I wasn’t too far off on the raw results. But it came out quite differently, as a whole, than I had expected.
Four days ago I wrote:
Hal is a credible candidate, but probably not as strong a contender as was Ed Ward two years ago (although Hal doesn’t have to answer the question of why he’s running against Tom; it was a handicap for Ed that he’d been Tom’s closest ally on the IEB before deciding to challenge him.) Candidates don’t run in a vacuum, though. Hal could well give Tom a harder race than Ed did, the times being what they are.
But, if I were a betting man, I’d bet on Tom. I wouldn’t bet more than I’d mind losing, and the only outcome that would surprise me would be a blow-out by either candidate.
It wasn’t quite a blow-out, but it was as decisive a defeat of a credible candidate as you’ll ever see in the AFM. In 2005, Tom beat Ed Ward 492-306. The margin this year was even wider, though not by much. It’s worth noting that, for all the sturm und drang about the seating of Montreal, the outcome would have been the same had they not been seated.
I also wrote:
I’d still bet on Len. He’s been around a long time, everyone knows him, and lots of Canadian delegates like him.
Not even close. Montreal probably didn’t tip the balance in this race either.
And I went on to write:
Ray Hair gets the most votes. Joe Parente gets re-elected. For the other three seats, I’d bet on Tina Morrison, Bob McGrew, and either Vince Trombetta or Erwin Price.
Except for Tina losing and Billy Linneman winning, I got this one right. But Joe Parente and not Ray Hair got the most votes, which was telling. What I didn’t predict, and didn’t expect, was the extent to which Tom solidified his support on the IEB. Four of the nine members of the IEB that was elected in 2005 were clearly in opposition to Tom; not on every issue, but certainly on the RMA situation. The new board has exactly one survivor of that bloc, and he's not going to read the vote as a ringing mandate to oppose Tom.
None of this means that Bob McGrew and Erwin Price will line up behind Tom on every issue, or even on the RMA situation. But I think it very likely they’ll give Tom more latitude than the opposition votes they replace. And, of course, even the 2005 IEB that was split 5-4 gave Tom a great deal of latitude, whether explicitly or by default.
What I expected was a kind of balancing act by the delegates; re-elect Tom but also put into place some checks on him. They didn’t. Tom is completely entitled to read this election as a mandate to continue to do what he’s been doing.
Comments