ASUO ELECTIONS: PRIMARY RESULTS
With all precincts reporting, the 2007 ASUO Primary results are as follows:
Executive: Runoff between Sara Hamilton and Athan Papailiou of Campaign For Change and Emily McLain and San SunOwen of Working For You (3rd place, Ari Lesser and Phil Wood with 750 votes)
Seat 1: Runoff between Keith Basset of Campaign For Change and Kate Davis of the Campus Improvement Movement
Seat 3: Runoff between Neil Brown of Campaign For Change and Shalan Ryan of PAC8!
Seat 4: Runoff between Kate Jones of Campaign For Change and Oscar Guerra of PAC8!
Seat 6: Runoff between Samantha Brodey of Campaign For Change and Diego Hernandez of PAC8!
Seat 7: Runoff between Karen Trippe of Campaign For Change and Michael Reta of PAC8!
Seat 9: Runoff between Donnie Kim of Campaign For Change and Kari Henryckx of PAC8!
Seat 11: Won outright by Lee Warnecke of Campaign For Cange
Seat 13: Won outright by Dan Feldman of Campaign For Change
Seat 15 : Runoff Between Noor Rajabzadeh of Campaign For Change and Samantha Brotman of Campus Improvement Movement
Seat 17: Won outright by Kevin Parks
PFC At Large: Won outright by Jacob Brennan of Campaign For Change
ADFC At Large: Won outright by Rob Morse of Campaign For Change
EMU At Large: Race unaffected by primary voting
ASPAC: Runoff between Brandon Sanders of Campaign For Change and Mary Evans of Campus Improvement Movement
Analysis: If this were the general election, it would have been a clean sweep by Campaign For Change. Their candidates are leading each position by a margin of at least 100 votes, and are leading the Exec race by some 200. PAC8! showed well, getting several candidates into striking range. The Campus Improvement Movement emerged in a more disappointing position, placing 4th (and well back from the top 3) in the Exec race, and only getting 3 candidates past the primaries. Lesser and Wood were clearly the surprise of the election, placing 3rd by about the same amount of votes separating Hamilton and McLain in 1st and 2nd (about 200 votes).
The commanding leads in every seat indicates a runaway victory in generals for Campaign For Change. In the Exec race, McLain could swing the vote back to a dead heat if she gets all of Lessers voters in her column. Even under these circumstances, there seems little standing in the way of a Campaign For Change dominated Senate next year. Voting in the General Election begins on Monday. Log onto duckweb to vote.
Hey just wanted to let ou know that Nicole Tomlin is in the General election with Noor for Senate Seat 15
Thanks for the correction.
On another note, I am only slightly saddened to announce that the Niedermeyer campaign came in last place with 53 votes. Thanks for not voting for me, everyone!
Does anyone else feel like these elections are boring compared to past years? I mean, where’s the passion or scandal?
So apparently the ASUO website is wrong I don’t know who this Nicole Tilman person is but it doesn’t look like she is on the ballott, at least she isn’t in the voter’s guide being that I am not a social science major can someone confirm that??? I am so confused! As for scandal what kind are you looking for, Hmmm? As for passion Campaign for Change seems to have that on lock! 19 out of 20 into the Generals, has that ever even been done before?!?
WAS wrong… they fixed it… BLAH! Get it right peoples!!! :D
No, I support Campaign for Change and know that they did well in the primaries but I guess I feel like a certain spark is missing. I mean, this blog is gone way soft compared to previous years. Where is the dirty side of the ASUO that becomes public once a year? This is everyone’s last chance to mock Ashley Rees and no one is taking it? Its a shame really…
I can answer this question. I have been trying to find dirt on everyone for the past week and a half, the problem is that most of what has been brought up has been mostly conjecture without substance. I mean, sure…we can go into things involving Ben Lenet’s relationship with Emily McLain and how this would be connected to his full endorsement of Emily and San’s campaign (and how it never really happened in the past).
But, there’s barely anything out there. It’s actually been a good campaign season…
And for note, Lenet is the head of the College Dems, of which I speak involving the endorsements.
Scandalous!
There is the question of whether or not Lenet is behind those classically elegant smear ads against campaign for change. You know what they say… “you can take the politico out of Chicago, but you can’t take the Chicago out of the politico.”
The involvement of the campus democrats raises the question of whether other off-campus groups work to influence the ASUO elections. One hears rumors that OSA coordinates efforts to elect an Executive that is familiar with and sympathetic to the way they do business. Apparently OSCC and OSERA are involved in these strategies as well, on a statewide basis. From what I understand this effort is codenamed “Fight Club.”
I want to emphasize that this is simply a rumor at this point, and I only mention it hear for two reasons. First, it makes sense. An ASUO Executive who is an OSA insider will be more likely to spend Incidental-Fee money on OSA lobbying efforts. OSA gets our money spent on their agenda items, and can also promise “student support” for their political allies through affiliated groups such as the Campus Democrats and the Oregon Bus Project.
The second reason for bringing this up, is because it highlights the differences between the candidates. Emily McLain is a brilliant, motivated, ambitious young woman who has already proven that she is far more interested in mainstream politics, than in the campus-oriented political debate. I believe that campus issues are more than enough to keep student leaders busy, and that allowing state and national-level lobbying groups to set the campus agenda is ill-advised. The OSA has no interest or expertise in the issues which uniquely affect our campus, and their involvement in our student politics bring unnecessary political baggage to the table.
If I am way off the mark, or if someone with firsthand experience with “Fight Club” would like to shed some light on the situation, please contact me at ocomment[at]uoregon[dot]edu.
Oh, and I know that the first rule of Fight Club is – you do not talk about Fight Club. Still, I found out about it, so someone doesn’t mind talking.
I actually think you aren’t too far of the mark with your “Fight Club” belief…. Every student that gets involved with OSA they always end up supporting the same ticket that always has the same talking points. While I doubt that the elected leaders and staff of OSA conspire to endorse candidates, It does create a group of students that believe the same shit and has the same priorities. The University of Oregon has a large role in OSA, dominating the other state Universities, and also in USSA which is the United States Student Association.
And from what I hear Miles, you are wrong. Its Paul Buchanan that apparently Emily has been tapping. I can only hope one day, my hook ups are part of a blog…
At first I read that as “Pat Buchanan.” Wheeeew!
Surely not this Paul Buchanan??????
“In the mortality of life your vision is skewed, money does not exist and your television is your only god. You are a slave to the proverbial machine called progress. In ignorance there is bliss, you can fall into your daily routine of cultural normalcy, becoming an elicit product of your environment, or you can take the path less traveled, you can wind down the road of enlightenment, the dark and frightening path against the dangerous currents of the populous who tear at the heart of reality
Wow. Anyone who knows Paul OR Emily (and as someone who knows them both) I have to tell you that it would never . . . hahaha NEVER happen. Whew. That’s hilarious.
Seriously though, these (admittedly) baseless rumors and theories are nasty, untrue, and potentially damaging and irresponsible.
The College Democrats endorsed Emily and San because they are a uniquely progressive ticket who supports a platform that is in line with the group’s own beliefs. Simple.
Slates should be a none issue . . . but since they’re getting so much press, I gotta say that it DOES make a difference if candidates have a slates name next to theirs on the ballot. It ALSO makes a difference if candidates are asked to vote for the executive who “endorses” them — whatever that means. The point is that it SHOULD NOT make a difference in the elections — so why not at least make them run on the ballot as individuals if they’re supposed to vote like individuals once they get elected?? What’s the harm?
As far as “Fight Club” goes . . . I’m not convinced there’s some organized conspiricy. Most importantly though, I think you are wrong to suggest that state or “national” platform issues that these groups lobby for and support are NOT campus issues — they ARE. We are talking about tuition cost, textbook cost, academic freedom and diversity issues, privicy issues, disciplinary models, grants and loan models, and so much more. I think that these are ALL “campus issues”. I mean, sure . . . Emily and San are not advocating for $59 million in EMU renovations whiile at the same time claiming to be increasing “student support” AND cutting fees . . . (where, or where . . . does the money come from??) . . . but I do think they support campus issues.
Anyway. That’s all. Cheers.
See, this is what’s hilarious…I stated that I couldn’t find anything juicy, and used hearsay to illustrate my point.
Suddenly, “A” (Someone from Emily and San’s campaign, as the talking points line up perfectly) comes up bashing and going to town on things.
This, my friends, is how to extract juice from a turnip. However, before ending this, one quick point:
I ran for two years as an independent candidate. I lost both times. Both times were against slate candidates. For college campuses, slates are one of the few things that do work…as “abhorrent” as they may be.
My point (as I stated) is that these rumors (or “juice” as you like to call it Miles) are damaging. In your capasity as a reporter (or whatever) I think it’s irresponsible. Responding to untrue allegations that are clearly just for “juice” from your persepecive is . . . I guess . . . “bashing and going to town on things”.
And I agree . . . slates work. I still think that it is reasonable to ask that independent candidates be represented independently on the ballot. Why not?
BTW (and not that it really matters) I am not part of the Emily and San campaign — however I do know and like Emily and I do plan to vote for them.
Cheers.
Damaging? Sounds like someone who takes themselves way the hell too seriously.
You missed my point: I said I couldn’t find anything, and threw out a statement that was conjecture, as an example that this has mostly been a clean campaign season.
The “juice” from the turnip is your own response, A(my).
I don’t agree that these rumors are “damaging” to Emily and San, in the same way I don’t think the cartoonish attack ads against Sara and Athan were really “damaging.” After all, Emily and San make no secret of the fact that their ” platform (is) in line with the group
Also, did it ever occur to anyone that none of the Senators working with CFC had very little in common with each other untill Nate Gulley called every one of them a racist? Most are moderates, and their votes typically split several ways on Senate, untill they were called racists on the front page of the Emerald. Gulley has exemplified the very worst aspects of the arrangement outlined above, and has inspired real opposition which seems posed to sweep the elections.
Anything damaging to the political process of the ASUO is probably a net gain.
Ted: You’ve just perfectly described the OC, and y’all are still pushing the rock up the hill every morning. The damn thing never gets any lighter.
And it’s our rock to push. BTW, can you get off the rock please? It doesn’t get any easier with the peanut gallery sitting on top of it.
I personally think that a candidate’s personal life (i.e. who he or she choses to date) should remain private and has no place in the ASUO political arena. Emily has worked with the College Dems for a long time and the entire Dems Executive Board did vote to endorse both her and myself (I promise you I have never had a romantic relationship with Ben Lenet).
Ben, although a Chicagoan, is an intelligent and moral guy. I am sure that his support for Emily is not influenced by his relationship with her, but instead by a shared set of ideas (be they ideological or other). Furthermore, I don’t think he has been involved with the false and negative character ads against Sara, Athan, and the Campaign for Change.
The reason these character attacks are so terrible is because they take away from a debate on ideas, policy, and issues. Let’s not repeat that mistake by engaging in hearsay accusations.
Most respectfully,
Neil