1. I find it funny (as in strange, not “ha ha”) that there were people who are upset that the voters rejected a knowledgeable incumbent in favor of a union backed candidate (Mike McMahon) and then turn around and endorsed the union backed candidate in favor of a knowledgeable incumbent (Rob Raeburn). My take is anyone who did that without some solid reasoning other than “because” (I’m looking at you John Know White and Lauren Do) are hacks.
2. That the people who felt the main knock on Trish Spencer is that she doesn’t play nice with others are ridiculing her, predicting disaster, and basically preparing not to work with her assuming she wins. One commenter referred to it as “butt hurt”.
3. That this is the closest election likely in Alameda history. I am guessing that Trish’s lead will hold up based on nothing. Well, actually it’s based on the feeling that most of Alameda’s votes may have been counted. That the closer you get to election day, the more Marie Gilmore’s share went down. I can’t explain the rather large win share in the first day’s 991 votes except to say that statistically, there must have been some systematic reason because that is way outside random variation. At this point we have to wait and see because we don’t know how many votes are left and if there will be some swing in them.
4. This was no more interesting an election in my opinion than the one in 2010 except for the more limited slate of candidates, but the number of votes in the mayoral election is way down. So far, 19271 votes have been tallied (excluding write-ins). In 2010, the total was 25101. So with a clear choice and a close race, there will be probably at least fewer votes for mayor assuming 2000 to 3000 more votes to count. I’m not sure I get that except maybe noone thought it was going to be close.