SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 29, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Friday Morning Psephology

By Timothy Myers SR. — Tim Myers

“Psephology” is the branch of political science that studies the numerical results of elections.  As the primary practictioner of psephology in Santa Clarita, with slightly less than one year to the Santa Clarita City Council elections, and the official and probable announcements of the two incumbents to seek re-election, I invite all the other amateur psephologists to moot possible challengers who will undoubtedly fall to a painful and heartbreaking defeat.

An interesting aside.  In the short history of Santa Clarita in elections where only two seats are available  challengers tend to be fewer and more serious (though equally unsuccessful), than the more wide open and raucous three seat elections.

I look forward to everyone’s thoughts one year away.

Comments (18)

  1. Mr PerezMay 1, 2011 at 10:13 am
    Wow, no comments? Does this science work similar to “1 vote for you, 3 votes for me” kind of concept?
  2. Bill ReynoldsMay 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
    APATHY ALERT! SCV citizens hardly notice our local election doings, especially at this early date… right Tim.
  3. Timothy Myers SR.May 1, 2011 at 10:38 am
    Bill: Probably more the fear that I will mock their choices! Not an unreasonable fear.
  4. Bill ReynoldsMay 1, 2011 at 12:13 pm
    No offense Tim, but I think that notion is a major league stretch.
  5. MikeMay 1, 2011 at 12:31 pm
    Laurie Ender has the best and most creative political organization/constituency plus the reflexive incumbent vote. Bob Kellar has locked down all the right wingers plus anyone upset with the council plus any reflexive incumbent vote. My prediction: greatest spread from winner to highest placing loser of all time. I wouldn’t vote for either one, but that’s how it’s going to be.
  6. RemStarMay 1, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    A few months ago Timothy wrote about how incumbents in Camarillo have a similar lock on electoral success. Is this because the voters in both communities are undereducated and simple minded? No. Indeed, the citizenry in both, overall, tend toward the educated and intelligent. So why are incumbents in both virtually invulnerable? Because Camarillo and Santa Clarita provide their residents with high quality public services and are desirable places to live. It is very difficult to dislodge an incumbent when a large majority of the likely voters think highly of their community and believe it is being well run. Sure, we’ve had nasty elections. But elections do tend to be the most contentious when the differences among the candidates are personal rather than philosophical. The city council election of 2010 is a good example. Frank Ferry was hampered by a number of medical problems and was not engaged in the election to the degree he was in past campaigns. David Gauny ran a skillful tactical campaign that pivoted late to a strong anti-illegal immigration and massage parlor platform. The pro-incumbent PAC swore off negative campaigning in 2010 and focused on a pro-incumbent message. (Word is they have sworn to never take this course again. “Negative works.”) Look for Laurie Ender to heavily target the areas of south Valencia where Frank Ferry was the weakest (seeking to secure the 2nd castable vote on those ballots). Her personal campaigning in south Valencia will be extensive and her support in north Valencia will remain near unanimous. When the ballots are counted she will prove to finish first or second in nearly every precinct and will roll up a reelection percentage similar to that enjoyed by Cameron Smyth. Look for Bob Kellar to run on the positive record of accomplishments achieved by the city during his 12 years on council, seeking to tap into the general happiness of the community at large. He will tactically seek to gloss over any differences with his council colleagues. Kellar will repeat his performance of his last three elections and finish second. For years Kellar had been saying his current term would be his last. Kellar’s reversal is bad news for David Gauny as his best shot coming off his 2010 performance was to vie for an open seat. Now Gauny is left as the odd man out. If he does run, Gauny’s employment by Bob Kellar will be viewed as odd at best and as a conflict at worst. Having learned that “going positive” is much less effective than “going negative,” watch for Gauny to be hit with wave after wave of negative mailer. The political assault will be spectacularly withering. Despite the full shock of hair for which Timothy has a huge mancrush, look for Gauny to finish a distant third or fourth, thus ending his viability for an expected open council seat in 2014. TimBen Boydston will run again in 2012 (and 2014 and 2016 and 2018) to reclaim a seat on the council to which he was appointed after the then-four member council couldn’t agree on one of seven higher ranked applicants for Cameron Smyth’s vacant seat. Look for Boydston to lose by a larger margin in 2012 than he did in 2010 (and by increasingly larger margins in 2014, 2016 and 2018).
  7. MikeMay 1, 2011 at 5:33 pm
    Very well put. I expect we’ll see it play out just as you’ve outlined, save for the bit about Bob Kellar glossing over the differences. As an incumbent, he’s going to do great with satisfied, less engaged voters by default. Generally speaking, the people who watch the council more closely tend to differ with the council more often (thus, Ender math). When those people are listening, I think Bob will be beating the drum of opposition. He’s been on the losing side of too many 4-1 votes to pretend like it’s no big deal. In other words, very few voters are tuned into our elections to the point where they can identify the differing arguments put forth by the different campaigns. Among those who do, Kellar would do well to look like the opposition. It will just happen in a way that isn’t clear to the rest of the voters – and not by Kellar’s choice. But overall, you nailed it. I think the apathy that comes out of satisfaction is too easily dismissed. People are sometimes less engaged and happy to vote for the incumbents for reasons that are perfectly acceptable. Now I happen to be happy with the city, but I’d vote every one of them out of office if I could, but I’m a tinkerer that way. (but I wouldn’t do so to make way for David Gauny.)
  8. Timothy Myers SR.May 1, 2011 at 6:44 pm
    Only 110% of what RemStar wrote is true!
  9. LindaMay 1, 2011 at 5:48 pm
    But elections do tend to be the most contentious when the differences among the candidates are personal rather than philosophical. How do you define “personal differences?” How they comb their hair? What kind of car they drive? I couldn’t disagree more with your contention. Besides, the differences are not just “personal.” The hospital expansion and library controversies were very real and Ms. Ender will find the campaigning in “South Valencia” (perhaps in North Valencia too) tough going after that and the library fiasco. I, for one, would love to see “Ender math” come to an end. I don’t care if she has great hair or what kind of car she drives, but the fact that she’s on the developer dole and engaged in shady dealings with regard to her campaign funding are enough for me to want her gone.
  10. Timothy Myers SR.May 1, 2011 at 6:45 pm
    Wishful thinking, Linda!
  11. LindaMay 1, 2011 at 7:40 pm
    I like you better when you’re wrong, Tim!
  12. PetzMay 2, 2011 at 7:45 am
    Those who don’t have short term memory loss will remember that Pakistan told the US to stop CIA operations in their country after we paid blood money for the release of a CIA operative in their country. We should have allowed Pakistan the opportunity to deal with Obama and found out whether the government is a friend or a foe.
  13. MikeMay 2, 2011 at 8:21 am
    “We should have allowed Pakistan the opportunity to deal with Obama” uhhhh, Petz?
  14. Bill ReynoldsMay 2, 2011 at 8:25 am
    This will clear things up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzx5R9_u3ts
  15. Mr PerezMay 2, 2011 at 8:28 am
    Psssst Petz, who do you think hid him so well for so long.
  16. JayceMay 2, 2011 at 8:38 am
    Deal with Obama? Did you mean Osama? http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/68e468bf-298d-404a-bc39-f17f53ee16d7.jpg
  17. Mr PerezMay 2, 2011 at 11:58 am
    OMG Fox is plotting against the POTUS!!!!!! On a different note, that reporter looks like a shoe in for the next Planet of the Apes movie.
  18. PetzMay 2, 2011 at 10:08 am
    Sure messed that one up….Never Mind.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support