He's absolutely right that those less interested voters will be a force, and many will vote for Aguirre. And Aguirre will be making a play for those voters, as will the other candidates. But the bottom line is this: Aguirre won election by a mere fraction of a percentage point against a weak and relatively unqualified opponent. His support since his election, according to every single poll done by anyone, has gone down substantially. Unless there is some major event between now and the general that somehow casts Aguirre in an extraordinarily positive, indeed heroic, light he has no chance of winning against any of his potential challengers. Best, Algernon

Posted by Algernon Sidney | reply to this comment
May 7, 2008 5:07 pm

Mr. Nienstedt has a very good point. Moreover, should Scott Peters come in as number two to get a spot in a runoff, I doubt that all those voting for candidates not in the runoff will necessarily flock to him. Like Aguirre, he is a polarizing force -- maybe not to the same extent, but nevertheless a candidate strongly disliked by many in this city.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 7, 2008 7:15 pm

1. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 7, 2008 6:07 PM: His support since his election, according to every single poll done by anyone, has gone down substantially. ...WHERE PLANET ARE YOU LIVING...MARS??? Did you NOT see the poll Scott Lewis just linked to??? Mike was ahead of Peters, Goldsmith and Brian Maienschein by a 2 to 1 margin!!!!!!! Here-I will link it to you for easy access, read it and weep: link

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 7, 2008 8:10 pm

Not to change the subject, but I think most elections are "in the hands of the less interested portion of the electorate"--this explains the importance of TV and mailed political ads, and campaign funds in general. Informed voters aren't swayed by the Madison Avenue side of politics.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 8:09 am

Silly Billy, first, try proofreading your posts once in awhile. Occaisional typos are expected, but Where Planet? Second, when you stop hyperventilating, concentrate real hard and consider what Algernon said. The emperor won his election against Devaney with more than 50%. A plurality lead for an incumbent at this stage is a decline in support, and certainly nothing to crow about, even for a syncophant like you. Third, what do you think of public employee pensions? Any thoughts?

Posted by tseuG | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 11:55 am

I guess BBH missed the last part of the poll story which stated...That's 47 percent going for one of Aguirre's chief rivals. If that's true, Aguirre will need to get all the undecideds, plus some, to stay city attorney. I'm having trouble picturing the kind of voter who would be for Peters or either of the Republicans but then willing to switch to Aguirre if their dog lost the primary race. BOOM!!

Posted by Jim | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 11:57 am

"...we decided we would pass on partisan polls and his were commissioned by the Republican Party. Given Nienstedt's track record, I'm sure they're good numbers".....So you pass on "good numbers" and highlight polls that are misleading. That's objective journalism at its finest.

Posted by Interesting Policy | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 2:10 pm

"...we decided we would pass on partisan polls and his were commissioned by the Republican Party. Given Nienstedt's track record, I'm sure they're good numbers".....So you pass on "good numbers" and highlight polls that are misleading. That's objective journalism at its finest.

Posted by Interesting Policy | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 2:10 pm

"...we decided we would pass on partisan polls and his were commissioned by the Republican Party. Given Nienstedt's track record, I'm sure they're good numbers".....So you pass on "good numbers" and highlight polls that are misleading. That's objective journalism at its finest.

Posted by Interesting Policy | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 2:10 pm

5. tseuG wrote on May 8, 2008 12:55 PM: "Silly Billy, first, try proofreading your posts once in awhile. Occaisional typos are expected, but Where Planet?...... I do serious legal work, I am not a secretary. Deal with the typos.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 3:59 pm

5. tseuG wrote on May 8, 2008 12:55 PM: The emperor won his election against Devaney with more than 50%. A plurality lead for an incumbent at this stage is a decline in support, and certainly nothing to crow about, even for a syncophant like you.... Mike has a 2 to 1 lead over EVERYONE Einstein, what part of that do you not understand?? Look, no typos! Now go back to the UT rag and post there.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 4:01 pm

Jim, that's true that Scott Lewis wrote "that's 47 percent going for one of Aguirre's chief rivals." But, Scott misspoke. That would be 47 percent going to THREE of Aguirre's chief rivals -- BIG difference. As I said before, if Peters ends up in a two-way run-off with Aguirre in November, I can guarantee that not everyone who voted for Maienschein and Goldsmith will be voting for Peters in the general election. Far from it. Back to the drawing board, Jimbo. Now, if it's Aguirre vs Goldsmith, that's another story. Aguirre vs. Maienschein? -- forget it; that will never happen.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 5:07 pm

Oh, Interesting, Scott Peters didn't say what you say or imply he said. Get out them reading specs.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 5:16 pm

BBH, are you intentionally being obtuse? If so, grow up. As for your response to my 100% accurate statement, what in the world are you talking about? Do you deny that MA won his election over Devaney with barely over 50%? Do you deny that his support (i.e., the % of respondents who say they will vote for him) in every single poll is in the mid to high 20s? Do you deny that that is a precipitous decline in his support since his election? Do you deny that it will be difficult for him to get back up to 50% in the general election if half his support from 2004 is currently saying they will vote for someone else? Answer me. Best, Algernon

Posted by Algernon Sidney | reply to this comment
May 8, 2008 5:31 pm

Touch a nerve, did I, Silly Billy? Sorry. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Sad, though, that you need a secretary to fix things like Where Planet, for a guy that does really, really serious legal work. Sorry, too, for that spanking Algernon just gave you. I mostly don't agree with your views, but I still have to cringe when I see you humiliated like that. I guess now you're going to punish us by not sharing your thoughts on public employee pensions. You can be sooo mean.

Posted by tseuG | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 7:39 am

My mistake. Too many "Scotts" around here. In # 13 I meant to say, "Scott Lewis didn't say what you say or imply that he said,". So, with that in mind, you still need to get out them thar reading specs, Interesting.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 9:36 am

14. Algernon Sidney wrote on May 8, 2008 6:31 PM: Do you deny that MA won his election over Devaney with barely over 50%? MIKE OWN-CORRECT?....Do you deny that his support (i.e., the % of respondents who say they will vote for him) in every single poll is in the mid to high 20s? MIKE HAS 29 POINTS-THAT IS WELL ABOVE THE 15 POINTS EVERYONE ELSE HAS, SO IT IS A 2 to 1 MARGIN-LANDLSIDE MARGINS.....Do you deny that that is a precipitous decline in his support since his election? MIKE'S SUPPORT HAS INCREASED.....Do you deny that it will be difficult for him to get back up to 50% in the general election if half his support from 2004 is currently saying they will vote for someone else?MIKE WILL EASILY WIN, MAYBE BY 50%+ IN THE PRIMARY. OK, next questions please.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 10:33 am

15. tseuG wrote on May 9, 2008 8:39 AM: Sorry, too, for that spanking Algernon just gave you.......LOL!!! The only one putting on any spankings is ME! Look, no typos!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 10:36 am

Silly Billy just said that going from 50% to 29% is an increase. After all, 29 is a larger number than 50. Thats an example of his really, really, serious legal work.

Posted by tseuG | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 12:09 pm

19. tseuG wrote on May 9, 2008 1:09 PM: "Silly Billy just said that going from 50% to 29% is an increase.... NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT, I said Mike's 29 points, in a five way race, is TWICE the points of any other challenger, so he is leading by a 2 to 1 margin. TseuG you need to go back to third grade and retake math. Hey, look, no typos!

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 2:16 pm

BBH, Mike may be 2-1 against an opponent individually, but he's 1-3 against opponents as a whole. Now, you seem like you've probably graduated from high school (maybe a GED), and it appears you pay some attention to politics. So, I infer (yes, infer) that you understand that when a well known incumbent sees his support go to other candidates in a primary, that incumbent has pretty much lost those votes for the general, usually without respect to who his opponent ends up being. See Donna Frye in the last mayoral primary v. the general. Granted, some of those voters would come back to Mike before going to Brian or Scott, but not most. As a high school gradute, you must know this, and are likely saddened by your hero's bleak prospects. Just know that we're here for you on June 6th. Best, Algernon

Posted by Algernon Sidney | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 3:42 pm

Edgar, let me QUOTE, once again, what is in the article above by Scott Lewis, "Nienstedt, in my opinion, is one of the best numbers guys in town...We haven't highlighted any of his polls recently on the city attorney's race because we decided we would pass on partisan polls and his were commissioned by the Republican Party. Given Nienstedt's track record, I'm sure they're good numbers." Now, refer back to what John Nienstedt said in Scott's first piece on the Poll. Nienstedt's main point is that the SurveyUSA poll is a misleading poll. My observation is simply that Scott Lewis decided to pass on Nienstedt's numbers, which he considers "good numbers" in order to highlight a poll that the "best numbers guy in town" considers faulty. I consider this an "interesting policy". Make sense?

Posted by Interesting Policy | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 4:29 pm

No.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 7:26 pm

No.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
May 9, 2008 7:26 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.