It's official. Randi Shade is ignoring the definitiveness of numbers, my prediction otherwise (imagine!) and the cries of the people and will NOT concede the run-off.

She simply cannot win. 67% - a plurality (not just a majority) - already said Shade must go. Tovo had 46.5% - none of those people will vote for Shade. Not a one.

Place 3 had strong contenders in Tovo (proven by her 14 point lead over the incumbent), Nofziger (with his council experience) and Bailey (with his potent grassroots base, not to mention the Willie endorsement!). Those who voted for Bailey and Nofziger voted as much for them as they did against the incumbent, unlike most of the contenders in the other places (with Chan as the exception) who got more "anti-incumbent" votes than otherwise. Place 3 challenger supporters were as committed to the candidates (more involved) as they were to ousting Shade, so most, if not all, will show back up for the run-off.

Crunching the Numbers

Even if only half of the 21% that voted for Bailey + Nofziger show up (10.5%), as we usually see in run-offs (but not this one)...and even if Tovo and Shade evenly split those votes (absolute-worst case scenario but highly unlikely), that leaves 5.25% for Tovo at the very, VERY least.

With a 46.5% starting base, all Tovo has to do is pick up 3.6% and she's got it. She'll get much more than 4; her game's too good not to - she'll get every last one of her general election voters to the polls. It's a no-brainer. I hope no future council contender hires Shade's consultants currently telling her otherwise...they frankly ought to be ashamed.  Real political consultants know that closing more than a 5% gap is practically impossible.

Sure, there are some caveats that could upset this admittedly simplistic formula. Shade can, and will, play DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY since that's her only hope of getting others to the polls that didn't show up the first time. She can then merely pray that 85+% of Bailey's and Nofziger's people don't return and that maybe a Tovo supporter or two will get sick or be on vacation and forget to early-vote.  But to get from 33% to 50.1% under these circumstances is beyond wishful thinking. It's even beyond utilizing dirty tricks - which will only backfire anyway (she's not good at learning from her mistakes).

Subsidizing the Rich

I understand she felt pressured into continuing because she raised so much money from the fat cats in the first round, so even though potential donors may be fleeing to Tovo, she's good to go. She has a fat wallet and she's compelled to spend it. Is having the money to do something a good reason to do it? (The problem with our society is that answer is almost always "yes").  I'm surprised, but only a little, that pleasing previous donors took priority over the inevitable, record-breaking humiliation she will suffer.

So, we must spend $528,400 so she can "just be certain" of what the people already clearly said: "BUH-bye...don't let the point poke ya in the patootie!"

There MUST Be a Better Way

We wouldn't be in this mess if our City hadn't previously poo-poo'd preferential voting. We wouldn't have to have run-offs anymore. We would have already cast that second vote the first time. The city based their nixing of the subject on (purposely) faulty legal analysis that said state law disallows it (it doesn't), which they obviously know now since they've, unbeknownst to practically everyone, threw it back on the table via last month's resolution to study charter amendments (single member districts and...wait for it...4 year/non-staggered terms, ouch). Tucked in discreetly at the tail end, under a "Be It Further Resolved" (Item 48/Executed Resolution), they said instant run-off voting is worth another look-see. We'll find out in July whether they were just throwing us a bone or not.

If She's Hard-of-Hearing, Maybe She Can See a Sign?

Shade should be, and will be, taken to task for costing our city precious resources (she'll lose votes on this alone). She should still be challenged in this next week, as Council won't approve the election until May 26th. Shouldn't Council themselves question this unecessary expenditure? Some say, "how can you promote quashing democracy? The PROCESS??" But the process has happened.  Based on voting patterns, and historical election results, even Ray Charles could see this is a waste of time and money (and dang, he's dead!).

So who wants to join me in putting up a billboard for a couple of days on I-35?:           

RANDI SHADE - YOUR SERVICES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED.
 
A PLURALITY OF VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN.

CONCEDE. NOW.

WE SPENT $600 HERE SO THE CITY WON'T NEED TO SPEND
$528,400 FOR US TO REPEAT OURSELVES JUNE 18.