 |
| TOP 3 machine vote results shown |
It wasn't even close. Ravi Bhalla was the top vote-getter in all 3 Reform strongholds: the 2nd, 5th and 6th Wards; the vibrant guy came in second.
To boot, out of the 3 Reform strongholds Giattino did most poorly in her own ward.
Which is a far cry from 2015, when she cleaned Carmelo Garcia's clock in the ward races with 710 total votes, including absentee and provisional ballots.
What happened?
The truth is that a tiny subset of Hoboken residents follow local politics like we do.
The winner in this election cycle was not decided by us- Bhalla or Giattino partisans. It was decided by a much larger group of residents, inclined to support Reform, who had most likely voted for Mayor Zimmer and who started off as uncommitted to either Reform candidate. Remember these results from a poll taken this past January?
 |
| Poll of likely Hoboken voters taken January 2017 |
Bhalla and Giattino polled about the same: 24-29% strongly to somewhat favorable, 42-46% never heard of either.
Now the mayor... Zimmer polled 71% favorable with 1% who never heard of her. Okay?
GA got plenty of shit for posting this poll last June, but in my opinion these results turned out to be prophetic- only not in the way that I thought back then.
I thought that running two candidates so evenly matched was Doomsday; the end of 8 sweet years of good, clean government. Up until the results came in this Tuesday night, I was sure we were doomed to a Mayor DeFusco. That's true.
But, Reform broke for Ravi. By about 2 to 1.
One big reason for this, I believe (supported by the January poll) is the public's affection for Mayor Zimmer.
But don't listen to me.
Yesterday, a 'lurker' posted here for the first time, explaining his/her thought process in picking a mayoral candidate. In my opinion, this person's perspective may represent the plurality of voters who broke for Bhalla. Here is the post, by "greengarnet."
As a long time lurker on this site I’m commenting here for the first time. I feel Tiffanie’s letter is insulting to voters like myself in implying that had I only known that Jen composts and is anti-discrimination (and is a kind person!) that I would naturally support her over the other Reform candidate who does not compost and gets support from an ethnic community. Really?
I consider myself fairly typical of a conscientious voter who at the same time, in 12 years of living in Hoboken, is not overly involved in Hoboken politics. I don’t know any of these people and they wouldn’t recognize me, though I might look vaguely familiar to my councilman. I look to several sources for information, with political mailers being close to the bottom of my list as I don’t have time to read them and they should all be taken with a grain of salt, anyway.
So here’s my thought process on why I ultimately decided to vote for Ravi:
1) I’ve been impressed with Dawn Zimmer’s accomplishments and so I respect her endorsement of Ravi to continue her agenda which I support. I was personally and financially impacted by Sandy flooding, and my decision to remain in Hoboken is in part due to wanting to see Rebuild by Design completed.
2) I’ve met Ravi a couple of times and had the chance to converse and ask him questions and I liked what I heard. I support his platform.
3) I do not have a favorable impression of Romano.
4) Met DeFusco briefly once and wasn’t impressed, and upon reading his record was not impressed by that either.
5) I initially looked to find reasons to support Jen as another Reform candidate, particularly since my councilman came out in support of her. I was undecided for some time.
Ultimately I rejected voting for Jen as I grew suspicious of her motives and agenda and of those around her, specifically because of the following:
1) The attack on Dawn Zimmer over the Suez contract. (See item #1 above — “impressed with Dawn Zimmer’s accomplishments”.) The idea that Dawn was all of a sudden some ethically-challenged naive idiot didn’t make sense and smacked of coming from political expediency in favor of whatever kind of cabal was being formed by the Jen team, not as a legitimate issue raised for the good of the city. Grandstanding.
2) Jen’s coyness in discussing her national party affiliation and not addressing it forthrightly, instead allowing little tidbits to leak out through surrogates (“She didn’t vote for Tump”). That she hadn’t made up her mind about who she was voting for governor is not believable in light of the Kim Guadagno connection, attendance at Republican national conventions, being a delegate for John Kasich (who while being much more sane than Trump is still a right wing Tea Party Republican), all of which suggests someone who is active in her party. It’s baffling to me why the Chair of the Hoboken Democratic Committee would contribute to the suggestion that Jen is some sort of quasi-liberal independent when she’s clearly an active Republican.
3) The unhinged support for Jen from another Hoboken blog along with vitriolic anti-Ravi diatribes definitely put me off, so yes that was another factor in deciding not to vote for her.
And this letter from Tiffanie? It reeks of entitlement and self-importance on her part and on the part of Jen Giattino.
Again, I’m not active in Hoboken politics, just trying to be a conscientious voter, but where I had little knowledge and a neutral opinion on both before this election, I’m now pretty solid in my dislike and distrust of them. Just saying. And I’ll be paying more attention to my councilman Cunningham now.
So what do you think, people?
Very nicely deconstructed.
ReplyDeleteI had a similar experience to GreenGarnet with a couple of differences. I'm not at all involved in Hoboken politics though I try to keep up. I started following this blog and Hoboken Horse when six candidates got in the race because 1) The Reporter is useless and 2) Any news the Mayor's race on nj.com basically tells you something you already know.
ReplyDeleteLike GreenGarnet, I had narrowed it down to Jen (who is my council person though I've never had a personal interaction with her) and Ravi. As first I was leaning toward Jen, she had good energy, positive personality, a good record of serving constituents etc...and though I'm a registered Democrat, I didn't want to rule her out just because she's a Republican. I never completely soured on Jen, but over time the hyperbole from her supporters, including her campaign manager Tiffanie Fischer, undermined her credibility. At least for this voter anyway.
I should also state that I was not a big supporter of Dawn Zimmer in 2009 and a bit skeptical of the administration from the start. Eight years later, I stand corrected. She's done a very good job running this city. I work with a number of people who live in Hoboken...eight years ago if there was rain at high tide, everyone would run home to bail out their basements. These days, we're all in agreement that the flooding situation, while not solved, is greatly improved. I'm also very impressed with the Southwest Park...when it was proposed, I could not envision a park in the middle of that traffic cluster f%ck. At all.
Yet it turned out beautifully and yes, while there are many in the community who deserve credit, it is the Mayor and city administration charged with executing the plan and they did so flawlessly. So as Jen's supporters were screaming about Suez, the accomplishments of the Zimmer administration got me focused on Ravi again. Then, a few weeks before the election, I ran into Ravi on the street. I had a few questions and his answers made clear that he was capable, knowledgeable and really ready to be Mayor. He also didn't try to "win" me over like so many meet and greets on the street. While I'm sure we don't see eye to eye on everything, I walked away from that conversation believing Ravi would work for the best interests of the city.
So that's how I came to vote for Ravi. However, at a get-together one week before the election, I was surprised by the number of friends/acquaintances supporting Jen. Mainly— and I hope this is something that Ravi's supporters consider— because they thought she was being unfairly attacked by the Bhalla campaign. Don't shoot the messenger, the assessment may not be entirely accurate, but it doesn't matter. That was the perception among some Reform-minded voters.
So...looking at the final numbers by Ward (Thank you GA! Much easier to digest than columns and rows) if your analysis is correct, and the majority of voters went with the Mayor's endorsement, perhaps there was no need for negativity about Jen from the Bhalla camp and the only thing he needed to seal the deal was run on his record and plans for the city.
On a different note, the 5th Ward results are very interesting. Guess Peter Cunningham's endorsement doesn't carry much weight in his own ward. Finally one question for the commenters that I need to get off my chest, Why the quotation marks when posting about "Jen" and "Tiff"? It strikes a nerve in me every time I see it, especially since I can't recall seeing quotations around "Mike" or "Stick." Seems unnecessary and demeaning to females who venture into public life.
Great comment, HobokenGarden. Thank you for sharing. You know, if you ask Bhalla supporters, they will tell you that Jen ran a negative campaign. So, it depends on what room you are in. I don't know if the targeted mail to Dems helped or hurt. At that point, people were so inundated with mailers. Like you said, the face-to-face really made a difference. Anyway, thanks a lot and when I get the final counts by ward, including vbms and provisionals, I will update the map and repost!
Deletevery good comment, @HobokenGarden, thanks. makes perfect sense.
DeleteRE: "jen" and "tiff", i can't speak for anyone else but i did that mainly just to tease, to poke a little fun at them. it was nonsensical, a silly thing, certainly not meant to convey any particular message to women in politics. i never used quotes when referring to mayor zimmer, council and school committee candidates, beth mason, etc. tiffany, especially, seemed so off base and mansplainy in her online comments that i just felt compelled to take the piss, as the british would say. all is good fun, no harm intended, and apologies to you (and jen and tiff) if any was taken.
I confess to putting Jen and Tiff's knick names in quotes on this site because I could never take either of them seriously. There was absolutely no substance behind anything they said.
ReplyDeleteOh, they were so full of horse crap it wasn't even funny. Who actually put Jen up to running? Or a better question, who didn't talk her off the ledge when it became apparent she had no chance in hell of winning? Because after that whole Suez debacle, her campaign turned positively toxic and it became apparent her campaign was racing to the bottom.
DeleteBTW, I am convinced whomever did her polling and said she was surging to first place is a grade A idiot. I also believe the people who peddled that nonsense have a million excuses for why they have egg all over their faces post-election.
Lurker here… I’m glad I could offer my perspective and contribute to the conversation! GA’s recap with the poll numbers makes sense, and HobokenGarden’s comments resonate.
ReplyDeleteIs the perception of Ravi’s negativity towards Jen’s campaign about bringing up her party affiliation? Because to take what I said one step further, it’s a question of character that she was not able to personally, herself, articulate her beliefs or even if she has political beliefs. Now post-election you have Tiffanie saying that Jen “just never defined herself by party politics” somehow aligning her with the 40% in Hoboken without party affiliation (which means they don’t care enough want to vote in a primary). It leads me to wonder why Jen bothered to attend Republican national conventions and was a delegate for a Republican candidate if she didn’t feel any particular passion for her party or candidate. (I wonder how the local Republican party feels about her.) Either she was hiding an agenda and trying to appear to be someone she’s not, or she really hasn’t given national political philosophies much thought and she participated in Republican party politics just ‘cuz. All this doesn’t matter if you’re a councilperson. But if you’re a mayor you better know what’s going on nationally and how it affects your state and your city. You better understand how your governor thinks and which way the wind in blowing in the state legislature.
Either way I didn’t see leadership qualities, and Tiffanie’s letter makes it even worse.
I think it's a mistake to analyze the election results bases on "how reform" broke because I don't think "reform" is a particularly useful category.
ReplyDeleteA better way to look at it is voters not locked and loaded for the OG side. There are about 5000 votes that simply are unavailable to candidates unaffiliated with Russo, Ramos. Raia, Belfiore, etc.
That means there were a out 10,000 people who voted available to potentially outvote the locked and loaded OG vote which split between Romano and DeFusco - basically newer residents not aligned with the "old guard."
These split roughly 50% Ravi, 25% Jen and 25% DeFusco. DeFusco came close to winning because of how many new Hoboken votes he received.
There really is no mystery why 50% of those voters "broke" for Ravi. He was a Democrat, as are 75% of that group, endorsed by a Mayor with a 75% approval among this group. He was always going to get far more of these voters than Jen.
It should surprise no one that Jen got 25% of this vote. That matches pretty well with party affiliation/lean among this group and with the level of support historically held by the political faction (a subset of "reform") that long encouraged her candidacy and enthusiastically supported her.
What should scare people going forward is that Ravi and Jen together should have gotten 90% of this vote not just 75%. DeFusco, a complete fraud with no experience, no resume but lots of "vibrant ideas" and "youthful energy" got 25% of this vote. That's about 25oo votes that cannot be dismissed as OG, bought and paid for etc. That's 2500 voters who voted for him because they liked what they thought they saw.
To me that's pretty scary and something to carefully consider going forward.
Another way to look at it, there are about 4000 voters who were basically locked and loaded for Ravi and Jen and unavailable to DeFusco. They split those about evenly.
DeleteOf the 6000 new Hoboken voters available to Ravi, Jen or Mike - who "reform" thinks should vote for "us" but while are actually not part of the "club" DeFusco and Ravi split almost evenly with Jen having virtually no support.
It is with this group where elections are won and lost. If we want to to understand the election result and learn for going forward we need to understand why DeFusco and Ravi had so much support with this group and Jen had so little.
numbers, reading is fundamental!
DeleteI wrote verbatim "[the election] was decided by a much larger group of residents, inclined to support Reform, who had most likely voted for Mayor Zimmer and who started off as uncommitted to either Reform candidate.
That was too long to put in a headline.
People who are " inclined to support Reform"= mainly not-OG. Zimmer did earn the goodwill of some 'OG' particularly for her leadership during Superstorm Sandy. We know some of Ravi's most active volunteers are BnR. I canvassed my block; an old lady was effusive about Ravi (thought for sure she was a Romano 'locked and loaded')
So, don't use that broad brush so broadly. It is this coalition of voters that "broke" for Ravi. I think we are saying almost the same thing, maybe!
I too, am surprised at the amount of support Mike got- but this was a 'change' election; in spite of his unrelenting negativity, I think he pulled enough voters who saw him as the fresh and vibrant change that he promised to be. Mike's career is marketing- and he is good at it. Like it or not, a lot of non-OG voters bought the notion that he was a change agent, and probably liked his renderings. I don't think it's that deep. Next time he runs (if he does) he will be less-fresh, and the opposition will be prepared for his type of assault. He may be a fraud, but gets props for going from fourth place to second place- so that needs to be looked at.
To your point that Jen got the 25% non-OG Republican vote- I think that's a "mistake."
Anecdotally, some Dems were turned off by Ravi's Trump ads (targeted to Dems) and as a results went over to Jen's camp. Yes, if it energized Dems, it pissed some off, too. Anecdotally, self-identifying Republicans were turned off by Jen's lack of candor on her party affiliation and who she supports for Gov.
And, if the 25% were Republicans, Valenti and Einstein would have done better.
Anyway, this election cycle gave our political junkie crowd a lot to chew on. Would love to hear from more non-junkies!
numbers, How do you know (and how can you say) that Ravi and Jen "split those 4,000 votes evenly?" Look at Jen's decline in support in the 6th Ward ("Jen/Ravi" votes" unavailable to DeFusco") in her own ward from 2015 to 2017! Bhalla got nearly double the number of votes (735) as Jen (400) (from the "Jen/Ravi" voting bloc- as you describe it). Or the 5th ward. Ravi got 1,034 votes to Jen's 603 votes- these from your "Jen/Ravi voting bloc."
DeleteHow can you call this "even?" I agree that Stick's vote's were locked and loaded. The numbers show that in historically Zimmer-voting wards , that constituency broke for Ravi.
Seems like you want to put out a narrative unsupported by the numbers, numbers!
lots of things about this campaign season were pretty disgusting, let me add another log to that fire: the comments on HCV's article about defusco's sister starting a gofundme site to raise money to investigate the racist flyer. last i checked this morning, about 90% of the comments imply (or outright claim) the flyer was done by bhalla's team. maybe the comments are all the work of just one or two evil/ethically challenged individuals. but the thought that people are out there spreading this type of rumor turns my stomach.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSnoopy, false and defamatory statements from the horse's anus and his vicious Skyline sidekick don't need airing here- Thanks.
DeleteDeleted.
DeleteDoes anyone know what happens to the money raised if the "reward" is never given out? If the sponsor gets to just keep it that seems pretty sleazy.
ReplyDeleteAlso - that kind of "reward" creates quite the incentive to say whatever the sponsor of the campaign wants you to say. Does anyone know whether paying someone to lie about something like this is a crime?
They hired a PI. I don't know what they cost, but the reward is $5000 of the $15000. Hopefully it goes to charity if no one comes forward. I assume the PI is non-refundable. I would like to see what-all their marching orders include
Deletedo MDF and his sister suspect someone related to romano or are they open to roman's warped view?
Deleteme, are you asking if Mike and his sis are "open" to actionable defamation of a Hoboken resident? Roman can go fuck himself.
Deletemy question is if we have any sense as to whether MDF and sister think the flyer is from people related to romano or bhalla (the latter being what roman seems to be promoting).
DeleteDeFusco made an ASS out of himself tonight in New Business... he berated Ravi for not chipping into his "reward." He also said the flyer "stole the election" (from him). And he doesnt think Kenny Ferrante can handle the investigation! Does Mike want vigilante justice? Does he think he's a Sheriff? What a pompous ass!
DeleteLooks like this jerk is set on making Hoboken ungovernable until he LOSES his seat in 2019.
me- my apologies for snapping at you yesterday.
DeleteLast night's cc meeting displayed the single most low-class, petulant, petty, unprofessional and ungracious reception to an election winner I have ever seen in my entire life. That goes across the board, to every council member who either or supported another candidate.
ReplyDeleteNewsflash -- Hoboken voters are smart and sophisticated, and governing-by-ambush/politicking-by-stunt always backfires. Always.
It backfired in the Dual-Job Dawn stunt.
It backfired in the municipal-garage stunt.
It backfired in the hospital stunt.
It backfired in the "Release-the-Emails" stunt.
It backfired in the "Let the People Decide" the vacant council seat stunt.
It backfired in the Condon stunts and all the other smears against Ravi over the years.
And, it backfired in the Suez stunt.
Giattino, DeFusco and all their various allies on and off the council had potential paths to victory this election. Instead of finding one, they all chose the same path that ruined Mason and various of her hangers-on and nearly landed some people in prison had they been more directly traceable to the email-theft scandal.
Surprised at the outcome? Disappointed? Bitter? Looking for someone to blame? Look in the mirror. After spending nearly a decade watching desperate, unhinged wannabes launch dud after dud in the form of fabricated scandals and witnessing each and every one of unravel, often with you yourselves playing a part in helping with the debunking and unraveling, you decide to follow the same tack that's crashed and burned over and over again? Like somehow you're smarter, you can learn from Mason's mistakes and execute her brand of smear campaigns more effectively?
Pathetic.
Get over yourselves. And get over the election. Fast. You all behaved like bratty children last night and degraded the offices you hold. If you're not better than this, you need to at least start pretending to be. People are watching. Smart people. People who see through your contrived antics and puerile behavior. Even if you can't accept there's a new mayor and show him the proper respect out of basic decency and dignity, do it out of self-preservation.
100% agreed.
Delete1. Based on yesterday, knocking Michael off the Council should be priority number one. He’s making it easy for us this cycle. Police Chief Ferrante and Assembly Member Chapparro are furious at him. Anthony and his friends are furious. If we find a single candidate we can get behind, we will knock him off, easily. This past week makes clear to me that he really needs to go. Not intelligent, nothing to really offer, no accomplishments other than talking to people and doing the basics of being a Ward Council Member, and definitely a jerk.
ReplyDelete2. Tiff, Jen, Peter - the election results speak for themselves. There is a line of people already angling to run in each of their Wards. If they run with Ravi’s support and know how, all three will lose. It’s up to them. They could choose to work sincerely to make Hoboken better with Ravi or not. Looking at Ravi, my guess is that if they act foolishly, he won’t say a word to them. They’ll just see someone collecting petition signatures one day to run for their seat.
My guess is that it’s a one year process. By Jan 2019 we will know clearly whether Ravi will run someone or not in their wards and then the candidate(s) will be knocking doors and raising money soon thereafter. The line of qualified people is VERY compelling.
Losing an election is hard. Understanding why you lost is even harder and takes some time.
ReplyDeleteWhile I too thought the behavior of much of the council last night was pretty classless, I think folks should give them some space and judge them by how they handle their jobs going forward.
For me, how they handle Suez and the choice of council president will be defining.
Jen never knew why she ran so I doubt she will know why she lost.
DeleteTiffanie and Mike definitely won't figure it out either.
And that other site definitely has no clue. The man has blinders on and blissfully ignores everything not consistent with his warped sense of reality.
Agreed. I will give our (former) peeps the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing legislatively based on their voting record prior to June 2017.
DeleteHow they handle SUEZ is my own litmus test.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgreed @numberscruncher, the candidates who came up short and their supporters on the Council should be given space and should only by judged by how they handle their jobs going forward as you correctly write above. I think a year is enough time for them to have space. By then I am positive Ravi will know whether he needs to run alternative candidates in order to move Hoboken forward.
ReplyDeleteWhat this election has made clear to me is that reform in its past iteration has evolved, so much so that it does not even exist. Reform meant something when we were fighting corruption in City Hall. We have not been fighting corruption for 8 years now, and soon it will be twelve. Running as if you are fighting to reform (manufactured) corruption, which is what Mike and Jen tried, is a loser. The days of missing quarters, stolen emails, a housing inspector who essentially extracted bribes, and Mayors taking bribes are over. If someone wants to win, they need to have good ideas and show a track record of execution. That's what people want. The polling data Nancy showed made clear that people were happy with the direction of the City and the Mayor and voted for continuity.
Jen, Tiff, Peter were, and hopefully still are, part of the movement to run a rational, professional local government. Let's give them a year, but that's it. Then we need to have a very compelling list of candidates knocking on doors collecting petitions in their Wards if they have crossed over and become politicians rather than public servants like Mike. Knocking them off if they are in this mode should not be tough based on the numbers above.
Regardless though, Mike has to go he is beyond saving, and Tiffanie as Dem Chair needs to move on. The party deserves a Chair focused on the party. This stunt she pulled the past few months is completely embarrassing.
Accountability for everyone, Ravi included, should start on day 1, with the proviso that Ravi as a new mayor should be given some extra room to grow.
ReplyDeleteAs I said Suez will be defining. The election has not changed the reality of the choices facing the council.
After the obligatory grandstanding to demonstrate they weren't just playing politics before, they will either double down and wind up forcing a huge tax increase they try to blame on Dawn' and ravi or say they are holding their noses and voting for a bad deal because thanks to Dawn's incompetence it's the best bad alternative we have.
If they go with the latter there is hope things will return to normal.
If the best they can do is blame the current mayor and hold their nose and vote for what they consider to be a bad deal, then IMO they completely deserve to get voted out next election.
DeleteI just had the opportunity to watch the video of last night's Council meeting. Good Lord, get Michael DeFusco a fainting couch! This man is the biggest dramatist on two feet! He really needs to just buckle down, buck it up and do his job. I met Councilman DeFusco's mother and sister, Nicole, while campaigning for Ravi Bhalla last week and they were absolutely lovely and cordial. I told Michael's sister that I thought he was way too strident during the debate at Stevens...she responded that that's just the way he is. Well, that doesn't cut it with me, and it shouldn't cut it with anyone else who believes in civility in public discourse. The truth of the matter is, simply, that Michael DeFusco is an extremely rude and immature individual. He began that debate at Stevens by attacking all of his opponents out of the gate. It was a disgusting performance from beginning to end. We, the taxpayers and residents of Hoboken, deserve a Council that will act responsibly in the future and not be subject to silly histrionics like those displayed by Ruben Ramos last night during his defense of Mike DeFusco.
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS A FRIENDLY WARNING TO THE HOBOKEN CITY COUNCIL, BEGINNING JANUARY 2018...you all need to knock off the silly, diversionary antics and the politics of NO. We've all seen how unproductive and, in some cases, destructive, this kind of political hardball can be...i.e., Beth Mason's merry little council of NO. JUST REMEMBER, WE WILL BE WATCHING YOU ALL VERY CLOSELY. DO NOT ALLOW YOUR PETTY GRIEVANCES TO BRING US ALL DOWN. IT'S SIMPLY NOT FAIR.
Recalls are expensive and unlikely. But rumblings may happen anyway if people elected on the expectation of being reformers become Beth-like obstructionists.
Delete