And the fact that the Emagine controversy was under way during the campaign, and is continuing, reinforces my observation that emotions and mindsets of residents in both arenas are running parallel. My thoughts on this page are identified either by being in italics or with my initials: FJV.

For the rest, the unidentified comments reflect oral and written input from multiple sources. If a comment appears in quotation marks, but with no name, it is from one or more individuals I know and whose need for not being identified I consider valid.

The comments of a significant number of voters show surprise at how the votes were distributed among the commissioner candidates. From top winner to loser:

Pat Capello: Pat was expected to be one of the sure winners. The surprise is that she received the most votes for commissioner, especially since hers was perceived as the most laid-back campaign of the four. During the last two weeks of the campaign, Pat was one of three candidates who became targets of mild smear campaigns -- in her case focused mostly on her perceived personality: "She's so sure that she's not working very hard to get elected." Opposed: "I/we saw her walking the streets." And at many civic events.

Dave Poulton: Majority expectation was that Dave would be in a close race with Androff for third spot. Instead, he came within 155 votes of being the top vote-getter. Long perceived as being Left-of-center, Dave has also been described as a Republican precinct delegate. So, even those who are uneasy with his role in the ZBA/Bordine affair are suggesting, in praise and criticism, that he may become CITCOM's Ginotti-like swing voter.

Jim Rasor: Before Jim was accused, then cleared, of conflict-of-interest behavior in that ZBA/Bordine affair, he was relatively unknown, except to city hall observers. Those observers differed about whether the Administrative Hearing which cleared him helped or hurt his political future. By mid-October, he was perceived as the front-runner, so his coming in third of three has surprised many. During the last two weeks of the campaign, a combination of personal attacks against Jim and a couple of his campaign tactics, considered petty-to-questionable, caused enough of a ripple to generate the word "upset." Didn't happen, but neither friend nor foe expects Jim to be a swing voter.

Andrew Androff: Two interrelated factors combined to cause Andrew to come in 972 votes below the top vote-getter. (1) He stood out as the only candidate in favor of the liquor license moratorium. (2) He was supported by the two incumbents also on-record as favoring the moratorium. Semchena, of course, was the author of the moratorium. (See my comments about the moratorium, at right.)
===

"These out of state developers are changing the skyline and footprint of downtown forever. There's a difference, you know, between a downtown and a strip mall." A consistent characteristic of those who don't mind being labeled "anti-developer" is their dislike of tall buildings downtown.
===

The moratorium backfired on the sponsors.  It energized a segment that normally does not come out in off year local elections (the 25-35 crowd) and shifted the CC "left".  Comment based on my polling location.  Last time, I  did not see ANYBODY under the age of 40.  This year, quite a few much younger faces. . . . 526 S Main project will be back and approved this time despite two vote downs in the past. . . . The Emagine is a shoe in.  I have forwarded my inputs to the planning commission (separate emails) for your amusement in the hopes you don't lump me in with the chronic bitch-er camp. -- Rick Karlowski
===

Perceived dominant characteristics of  the winning candidates:
Especially in the last couple of weeks of the campaign, issues took second place as residents began discussing the pluses and minuses of the candidates' personalities, as the residents saw them. What they say  they saw:

Capello: Quietly forceful. Persistent. Patient. // Cordial but distant. Domineering. An "ice princess." (About her former performance as commissioner, I have said she was sometimes "grandmotherly kind" and sometimes a "nit-picker.")

Poulton: Listens, instead of talks. Thoughtful // Unassertive. So unassertive it raises suspicion of deviousness. (I served under his chairmanship on the Charter Review Committee. I often found Dave  tentative when he was in a position to be assertive.)

Rasor:  A breath of fresh air. Assertive. Full of ideas // A bully. Unnecessarily aggressive. In-your-face whatever the issue, sometimes even in friendly conversation. Either loses focus too often or pretends to lose focus as a tool in debate. (I have complained to Jim that he behaves too lawyerly in his civic volunteerism and even in social conversations.)

These mixed perceptions do not diminish the accomplishments of the candidates, in their careers and in conducting a winning campaign. What remains to be seen is how these characterizations -- to the degree they are valid -- play out at the commission table.
===

"If you want to get into conspiracies, remember that last month all agendas for nearly all city meetings were posted right after October 1st.  This month, nada. The blame will go to the city clerk being tied up with the election, but I've got to wonder if Johnson & Co. wants to limit controversy by putting everything up as late as possible."
===

The Election is over
Congratulations & Commiserations