Wednesday, May 19, 2010

52 Vote Lead for Zinkin. Waters and Hornat Win

According to election results posted on the KVOA web site, with all precincts reporting, Mike Zinkin has amassed 52 more votes for Mayor than Satish Hiremath, 6776 to 6724.

There are, however, a number of provisional and some absentee ballots yet to be counted so this race could swing either way. If the vote remains close, there will be a recount. If there are contested votes, the whole thing could wind up in court!

As we mentioned a zillion times, ever single vote counts.

We will keep an eye on this. It could take a few days to sort itself out. So let's be patient.

Meanwhile...

Congratulations to Lou Waters and Joe Hornat. Both were elected to Council. May you both have successful careers in Council to "Let Oro Valley Excel."

Thank you to Matthew Rabb for a council race well-run. You impressed a lot of us, Matthew. In fact, you garnered almost 4,700 votes. This is a very decent showing. The only thing anyone ever said "negative" about you was that you were "too young". Well, Matthew, in two years you won't be too young. You can take the next two years to get more into Oro Valley Government. You have a lot to bring to Oro Valley. Perhaps you will be back in 2012 when three Council seats will be up for the bidding.

The rancor and angst of the campaign is now behind us, regardless of whether the Mayoral results holds or changes. Time for all of us to come together to build a great Oro Valley.

More to follow.

Click here to see the KVOA posted results.

28 comments:

Zev Cywan said...

This post is an excellent tribute to what can be virtuous Oro Valley. It IS time for the Community to come together as a whole rather than holding to segments of contentious parts. Mike, hang in there; you, too, Satish. Matt, you truly are an asset to the Community; Joe and Lou, congratulations!

Nombe Watanabe said...

Not exactly a ROUSING victory for the blogger trolls.
Oh well.

If Dr. H wins, when can I expect a Ruth Chris to open in the OV Mkt Place?

The Zee Man said...

Nombe...

This is not a rousing victory for anyone. There are still votes to be counted and there are more than 52 of them. Either candidate can win.

Besides... we're all the sidelines now. Might as well chill!

I like Ruth Chris! A good steakhouse could spell the difference.

Zev Cywan said...

The Keg is coming, The Keg is coming! It's supposed to be superb - no need for Ruth's Chris(?).

Desert Voice said...

Bloggers,

This morning listening to DeSimone and Higgins volunteer that soccer moms getting out the vote for Prop 100 and SH's free dental exams might have added to his votes,while the national news energetically listed Republican victories in traditionally Dem races through the nation. We are in a political tidal wave and impacted by state and national issues.

In spite of that, had Loomis' backers backed SH, he would have garnered 61% of the vote. He received 49.64% or 11.5% less. Hiremath backers remind us that we are in Republican area. Hmmm? What happened?

How nonpartisan is OV?

Zinkin's gain of a 12% margin in this ardently Republican community
at a time when Republicans are highly mobilized is noteworthy. As Zev indicated it is a tribute to what can be virtuous in OV. Voters will vote integrity over finances.

Nombe,

While the trolls may not have the dramatic victory desired, consider what might have happened if bloggers had no vehicle to balance media views. Bias exists in the EXPLORER giving little coverage to Zinkin and Rabb. LOVE kept them alive and viably in the race.

Congratulations to Waters and Hornat. And may we borrow your "It's not overZ!" signs?

travelling dancer said...

Well, this is interesting, since many Republicans did not believe that SH is truly a Republican. He didn't have the qualities (conservative socially as well as fiscally). A friend at the polls said many of the previous GOVAC volunteers said the had no intention of voting for SH, because of the negative treatment they had receied from him. Looks like he might have just registered as a Republican to get their vote, but never did anthing for the Party. Well, if SH would win, it won't take long for his true colors to come forth.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Zev. No Keg for me. I like FINE dining establishments like Risky Business!

D. Voice. Good point, without the LOVE Blog it would have been very unbalanced.

I add my congrats. to all. Whatever the outcome, it has to be better than the Loomis downward spiral.

NW. Troll

OV Objective Thinker said...

Great post Zeeman.

We CAN come together as there are many areas where we share common interests.

We should share ideas and thoughts and an occasional 'Nombe Zinger' is good for the soul.

LOVE!!!

Don

Victorian Cowgirl said...

If you look at ALL factors, the race isn't as close as it seems.

If you consider that Hiremath had about twice the campaign money, endorsements from businesses and unions, firefighters and police, and should have gotten all the Loomis voters (especially after Loomis endorsed him), ran numerous newspaper ads and sent numerous mailers...

In contrast to Zinkin who didn't have that much money, and therefore couldn't afford as many newspaper ads and mailers, and didn't have all those endorsements...

With all of those political and monetary advantages, Hiremath SHOULD have won in a landslide. Instead, only a few votes separate the two.

Interesting...

OVDad said...

VC -
whether you believe it or not, a vote is a vote. What you are suggesting is that votes for Zinkin are worth more than votes for SH by which you are denouncing at least parts of the citizens that voted for SH in arguing that they are not educated citizens, but rather subordinate followers of what advertisements and endorsements tell them. Your narrow world view is, shall we say,

interesting...

Furthermore, someone recently pointed out a study presented by Levitt and Dubner to which Art replied something along the lines of "recent history shows otherwise." The study showed that there was little to no positive correlation between campaign spending and votes. An academic study of the magnitude they describe is not falsified by 'recent history'. If you can explain to me how the people of OV are different than the people in other places in our wonderful country, you might have a point. Otherwise, it's a bit like believing that your die is rigged because you roll a couple of 6's in a row.

I agree its surprising that esp. given the Loomis endorsement SH received such view votes. Maybe you should congratulate your fellow bloggers on their good work instead of suggesting that money has an impact when that claim has been academically refuted or that your fellow citizens follow endorsements blindly.

Roger said...

What a Mayoral race. Desert voice where are you getting your numbers? One has to be realistic that SH is not going to get ALL of Loomis's voters. Zinkin's gain of 12%? Where is that from?

What I saw was that Zinkin received 53% of the mail in/early ballots. Which I have a very strong suspicion is the older/retired generation of OV. SH got around 56% of the ballots from the polls which is more than likely the younger working families in OV.

I have news for many of you out there. OV is no longer the "retirement community" you want it to be. OV is a community of both retired and thriving working young families. OV needs growth which has been hindered for so long.

Zev Cywan said...

I just learned earlier this evening and from two separate sources that there are over 1000 votes that are yet to be counted. As I understand it this information came from the Pima County 'whatever' office. It has also been anticipated that the vote will not be certified until Friday or possibly Monday - a nail biter for all.

Nombe, next time you eat a fine steak at 'RB' make certain you have a gallon of A1 Sauce on hand to 'embellish' the flavor. LOL!

Fear the Turtle said...

Just curious as to why someone drops off an early mail in ballot at a polling place on Tuesday instead of simply voting at the polling place. How verifiable are these early ballots?

The methodology utilized in the voting procedures need to be revised so any doubts as to the final results can be erased. No mail in ballots should be allowed to be delived to the polling places on the day of the election.

The Zee Man said...

Yes, Fear, I hope there is no chicanery.

This election is going to go down to the wire. I would hate to see it mired with uncertainty as to these subsequent votes.

James said...

If an individual requests an early ballot they must have it returned to Pima County Elections officials by election day. Early voters are instructed to drop off any early ballots to the polling place on election day, if they haven't returned them earlier, so that they can be counted. Once an individual has received an early ballot, the list of registered voters would indicate they had received a ballot and would not be able receive a regular ballot at the polling place on election day.

Fear the Turtle said...

The procedures for the early ballot are goofy at best, have been abused, and need to be revised. What is the point of an early ballot if so many are going to the polling place anyway?

The early voting procedure must be changed prior to the next election. Each early ballot must be postmarked two days prior to the election day in order to be valid.

Desert Voice said...

Roger,

Explorer 3/24/10 lists the Mayoral candidates as follows:

Zinkin 38%
Hiremath 33%
Loomis 28%

Add 33% and 28% you get 61%

In the early results on 5/18, Zinkin had 50.01%. Take 38% from that and you get 12%.

Does that help you?

Fear and ZM,

I concur with both of you.

Let's hope after this cliffhanger the wrinkles will be eliminated from the voting process. One way might be to keep all those votes not cast at the polls to be tallied as the votes are cast in the polls so that the results will be final that day. This system seems too loosey-goosey to be secure.

Roger said...

Desert Voice, thanks for the education on simple arithmetic however, like I said it is unrealistic to say that either candidate would get ALL of Loomis's votes. Additionally, the stats you are using for Zinkin is not correct. You cannot use stats from one election and say he had that much of an increase using different numbers. But if you want to view it that way I guess SH actually had a 16% increase. 49-33=16 compared Zs 12% interesting.

Jay D said...

You can get accurate vote tallies, by going to: http://www.pima.gov/elections/results.htm

As of this evening, the difference between the two mayoral candidates is 12 votes...Zinkin with 7268 and Hiremath with 7256. This is not over.

Roger said...

Jay, Thanks. That is where I have been checking hourly. You are right 100% correct. Only 12 votes separates the two. There are still 300 plus ballots that need to be counted. It is gonna be tight.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

OV Dad,

Yes, LITERALLY SPEAKING, a vote is a vote (meaning every vote has equal weight), but when so many people cast votes for ridiculous reasons (eg. two years ago a member of my own family said she wouldn't vote for a particular candidate because she didn't like his wife!) then, FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING, all votes are NOT EQUAL.

I've also been around long enough to know that "advertisements and endorsements" do entice people to vote a certain way (locally, Vestar's money and glitzy ads enticed voters to approve a $23 million dollar rip-off) and I've heard people say that they're voting for a particular candidate solely because, "he's endorsed by police and firemen."

So yes, some people are not "educated citizens" but merely "followers" of endorsements.

You claim that I have a "narrow world view." How do you know what books I've read, what college courses I've taken, what periodicals I read, how many different news stations I listen to, or what parts of the world I've visited?

I stand by my comment that with all the political and monetary advantages that Hiremath had, he should have won in a landslide. So what went wrong?

My guess is that his PATTERN of showing a lack of interest in town government may have played a role.

Desert Voice said...

VC,

Loved your observations.

Curious things happened this week and I wonder if SH supporters can explain. As late as Saturday, May 15 SH literature arrived in RV asking for donations. That seems a tad late to me but admittedly I don't know the campaign rules.

Yesterday the FOP called a neighbor asking for donations. They are the union that backed SH.
Any connection? Or were they planning on contributing to the Commando Car I observed within the last few weeks on Linda Vista. Wonder if the Council knows about this purchase.

OVDad said...

VC-

I have heard people say they'd vote for Sarah Palin because "she is a family woman just like me". I am as liberal as they come and extremely dislike Sarah Palin, yet their vote is worth as much as mine. No matter how clueless you are, you have a right to vote and your vote counts as much as anyone's. What you are saying is that some people's votes count more than others'. In the past, this kind of thinking has led to terrible things - I think you can put two and two together and figure out what I mean by that. FIGURATIVELY speaking, votes - for whatever reasons and no matter how much YOU disagree with that person's judgment - are equal. It simply isn't up to YOU to judge anyone's reasoning. Because I could make the same argument - saying that the followers of this blog voted blindly and stupidly for a man that seems to not get along with many people. I refrain from such things, because I don't deem it appropriate to put myself above other people and judge myself as being worth more than them.

Moreover, "worldview" is not defined by what you read or the places you have been to. It is about what you make out of your readings and appearances. The simple fact that you don't get that shows I was right.

You scare me.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

OV Dad,

You're liberal? You extremely dislike Sarah Palin? I'm beginning to like you!

Your comment, "No matter how clueless you are, you have a right to vote and your vote counts as much as anyone's" leads me to this response...

(1) When a "clueless" person casts a vote, you are correct that their vote COUNTS just as much. I'm not saying it doesn't COUNT as much. I'm saying it doesn't MEAN as much.

(2) Just because you "have a RIGHT to vote" doesn't mean that you SHOULD.

(eg. Some people voted for George Bush because "he's someone I could have a beer with.")

And with that, I respectfully disagree with your belief that all votes are created equal.

I will give you that "worldview" is not JUST defined by what you've read or the places you've visited, but would also INCLUDE having the ability to understand what you've read or experienced and having the wherewithal to dig deeper and ask questions.

I have done ALL of those things which means that I do, in fact, get it!

Let me give you an example of someone who doesn't get it because she's never read anything nor traveled anywhere other than a beach. An old friend of mine (no longer a friend) went ballistic on me when I gave money to a homeless shelter. She claimed that, "Those people are just lazy. They don't WANT to work!" (Did I mention that she was a devout Christian?)

Now, I, on the other hand, being well-read, know that some homeless people are in that position because their home was destroyed in a fire or because they developed some form of mental illness and fell through the cracks, and some of them are VETERANS who served our country and witnessed horrible things and then found themselves unable to cope when they returned home because of PTSD.

So much for my narrow world view.

Same is true for my voting for Zinkin. I didn't vote for him because this blog told me to. I voted for him because he has shown a pattern of taking an interest in Oro Valley and he took the time to educate himself and take the courses and attend the council meetings, etc. Hiremath did none of these things. Hiremath showed a pattern of DISINTEREST.

Zev Cywan said...

A 'caste' value does not apply to a democratic system of voting. Remember the Soviet Union? Only the members of the 'select' communist party were considered to be worthy of voting; the rest of their world was comprised of 'peons'. Is that the kind of system some of you want? Hmmmmm!?

There are different types of 'smarts' - book smarts, street smarts, creative smarts, formulative smarts, perceptive smarts, etc. That someone has read books, traveled the world, listened to Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Fidel Castro, or whatever or whomever, doesn't make you special nor does it make you a certified brain; it may simply make you a 'parrot' - and that ain't necessarily smart!

Desert Voice said...

OV Dad,

"Sophistry"...yes, your post reminds me of college students learning to have philosophical arguments...but, because of their limited experience, come across as sophistry.

Your pen name identifies you as male while V Cowgirl identifies herself as female.

While you say you are "as liberal as they come", you project a very conservative stance. Double speak?

"No matter how clueless you are" to VC is judgmental, ie stating she is without information. I object. Her postings are rational, documented, while yours are rambling, undocumented, nonspecific.

"..some peoples votes count more than others..." YES! If they are leaders of the uninformed, YES, the way they vote influences others. Saying otherwise, defies reality.


"I think you can put two and two together and figure out what I meant by that..." Why should VC take that chance? Why don't you stand up and speak up about what YOU mean?

"Followers of this blog vote blindly and stupidly for a man who does not gt along with too many people..." Where is your documentation? First, about how informed the bloggers are about their choices? I'll bet they are more objectively informed than any other voters in OV, that they participate in OV politics, attend and stay awake through meetings, and read, not merely subscribe, to the WALL STREET JOURNAL, have advanced degrees, and care about all of OV, not just their own interests. As for Zinkin, all leaders who take a stand have detractors. For Zinkin 4 have published their experiences. Jill Anderson's letter was a patent fabrication as she was NOT present at the meeting about which she wrote and a blogger atested to her other motives. The HOA three, please note they needed to support each other in writing one letter, and they were responsible for a work stoppage, with the threat of fees for this stoppage levied at them. They had motive, opportunity and intent to slur Zinkin's reputation.

While you state you would not want to "put myself above other people", in fact, by your posting with its foundationless assertions you are doing just that, ie sitting in judgment of VC's posting without any credible evidence, positing sophistic arguments, nothing more.

Desert Voice said...

OV Dad,

Please replace "sophisty" with "sophomoric"...my error.

Zev Cywan said...

I find it disturbing that those who might choose to vote one way deem an opposing point of view as coming from a person of a lesser mind then theirs. I do not think that just because one THINKS that his or her education 'rules' that therefor one who might have a different type of education/growth should be relegated by anyone to being a lower class of citizen and therefor being deemed as having a lower qualitative relationship relative to their 'voting' skills. This kind of thinking is elitism
at it's worst.