Note:  after a WordPress update, many typos were introduced into the text.  Care has been taken to remedy this, but if some were missed we apologize.

The last time a TOT increase was on the ballot was Nov. 2, 2004, and it received just under 42% of the vote.   At that time a brave little campaign was mounted by some of the Calaveras Wine industry’s most prominent members on its behalf, mostly consisting of meetings with local groups, but curiously it still failed.

So, what happened this time?  Was this expected?  Who saw this coming?  Because this time, a ballot measure to increase the Calaveras County TOT didn’t just pass, it received 64 percent of the vote.

To take the last question first, almost nobody saw it coming.

The Professional Political Consulting Firm that polled the County told the Board of Supervisors that the measure could pass with a simple majority, but not a super-majority (two-thirds) of the vote.  That turned out to be wrong. 

The only other place to look is the Skull Survey, an average of the predictions of a panel of political observers, which, on its website predicted the Measure would pass, but only with 52.4 percent. 

Indeed, the best prediction on the Skull Survey Panel on the TOT Measure was made by Pelican (not a real pelican, this is a nom de’ plume), who estimated it would pass with 58%.  That’s the best estimate, and it was still over 5% wrong and well over the average error for the Survey in total.  So, the weight of the evidence is that nobody saw this coming.

So that brings us to the last question, what happened this time? 

Let’s round up the suspects and take a look at each one.

Theory 1:  Energized progressives turned out in greater numbers and voted for the Measure.

This possibility was suggested before the election but not after.  The theory was that Democrats and Progressive voters, who presumably would be more amenable to the measure, would turn out in greater numbers due to national political issues, and that this would give the Measure just enough additional support to put it over the line.

The Calaveras County Jessica Morse for Congress campaign was well-financed and fueled by countless hours of work performed by dedicated and ardent volunteers.  And the efforts paid off somewhat, as the Morse campaign ran about 5 or 6 percent ahead of the other Democrats on the ballot.  But even if every Morse voter also voted for the TOT, this still leaves us some 24 percentage points short of the 64% the TOT increase received.

Theory 2:  After the Great Recession and the ensuing economic recovery, voters were prepared to raise taxes, as evidenced by election results elsewhere.

Election results clearly indicate that voters in Calaveras County, in general, were more inclined to pass tax increases than in previous years.  In California this trend was also seen.

Whether it’s because America is being made great again, or a collapse in Republican orthodoxy and discipline, clearly the political zeitgeist was working on behalf of the TOT Measure this time.

Theory 3:   Nobody was publicly against it.

Political observers remember that the 2004 campaign regarding the TOT faced the opposition of Libertarian Party Champion and Third District Supervisor Tom Tryon, as well as opposition from many in the Republican Party, and of course the expected open opposition of the Hotel industry.

But this time around Tom Tryon was no longer Supervisor, and the Republican Party went silent on the Measure.  To be sure, a spirited little fight, at least in the Voter Pamphlet, was put up by the hotels again this year, but evidently it didn’t punch through.

Theory 4:   Supposedly neutral Ballot language and the County website were effective in promoting the Measure.

The Measure appeared on the ballot like this:

CALAVERAS COUNTY ESSENTIAL SERVICES MEASURE. Shall the measure to maintain and improve essential Calaveras County services including emergency fire district response and protection, Sheriff’s patrols helping prevent thefts/burglaries, road/pothole repairs, attracting/retaining businesses and other County services and infrastructure by increasing the transient occupancy tax (paid only by hotel/motel/short-term rental guests) from 6% to 12%,providing approximately $600,000 annually until ended by voters, with audits,and all funds used locally, be adopted?

If you did not read the Ballot Statement with care, and only skimmed the Sample Ballot, you may be excused for thinking there wasn’t any TOT increase on the ballot, just something about Fire Protection and Sheriff’s patrols.  Who isn’t for more of that?

Many observers think this is the definitive reason. 

Advocates of this theory are basically saying that this time the voters were fooled by clever ballot language, and maybe even shady practices on the County website, regarding Measure G. 

What was Measure G you ask?  That’s precisely their point!

What was this clever ballot language?  As mentioned, mostly for what it did not say, at least not until most people had stopped reading!  

An interesting side note: advocates of previous failed attempts to increase the TOT would always bemoan the fact that somehow they just couldn’t seem to make it clear to Conservative voters that they themselves would not have to pay the tax, and that it had nothing to do with feeding or sheltering scary homeless people. 

But this time, if anything, efforts to make this point were even less vigorous, and the Measure passed overwhelmingly.  So, it would appear that, in fact, Republican and Libertarian voters aren’t dumb.  They may very well have understood all along, in 2004, that locals would not have to pay.  But they voted against it anyway, probably because they were against “government” and didn’t want it to have any more money. 

What changed with Conservative voters this year?

Theory 5:   This time, with 64% voting Yes, lots of Republicans voted to increase the TOT.  Even if you add up all the registered Democrats (27%), all the registered No Party People (23%), and all the fringe, you’re still talking about a lot of registered Republicans voting Yes.

Missed by this writer prior to the election, is the role played by Commercial Marijuana, the County budget, and the resulting budget politics, in influencing the TOT vote.

Although it is possible to quote different public officials expressing varying degrees of confidence in the viability of the County’s finances, for those who are on either side of the debate over regulation of commercial marijuana the issue is strongly politicized, to wit:

Advocates of re-regulating commercial marijuana contend that current spending levels are unsustainable, and that the only viable solution,short of deep cuts across the board that may include public safety, is to collect taxes from commercial marijuana activities.  At least publicly, advocates of commercial marijuana regulation were apparently largely indifferent to Measure G.

On the other hand, opponents of commercial marijuana,consisting largely of elements of the Republican Party (cultural conservatives and evangelicals), understood that increased TOT revenues helped their narrative that the County budget was solvent enough without resorting to commercial marijuana regulation and taxation.  Thus, the strongest opponents of re-regulating commercial marijuana, who previously could be counted on to vote against the TOT, this year had every incentive to vote for it.

Next time: The Sheriff’s race.

Among the more interesting not-so-behind-the-scenes activities that take place after a Primary election is the “endorsement process.”

Candidates love endorsements.  It’s a great way for a campaign to say “see, you don’t have to take our word for it, our guy is the best!”

Campaigns that are very well-organized and have effective outreach will publish long lists of citizens in large advertising displays, all pledging their vote to the candidate.  Whether this display influences undecided voters is hard to assess.  But for a well-heeled campaign with resources to spare, all other things being equal, the effort helps mobilize and motivate supporters and blunt any attacks on the candidate.

Indeed, for a candidate trying to overcome a negative attack on character, a very, very long list of supporters printed in the newspaper can be an effective way to cast doubt on the veracity of the attacks, if the issues are in any doubt.

But the Key Endorsements are ‘way more fun to think about.

Key Endorsers can be those citizens whose reputation for probity and integrity is so great their endorsement carries with it something of a “seal of approval.”  It is an interesting exercise to try and come up with a list of such persons in Calaveras County.  Don Cuneo and a few others come to mind, but their ranks are thin.  A sign of the times, perhaps.

The other Key Endorsers are the so-called “losing” candidates in Primary elections.

At some point after the votes are counted, these candidates who did not get enough votes to move on to the General Election often find themselves very popular with the very same people who not days before were questioning, at the very least, their fitness for office.

Here again it is hard to assess whether these kinds of endorsements really are effective in moving undecided voters, but situations can differ.  Here, in the elections for Supervisor and Sheriff, these endorsements could play an important role in determining the outcome in the General Election. 

For example, in Calaveras County’s Third Supervisorial District Primary, there were three candidates, and the candidate who came in third (barely), Ed Langan, could, in theory, either breathe needed energy into the candidacy of incumbent Michael Oliveira, who came in a rather distant second, or settle the matter entirely by endorsing Merita Callaway, who came within a few points of 50% and avoiding a run-off altogether.

The politics of the situation being what they are, Langan is unlikely to endorse Merita, and judging from his campaign narrative, unlikely sanguine about the prospects of Merita’s return to the Big Chair in San Andreas.  But if Langan, for whatever reason, doesn’t publicly endorse Oliveira, that is a real blow to Oliveira and maybe even the best-case scenario for Merita, who might be hard-pressed to explain a Langan endorsement of her campaign to her base supporters.

After a spirited campaign between Langan and Olivieria, it is natural that it has taken some time for feelings to return to normal and for reasoned analysis to resume.  For Oliveira or his people, it is, or should be, obvious that it is hard to see a path to victory without virtually all of the Langan vote, and it isn’t clear that Oliveira can win them over on his own.  Unless Langan is fine with the prospect of the Return of Supervisor Callaway, he needs to make up his mind sooner rather than later about endorsing the incumbent.

Note: the promised “New Format” for FreeTriTipDinner is still a work in process — stay tuned…

This is it! Election Day!

For political types, this is about as good as it gets … the excitement, the anticipation. Who will emerge the winners? Will any of the races be decided this week, or will there be run-off elections in November?

For the last 13 weeks, Free Tri-Tip Dinner has produced and published the Skull Survey*, an experiment in forecasting. The Survey is not a public opinion poll, nor is it an exercise similar to “the wisdom of the crowd.”

Instead, the Skull Survey is the distilled, objective opinion of a panel of Calaveras County citizens of the expected share of the vote of the candidates.  The panelists are anonymous — that is, while they may know each other in other contexts, no panelist knows who the other panelists are.  They are fairly evenly split between the genders, and are diverse geographically.  The principal traits sought in a panelist are intelligence and the potential for objective analysis.  We cannot thank them enough for their participation.

We have tried to avoid group-think, and panelists have shared information only indirectly through anonymous emails (we had code names!) and the weekly published results of the Survey.

As far as we know, the only other public exercise in estimating the results of this election is the on-line poll conducted by the Calaveras Enterprise. So, for comparison purposes, we also summarize and publish those results along with those of the Skull Survey. Then, when all the votes are in, we’ll examine the relative accuracy of all the estimates. Depending on the results, this could be either just the first Skull Survey or the last!

So, here are the results of the Skull Survey and the Calaveras Enterprise in the race for Sheriff:

– – – – – – – – Skull Survey            Calaveras Enterprise

Dibasilio            47.51                               44.8
Garrahan           25.20                              37.8
Stevens              27.28                              17.4

For District Three:

Callaway            45.36                               44.5
Oliveira              37.50                               45.1
Langan               17.30                               10.3

For District Five:

Stopper            36.55                                59.4
Giudici              29.07                               17.5
Clapp                27.52                                18.8
Gustafson          6.86                                  4.3

Here are the Skull Survey results showing graphically the results over the last 13 weeks:

Thanks for stopping by!  Check back often over the next few days for more updates on the election!

The Final Skull Survey will
be published tomorrow, Tuesday,
Election Day….  

See you then!

By Ward La Valley | June 1, 2018  |   print this             

 Edwin R. Murray-Creek:     Welcome back to Skull Session, Calaveras County’s spontaneous and unrehearsed interview program on Calaveras Politics!

Back with us are our regular panelists, Lee Atwater and Louis Howe.  Lee was the architect of the elections of both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and Louis helped steer Franklin Roosevelt to the Presidency in 1932.

Also with us is Marj Votaire.  Marj is a little different kind of guest in that unlike Mr. Howe and Mr. Atwater, Marj has never been a live person.  She is a statistical and theoretical abstraction, but she’s as real as 2+2=4.  She represents the rational opinion of the majority of the voters in Calaveras County.

Welcome all!

As we learned in the D5 Analysis on Free Tri-Tip Dinner, this election comes on the heels of last years’ recall of then-incumbent Steve Kearney.  That election featured two candidates running again this year – Clyde Clapp, now Supervisor, and Bruce Guidici, who finished third.  Also running are Ben Stopper and Greg Gustafson.

Louis, one school of thought has this race pretty close between Clapp, Stopper, and Giudici.  There seems to be some agreement that Gustafson hasn’t campaigned hard or effectively enough to be a factor.

Louis Howe:       I guess I’m in that school as well.

MC:        Since the previous Analysis, there have been a couple of interesting developments …

Lee Atwater:      There’s another school of thought – and that is that Stopper is running away with it.

Louis:    Bah.  If Stopper is running anywhere, it’s back to the pack.  He was fading fast in April.  The favored candidate of the two most powerful special interests in Calaveras politics was in danger of not making the run-off.

MC:        Well, whether he’s running away with it or catching up, how is he doing it?

Lee:       He has more money than the other candidates, a re-tooled narrative, much better advertising, and he’s personally calling voters.  That’s getting it done, baby!

Louis:    His new narrative seems to be filched from the Calaveras Planning Coalition with all that greenery and sustainability.  How come nobody is accusing him of being an agent of George Soros and the United Nations?

Lee:       Well, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!

MC:        The other big story breaking out of District Five is the concerted effort by the commercial marijuana interests to discredit Clapp.  In a series of mailings to the District, it was suggested that Clapp was guilty of elder abuse, and Clapp is evidently going to Superior Court sometime later this year in connection with the charges.  Is this going to hurt Clapp, help him, or will the effects tend to cancel each other out?

Louis:    First of all, the attacks were lacking.  There was no smoking gun, no direct proof of any wrongdoing by Clapp.  Their shrill tone was out of all proportion to the actual ‘evidence’ presented on the mailers, and this I think this could reduce their impact.

Lee:       Oh, I think they’ll hurt Clapp, no doubt about it.  I agree the mailers lacked a kill shot, but there was enough there, along with Clapp’s other recent missteps, to hurt him.

MC:        Marj, what do you think?  Did you see the mailers against Clapp?

Marj Votaire:     Oh, yes.  I am concerned about what is being written about Supervisor Clapp.  But, you know, we subscribe to the Valley Springs News as well as the Enterprise, and his response there made me wonder, who is right?   I must say, I don’t know if I’m comfortable that people with a lot of money can say such things about an elected Supervisor like they did.  I just wish we had more actual facts.  But if it turns out it was just lies and innuendoes – if that’s how it turns out – those people should be ashamed of themselves.

MC:        Well, let me ask you – if you were thinking about voting for Supervisor Clapp before the mailings, how about now?

Marj:     Well, I admit I would have to think about it.  I was very disappointed to read that Supervisor Clapp did not vote to respect the memory of Mr. Stevenot.

Louis:    Yes, talk about a self-inflicted wound.  All in all, it’s just very hard to know right now if Clapp is holding up or fading under this onslaught of bad news.

MC:        Well, if maybe Stopper is surging and maybe Clapp is collapsing, what’s happening with the Giudici campaign?

Lee:       You know, for a communist, he seems like a pretty nice guy.

Louis:    Oh stop it!!  You know damn well Bruce Giudici isn’t a communist, he’s an economist!!  They may rhyme and have a lot of the same letters, but, Lee, really, they aren’t the same thing.

Lee:       Very funny.  I mean, he’s a Democrat, and that’s at least the same thing as being a socialist.

Louis:    No.  No.  No.  It is Not the same thing.  Democrats believe in free markets, but we know that markets cannot be free if they are not also fair.  And vice-versa.  Freedom and fairness are the two sides of the same coin — there is no such thing as a one-sided coin.

Lee:       There you go, tying the hands of American Enterprise and stifling American Business with more smothering regulations!  More uncertainty!!  Anti-growth!!!  Socialism!!!!  George Soros!!!!!

Marj:     What does any of that have to do with being a Supervisor from District Five?

MC:        Indeed, Marj.  What about it, Lee?

Lee:       Everything!  A lot.  In a way …  (mumbling) … it speaks to character …

Louis:    What?  What was that Lee?  If this election turns out to be about character, I think Bruce Giudici is in pretty good shape.

Lee:       Ha!  Why?  Because he has a dog?

Louis:    No, because he’s been consistent and straightforward; he’s a family man who works hard and plays by the rules.  And, he’s, uh, how can I put this delicately, considerably more politically independent than the “surging Stopper.”

Lee:       You mean his campaign doesn’t have hardly any money!  Ha!

Louis:    “Surging Stopper,” if he finds himself running in November, will need to be ready for some real questions about his consistency, his values, and especially his political independence.  He’s taken over $5,000 – damn near half of all the money he’s raised — from out-of-County labor unions.

Lee:       You can’t fool me.  Just because Giudici sounds intelligent, seems decent, has good values, and has a good platform, that doesn’t change the fact he’s a Democrat.

Louis:    Can you even hear yourself?

Lee:       Look, I’m going to come right out and say it – he’s a liberal, and nobody I know is going to vote for him and that’s all there is to it.  Case closed.  Don’t confuse me with any more of your facts.

MC:        Marj, what about you?  Could you vote for Giudici?

Marj:     Lee sounds just like my husband Frank, after he’s watched a little too much TV.

Lee:       What’s that supposed to mean?

Marj:     Well, you know, Frank sits in his chair, and he has his cocktail, and right after Hannity he starts raving about liberals.  Gracious me, I don’t like them either, but I still think they’re people.  And if a liberal runs for Supervisor, and he’s a good family man, and he seems honest and has good ideas, well, I suppose I might vote for him.

Lee:       Wait a minute …

Louis:    I think Steve Wilensky, in District Two, showed that even liberals could get elected Supervisor in Calaveras County.

Marj:     Oh yes, Wilensky!  I remember him!  I liked him very much!  Whatever happened to him?

Lee:       Oh please …

MC:        Supervisor Wilensky chose not to run for re-election in 2012 after serving two terms.  I believe he’s now involved in forest restoration projects.  I think.

Well, let’s move on.  It’s time for predictions.  Marj, ladies first – do you care to make a prediction on the order of finish in District Five?

Marj:     Oh no.  I’m just not … that way, if you’ll excuse me.  I express the opinion of the rational majority …

Lee:       Except there ain’t no such thing …

Marj:     … to the extent that it exists, and I’m not able to make predictions.

MC:        Fair enough.  Okay Louis, give us your order of finish in District Five.

Louis:    This is a tough one.  As I’ve indicated I’m skeptical that the Stopper surge is anything more than the labor unions and the commercial interests doing their best to get their guy elected, and I’m not sure their message has gotten down to the grassroots.  I’m also skeptical that the attacks on Clapp have made him noncompetitive.  And I think Giudici is doing better than people realize because his campaign has worked hard going door-to-door.

Lee:       Stopper is personally, making phone calls, not robo-calls.

Louis:    And that’s a big deal, I get it.  But do we know how effective Stopper is over the phone?  He does not enjoy the reputation of being a charismatic type of guy.

MC:        And?

Louis:    Okay … I don’t know … if only Giudici had raised more money …

Lee:       But he didn’t.

Louis:    I think the top three will all be within a few percentage points, but I’m going out on a limb and saying that Giudici squeaks into first, then Clapp finishes in second by a nose over Stopper.  Stopper never caught on with the grassroots.  And Gustafson is in single digits.

Lee:       Dream on, buttercup.  Stopper wins easily, but maybe, probably, although you never know, not by 50%.  A collapsed Clapp finishes a distant second, with Giudici and Gustafson fighting it out for last.

Marj:     I think I agree with Lee, except I hope Giudici does better than that because he seems like such a nice man … oops, I wasn’t supposed to say that …

MC:        Let me ask one final question: would any of you, to use an expression, “bet the house” on your prediction?

Louis & Marj:     Oh, no!

Lee:       Oh, hell no!!!

MC:        For Skull Session, I’m Edwin R. Murray-Creek.  Good night, and good luck.

by Ward La  Valley  | May 30, 2018 | Print this

Edwin R. Murray-Creek:  Hello, and welcome back to Skull Session, a spontaneous and unrehearsed interview program on Calaveras politics!  I’m your host Edwin R. Murray-Creek.  Thank you for joining us.

Tonight, back with us are our two regular panelists.  Now, for those of you unfamiliar with our show, our panelists are a little … different … in that they are, uh, … former live persons … no longer corporeal … and … well, not actually real in every sense of the word.  So, ready?  Let’s get started!

First, he’s the former overall chief strategist of one of America’s most famous Presidents!  Despite many obstacles he steered his friend, and client, all the way to the White House – who then was re-elected three more times!  They had to change the law to prevent that from happening again!!  Ladies and Gentlemen, the man who made Franklin Roosevelt president, Mr. Louis Howe!

Next, as Ronald Reagan’s Political Director, he’s the architect of the Southern Strategy that used race identity to align the Republican Party with America’s white rural middle class, changing American politics to this day.  He was the Campaign Manager of the successful election of George H. W. Bush in 1988 — Ladies & Gentlemen, Mr. Lee Atwater!

And, since this show will focus on the race for Sheriff, also with us tonight, making his second appearance on the program, is Doctor Galen Adams, political adviser and chief campaign architect for the most popular Sheriff in America – Sheriff Matt Dillon of Dodge City, Kansas, circa 1875.  Most of you know Doctor Adams as “Doc.”

Welcome to you all!!

MC:        Okay, Doc, let’s start with you.  As you recall, the candidates are Rick DeBasilio, the appointed incumbent Sheriff, Patrick Garrahan, and Detective Gary Stevens.  Have you noticed any significant changes in the race for Sheriff here in Calaveras County since we last saw you?

Doc:       Oh, not so much, I guess.  Like I said, all three candidates are real nice fellers, and they’re all running real hard.

MC:        So, how do you think it’ll turn out?

Doc:       How in tarnation would I know?!?  I’m a doctor not a fortune teller!

MC:        Well, all right then Lee, how about you?  Is the current Sheriff – the appointed Sheriff – going to keep his job or not?

Lee:       Well, first of all, as we all know, it’s just very hard to defeat an incumbent Sheriff in these rural counties – appointed or not.  The thing is, unless there are very unusual circumstances, most voters aren’t in a position to know whether the Sheriff is doing a good job or not, so they are very persuadable to stick with an incumbent.

Louis:    Hey, there’s another reason to provide meaningful ways to measure law enforcement.  For fire protection we at least have insurance ratings.

MC:        Well, Louis, in a recent campaign ad, Garrahan referenced crime statistics that claimed to be from the Sheriff’s office.  If true, this means a challenger was able to use information provided by the Sheriff’s office against the incumbent Sheriff.  Isn’t this a step in the right direction towards transparency?

Louis:    Yes, I saw that.  I have to admit, I was impressed that the Sheriff’s Office had some numbers and shared them with Garrahan.  And even though the claimed ‘increase’ in crime seemed modest, the numbers helped put some meat on the bones of Garrahan’s “leadership” narrative, which is his main issue.

MC:        Well, I guess that’s our cue to talk about marijuana and the Sheriff’s race.  Has it been the defining issue?  Lee?

Lee:       For a few weeks in early April, they all seemed to want to de-emphasize the commercial marijuana issue.  That’s certainly true of the appointed incumbent.  But now, Stevens seems to be working to harvest the anti-marijuana vote he had skillfully sown in earlier statements.

Louis:    Well, he needs it.  Like Doc says, they’re all three “real nice fellers” but you can only vote for one.  Garrahan, who is the Sheriff candidate most closely identified with the commercial marijuana advocates, hasn’t explicitly courted that vote … probably because he’s confident that he doesn’t need to.  But you’re right, Stevens needs to make sure the anti-marijuana vote knows who “their” candidate for Sheriff is.

MC:        So you’re saying that Stevens needs the marijuana issue more than the other two?

Doc:       He needs something, I’ll tell you.  So does that Garrahan feller.  You know what, I saw a picture in the paper – a real newspaper, not one of these funny things here – of Sheriff DiBasilio… ,

Lee:       You mean the appointed Sheriff DiBasilio.

Doc:       … of Sheriff DiBasilio, his sidearm holstered to his thigh, striding through another busted criminal marijuana enterprise, square jaw set in determination … reminded me a lot of Matt.

My point is, both Stevens and Garrahan have tried to make themselves out as more ‘executive’ than the Sheriff – that Garrahan feller even talked about the virtues of just sitting behind his desk if he’s elected!  Sheriff Rick DiBasiIio, him getting out there, getting his hands dirty, cleaning up the County … I wonder if that ain’t maybe what folks want in a Sheriff.

Louis:    Times change, Doc.

Doc:       Maybe, but people don’t.

Lee:       Well, it may be hard to beat an incumbent Sheriff, but Stevens is the one to watch.

MC:        Why so, Lee?

Lee:       This is Calaveras County.  It is Republican.  Stevens has run a real strong campaign.  All the little things you have to do to win, they’ve done.  They raised a lot of money – almost as much as Merita.  They have lots of great signs in great locations, they’ve had countless meetings, and Stevens has showed up at nearly every event held in the last 3 months.  They have advertised effectively.  If you ask me, this is a case of a great campaign, and a perfectly solid candidate.

Louis:    Wrong again, Lee.  Garrahan has tightened up his narrative, he’s advertising, and he mailed.  I don’t think the DiBasilio Campaign sent any direct mail, and Stevens only mailed a curious letter in an unmarked envelope to selected addresses attacking DiBasilio for supposedly saying he was “on the fence” about marijuana.

MC:        Doc, you got anything to say?

Doc:       That feller Stevens … look here, the Sheriff doesn’t have a dang thing to do with whether commercial marywanna growers get regulated or not.  The Sheriff swears to uphold the damn law, and that’s all.  And he either goes out and does it or the voters throw him out.

Louis:    Yes, that’s Stevens’ Achilles heel.  His personal feelings about marijuana are, on paper anyway, irrelevant to how he does his job, yet he still has to pander to his constituency to get their vote.

Lee:       I agree it’s tricky …

Louis:    … and cynical …

Lee:       … to do without television advertising.  But Garrahan has had the same problem.  Stevens is in better shape than you people think because the anti-marijuana constituency is better organized than you think.  They get together every Sunday.  All in all, I think Stevens has done a good job trying to tell the Republican conservative majority in this County that he’s their guy.  You wait: you’ll see.

MC:        So doesn’t that leave DiBasilio without a constituency?

Doc:       Only if this whole thing is about marywanny, which it ain’t!

MC:        Well, okay, what else is the election for Sheriff about?

(silence)

MC:        Anybody?  Is it about Leadership?  Experience?  Anything at all?

Doc:       This is what I keep trying to tell you squirts.  Electing a Sheriff is different.  It’s not about words, or constituencies.  It’s about the quality of the man.

Louis:    I’m good with that.

Lee:       Me too.

MC:        Okay, then on that rare note of harmony, it’s time for predictions!  Doc, you have the honors.

Doc:       Well, like I say, they’re all three real fine fellers.  But I just can’t see where any of them challengers has laid a glove on the Sheriff.  So, that’s my prediction.  The Sheriff wins.

MC:        But what about ..

Doc:       … I don’t know about this run-off business.  I just think the Sheriff wins.

MC:        He gets over 50%?

Doc:       Sure, he does, why not?  And if not, do you think he’ll lose next time?

MC:        Okay, Louis, you’re up: what’s the result going to be?

Louis:    For a while there I thought that DiBasilio might get over 50%, but he seems to be lagging down the stretch.  Maybe he’s tired from all that striding around.

Garrahan has stepped up his campaign – he’s been the only one to use direct mail, and his piece was effective.  His advertising is better and more frequent.  I don’t think Stevens has sufficiently aroused his anti-marijuana constituency, if only because the Commercial Ban is, surprisingly, now the law.  The issue isn’t what everybody thought it was going to be when he decided to run.  And Garrahan has, on the whole, successfully kept commercial marijuana out of his narrative.

MC:        So?

Louis:    I see a surging Garrahan in a close second to a fading DiBasilio.  When the music stops, Stevens will be the one with no chair.

Lee:       Oh, please.  What crap.  The Stevens anti-marijuana constituency is bigger, and like I said, ‘way better organized than you idiots give it credit for.  Garrahan hath cast his lot with the liberals, and he will now soweth the Republican whirlwind.

MC:        Your colorful mixed metaphor notwithstanding, what is going to be the order of finish, Lee?

Lee:       DiBasilio and Stevens, one and two.  DiBasilio may have had a shot at 50% but he seems to be holding back, or something.  I’m not sure … like Louis said, maybe he’s getting tired.  So don’t be surprised to see Stevens in second place nipping at the stalled, and appointed, Sheriff’s heals.  Stevens is in good shape to be the next Sheriff.

Doc:       Pshaw!!  Mister, are you kidding?!?  Sheriff DiBasilio tired?!?  Why, he could pick either of you fellers up and put you on the top shelf with one hand!  Just what was your name again, young feller?

Lee:       Don’t you “Pshaw” me, you drunken old coot!  And if I have to hear you say “feller” one more time …

MC:        Thank you all!!  I think it’s time we wrapped up!!  It’s been a most exciting and interesting Skull Session!  For Free Tri-Tip Dinner, I’m Edwin …

Doc:       Oh?  Oh???  Coot is it?  That’s Doctor Coot to you!!

Louis:    Now gentlemen, let’s not …

Doc and Lee together:   Shut-up Louis!

MC:        Good night!  Our Next Skull Session will be on the Supervisorial races, and our guest panelist will be Marj Votaire!  I’m Edwin R. Murray-Creek and this has been another Skull Session ….

Skull Survey
28-May-18 Results –
Updated May 30, 2018

Sheriff
Dibasilio 46.6
Garrahan 25.6
Stevens 27.8

District 3 Supervisor
Callaway 46.3
Langan 20.4
Olivera 33.0

District 5 Supervisor
Clapp 28.5
Giudici 29.0
Gustafson 7.6
Stopper 34.6

Skull Survey
21-May-18

Sheriff
Dibasilio 46.3
Garrahan 24.1
Stevens 29.6

District 3 Supervisor
Callaway 45.1
Langan 15.0
Olivera 39.9

District 5 Supervisor
Clapp 29.7
Giudici 30.4
Gustafson 8.7
Stopper 31.2

If a humble hobbit from Middle Earth found their way to Ebbetts Pass in Calaveras County and turned their humble thoughts to Calaveras County District Three politics, what would they be thinking?

Suppose they’ve studied up.  Read the literature, looked at video.  Might not their first reaction be, “Man, how the hell did Merita lose last time?”

(EDITOR’S NOTE: The complete article is, like it’s namesake … lengthy.   We hope you take the time to read it, but here, for your convenience, is the conclusion.  Consider it the Free Tri-Tip Dinner equivalent of fast food)

Conclusion

Merita has run a brilliant campaign, finally.  If, contrary to all indication, the voters still fail to embrace her candidacy, she will at least know that she did all she could.

What is more likely is that the Queen of Calaveras politics will return and take her rightful – and this time fully earned — place on the Board of Supervisors.

Oliveira, should he find himself in a run-off with Merita, will have to raise substantially more money and upgrade all phases of his campaign if he hopes to retain his seat.

And for Langan, what was he thinking?  Did he think he was going to beat Oliveira and / or Merita with a website and a provocative narrative?  If he hasn’t raised and spent thousands of dollars on advertising and direct mail in these last weeks, his candidacy was never serious.

please click here for complete article

Skull Survey*
14-May-18 Results

Sheriff
Dibasilio 47.5
Garrahan 21.3
Stevens 31.3

District 3 Supervisor
Callaway 45.6
Langan 14.5
Olivera 39.9

District 5 Supervisor
Clapp 30.4
Giudici 30.3
Gustafson 9.6
Stopper 29.8

* Note: The Skull Survey is the average estimate of the state of the election by a panel of Calaveras voters. As such, the estimates are not based on sampling or any other form of statistical inference based on preferences….