The NY Times Thinks That I Will Get 17.5% of the Vote? Really? Hmmm…

I saw this story:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house/california/9
It predicted that I will get 17.5% of the vote; course, the margin of error is 8.8%.
Sadly, I do not think that this was based on direct polling on my district, but rather a macro-trend projection based on national analysis.

This may sound like a disaster, but consider. Here are the % of votes received by Republicans that have come before me (reverse chronological order):
9.7%
10.7%
12.3%
9.8%
9.8%
13.2%
12.1%
(these are all results with Barbara Lee as candidate)
If the NYT prediction is more or less true, it will mean that I will get almost double the votes of the last Republican in my district.

Keep in mind: my strategy was to run to the right as hard as I could. This presented no problem, since my personal political beliefs are what political pundits would call hard right. I simply had to speak my personal opinion.

I also saw that my opponent spent $998,976.00 on her campaign.
Here is a secret: I spent and raised a tad under $300 (no that is not a typo: there are only 2 zeroes on that number), if you exclude the $900 filing fee for getting my candidate statement in the primary ballot flyer. To answer your next question: I did not do fund raising or hold fund raising events.
I was out-spent 3,300-to-one.

FYI: here is the schedule for tonight, election night, based on what happened during the Primary:
**10pm, first results from absentee ballots
**1am, update with most districts reporting
20 years ago, the absentees would come up at about 10 and results would trickle in all evening into the early morning; no more, thanks, to computerized voting, and Alameda is unusually rapid in reporting results.

And one last thing: Karl Rove, bite me. My hats off to O’Donnell.