CD11: McNerney declares victory, Harmer fights on
By Josh Richman
Wednesday, November 10th, 2010 at 6:43 pm in 2010 election, congressional district 11, Jerry McNerney, U.S. House.
Incumbent Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, declared victory Wednesday evening in his race to retain his 11th Congressional District seat, saying the remaining ballots couldn’t possibly put Republican challenger David Harmer back on top.
“With the vast majority of votes tallied, the results are clear. Congressman McNerney now has an insurmountable lead,” McNerney campaign manager Doug Greven said in a news release.
Not so fast, cautioned Harmer.
“On Election Night, when I led by thousands of votes, and supporters were congratulating me and calling me Congressman, I cautioned that it was too early to claim victory. Many votes remained to be counted,” he said in an e-mailed statement Wednesday evening. “That is still the case tonight. Just as it would have been premature to claim victory then, it would be premature to concede defeat now.
“As I said the day after the election, my objective is to ensure that every legitimate vote is accurately counted. Once that has been done, I will offer a statement about the results.”
As of Wednesday evening, McNerney led Harmer by 1,681 votes, or about seven-tenths of a percent of the almost 231,000 ballots counted. A previous update, on Tuesday night, had shown McNerney up by 2,269 votes, but Contra Costa, San Joaquin and Santa Clara counties posted updates Wednesday.
Registrars in the four counties within the district continue to tally votes, and don’t expect to certify their final counts until at least Nov. 24.
McNerney — now seeking a third term in the House of Representatives — leads Harmer — an attorney from San Ramon’s Dougherty Valley area — in Alameda County by about 15.5 percentage points and in Santa Clara County by 8.2 points.
Harmer leads McNerney by about one-fifth of a point in Contra Costa County and by 4.3 points in San Joaquin County, the latter of which includes the largest chunk of the 11th District. San Joaquin County is also where American Independent nominee David Christensen fared best, with almost 7.1 percent of the votes cast; districtwide, he took about 5.1 percent.
McNerney’s campaign argued Wednesday that based on the trends so far, Harmer could close the gap by fewer than 300 votes from the 11,000 remaining provisional and vote-by-mail ballots in San Joaquin and Contra Costa counties, while McNerney could expect to pick up more votes than Harmer from among about 700 still-uncounted ballots in Alameda and Santa Clara counties.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
November 10th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
I thought there was protocol and tradition in these things. Isn’t the winner supposed to wait for the loser to concede? If Harmer wants to wait until the last vote is counted, that’s his prerogative.
November 10th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Did you (Ted Ford, et.al.) ever think that the McNerney camp would let facts get in the way of a good blarney yarn?
Witness from their own web site press release less than one month ago:
http://www.jerrymcnerney.org
Facts (such as lame PR/BS fluff) are a stubborn thing — they refuse to go away.
Truth out.
November 10th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
My (or CCT’s) bad — I suddenly can’t seem to properly post hyperlinks to my blog comments, so here’s the BS/PR content I was trying to post for the above posting:
Dublin, CA – The McNerney for Congress campaign today released a survey showing Congressman Jerry McNerney with a significant lead in the race for the 11th Congressional District. McNerney is ahead of challenger David Harmer by 45% to 35%, with American Independent Party candidate David Christensen receiving 5% of the vote.
=================
Seems like some campaign needs a reality check — and it ain’t Harmer’s…
November 10th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I hope AIP candidate David Christensen is very proud of himself. The AIP platform says they favor limited government, and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. By his candidacy in this election, Mr. Christensen guaranteed that a representative who favors BIG government remains in office. Thanks a lot — for nothing.
November 11th, 2010 at 8:49 am
The thing, most people don’t know what the American Independent Party is. I would consider that vote a protest vote if anything, not based on what they actually stand for.
November 11th, 2010 at 8:57 am
now you know what Al Gore thinks of Ralph Nader. There’s little doubt Christenson’s votes would have gone to Harmer.
I don’t think McNerney is that devious, but it would been smart of him to have engineered Christenson’s being on the ballot. I recall in 2006, there were two “Steves” running against Jerry in the Democratic primary. It created confusion and Jerry ended up the winner. I asked a political reporter in Sacramento if Jerry had been behind there being two Steves on the ballot. He said “no, he’s not that clever”.
November 11th, 2010 at 9:12 am
with this third term, I believe Jerry is now vested with a lifetime pension from the US government. At a minimum, he owes a huge thank you to Christenson. McNerney is not clever or tricky, he is simply one of the luckiest politicians ever. As they say: ‘there’s skill and there’s luck…. of the two, I’ll take luck any day’.
November 11th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Harmer was too extreme and pandered to the angry rush/beck crowd-moderates ran like hell
November 11th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Did you people NOT read this article? It says there are still 11,700 votes to be counted.
As of now, the Secretary of State is showing McNerney 1,681 votes ahead of Harmer. His lead is now 588 votes LESS than it was yesterday. Do you understand?
The latest votes are trending towards Harmer. Why in the world would Harmer concede? And why in the world is McNerney trying to trick the world into believing this race is over? This race is WAY too close for anybody to call.
I was stunned last night when I saw the headlines on one of the local TV stations stating that McNerney had won. I wish I paid attention to what channel I saw that on, I would have given them a piece of my mind knowing what I know now.
I also wish the Secretary of State’s office would include how many votes are left to be counted on their website. The way they show it, it looks like 100% of the votes are counted. Very hard for the average voter to follow.
November 11th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Re #9:
“I also wish the Secretary of State’s office would include how many votes are left to be counted on their website. The way they show it, it looks like 100% of the votes are counted. Very hard for the average voter to follow.”
Patty, go to election results. Click on “unprocessed ballots status.” Near bottom of the page, click on UB Report. It lists how many votes are left to count in every county with the date and time of the last report from each county. I believe it is updated once or twice a day.
Re CD 11, this only helps so much because CD 11 is in multiple counties and is not 100% of any of them. Thus, CC County has lots of votes still to process, but only a small percentage are CD 11. Still, I hope this helps you check the status.
November 11th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Some where in the rules of the elections code, all absentee ballots were to be counted before the start of the elections. If they were not we have a problem.
Bringing all these new ballots is a farse. Remember the chad’s and dimples.
November 11th, 2010 at 11:12 am
RE #11: Sorry, Tom, but that’s not so. Vote-by-mail ballots can be received by the county registrar by mail or dropped off at polling places right up until 8 p.m. on Election Day, and provisional ballots are cast at the polling places when there’s some question as to the voter’s eligibility, so there’s no way all these can be counted “before the start of the elections.”
EVERY election sees some vote-by-mail and provisional ballots being counted for days or weeks afterward; it’s just that most races aren’t so close that those ballots are likely to make a difference.
November 11th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Registrars can only count VBM ballots that arrive by 8 pm on election day either at the Registrar’s Office or a polling place within the County.
My preliminary calculation indicates that over 66% of my returned VBM ballots came in between Monday, October 25 and election day. And, fully one fourth of all VBM ballots were returned on Election Day. This pattern is typical for the past three Gubernatorial General Elections. (For almost all other Primary and General Elections, the returns are closer to 50% arriving the last 9 days and 20% on election day.
So, the pattern of when voted VBM ballots were returned is typical. What it means is that registrars must take longer to process and count legitimate VBM ballots that come in towards election day.
I know that this causes concerns from our citizens.
As we have 28 days to do our counting (and equally important, our accounting) any close race must wait while me methodically process our ballots.
November 11th, 2010 at 11:43 am
I wonder how much the articles about Harmer’s past writings on school privatization (which didn’t come up until very late) had to do with later ballots breaking for McNerney.
I seriously doubt that McNerney’s team had anything whatever to do with David Christensen being in the race, but we might see some clever tactics of that nature when we shift to the open primary system. Also, these East Bay districts are likely to be very different after re-districting — with incumbent Democrats having to run against each other.
November 11th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Thank you Hilltopper. I was able to follow your instructions and see the report. As you say, it is not broken out by district, but it is still helpful.
It does show that there are over 1 million still to be counted in the state with 102,000 left in Contra Costa. I realize there are differences in the timining of when the counties reported, but this means about 10% of the entire state’s uncounted ballots are in Contra Costa. What is going on?
November 11th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
#15: Patty, the McNerney camp figures that the trends in the mail and provisional ballots will continue and will not change enough.In other words, what has been counted to date is a reasonable sample for how the rest will break. They could not do that until the San Joaquin numbers came in.
Harmer can refuse to concede, but they too must have seen the writing on the wall.
November 11th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Truthclubber, given that Mr. Harmer’s campaign released polling results showing him winning by 5 points, the need for reality check appears to be bi-partisan.
I am glad that Congressman McNerney appears to be on his way back to Washington DC. His work on behalf of veterans and the medical facilities he has lobbied to bring to our district has been effective.
I happen to support the health care legislation that he voted for. I think the health care bill contains many good policy points. Apparently the Republican party agrees with me, since their Pledge to America includes approximately a half dozen health care proposals that are already included in the bill that President Obama signed.
Lastly, I would like to commend all of the participants in this forum for the remarkable civility, and respect for differing points of view.
November 11th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Today, Veterans Day, let us unify, not divide.
November 11th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Cheers to that, Mr. Hoffmann!
November 11th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Patty, if there are 11,700 uncounted ballots in the 11th CD and, if McNerney is 1681 votes ahead now, Harmer would need to capture 7532 of them to win ((11700/2)+1682). That is 64.4% of the remaining ballots. Considering the counted ballots, this is an improbable result. Ergo, the McNerney claim of victory.
And, to those who keep bringing up poll results during the campaign, non of them count any more. If polls were accurate, they wouldn’t bother with elections.
November 11th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Josh Richman:
The reason we have absentee ballots is so that they can be counted early, and also for those out side the country or in the military. Not to counted as extra votes when needed. We are not talking about vote by mail, those also should be counted early.
Also when I was voting the other day no one was showing their ID cards. I made issue of that, with the lead person. What is our voting system coming to?
November 11th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Re #20 Gus (and Patty),
The chance for Harmer is even worse than Gus presents. Some of the ballots will be spoiled, have the CD-11 vote blank, or be provisional ballots that will not be counted. Then there will be some votes for the AI candidate, who is getting 5% overall. Thus, Harmer would need to capture a percentage even higher than 64.4%. His supporters are always free to hold hope, but the chance looks like near zero to me.
November 11th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Mr. Benigno. When you went to the polls on November 2, what document did you have in your possession that would prove your right to vote?
I’m assuming that you are concerned that voters be 18 years of age, not on parole for a felony, and a US citizen.
Absent a copy of your birth certificate, pass port or naturalization papers, should you have been challenged in your effort to vote?
On the off chance that you think that your driver license should stand for such proof, read the back which states: “This License is issued as a license to drive a motor vehicle; it does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration, or public benefits.”
Your innuendo that it is O.K. for you to vote, but not your fellow citizen is troubling.
You asked what our voting system has come to, I’d call it democracy. Like it or not, both political parties in California have signed off on the liberal use of vote-by-mail balloting and both have worked to use it to their advantage. Under your assertion, LA has the cleanest system in California as they have the lowest percent of their voters casting their ballots by mail than any other county in California.
November 11th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Re: Polls
The polls probably didn’t factor in Mr. Christensen. If you take him out of the picture and assume that his votes would have gone to Harmer, then the polls were fairly accurate.
November 11th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
John W., actually both the poll by Survey USA (showing a Harmer “lead” of 48-42 with Christensen at ~4%) and the McNerney internal poll (showing McNerney leading 45-35 and Christensen at ~10%) included David Christensen. No other polls that I’m aware of had that general election match-up but all the polls really showed is that it is notoriously difficult to poll tight congressional races.
November 14th, 2010 at 5:44 am
Hey Steve,
Thank you for your hard work and your willingness to be accessible here. You have a thankless job on both counts.
Prior to the election, there was hoopla that Prop 19 would disproportionately drive up youth turnout relative to 2006. My understanding is that that didn’t manifest statewide but I could conceive of there being pockets of exceptions, like the Bay Area. Did you find a statistically significant increase in youth turnout in Contra Costa compared to 2006?
November 14th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Interested Voter, I’ve looked at the past 7 gubernatorial general elections, this one looks like it had the second highest turnout. We don’t calculate turn out by any demographic except jurisdictions. When we report vote history to the Sec. of State, there are other who make that calculation.
I need to finish the last 4% to see how many ballots make the final count (to determine turnout).
I’ll update when I have hard data. (Nov. 2006 was 63.36%) This one looks like it will top 65%
While this is not necessarily a gauge, here’s the undervote per proposition (undervote is number of people who skip voting on that contest. Here’s the list:
19 (6,942 or 2.1%); 20 (25,346 or 7.7%); 21 (11,193 or 3.4%); 22 (23,050 or 7%); 23 (16,847 or 5.1%) 24 (29,428 or 9%); 25 (19,846 or 6.1%); 26 (25,634 or 7.8%); 27 (30,620 or 9.4%)
November 14th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
Interesting stats on the undervoting. I wonder whether that is the result of (a) people being smart enough not to vote on props they haven’t studied or (b) get-out-the-vote efforts focussed mainly on candidates.
November 15th, 2010 at 10:13 am
#26 – Interested Voter, there did seem to be an increase in youth voter turnout over 2006, although I can only guess why. High college tuition or unemployment could also be reasons.
November 15th, 2010 at 11:43 am
I noticed that about 30% of voters voted “No” on retaining the dozen or so judges on the ballot. I can understand people would choose not to vote one way or another, since hardly anybody knows who these people are, let alone their judicial qualifications. But 30% voting to fire the judges — across the board, not individual judges? That’s kind of scary.
November 16th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Response to Steve Weir:
No Steve I don’t have a problem showing my ID but it seems to be a problem for you. That I’m asking others to show proff of citizenship before they vote.
The census showed that we only have 280 million people in the U.S. but other documents show that we now have 340 million people here. Can it be that some of these other votes that are not counted are non citizen voters?
California alone has 40.2 million people, do the math. So when I made the statement that I was troubled that there are people voting, and someone is not checking to see if they are citizens that bothers me.
November 16th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Response to Steve Weir comments:
Steve it seems to bother you that I questioned the voting process when no one was being asked for their ID cards or some sort of identification when voting. It’s troublesome for me that all that was need was a signature to get a checkin list.
From the last Cenus we had 270 million people in the US. Other reports show that we have 340 million people. If some of the votes that are now being counted are non citizen’s we have a problem. California alone has 40.2 million people , please do the math.
Yes I’m troubled also.
November 16th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Have never been asked for ID EVER when I’ve voted. That’s over three different states in urban and suburban districts over 35 years. You sign the book, you sign the envelope. You can drop the envelope off as I’ve done, or drop it in the mail and it will count unless the signature is a mismatch or you didn’t sign it.
Did you just start voting?
November 17th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
No Kathi:
I’m seventy five years old and have always voted, and always had to show my drivers license or I.D.
Sorry.
November 17th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Well, Mr. Benigno, if the workers at your polling place are demanding your ID every time you vote, they’re breaking the law and you should report them to the Secretary of State.
If you have voted before and your name is on the roster of voters, you do not have to show ID – that’s it, end of story. All you need should need to do is state your name and address and sign the roster.
If it’s your first time voting and you registered by mail without giving your California drivers license or state identification number, or the last four digits of your Social Security number, THAT’S when poll workers can demand to see your photo ID or a paycheck, utility bill, or government document that shows your name and address.
November 17th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Josh, I think you nailed it.
November 18th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Steve Weir:
How insulting I’m 75 years old and a natural born citizen, and I have voted more times than I can remember. I also ran for the California Assembly, and Congress twice in the 111th district. I was elected to the Republican Central Committee, in 2002.
I tell you I have had to show my ID more than once. The rosters could be wrong especially in a garage polls. Please check out your district polling places, and see what is really going on. I think I hit on to a hornets nest.
November 18th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Steve Weir:
Excuse the mistake the 11th district.
November 18th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Tom, you’re mad as a hornet who’s found another bee in his nest. As a “natuve” born former candidate and RCC member, I can see the symptoms. I have a concern that as City, County, State and USA population grows, it becomes more remote from the people.
November 18th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
I’m not expressing an opinion, Josh stated the Calif. law clearly. I would simply like to know what you would intend to accomplish with some sort of ID at the polls. Mexico has a national voter ID system….
November 19th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Yes, Mexico has a voter ID system and they sure as hell don’t let non-citizens vote, do they.
November 19th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Hi Ralph:
I thought you were going to run for some office? Take care.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
The first question on a CA voter registration form is “ARE YOU A U.S. CITIZEN. Then before the required signing there is a WARNING: It is a felony if you sign this statement even though you know it is untrue; you can be fined and jailed for up to four years. Then one declares “I am a U.S. C
November 20th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Cont.: Citizen” before declaring under penalty of pergury that all is true before signing. As far as running for office, Tom, it’s a good way to serve your Country, as is serving as an Election Officer. However one is prohibited from doing both in the same Election.
November 20th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I’m too old to enlist in the Marines, but there’s no upper age limit on running for office, serving as an Election Official, donating blood, or volunteering to help the poor.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:58 am
This was in the Sac. Bee on Saturday.
Homeland Security agents and California DMV investigators have arrested four Sacramento-area men on charges of making and selling thousands of phon… read entire article
Read more: http://localsearch.sacbee.com/sp?keywords=counterfeit&aff=1100#ixzz161zY96K7
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Re: #46 Steve Weir
Disturbing. Obviously this is a big deal in terms of illegal immigration issues. However, considering the context of this election-related thread, nobody should jump to the notion that counterfeit ID documents are procured for the purpose of voting. Getting a job or benefits? Yep. Voting? Doubt it. We can’t even get legally qualified people to go vote. But I did notice that Mexican Voter ID’s were among the counterfeit documents that could be produced. Why would somebody illegally seeking to stay in the U.S. want a bogus Mexican voter ID?
November 22nd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Illegals may find it worthwhile to spend $120 to gat a job, open up a bank account or start state of federal benefits, but I also doubt voting, when 38% of qualified voters didn’t vote. At my precinct, nobody seemed suspect.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Point is, ID at the polls is a false sense of security.
I do not believe that there is a problem in Contra Costa.
I do not believe that alien residents, legal or otherwise, are voting in any numbers that merit such a step that could trip up legitimate Contra Costa voters. There is no proof of such behavior. Yes, I read the Bill Thomas report (Dean of the Republican Delegation in Congress from the Central Valley) in the Dornan/Sanchez contest where non-citizens registered, and some voted (some of whom had passed their citizenship tests, but who had not taken the oath.) But the number voting did not approach the margin of victory. Had such a condition existed, the Congress, itself could have refused to seat Sanchez. That did not happen.
BTW, ID at the polls is a loosely regulated affair. States have the right to require ID if it can be proven that such a requirement is not the same as a restrictive (poll tax) measure to suppress voting.
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:53 pm
I understand your point now, Steve Weir. I missed what you were driving at the first time around.
November 23rd, 2010 at 7:55 pm
According to CSPAN, the CD11 race is one of only two undecided. Have you been interviewed by CSPAN yet Steve?
November 24th, 2010 at 10:18 am
I thought the 11th district race has already been decided, and Mc Nerney has won by a great number of votes. Fill me in if I’m wrong.
November 24th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
The Secretary of State web site has a “Close Contests” page which shows McNerney about 2500 votes ahead of Harmer, leading by about 0.9%.
November 25th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Tom, pending Mr. Weir’s explanation, there are a number of ways winners are declared: 1. By themselves.
2. When the uncounted votes are less than the margin of victory. 3. When all losing candidates have conceded. 4. When the LWV, or the News Media has declared a winner. 5. When the Secretary of State has certified the election, 28 days after the election date. (The only official way in multi-County elections.)
November 26th, 2010 at 8:22 am
There is one other way? When the candidate goes to Washinton D.C. and plays the winning congressman.
November 26th, 2010 at 8:30 am
The question of when someone is elected is simple. When we complete the canvass, and certify the results. Then, and only then, is someone elected. The next step is for that person to take their oath of office (and file a bond when required).
Without all of these steps, a person cannot take office, act in any official capacity, and be reimbursed (paid).
Ralph is correctly, except that the Counties have 28 days to certify, and the SOS has until the 32nd day after the election to compile those certified results.
The canvass has become more-and-more complicated because it is not only counting the cast ballots, it includes an extensive accounting for ballots issued, voted, spoiled, and not voted.
With the ever increasing use of vote-by-mail balloting, and with more than 67% of those cast ballots coming in the last 9 days (election day accounted for 25% of all cast vote-by-mail ballots), our canvass takes on more work. That work must be performed in a sequence to detect and prevent someone from voting twice (or three times).
Contra Costa has a logical and well thought out process that documents the chain of custody (who did what with the ballots)that also slows our canvass process.
I hate to say this, but I am going to explore the use of signature verifying software (now in use in several Bay Area counties) to streamline our signature checking process. This process can be set to include 60 0r 70 0r 80% match criteria.
In addition, we have been HAND COUNTING write in votes for designated write-in candidates when those candidates cannot even approach 5% of the vote required to win. There has to be a way to respect both candidates and voters who choose a write-in option, without having to go through almost 400,000 ballots. (There are legitimate cases for write-in candidates. However, with rare exceptions, most write-in votes are seemingly protest votes and are not for registered write-in candidates.
November 26th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Steve Weir — with the new open primary system, we won’t have write-ins in the general election, right? Seems like that should alleviate the workload somewhat. On the other hand, with independent redistricting, we could have more close races for legislative seats, leading to more of these long waits for races to be decided.
I think this is my last election using vote-by-mail. As I recall, I got on permanent VBM when I first moved to the state in 2004 and registered at the DMV. What’s the procedure for getting off permanent VBM?
November 26th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Right, Prop 14 eliminates write-ins in the General Elections.
To change your status, send us a note stating that you would like to be removed from the Permanent Vote-by-Mail category.
State your name and address, and sign your request.
that’ll do it.
November 26th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Congress is the judge of their own elections. (Article I, Sec. 5 / 1)