Good analysis, and thanks for showing how the "Obama Tsunami" was not the reason for Sherri's success. As always Sherri was honest, she listened to the input of constituents in all of District One, and worked so hard with the very loyal group who willingly gathered around her to ensure that District 1 had a representative who understands all aspects of local government, and will tackle the concern that neighborhoods are under pressure from a combination of over-development coupled with the under provision of infrastructure. Neither was she ever negative in her campaign, and that is remarkable when one considers what came out of Phil Thalheimer's campaign. Sherri is intelligent, fiscally responsible, and incredibly hard working - and gracious. A quality that San Diego's government would do well to nurture. San Diego is in an unprecedented municipal mess, and Sherri has an analytic intellect. Support her!

Posted by Sue Moore | reply to this comment
November 22, 2008 3:41 pm

Excellent article, Mr. Lewis. President-Elect Obama had nothing to do with Ms. Lightner's victory. Mr. Thalheimer ran a negative, arrogant campaign that figured money could buy the Council seat. Thalheimer had no shame in the attacks he unleashed and now he sits and blames his loss on a metaphorical tsunami named Obama? I hope that Mr. Thalheimer realizes that the citizens of District 1 were appalled by his tactless style and that the election of Ms. Lightner actually proves that people with noble intentions have a place in public office. I commend you Mr. Lewis, for writing this and debunking the "Obama Phenomenon" in District 1; Kudos!

Posted by Sydney Bloomenthal | reply to this comment
November 23, 2008 8:39 pm

I would suggest that we look at what a wave really means. 1) A wave in a presidential year does not manifest itself in increased election turnout, since turnout is already maximum. After voters who are dead or whatever this election was probably around 92% turnout. 2) You determine a wave by increased registration in the year leading up to the election -- that's the first thing to look at in district 1 was there a surge in registration? 3) It would be helpful to actually know how McCain and Obama did in the district - if more than half a dozen points it would clearly be a 'wave'.

Posted by A Suggestion | reply to this comment
November 25, 2008 4:03 pm

The fact is that neither the Obama effect nor the support from labor were significant factors in Sherri Lightner's victory in District 1. Sherri was seasoned by years of public service and activism. She worked very hard during the campaign meeting voters and attending meetings that exposed her to many citywide issues. But most importantly she is simply very smart and convinced many that she will be an independent honest voice of reason on a city council largely lacking members with those qualities.

Posted by Ian Trowbridge | reply to this comment
November 21, 2008 10:59 pm

Scott, you are usually sharp on this stuff, but you totally don't get the analysis here. to really judge the Obama effect, please provide readers with the following. --percentage votes by Bush vs. Kerry in 2004 --percentage votes by Obama vs. McCain in 2008 then correlate the delta of each with the delta of the council candidates in each year. What we can see is 1) More dems showed up than R's. While overall turnout is marginally up, you need to look at WHICH BASE turned out more enthusiastically. 2) Decline to State voters went strongly for Obama--and Dems were effective in getting them to go "down ticket" for the Dem candidates. YES there was an Obama wave. And YES, Phil outperformed the wave, but still lost.

Posted by Real Analysis | reply to this comment
November 22, 2008 8:10 am

Thalheimer far outspent Lightner in his campaign to win District 1. My unscientific mailbox count showed four of Thalheimer's pamphlets to every one by Lightner, many of them very negative. Lightner's grassroot campaign was the David to the Republican Goliath. To me that means that she won overwhelmingly.

Posted by erami | reply to this comment
November 22, 2008 8:24 am

City Councilmember-elect Sherri Lightner didn't win election to represent District 1 because of an Obama tide, although the big turnout didn't hurt her. Sherri won because she is clearly the most land-use savvy community-based candidate to run for that office in many years and she worked tirelessly to contact people in the district to let them know she will be their person downtown. Voters originally elected Scott Peters to Council because he billed himself as an "environmental lawyer," but over time he lectured dissenting constituents and proceeded to cut deals on behalf of developers. He alienated supporters with his Sea Haus condo wall, paid parking in La Jolla, the Regents Road freeway in University City and attempts to eviscerate community planning groups, to name a few. I think registration by political party in District 1 is less important than candidate quality. Sherri Lightner won because she's the McCoy.

Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
November 22, 2008 10:36 am

I have never met the two District 1 candidates, nor am I intimate with their respective campaigns. However, I have learned some things about politics and campaigning. What I know is this: Ultimately candidates are responsible for their campaigns—irrespecti to their success or failure; Non-partisan local races are about local issues and neighborhoods—i.e. “all politics are local,” sayeth Tip O’Neil; Finally, the retaining of partisan (political party) campaign consultants, managers, or whatever title they assign themselves, does not, and cannot change a basic fact—THEY (DIACHARRA AND THE LIKE) WILL ALWAYS DEFAULT TO PARTISAN PARTY POLITICS AND STRATEGIES, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary. You see, they have to, that’s where their big, and long-term loaf of bread is buttered. Memo to would be candidates for local office: If you can’t run and manage your own campaign, with some technical assistance in getting YOUR message out, you should not run.

Posted by Robert Castaneda | reply to this comment
November 23, 2008 11:13 am

I'm not familiar with Lightner, but if you've ever seen Thalheimer speak he doesn't exactly come across as a rocket scientist. Unfortunately for Phil, there are actually a few rocket scientists in District 1, plus a whole lot of really bright people. That's what sunk dear old Phil, not his party afffiliation, not Obama, and probably not Lightner either.

Posted by Bill Bradshaw | reply to this comment
November 23, 2008 11:46 am

As Scott clearly shows, one has to be careful about drawing conclusions from the MSM. There may be locations in which there was an Obama effect, but it's worth digging a little deeper in specific instances. As a start, just recall that over 47% of the voters did not want Obama to be elected. But if you read newspapers and watch TV, you'd have thought that his election was unanimous.

Posted by josil | reply to this comment
November 23, 2008 2:54 pm

check out the UT article today about Goldsmith and auto allowances link Scott are you going to jump on him like you did Aguirre? I sure hope so...what I see so far doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about Goldsmith protecting the people of San Diego or am I missing something?

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
November 24, 2008 6:31 am

There is an old saying,� sometimes it is better to be lucky than good� should be the mantra for Ms. Sherri Lightner. Had it not been for the wave of Obama, she would never have beaten Mr. Thalheimer and more than likely would have lost by a margin of ten points or more. Now that the data is in, we know without a shred of a doubt that the winner percentage for Ms. Lightner came from North University City, read UCSD where she won by almost four thousand votes. To make the case even stronger she won La Jolla, her home base by fewer then twelve hundred votes. The vast majority of these students did not know either candidate and only voted for her because they were told that a vote for Mr. Thalheimer was a vote for the President Bush, but a vote for Lightner was

Posted by Fromeasttowest | reply to this comment
November 24, 2008 3:52 pm

I think Fromeasttowest makes a good point -- north University City certainly provided Sherri's margin. However I believe she also ran ahead in south University City, where Phil's flip flop on the Regents Road freeway hurt him with his '04 supporters -- I know news of his support for the bridge went viral in the anti-bridge community -- and left the bridge advocates less than convinced. The bridge supporters may be wrong on the bridge, but they are not stupid and many of them had to be bothered by how he wanted to be their new BFF. With respect to the Obama effect, you'd really have to look at '04 turn out in north UC as well as how Peters ran there; I suspect that Sherri's margin in north UC wasn't a whole lot bigger than Peters' 04 margin.

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
November 25, 2008 7:46 am

Jorgeelagto is wrong, Mr. Lightner won south UC in both the primary and general, but by less of a margin in the general, check your data and you will see this is true.

Posted by fromeasttowest | reply to this comment
December 11, 2008 12:02 pm

Perhaps the Obama Effect was more nuanced than some realize. Obama ran an almost-totally positive campaign, while McCain and his (pathetic) VP choice attacked Obama every time they opened their mouths, at the ridiculous levels of his friendship, faith and personality. I saw this same trend in local campaigns. I have heard that Phil Thalheimer had the same campaign manager as April Boling. Can anyone confirm this? It makes sense, as April ran an inexcusably negative campaign, relying almost entirely on trumped up lies and half truths about her opponent. I have heard that Phil Thalheimer did the same. If this is the Republican campaign model, it is no wonder that Democrats swept the nation. It is to the credit of the American people that they are sick and tired of smear campaigns, and choose to support the candidate who sticks to the issues.

Posted by donnajeanw | reply to this comment
November 25, 2008 8:13 am

I ran the David Tos Campaign. Early in the campaign, we met April Boling's Campaign manager, John Pilch. He claimed he was a Democrat. Go figure. His Vote registration address has both Republican and Democrat living at his home. All we know is he had an an investigator background of some sort. Both David Tos and myself usually felt unsettle around him. He acted in a mannerism unbecoming of a manager. Coronado Communication did most of the mail for Boling's Campaign. Boling would have won the campaign, but Tos caused a vote split and a run off. Obama momentum had an effect near the end. I believe Bolings negative political mail turned people off as were heard every where we went. This all sounded like it was contributory to her defeat. The Republican Party dropped a ton of money into this non-partisan campaign and it got them nowhere. . We spent very little and opened a lot of eyes. B P Baron – Campaign Manager Friends of David Tos

Posted by B P Baron | reply to this comment
December 22, 2008 11:06 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.