The Battle in District 4 — Tom Shepard and Aimee Remanick’s great Strategy and Mail for Ron Roberts… Among the BEST work of 2010
How does a Republican county supervisor win a 57% re-election landslide in a district that went 68% for Barack Obama just 2 years ago? That’s not a typo, President Obama got 68% in District 4. You are seeing one major reason for Roberts’ win here, the well-crafted and targeted mail campaign designed by Tom Shepard and his colleague Aimee Remanick.
They did not try to demolish challenger Stephen Whitburn, instead focusing on the ‘stature’ gap, and Roberts’ long local history (Kearny High School, SDSU, 50-year SD resident, architect) vs. Wisconsin transplant and activist Whitburn.
…………………………………………THESE KEY ISSUES WORKED
The key issues shown here, and which moved the race were (1) Taxes and Finance. Roberts inherited a County in financial straits and helped lead it to stability and a strong Standard and Poor’s rating. By contrast, Whitburn backed charging for trash collection in SD City. (2) Crime, comparing Roberts’ support from the law enforcement leadership of SD to Whitburn’s service with a City task force on Marijuana dispensaries (3) Prop. A and PLAs. Roberts helped put Prop. A on the ballot, banning Project Labor Agreements on county projects. Mr. Whitburn opposed the measure (4) Public Health. Roberts backed support for local community health clinics, while Mr. Whitburn was scored for looking at reopening a County-run general hospital.
………………………………………….ROBERTS TURNS IT AROUND
Many local observers, GOP and Democratic, thought Ron Roberts would be in trouble in the heavier turnout of a November runoff, after getting 47% in the primary. Our colleagues at the liberal “Blue SD” website confidently headlined, ‘The Beginning of the End of Ron Roberts’……. http://bluesd.com/bluesandiego/2010/09/08/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-ron-roberts/ They foresaw, “the Ron Roberts saga [in] its last whimper.” And they were not alone in holding such a skeptical view!
But the calm, considered strategy worked out by Tom Shepard and Aimee Remanick surprised that conventional wisdom and delivered a blowout 57% victory instead. This was one of the BEST-run San Diego campaigns of 2010. To put their accomplishment in perspective, ask yourself this question……. How many Democrats could win in a district that went 68% for John McCain? Not many !
As a former planning group chair in the city, I served with Whitburn on the MMTF. Both of us were supposedly tackling the issue with planning and zoning experience.
When one of my fellow planning group chairs said he was recommending Whitburn for supervisor, I reminded him that not only did Whitburn recommend putting pot shops next to churches and parks, he also recommended that pot shops be reviewed per a “Process 1.” Instead of coming off as someone who represented communities and their interest in being involved in the planning process, he seemed interested in shutting them out of the process.
It wasn’t until other planning groups weighed in on the task force’s recommendations and he realized that a Process 1 for pot shops would never fly in this city that he came to the realization that it would not be politically expedient to recommend a Process 1.
A brilliant campaign? Doubtless true. I have a pronounced lack of expertize int this field.
But succeeding in getting an incumbent reelected does not in itself seem to be much of an accomplishment. Especially an SD County Supervisor.
After all, how many incumbent Supervisors have lost in the last 20-30 years? Or come close? I haven’t done the research, but I suspect the answer is zero. At best, one or two — out of maybe30+ campaigns. And for sure none in the last 16 years, as I recall.
Remember, incumbents have MANY advantages over a challenger. I seem to recall the rule of thumb is that a challenger must have AT LEAST a 3-1 spending edge to have a chance of winning (barring criminal scandals involving the incumbent).
Then remember that until recently, our County Supervisors have been annually giving away $2 million each to favored constituencies — their infamous slush funds. Oddly enough, that could result in more votes — perhaps purchased votes — or at least fund-raising improvements.
Mr. Rider:
Thank you for your observations. Let’s start with your theory that a
challenger must out-spend an incumbent 3-1 to be competitive…
* I helped the late, great La Mesa Mayor Paul Fordem topple East
County Supervisor Lucille Moore a while back… and she outspent
us by exactly a 2-1 ratio ($160K to $80K).
* When North county Supervisor Paul Eckert lost, he had a similar
large financial edge over his 2 challengers (including the eventual
winner, John McDonald).
* Most SD Supervisors who are forced into runoffs (as Ron Roberts
was this year) eventually lose, including a truly great natural cam-
paigner like Jack Walsh.
The last Republican supervisor in district 4, prior to Ron Roberts, was
elected in 1946. That’s not a misplrint… it was 1946! DeGraff Austin
(D) was there 1950-70, Jim Bear 1970-74, Jim Bates 1974-82,
and Leon Williams 1982-1994.
What you could not see on the surface were the IEs and labor union
activities targeting both incumbent supervisors who faced runoffs in
Nov. 2010.
Finally, Mr. Shepard and Ms. Remanick were playing chess against the
highly-regarded Jenniefer Tierney, who guided Mr. Whitburn’s effort.
To win against her is no easy thing… especially so in a 2-1 Democratic
district.
For these reasons, and others, I reaffirm that the jobs done by
Tom Shepard and Aimee Remanick this year for Ron Roberts were
SPECTACULAR..
Or as Hall of Fame baseball manager Tommy La Sorda said when told
managing the L.A. Dodgers was not too tough. “I’m telling you that
it is NOT that $$##@<"^^ Easy!"
Thanks for the feedback, Jim. But I think when it comes to county supervisors, you pretty much made my case.
Remember I said that the only way to usually get rid of incumbents is their criminal activity? Well, that was the purported case with incumbent County Supervisor Paul Eckert — prostitution was his scandal in conservative North County. And it was 1986 — 24 years ago. No incumbent has lost since then.
Here’s the excerpt on that race from an article for our younger readers:
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/aug/06/last-exciting-race-county-supervisor/
<>
Incumbent Supervisor Jack Walsh lost in 1976 because his opponents redistricted him into an unfriendly constituency. I guess that counts as unseating an incumbent, but the campaign strategy seems secondary to the redistricting. As you readily admit, he was a great campaigner. And I might add that 1976 was 34 years ago.
Hence in the last 30 years (my stated time frame was 20-30 years), a grand total of ONE incumbent SD County Supervisor was unseated. Indeed, a number of times our incumbents have run with NO opponent — why bother?
It seems to me that being a political consultant for an incumbent is a great way to pad one’s resume’ (not to mention earn a living). And especially so for County Supervisors.
BTW, I don’t know the answer, but I suspect you can tell us. What did the two sides spend (including IE’s) in the Ron Roberts runoff?
Mr. Rider
The false assumption undermining your theory is that because
candidate A wins, then he/she must have had it in the Bag all
the way.
This was said of the LA Dodgers when Walter Alston and Tommy
La Sorda managed them. They won 10 pennants and 6 World
Series between 1955 and 1995. Many sports writers took your
view then… that if they keep winning it must be pretty easy.
But since LaSorda retired in 1995, the Dodgers have won
Zero pennants and 0 World Series.
It mattered that the Dodgers had great managers in Alston
and La Sorda (both Hall of Famers). It also matters that Ron
Roberts and Bill Horn have great advisors in Tom Shepard and
Aimee Remanick. Maybe they make it look easy to you, but
take it from someone who does this for a living… winning both
those races this year was a coup, the result of great skill and
remarkable self-discipline.
As to total campaign spending, no one will know the answer to
that question until the year-end campaign finance reports are
filed in February.
And now… Happy New Year and a prosperous 2011 to all !
Well Jim, to carry your flawed sports management analogy forward, can you cite a single career campaign consultant “manager” who has a “losing record” handling incumbent campaigns? Okay, how about the incompetent consultant who loses only 20% of the incumbent races they run? 10%?
I suspect you can’t name one. You see, the “incumbent” in sports (last year’s champion) is often unseated the following year. Not so with incumbent politicians — and especially my favorites — incumbent SD County Supervisors. It is NOT a “level playing field.”
Yes, the Roberts race presented a bigger challenge than usual, but I had no doubt as to the outcome. After all, if solid, well know Republican and veteran state politician Bruce Thompson could not beat supposedly vulnerable Bill Horn, I figure that (again, barring redistricting or criminal activity), our County Supervisors have DE FACTO lifetime tenure — until the term limits measure kicks in almost a decade hence.
The folks who touted the Roberts contest as a real horse race in fact often PROFIT from the delusion that a horse race is in progress — the press, in particular. Preordained outcomes bore readers, and lessen their interest in reading or watching the local news. Perhaps it also lessens incumbents’ interest in funding expensive consultants, and SURELY discourages challengers from spending big bucks on such eager advisers.
BTW, I like to offer sucker bets to those who disagree with me on issues I’m confident I’m right on. Over the last 20+ years I’ve never lost such a wager — but then, they ARE sucker bets!
If you (or others reading this civil exchange of opinion) have any incumbents you think might be unseated in 2012, get in touch and we should discuss a wager or two. I’m not saying I’ll bet on ANY incumbent, but you’ve got a good shot at finding that I’m a willing gambler in such “horse races.” I’ll be betting on the doped up incumbent.
There are 5 congressional districts in San Diego county and
five county supervisorial districts, of roughly equal size. The
members of Congress have the chance to send ‘free’ mail
and have larger staffs (in most cases) than Supervisors.
They are the most nearly similar seats to the Supervisors.
How have they done lately?
Rep. Lynn Schenk was ousted by Brian Bilbray in 1994…. and
far from having the 3-to-1 spending edge you posit a challenger
needs… Bilbray was outspent $1.1 million to $0.6 million.
Tom Shepard guided Bilbray to that remarkable upset by
the way.
Brian Bilbray, in turn, was defeated for a new term in 2000
by Assemblywoman Susan Davis. Duke Cunningham was
driven from office by scandal in 2005, and the GOP was all
out to barely hold that Republican seat with Brian Bilbray in
a special election.
Bob Filner was life-and-death to survive a primary challenge
from Juan Vargas in 2006, and needed help from Imperial
county to do so.
In the same span, three Supervisors have been forced into
runoffs (Horn in 1998 and 2010, Roberts in 2010) but all
survived them and won.
The attracive ‘mirage’ in your analysis is that ‘if no supervisor
has lost lately, then they must be unbeatable and their wins
easy to accomplish.’
The contrary theory is that these 5 supervisors have collectively
done a good job in stabilizing the County’s finances, and have
avoided tax raises. Voters have rewarded them for that….
which should come as no surprise to a dedicated tax fighter like
yourself.
The 2nd mirage is a belief that San Diego voters are distracted
and don’t follow the issues. I have knocked on over 10,000 voter
doors and had thousands of conversations with these men and
women over the years. They are smart people who do pay
attention and are quite willing to throw out incumbents.
That has never been more true than today, owing to this very
internet through which we are exchanging views now. A
challenger can reach an enormous audience that was com-
pletely inaccessible a decade ago, and at a minimal cost.
There has never been a time when opposing an incumbent
was more accessible to campaign hopefuls.
3rd, you underrate those who opposed Horn and Roberts.
Steve Gronke has run three races in a major north county
city (Vista) and won them all. Stephen Whitburn, as a
first time candidate, came close to winning an SD city
council seat in 2008. He is a longtime media figure with
high visibility and an excellent public speaker.
Finally, we have the indisputable fact that both Ron Roberts
and Bill Horn were forced to November runoffs this year, and
that people like the ‘Blue SD’ website confidently predicted
Roberts’ defeat. Plenty of folks hung crepe on Mr. Horn too.
Tom Shepard is a successful, free market entrepreneur
with a 3-decade record of success. He has been instrumental
in keeping a low-tax group of Supevisors in office.
So….It is puzzling that a sincere Libertarian like yourself
would find fault with, and also minimize, these truly positive
achievements.
If Mr. Shepard has made it look easy to you, from your place
in the grand stand, then that itself is a further testament to his
very real skills.
Jim, it’s funny that you claim our RINO SD County Supervisors are a “low-tax group.” It’s not been by their choice.
They backed a countywide sales tax increase for libraries. They lost (I led the opposition). The libraries were built or remodeled anyway.
They backed a parcel tax for fire fighting. They lost. The county regional fire fighting agency was formed within weeks of the election.
They backed Prop 174 (a state sales tax increase) for local public safety — supposedly mostly for county firefighting, but all ended up being spent on law enforcement by the sups — primarily DA salaries and perks.
They supported the two successful county sales tax increases for transportation, which ended up being disproportionately wasted on the folly of the trolley.
They supported a 1989 county half percent sales tax increase for “jails.” It passed with a simple majority vote. I had to take it to the state Supreme Court get it overturned — in a landmark decision, the court acknowledged that the state constitution requires a 2/3 vote to pass such “special taxes.” And, BTW, the jails (and courthouses) were built anyway with existing funds.
They gambled by borrowing #1.5 billion with pension obligation bonds to fund their extravagant pension system. They gamble paid off (they [so far] have made more on the bonds then they cost), but it was indeed a gamble. And it was a gamble with OUR money, and they chose to do so without no stinkin’ citizen vote. Legal, but untoward.
Granted, the sups are all nominally Republicans, but they are NOT in favor of low taxes. They’ve supported tax increase after tax increase. Indeed, I can’t think of a single county tax increase they have opposed — though it is quite likely there’s an example out there somewhere.
You are blaming this group of County Supervisors for the
June 1988 Proposition A jail sales tax proposal?
None of these Supervisors were on the County Board in 1988.
I’m not denigrating Shepherd’s talents, skills, or work ethic. I’m just saying “defending” incumbents in elections is a relatively easy job.
Show me the number of times he successfully represented a CHALLENGER to an incumbent (not in legal difficulty). Show me the underdog races he won. And not just Tom, but ANY political consultant.
Such examples are out there, and THAT’s where the praise is due. Your example of Shepherd’s successful campaign to defeat Lynn Schenk is an excellent demonstration of a true victory — though a relatively rare event compared to most challenges.
BTW, the fact that a Democrat website predicts a Democrat win is about as surprising a prognostication, as — well — Republicans predicting that they were going to make major inroads in the state partisan races this past election. These are not PREDICTIONS — these are CHEERLEADING efforts.
For a predictions to be meaningful, the pundit should have some skin in the game — which is where I come back to my sucker bets. Sadly for me, seldom is anyone foolish enough to take me up on my generous offer to make such Pollyannaish predictions profitable.
True, but they WERE Republicans — except for Leon Williams. When the sales tax was overturned in 1992, Supervisor Bilbray was quoted as saying that “the criminals will be dancing in the streets, celebrating Rider’s victory.” When confronted with this statement at our victory news conference, I replied that “I didn’t know the Supervisors knew how to dance.”
After all, it was THEY who put the illegal tax on the ballot and THEY who spent over a million dollars trying to keep the illegal tax in place.
Sadly, the U-T articles are not online from that era, but I think a check would find that all five of the current Supervisors were in favor of the tax even then — I DO know that none came forward in opposition.
But okay, score one for you, Jim. Our current crop of RINO’s were still in training when the Prop A “jail” sales tax was passed in 1988. We had OTHER RINO’s in office back then.
(1) And the library sales tax plan you blame the Supervisors for
(Proposition L, of March 1999) was also not put on the ballot
by this, or any other Board of Supervisors.
Instead something called the, “San Diego County Library Authority”
did that deed, a 19-member body consisting of one representative
from each of the 18 local cities, and 1 county supervisor (not Ron
Roberts or Bill Horn either by the way). Sound familar now? This
was their baby, not the County supervisors’.
(2) The State Supreme court decision throwing out the jail tax was
rendered on December 19, 1991… again before any of the five
current County supervisors were elected. There is no reasonable
way to blame them (including Ron Roberts and Bill Horn) for that
issue.
The original post on this thread concerns Supervisor Ron Roberts,
who took office in January 1995. Can we get back to that subject?
Oh come on, Jim. You’ve been around. You know the “Library Authority” was formed explicitly to put the sales tax on the ballot without the fingerprints of the County Supervisor connection. Pam Slater takes CREDIT for forming the outfit.
I’m pretty sure that there was a county ordinance that formed the group — with everyone understanding that the front group was being formed to justify raising taxes for libraries. And gee, I wonder how that County Supervisor vote went?
When the sales tax failed, we heard anything more from this “authority” front group. I suspect they quietly disbanded, or were formed only for a couple of years to pass the tax. I can’t find a single reference to it on Google after the turn of the century.
You want more? What POSITION did the County Supervisors take on this countywide tax increase? While they wisely let others sign the ballot arguments, dollars to donuts, they unanimously voted for a resolution to support the tax. Doubtless some were out actively campaigning in favor of the measure. I’m sure Pam was. And did any of the Fab Five actually OPPOSE the tax increase? I think not. Feel free to check, if you like.
BTW, I doubt this new county library group had the unilateral ability to put the sales tax on the ballot. It was done either with petitions, or with a County Supervisor resolution. Which was it? And again, if there was a vote, was there a single Supervisor vote in opposition?
Jim, it is not I who brought up the “low-tax group” assertion. YOU did. You seemed “puzzled” that I would be speaking unfavorably concerning our Republican County Supervisors.
It was you who opened Pandora’s Box. I just examined the contents.
Which brings up a question: If these incumbents are low-tax Republicans, could you cite a few instances where they opposed local tax increases — especially one that made it to the ballot? Even one would be good. They MIGHT have opposed a proposed tax increase, but only for the practical reason that they’d lose such an election — again.
So what makes you think that they the Sups are “low-tax” advocates?
Jim, let’s talk a bit about “Republican” Supervisor Ron Roberts — your hero. As I recall, Roberts was originally registered as a Democrat, but then quickly realized that (years ago) San Diego was a GOP bastion, so he re-registered Republican to help his political future (it worked!).
Let’s recall Roberts’ ardent support for the downtown baseball ballpark, cost be damned. (It was particularly easy for Roberts to support, as the bill went exclusively to our city government.)
I don’t mean just some passive rah-rah ballpark support — after all, many Republicans supported this billionaire subsidy.
No, I’m talking about Roberts using county assets to push the project. In an incredible abuse of authority, he videotaped a DE FACTO infomercial for Petco Park, featuring softball questions lobbed to John Moores for him to knock out of the park — no contrary view allowed. As I recall, he then ran this half hour ad on the free county cable station about 26 times! All funded by the taxpayers.
And then there’s the thousands of dollars of baseball memorabilia coincidentally quietly given to Roberts by John Moores. Not reported, and far in excess of campaign contribution limits. THAT was embarrassing when it came up (Bruce Henderson and I pushed the expose’).
And let’s not forget Roberts’ free trips to China — which certainly appeared to be a QUID PRO QUO gift for the hundreds of thousands of dollars Roberts gave to the World Trade Center group — from his taxpayer-provided slush fund.
Ron Roberts has been a big supporter of light rail, including the latest $1.2 billion trolley from Old Town to UTC — to shave six minutes off bus travel time on a lightly traveled corridor. http://www.sdmts.com/marketing/MidCoast.asp
From a taxpayer standpoint, light rail in general and this UTC trolley spur in particular have to be a couple of the most foolish dumbest expenditures of taxpayer funds. Is the trolley folly a Republican or pro-taxpayer position?
And finally, let’s recall that our “Republican” County Supervisors have just approved a monstrous rural land grab — taking by fiat hundreds of millions of dollars of property value from rural property owners via Draconian downzoning (no compensation paid) to satisfy the environmentalists — even though government already owns 59% of the land in the county.
But let’s be fair — Roberts DID back the PLA ban proposition that recently passed. Yea! What’s the cliche’? — even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Yes, for all that, Roberts was a better choice than his Democrat opponent. But hardly one I would get excited about as a “low-tax” Republican.
According to City News Service the rural/General Plan change
you reference was not approved by County Supervisors. At
their most recent hearing, they put the issue over to February:
” A decision on a long-awaited update to San Diego County’s
land-use policy was postponed again today to give people
more of a chance to voice their opinions before the Board of
Supervisors considers the plan.
Department of Planning and Land Use staffers will have a
presentation at the board’s Feb. 9 meeting in advance of
a vote, Supervisor Pam Slater-Price said.” (Dec. 8, 2010)
The U-T has similar coverage here:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/08/county-board-delays-action-on-general-plan/
Former SD City Councilman Fred Schnaubelt leads the opposition
to the proposal, and is doing his usual fine job.
Jim, I stand corrected on the county land grab — for now. But at least two, and perhaps four of the Sups likely will eventually vote in favor of this astonishing abrogation of private property rights. If not in February, then shortly thereafter.
And you are right that it’s Fred Schnaubelt who has stepped to the fore to almost single-handedly fight this remarkable theft of property rights. Fred has no personal rural land holdings to defend that I’m aware of, but he can spot a wrongful act when he sees one.
Now, if this were indeed a good GOP-leaning County Board of Supervisors, we would not even be HAVING this discussion. This massive attempt to steal the use of other people’s property without compensation SHOULD have been DOA from the get-go.
Does this outpouring from Richard Rider have anything to do with Tom Shepard managing Pam Slater’s first supervisor election back in the early 90s? Slater finished just a few points ahead of a rival candidate named Richard Rider, and advanced to the finals against Judy McCarty. Slater won that, with Shepard’s help, and has had the advantages of county staff and perks since then. Meanwhile Rider is the career gadfly, which isn’t nearly as much fun. Maybe that history influences his dislike for Tom Shepard. It seems possible.
Eddie, in truth, I was so naive back then that I didn’t know who Pam Slater’s campaign manager was. I had forgotten (if I ever knew) it was Shepherd.
Pam outworked me — she did a terrific job raising money and campaigning. How much was Shepherd and how much was Pam’s energy I do not know.
I don’t remember what she raised, but I put together about $38K, far too little to win. I’ve never harbored any animosity towards Pam for her victory — it was I who essentially lost the race.
But it seems my basic point has been ignored. I never criticized Sherpherd’s Ron Roberts campaign — I simply asserted that making a big deal out of winning a race for an incumbent Supervisor is not much of a claim to fame — and clearly I was speaking of ANY such crowing about easy victories. Note that it was NOT Shepherd doing the crowing!.
Note also this earlier comment I made to Jim: “Your example of Shepherd’s successful campaign to defeat Lynn Schenk is an excellent demonstration of a true victory.”
Find me ANYTHING I said derogatory about Shepherd in this exchange. Anything at all.