

  54. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 29, 2010 at 8:52 am

    A little background for HiFi. I was at the meeting when Larry brought up the issue of the zoo. He correctly noted that the zoo budget was over $700,000 per year and GROWING. Public safety funds were being cut. It would have been irresponsible for him to NOT bring it up. He never advocated for closing the zoo. He did advocate strongly for the zoo to seek other funding for its operations to take the burden off of the city. He noted that almost 70% of the zoo’s visitors were from outside the city limits while the city was paying the entire bill.

    So he brings these critical issues to the table and gets crucified for “trying to close the zoo”?
    Sorry, HiFi. If you have to bury your head in the sand when problems arise, someone will inevitably bite you in the ass!

  55. Eric Kirk
    November 29, 2010 at 10:16 am

    He noted that almost 70% of the zoo’s visitors were from outside the city limits while the city was paying the entire bill.

    Just an aside, but that’s actually a very good economic argument for keeping it open. Anything which brings money into the community. We don’t have much.

  56. tra
    November 29, 2010 at 10:26 am

    I’m not sure how this is evidence that the zoo is bringing money “into the community.” I would assume that the majority of the 70% were from within Humboldt County (a good argument that the County should be kicking in some funding for the zoo) and that among the minority who are visitors from outside the area, few if any visited just the area just to see the zoo.

  57. November 29, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    A-Nony-Mouse: What a (not Brady) bunch of BS. Bonnie was the one using Big Money consultants from Sacramento. Virginia had me. Remember Heraldo having the field day with my brochure mishaps?

    Marian ran her own campaign.

    (All of the mailers and signs came from Brady Designs. Hire local for your graphic design needs.)

    Payed walkers? What does that even mean? Paid maybe? Who? Can you name one?

    Saturation mailers? We did one for absentee voters and one for polling voters. You keep on telling the lies here. Just shut up behind your anonymous cloak. Or post under your real name so we can out YOUR real lies.

  58. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Losers aren’t really losers until they start making excuses for why they lost. A-non-ymous sounds like a loser.

  59. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 29, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    Sorry SS. I guess all that crap we got in our mailbox almost daily came from space aliens from Uranus. We tallied over 30 of them from Virginia, Marian, and Mike. Call it what you will, but that’s saturation bombing and that’s expensive. I know how much money you had to work with and I’m sure you spent it somewhere. No? Then what’s the number on Your Swiss bank account? At least if I want BS, I know the source.
    As to the zoo, most of that 70% comes from the contiguous area of Eureka like Cutten, Myrtletown, and Pine Hill. True, some comes from farther away but almost none travels to Eureka just to go to the zoo. That according to interviews at the entrance.
    I’m NOT against the zoo. I AM aginst funding it in preference to funding our police and fire departments. Our Fire department is so close to minimum staffing that we’re in real danger of suffering increased response time. So what, you say? Well, it’s saving peoples’ lives on medical calls for one thing. For another it’s the rate you pay for fire insurance on your house or business. Any thinner and it’s going to cost us all big time. Now which one comes first, our safety or our zoo? I’m not choosing, just asking the question. That’s all Larry did. You supply the answer.

  60. A-Nony-Mouse
    November 29, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    And HiFi (didn’t want you to feel left out), Bonnie did not advocate for the Marina Center before the Coastal Commission because THAT WAS NOT HER JOB. If commissioners all became advocates for special projects, the Commission would be unable to function. Commissioners are charged with evaluatiing projects according to established LAWS. They are not picked to be lobbyists for their pet projects. Would you want it any other way?

  61. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Logic Fail, Mouse. Logic Fail.

  62. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    SS, Brady ran her own campaign MY ASS, it was a slate bought and paid for right along with Measure N, Bass and probably Sundberg too and you are a LIAR and anyone with a brain knows it.

  63. Pitchfork
    November 29, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    Brady was seen almost daily at City hall getting direction and briefings from Tyson. She piggy backed her campaign on Virginia’s. funny she got more votes than Bass or Jager. She’s now this Undisputed queen of Eureka. All Hail!

  64. Anonymous
    November 30, 2010 at 8:42 am

    Oh for God’s sake pitchfork. What the hell would you want a newly elected city councilman to do, not study & learn before taking office ? And who would you have her learn from if not the city manager ?

  65. Reinventing The Wheel
    November 30, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    The candidates that win the development community funding, outspend their opponents and win the election, just like last time, and the time before that…

    It’s the rule, with few exceptions.

    Local media could help inspire “the other half” of potential voters to participate, instead, they called it a “milestone” that “only 38%” of voters abstained, ignoring the potential voters that remain unregistered; nothing to see here…move along…

    It’s the rule, with the sole exception of John Osborn’s recent investigative NCJ story “Interested Parties”.

    That story was the tip of the iceberg, failing to look at previous elections to reveal the pattern of local political control.

    The dirty little secret of communities around the globe.

    John Osborn’s story was myth-shattering. Except for the blogs, it immediately eclipsed for lack of further interest and follow-up by the media-community, including the NCJ.

  66. The Political Watch
    November 30, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Osborn’s story was the only mention of the power of money in this election. And there was no follow-up, anywhere.

    The final figures will not be known until the reports come out in January, but it was clear from the reports up to election day money was a big factor in the takeover at City Hall.

    Hidden from sight was the large sum of money spent by Security National on Campaign Consulting, none of which needs to be reported. The amount that will be reported on Measure N was also very large, and some of that was used in questionable attack ads on council candidates Glass and Kuhnel.

    Finally Jager, Brady, and Newman spent far more than their opponents.

    You can talk all you want about the candidate’s messages, but nothing changes the fact that to a great degree money was the driving force in this local election.

    I am surprised it does not get more attention.

  67. Anonymous
    November 30, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Anonymous 8:42, the people who elected her, she does not work for the city manager that is the problem, at city hall everyone thinks everyone answers the city manager, it isn’t even his fault, the guy had to serve on his own litigation settlement committee, he has just been around so long he has the most institutional knowledge and by default the most control. We are all just a bunch of blind mice who look to the city manager for direction, there is no coherent process lined out for the public, the council, the staff, commissions, committees, the answer to every question is “ask David” (or ask Mike, poor guy cant win for losin!).

  68. High Finance
    December 1, 2010 at 8:06 am

    Another day, same old garbage. “Jager, Brady, Bass and Newman all won because they had a lot more money and were all funded by Robin Arkley” blah, blah, blah.

    Hey Watch, Turtle, PJ, Mouse & all you others. If money is the reason, THEN PRAY TELL US WHY JERRY BROWN WON IN EUREKA OVER MEG WHITMAN ????????????

  69. December 1, 2010 at 8:15 am

    “Jager, Brady, Bass and Newman all won because they had a lot more money and were all funded by Robin Arkley” blah, blah, blah.

    Finally HiFi speaks the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

  70. Anonymous
    December 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    THEN PRAY TELL US WHY JERRY BROWN WON IN EUREKA OVER MEG WHITMAN ????????????

    Fi. I am sure you are smarter than that. Not comparable. One was a Statewide election and remember Brown spent $40 million.

    Locally you would have to really be in denial if you think that money was not a big factor here.

  71. Reinventing The Wheel
    December 1, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Wow.

    Is it Hi-Amnesia? Did someone forget their morning Hi-Ball? Or, is Hi-Fi concocted by a Heraldite to represent an irrational right-winger?

    In a recent post Hi-Liar already conceded that the development community dominates local politics after he could only list seven city council candidates that EVER won without their financial backing, and of those seven, two were funded by the development community for one of their terms, (Kerrigan and Leonard).

    Instead of acknowledging the local political control of the highest bidders, Hi-Liar’s response was to immediately proclaim the virtues of the “employment development community”, and before that it was called the “logging-employment community”; OF COURSE they should dominate public offices, policies, committees, councils and chambers.(Finally, some honesty?).

    To sound credible, a “debater” should wait much longer to rehash old lies!

    Despite his name-recognition and $38 million, Jerry Brown is still an exception to the rule and Whitman BANKED on that.

    Hi-Liar’s defense of local political control is FAR more believable than trying to convince anyone in this country that elections and the economy aren’t predominantly rigged by the wealthy.

    This, more than anything else, explains why half of eligible voters don’t participate. If the so-called “liberal media” covered this, it would begin to change.

  72. High Finance
    December 2, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Somebody said it was only five city council members in the last 30 years were not supported by the “development community”.

    I came up with seven in just 20 years & just couldn’t find the names of any council members past 20 years by googling.

    Only Reinventing the Wheel would say he was proven right. It is obvious to everybody that the statement was bogus. And even that is loosely using the defination of “support”. There is no evidence at all that the developers financially supported most of those others.

    So Reinventing has been proven wrong — AGAIN.

    Reinventing & the other whiners are claiming that Jager/Newman and Brady only won because those candidates spent much, much more than the liberal slate did. But Brown’s victory in Eureka proves them wrong. Cherie Arkley’s loss in her Mayor’s race a few years ago despite outspending her opponent by 4-1 proves them wrong. Mike Huffington’s loss ten or so years back proves them wrong. Paul Gallegos recall campaign proves them wrong. The anti WalMart measure a few years ago proves them wrong.

    Money helps a campaign of course. But in a small local campaign you still need the better candidates.

    Also Bill Pierson was puting in THOUSANDS of dollars in campaign contributions after the last filing report date. Once the final numbers are reported next month I think you’ll find the amounts spent by the two sides will be much closer.

  73. Reinventing The Wheel
    December 2, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    When exposed, a chronic liar must lie about the lies.

    Only a lie enables one to claim, “there is no political dominance by the development community, but the results are good…”.

    One little handful of opponents who successfully beat the development community in the last 20 years is obviously an exception, forcing a broader look at Brown who was also an exception banked on by Whitman and her army of aides.

    Continuing with the Eureka City Council, Cherie Arkley was an unknown in her first city council campaign Long before the Balloon Tract and Wal-mart, when she spent $50,000 to defeat a well-known community leader’s $10,000!

    Where’s all the outrage over John Osborn’s NCJ investigative report “interested Parties”?

    Oh right, if it’s accurate, it could lead to popular indignation.

    Smart…very smart.

  74. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    This is about the only thing that I would agree with Hi Fi on.

  75. Anonymous
    December 2, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    reinventing the wheel is saying that the voters are so stupid that they vote for the person who has 225 commercials over the one who only has 175 commercials.

  76. Reinventing The Wheel
    December 3, 2010 at 1:04 am

    It takes a blizzard of lies to hide the fact that the development community filled the political vacuum left by the timber industry decades ago.

    So far, so good. Only John Osborn’s undisputed investigative report exposed the truth.

    Consistently outspending their opponents 2 to 1 and more, plus unaccountable attack ads and fliers by unnamed sources, is NOTHING compared to the massive public subsidies required to continue the unbridled greed of big box and big home developments.

    It works the same way in D.C.

    MasterCard and VISA conspired to author and pass the 2005 U.S. Bankruptcy Act that now largely excludes credit card debt. A few years later the banks looted the U.S. Treasury to cover theirs.

    The system is rigged, of, by, and for the wealthy insiders who dominate the political system. Only fools think the benefits of tyranny will trickle-down to them.

  77. Mitch
    December 3, 2010 at 6:00 am

    Anonymous 7:52,

    If you feel RTW is wrong, then please explain why it is that the highly paid political consultants infesting just about all American elections will always tell “their” candidate that 225 ads as opposed to 175 will increase their chances of winning. They probably provide their candidates with percentage spreads based on money invested in ad buys.

    Part of what social scientists seem to have discovered over the past 100 years is that we are all, stupid or not, easily influenced by propaganda, far more than we are consciously aware. People will even change what they consider a fair price for something just based on hearing one “anchor” number specified in a different context entirely.

  78. Anonymous
    December 3, 2010 at 8:38 am

    HF at 8.29am gave five Eureka examples of where money did not win. Can you address those examples and say why money did not help them but was the only reason liberals lost in 2010 ?

  79. Mitch
    December 3, 2010 at 8:53 am

    8:38,

    I’m not saying money always wins. I’m saying that it’s foolish to think it does not have an impact on results.

    There was a recent survey that showed students in Country A could look at photographs of political candidates from Country B and predict with great accuracy who would win. Here’s a link, though it might be to older results:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-look-of-a-winner

    And here’s an interesting paper:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CE0QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hss.caltech.edu%2F~rma%2FElection%2520Outcomes%2520and%2520Trait%2520Assessments_02.pdf&rct=j&q=photographs%20predicting%20electoral%20winners&ei=Sh_5TN37KoWKlweimtDBBw&usg=AFQjCNFGcdCL96wWKnVnCrJuH4qENuD95g&sig2=vwQHfNihn5PN7yVD_whuvw

    In case that link doesn’t survive posting, here’s part of the conclusion:

    To our knowledge, this is the first study in which laboratory subjects’ judgments about
    negative traits imputed from images of unfamiliar politicians who have run against each other
    for office are used to predict the actual election outcomes involving pairs of these same
    candidates. In fact, the majority group results from the threat and attractiveness judgments
    (Table 3) could each be used to predict the winners of 65% and 77%, respectively, of the
    Congressional elections—though counter‐intuitively, the less attractive faces of each pair were
    the winners. It is important to stress that even though the images were shown for short
    durations (33 ms or 1 sec), subjects produced judgments that correlated with which candidate
    wins the election; this we take as support for the idea that these assessments are quick and
    relatively effortless processes, as argued by Todorov et al. (2005).

  80. Mitch
    December 3, 2010 at 8:58 am

    I guess the point of all this current research is that we should be very humbled about our natural belief that we make rational decisions based on evaluating all the available data. The evidence is that we don’t.

    People with money have access to the campaign industry, and that can help them determine how to best take advantage of the current understanding of propaganda, though it probably goes by other names in the US. But the local election results were probably about more than money per candidate. In my probably uninformed opinion, they were a local equivalent to the Sarah Palin phenomenon, which is a result, in my probably uninformed opinion, of fear and a lousy economy.

  81. tra
    December 3, 2010 at 9:19 am

    “But the local election results were probably about more than money per candidate.”

    Certainly in the Neeley-Bass race, it would be hard to argue that Neeley lost due to lack of financial or organizational resources — she had plenty, but still lost big.

  82. High Finance
    December 3, 2010 at 9:35 am

    Yes Mitch, I did agree that money has an impact, go back & read my post.

    But more so in statewide or nationwide campaigns & much less so in local campaigns. Johanna Rhodoni’s losing campaign proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. She outspent Mari Wilson by $100,000, Rhodoni had a 100 times more name recognition and still Wilson won with almost 60% of the vote.

    Those who still cry about the money are just refusing to admit the obvious. And besides, once the final campaign reports are filed, I would not be surprised to see that the money advantage was significantly narrowed in the last two weeks.

  83. Reinventing The Wheel
    December 3, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    At least 30 new city council candidates took their seats in the last 30 years, and only 7 lacked the financial support of the development community. Out of those seven, two had that support for one of their terms!

    NO ONE challenged the accuracy of John Osborn’s investigative election report!

    Rhodoni and Neeley?

    The only “crying” here is by those desperate to maintaining focus on the exceptions, while denying the rule, to serve the lie.

    The final election reports will show the same as all the previous ones; the rule is intact.

  84. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 3, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    I believe a minority of voters are swayed by facts, voting records, and position statements. The majority are swayed by catchy slogans, strong name branding (in your face), and sometimes outright lies pushed hard with money.
    The last was the case in the Glass/Brady race where Brady sent constant mailers filled with lies and half-truths about Glass. Her whole campaign was based on a misrepresentation of Glass’ positions on the Marina Center. Backed with ample money to out-shout everyone and to keep her lies foremost in peoples’ perceptions, she won the race. Is she a “better candidate”? Is she more knowledgeable and will she work anywhere near as hard as Glass. Time will tell but I seriously doubt it. A good lie, a LOUD voice, and lots of money WILL win many elections. Ethics, ability, and knowledge don’t seem to matter enough. Now we got what SHE paid for.

  85. Anonymous
    December 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    A-Nony-Mouse, you have insulted most of the voters of Eureka. If your opinion of all of us is that low, why do you demean yourself by continuing to live here? Why don’t you live somewhere you think people are smarter, like Arcata LOL. You are part of a small majority of Eureka, but in Arcata you would fit right in.

  86. Goldie
    December 3, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    5:31,I do not see that A-Nony-Mouse has insulted the voters but only that he is aware of the influence of repetitive messaging and the attention that shiny bright objests receive. Fox News is also aware that a statement repeated often enough can be accepted as fact.
    The idea that someone should leave an area because they are not in the proclaimed majority is one of the often repeated phrases. Just because it is on a bumper sticker does not mean it is wise, true or even necessary. LOL back at ya.

  87. High Finance
    December 4, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Once again Mouse refuses to answer the question.

    If Brady only won because of “ample money” (she might have outspent Larry by 1 1/2 to 1), why did Meg Whitman and Johanna Rhodoni (who outspent their opponents by 5-1) lose in Eureka on the very same day?

    Mouse avoids the question because the implications are clear. His argument is without merit.

    Perhaps Brady made some misrepresentations, perhaps not. It is certainly clear that Larry did. He most definitely opposed the MC until right at the end of the election. Larry definitely was not solely responsible for the POP program.

    Man up Mouse & quit whining.

  88. Anonymous
    December 4, 2010 at 10:46 am

    HiFi is at it again. It’s probably a combination of things that determine an outcome of an election. Money is definitely one of those things. If money wasn’t important, please explain why the conservative National Chamber of Commerce coordinated the effort to donate untold millions of dollars to defeat Democratic candidates throughout our country. The “Supreme Court” (conservative) allowed for this in a recent decision that allowed corporations to be recognized as a “person” and thereby not have to disclose their identity. What a fuck story. Our country is turning into a corporate owned and politically corrupt nation that is basically controlled by the rich. If you can’t see that, you are blind. Locally, it’s hard to say that money was very important, but those that had it, tried to buy the election nonetheless. Those that were not elected were not elected due to the other candidate being the better candidate, period.

  89. Anonymous
    December 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Hi Fi, You are still hung up on Glass? Truth is he is twice the man you only wish you were, highly principled with scruples, certainty, and focus.
    You attempt to push your own agenda on this blog while Larry steps out in the world and tries to be of assistance to his community. And I am sure he still will, he has been doing so for 40 years, tirelessly, and you still won’t, as usual. He’s a doer, you’re a blogger.

  90. Mitch
    December 4, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    HiFi,

    Meg Whitman lost because she was even repulsive to some conservatives. She should have paid her maid.

  91. Mitch
    December 4, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    And, HiFi, do you think it’s possible that Rodoni lost because people felt someone running to take over the assessor’s office should have at least token experience in, you know, assessing?

  92. Anonymous
    December 4, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Aren’t you proving his (her?) point ? Money does not help bad candidates. Glass is a doer all right, he done do the city into a huge budget deficit.

  93. Mitch
    December 5, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Maybe what everyone could agree on is this: because a large part of the electorate is swayed by campaign advertising — even or perhaps especially when that advertising is contentless, negative, or demonstrably false — money can increase a candidate’s percentage of the vote.

    It only wins an election if it is enough to overcome the percentage spread by which a candidate would trail if available money were spread equally among all candidates.

    Personally, I think there are plenty of other ways money gets votes, but that’s another story. If people aren’t prepared to believe that candidates purchase advertising because they believe more advertising translates into more votes, there’s little point arguing.

  94. High Finance
    December 5, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    I agree with the earlier poster, money can help a good candidate but only if spent wisely. But it isn’t enough for a dramatic change in a local contest.

    More important are yard signs, as it indicates support, and endorsements. But this is still a moderate/conservative town. Endorsements by outsiders like Mike Thompson, Cheseboro or partisan hacks like Patty Berg don’t work in the general election.

  95. Hilarious
    December 5, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Funny.

    Eureka’s city council has NEVER had a “dramatic change” because the development community outspends opponents with few exceptions, sometimes 5 to 1.

    Focusing on the exceptions is a dishonest and pathetic attempt to deny the rule, just like claiming Eureka is a “moderate/conservative” town when probably half the eligible voters abstain!

    Glass organized “Imagine the Alternatives” broadcast repeatedly on public TV. When the public is educated by professionals with thorough economic information of the public costs of big box saturation, and they present a PowerPoint about numerous city’s successfully growing their economies without big boxes, voters decided to participate and it launched Glass into office.

    Big box development remained the PRIMARY issue in the recent campaigns, but, NOT ONE local reporter EVER asked Brady, Newman or Bass the OBVIOUS uncomfortable questions, despite what we’ve already learned:

    “What is your source for claiming economic benefits from another big box in Eureka”?

    “How do you respond to virtually ALL national and local economic research that contradicts your claims”?

    No, I had to ask Newman myself at his Art’s Alive campaign table, “how do you respond to the Bay Area Economics report for Eureka?

    Mike Newman had never heard of it!

    In the case of Maxine Hunter-Meeks or Jack McKeller, voters may not even understand the words they’re saying. Local elections may only be 95% about campaign contributions, but the media perception of the development community’s ad revenue is priceless.

  96. Anonymous
    December 5, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    The left are such evil haters.

  97. Anothermous
    December 6, 2010 at 11:29 am

    The Right are such name-callers.

    I feel your pain.

  98. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    HiFud, I’m not saying the majority of voters are stupid, I’m saying the majority don’t pay enough attention to really know what’s going on beyond the flashy slogans, lawn signs, and media adds. The majority do not listen to debates or candidate interviews. They don’t read articles about the candidates. I suspect most of us here do because we’re involved and try to find the truth (successfully or not) so we expect others to do likewise. Sadly most do not. So the effects of money loom large. More signs, more adds (many misleading), more TV soundbites. That’s what the ‘uninvolved voter’ sees. Whitman lost not because of lack of money, but because she used it in such a thoroughly repulsive way. Brady won because she pushed the ‘Big Lie’ at every opportunity and had plenty of money to saturate the field with it. Newman won because of Xandra Mans, period. No other reason. It did help that he had plenty of money for vacuous TV ads and tons of shiny mailers, but those would not have been enough without Xandra. Thanks Xandra, you drudge!

    Goldie has it right.

  99. Anonymous
    December 6, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    I get it now, we’re not stupid we’re just not paying attention to your shit. Do you ever listen to how stupid & insulting you sound ? The big lie in that race was Glass/Kuhnel/LaVallee lying about their opposition to the Marina Center, to development in Eureka, to robin Arkley and to how much money they raised. Why the hell else do you think they took so much money from Bill Pierson after the final reporting date for their financial reports ? You’re going to feel so used if the Herald actually post the final numbers when they are released in late January.

  100. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 7, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Sorry 9:59 Get off your high horse. Bill Pierson’s donations are tiny compared to what the Bunch spent.
    I’m not trying to insult any voter. But the truth is the truth. Most people do not pay much attention. Polls show it. Research shows it. Common sense shows it. And anyone who has ever chaired a campaign knows it. It doesn’t mean voters are stupid. It means that too many are disconnected from the political process. Disagree? Then when have you ever seen an 80% turnout? 70%? We’ve nudged into the 60% range a couple of times but rarely and then only when their are contentious issues on the ballot. Got any answers? I didn’t think so.

  101. High Finance
    December 7, 2010 at 8:51 am

    You don’t have any idea how much Pierson gave, Mouse.

    According to the T/S article, Bill Pierson gave at least two Eureka candidates $5,000 each after the final reporting date before the election.

    Perhaps you are the one who “do not pay much attention”?

  102. Reinventing The Wheel
    December 7, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Mouse, it can be amusing for awhile to debate a liar, but hasn’t this gone too far?

    Did voters believe Glass and Kuhnel opposed the Marina Center despite their statements? Did voters believe Bass or Newman are not good republicans despite their registration?

    Two things are for sure:

    1) Money wins, with embarrassingly few exceptions.

    2) Voters are chronically uninformed as indicated by the other half that don’t even participate.

    The other big lie is that big boxes and sprawl are good for rural economies, proven by every local and national study to be wrong. But NOT ONE local reporter asked candidates about this nor reminded voters of the economic facts.

    Prove the political domination of the development community and Hi-Liar starts calling them “The job-creation community”. And round and round the liar’s game; deny the rule, turn an exception into the rule, proclaim the actual rule “good for jobs”, then back to denying the rule….

    Which Eureka candidates on our team, who are supported by the other half of the voters, have EVER outspent their opponent by even two-to-one?

    ZIP

    We would need many more Pierson’s to do so!

    Uninformed, misled, and discouraged, those who do vote have TV ads and shiny yard signs to sway them, or they can circumvent a negligent local media and take hours to do their own investigative research.

    Not.

  103. Anonymous
    December 7, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Tom Peters rants too often on this blog about lies.

  104. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 7, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    I don’t know about Tom Peters, but I have plenty of lies to rant about, possibly including this one.
    For HiFi, those HUGE donations probably represted nearly 1/3 to 1/2 of the contributions those candidates had to spend. WOW, he sure is taking over!
    Especially when the final results will show the developers’ candidates had something in the neighborhood of 3 to 4 times as much money…each.

    And you’re right RTW, debating the minless and debating the liar do get tiring. I understand the concept of “the Loyal Oppostion” but the position of NO and being against everything that might improve our community is hard to take. So we continue to debate.

  105. Tom Peters
    December 7, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    Yeah, I read these damn blogs too. I can rant just fine without Mouse or HiFi to do it for me.

  106. High Finance
    December 8, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Reinventing the Lie has spoken again. Which candidates on your side was outspent 2-1?

    And Tom, you need to take a valium you are getting hysterical. Nobody outspent anybody by 3 or 4 times.

    I am not sure what you two are doing, lying or just stupid exaggerations posing as facts?

  107. Reinventing The Wheel
    December 8, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Hi-Larious!

    Arkley outspent her opponent 5 to 1!

    Hi-Liar is relegated to answering the question with a question.

    My question was first, name a few Eureka City council candidates from our team that EVER outspent their opponent.

    ZIP.

    Go back to admiring local political control, it was more honest.

  108. Anonymous
    December 8, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Kuhnel and Cutler-Ploss outspent Jeff Leonard. Glass may have outspent Wolford. Frank didn’t do anything money wise (No mailers even) and beat LaValley.

  109. Tom Peters
    December 8, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    HiFi, I have not made any claims about campaign spending. Check your sites. You’re aim is off.

  110. High Finance
    December 8, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Reinventing the Lie must have forgotten we were speaking about the elections of last month. And if you’re talking about Cherie’s Mayoral race, you will recall that she lost, only proving my point that money doesn’t buy elections by itself.

    But thanks to 1.50pm, you have been proven wrong – AGAIN. Kuhnel & Cutler-Ploss most certainly did out spend Jeff Leonard. Like it or not, Jeff was the superior candidate & he won despite his opponent’s money.

    Your candidates didn’t outspend their opponents in this last election because they just did not have as much support from the public.

  111. Reinventing The Wheel
    December 9, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    All three candidates, Glass, Kuhnel and Abrahms were outspent by their opponents.

    In Leonard’s first election he had the development community’s support and the contributions were close, The second time around, he lost that support, and the contributions were close.

    Anyone claiming that the development community doesn’t dominate local politics and donations is a liar, anyone struggling to find a pathetic handful of exceptions to the rule… is …pathetic.

    Where’s your shouts of “LIARS”, outrage, and challenges to John Osborn’s groundbreaking revelations of that dominance in his “Interested Parties” investigative report in the NCJ?

    Liars.

  112. Anonymous
    December 9, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Debate easily solved if the Humboldt Herald will publish the final tally for fund raising that will be released at the end of January. The loser should buy the winner dinner at any place of the winner’s choosing.

  113. Anonymous
    December 9, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    If you have some monumental insight revealing that the legacy shifted… by all means share it.

  114. Anonymous
    December 9, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    It has been posted before by other people already. Do you read the posts ? Go back up & read for cripes sake.

  115. Anonymous
    December 10, 2010 at 11:40 am

    For cripes sake, no one from your team BOTHERED to dispute John Osborn’s NCJ investigative story outing the development community’s domination of political contributions!

    NOT ONE SQUEAK!

    The only time they haven’t dominated contributions, was when Big Timber made them a distant second-place on the same team.

    Too bad for you that history didn’t begin last November 2nd.

  116. Read for a change
    December 10, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Osborne’s article did not include the last minute contributions of which Pierson gave at least $10,000.

    Too bad for you. You should read something other than just the Herald.

  117. Remember What You Read
    December 11, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    To bad for you, $10,000 doesn’t change the fact, or the history.

  118. Anonymous
    December 11, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Sorry, I wasn’t aware that Pierson gave another $10,000.

  119. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 11, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    He gave $5000 to each of two candidates, taking their warchests from 7-10,000 all the way up to 12-15000. That’s maybe 1/3 of Newman or Brady’s take.
    We’ll see in Jan. True, Bass/Neely was closer.

    Hard to believe how much gets spent for a lousy $500/month job, isn’t it?

  120. High Finance
    December 12, 2010 at 9:10 am

    No facts again Mouse?

    What were the announced totals for Newman/Brady/Kuhnel/Glass? Was it really 3 – 1 or worse?

  121. High Finance
    December 12, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Knowing that facts from you will never come, I googled and got the T/S article of 10/24.

    Brady raised $29,522 to Glass’s $14,600. Add in the late contribution from Pierson and the difference is now $29 thousand to almost $19,000.

    Newman raised $22,715 to Kuhnel’s $12,525. Add in the late contributions from Pierson reported in two seperate T/S articles and it is now $22 thousand to $18,000.

    Hardly an overwhelming difference in either case.

    http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_16421661

  122. High Finance
    December 12, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    Just as I thought.

    Every time the Mouse gets caught he disappears again.

  123. Larry Glass
    December 12, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    Bill’s contribution was used to paid off loans to the campaign, so the total I raised is about $14600.00

  124. Anonymous
    December 12, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Nice to have a sugar daddy who will pay off all your loans, particularly at the last minute after the filing deadlines. Wonder why Bill didn’t make his contributions earlier when people could have found out about them?

  125. 06em
    December 13, 2010 at 7:22 am

    Wonder why Bill didn’t make his contributions earlier when people could have found out about them?

    Well, I don’t know for sure, but I can imagine Bill wanting to make sure that any candidate who went up against the old school Eureka power block didn’t drive themselves into the poor house to do it. Kind of a nice small d democratic thing to do, IMO. That would mean that Bill couldn’t possibly have made his last minute contribution until the last minute, since before that point the amount needed to cover the debt would still be unknown. Of course, the scenario I describe requires the ability to look at reality with eyes not clouded by irrational hatred for Bill or Larry or Ron, so no doubt you’ll keep wondering.

  126. Anon
    December 13, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    So Bill gives tens of thousands of dollars not to buy influence by buying politicians but to go up agaist the old school so it is noble. But Robin gives no money to the city council candidates, gives far less to Bass than Bill gave to Neely & Robin is a bad guy?

    Hypocrites.

  127. 06em
    December 14, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Did I say something about Robin? No, I didn’t. BTW, do underlings call him Robin to his face? I thought Mr. Arkley went by Rob.

  128. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 14, 2010 at 7:20 am

    I guess in some camps hiring high powered consultants and airing constant ‘hit pieces’ don’t count as contributions. There are ways to skim the laws so they don’t count directly. Would I suspect RA of doing anything like that? Oh, no, not me.

    Robin? That explains the cape.

  129. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 14, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Responding to 8:56pm HiFi. I’m sorry I can’t just sit on this thing all day any old time. You’ll have to settle for the pot-shots I can manage in between real work and leisure. You know, a normal life. And if you’re who I think you are, I’m amazed you have this much time as well. And if I’m who you think I am, we’re going to have to have a serious converstaion real soon.

  130. A-Nony-Mouse
    December 14, 2010 at 7:33 am

    No, HiFi is NOT my wife!!!

  131. High Finance
    December 14, 2010 at 11:49 am

    But you told us you were retired Mouse.

    Are you spoofing us?

    And besides, you have made a number of posts on other threads after I posted the facts up above. Facts that you still are avoiding.

  132. High Finance
    December 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    More than eight hours later the Mouse is still hiding from addressing the facts.

  133. High Finance
    December 15, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Three days and five plus hours later, we are all still waiting breathlessly for Mouse’s comments on the facts he said he wanted.

  134. by the numbers
    December 15, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    “we” are not waiting……you are, catch your breath, take a hit of your single malt and mellow out.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s