Vanguard Radio Shows Starts Tonight on KDRT

Every Wednesday from 6 to 7, I will host “The People’s Vanguard of Davis” radio show on KDRT 101.5

Unfortunately at this point there is no webcast, but we will eventually hook up a podcast to hear later.

Tonight we will be discussing our investigation into Tahir Ahad and Total School Solutions.

Listeners are encouraged to call in at: 530-792-1648

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Radio

84 comments

  1. good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city

    –Richard Estes

  2. good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city

    –Richard Estes

  3. good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city

    –Richard Estes

  4. good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city

    –Richard Estes

  5. Richard,

    In case you are interested, the exit polls from Texas last night suggested that Texas Latinos voted in the same proportions for Clinton and Obama as they did in California.

    “The Hispanic vote, which helped Clinton win California over Obama, proved to be a big demographic in Texas. 32% of Texas voters were Hispanic, in contrast to 24% in the 2004 Presidential election. As in California, Clinton has substantial support from Hispanics, as 64% of Latino voters voted for Clinton over Obama. The African American vote remained the same in Texas, as two out of 10 voters were black, which is consistent with their share of the electorate. Obama took most of the support from Texas African Americans, as 84% of them voted for him.”

    One thing which interests me as an observer is the fact that Clinton does her best in primaries, while Obama has obliterated her in all of the caucuses except Nevada (which came before he had distinguished himself among liberals). After last night, I was interested to know whether Hillary had actually received more votes in primaries (not counting Michigan, but including Florida) than Obama had. She hasn’t, but it’s really close:

    Obama: 13,408,606; 50.45%
    Clinton: 13,170,905; 49.55%

    Even though Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania, I don’t think she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, this contest (first in my conscious lifetime) is going to the national convention, where I suspect the agreement will be made to award the nomination to Obama. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in being V.P. (That’s a step down, at her age, from being a Senator from New York.) Obama might be interested in being V.P., given his youth and inexperience in public office. However, because he has won more votes, he won’t willingly take the second position on the ballot. Perhaps they will decide something novel: like allowing Hillary to be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, but Hillary agrees in advance not to run for re-election in 2012, if she wins. I don’t expect that, but it would be a novel compromise. (Since she is so much older, the reverse compromise doesn’t work.)

  6. Richard,

    In case you are interested, the exit polls from Texas last night suggested that Texas Latinos voted in the same proportions for Clinton and Obama as they did in California.

    “The Hispanic vote, which helped Clinton win California over Obama, proved to be a big demographic in Texas. 32% of Texas voters were Hispanic, in contrast to 24% in the 2004 Presidential election. As in California, Clinton has substantial support from Hispanics, as 64% of Latino voters voted for Clinton over Obama. The African American vote remained the same in Texas, as two out of 10 voters were black, which is consistent with their share of the electorate. Obama took most of the support from Texas African Americans, as 84% of them voted for him.”

    One thing which interests me as an observer is the fact that Clinton does her best in primaries, while Obama has obliterated her in all of the caucuses except Nevada (which came before he had distinguished himself among liberals). After last night, I was interested to know whether Hillary had actually received more votes in primaries (not counting Michigan, but including Florida) than Obama had. She hasn’t, but it’s really close:

    Obama: 13,408,606; 50.45%
    Clinton: 13,170,905; 49.55%

    Even though Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania, I don’t think she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, this contest (first in my conscious lifetime) is going to the national convention, where I suspect the agreement will be made to award the nomination to Obama. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in being V.P. (That’s a step down, at her age, from being a Senator from New York.) Obama might be interested in being V.P., given his youth and inexperience in public office. However, because he has won more votes, he won’t willingly take the second position on the ballot. Perhaps they will decide something novel: like allowing Hillary to be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, but Hillary agrees in advance not to run for re-election in 2012, if she wins. I don’t expect that, but it would be a novel compromise. (Since she is so much older, the reverse compromise doesn’t work.)

  7. Richard,

    In case you are interested, the exit polls from Texas last night suggested that Texas Latinos voted in the same proportions for Clinton and Obama as they did in California.

    “The Hispanic vote, which helped Clinton win California over Obama, proved to be a big demographic in Texas. 32% of Texas voters were Hispanic, in contrast to 24% in the 2004 Presidential election. As in California, Clinton has substantial support from Hispanics, as 64% of Latino voters voted for Clinton over Obama. The African American vote remained the same in Texas, as two out of 10 voters were black, which is consistent with their share of the electorate. Obama took most of the support from Texas African Americans, as 84% of them voted for him.”

    One thing which interests me as an observer is the fact that Clinton does her best in primaries, while Obama has obliterated her in all of the caucuses except Nevada (which came before he had distinguished himself among liberals). After last night, I was interested to know whether Hillary had actually received more votes in primaries (not counting Michigan, but including Florida) than Obama had. She hasn’t, but it’s really close:

    Obama: 13,408,606; 50.45%
    Clinton: 13,170,905; 49.55%

    Even though Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania, I don’t think she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, this contest (first in my conscious lifetime) is going to the national convention, where I suspect the agreement will be made to award the nomination to Obama. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in being V.P. (That’s a step down, at her age, from being a Senator from New York.) Obama might be interested in being V.P., given his youth and inexperience in public office. However, because he has won more votes, he won’t willingly take the second position on the ballot. Perhaps they will decide something novel: like allowing Hillary to be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, but Hillary agrees in advance not to run for re-election in 2012, if she wins. I don’t expect that, but it would be a novel compromise. (Since she is so much older, the reverse compromise doesn’t work.)

  8. Richard,

    In case you are interested, the exit polls from Texas last night suggested that Texas Latinos voted in the same proportions for Clinton and Obama as they did in California.

    “The Hispanic vote, which helped Clinton win California over Obama, proved to be a big demographic in Texas. 32% of Texas voters were Hispanic, in contrast to 24% in the 2004 Presidential election. As in California, Clinton has substantial support from Hispanics, as 64% of Latino voters voted for Clinton over Obama. The African American vote remained the same in Texas, as two out of 10 voters were black, which is consistent with their share of the electorate. Obama took most of the support from Texas African Americans, as 84% of them voted for him.”

    One thing which interests me as an observer is the fact that Clinton does her best in primaries, while Obama has obliterated her in all of the caucuses except Nevada (which came before he had distinguished himself among liberals). After last night, I was interested to know whether Hillary had actually received more votes in primaries (not counting Michigan, but including Florida) than Obama had. She hasn’t, but it’s really close:

    Obama: 13,408,606; 50.45%
    Clinton: 13,170,905; 49.55%

    Even though Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania, I don’t think she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, this contest (first in my conscious lifetime) is going to the national convention, where I suspect the agreement will be made to award the nomination to Obama. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in being V.P. (That’s a step down, at her age, from being a Senator from New York.) Obama might be interested in being V.P., given his youth and inexperience in public office. However, because he has won more votes, he won’t willingly take the second position on the ballot. Perhaps they will decide something novel: like allowing Hillary to be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, but Hillary agrees in advance not to run for re-election in 2012, if she wins. I don’t expect that, but it would be a novel compromise. (Since she is so much older, the reverse compromise doesn’t work.)

  9. Wait until Hillary is forced to release her tax information. Their joint funds and Bill Clinton’s financial dealings over the past decade that have amassed multimillions for them both including his Foundation “contributions” from unsavory international power players should pretty much put the lid on our candicacy.

  10. Wait until Hillary is forced to release her tax information. Their joint funds and Bill Clinton’s financial dealings over the past decade that have amassed multimillions for them both including his Foundation “contributions” from unsavory international power players should pretty much put the lid on our candicacy.

  11. Wait until Hillary is forced to release her tax information. Their joint funds and Bill Clinton’s financial dealings over the past decade that have amassed multimillions for them both including his Foundation “contributions” from unsavory international power players should pretty much put the lid on our candicacy.

  12. Wait until Hillary is forced to release her tax information. Their joint funds and Bill Clinton’s financial dealings over the past decade that have amassed multimillions for them both including his Foundation “contributions” from unsavory international power players should pretty much put the lid on our candicacy.

  13. DPD, I caught the last 10 minutes or so. I even called in, but just as my phone rang you it cut out. I would have asked you and Elaine to address the fact that Jim Provenza has been the School Board President during the percolation of our current financial crisis. What questions should the voters in the Supervisors election be asking themselves and the candidates to give that reality its just due?

  14. DPD, I caught the last 10 minutes or so. I even called in, but just as my phone rang you it cut out. I would have asked you and Elaine to address the fact that Jim Provenza has been the School Board President during the percolation of our current financial crisis. What questions should the voters in the Supervisors election be asking themselves and the candidates to give that reality its just due?

  15. DPD, I caught the last 10 minutes or so. I even called in, but just as my phone rang you it cut out. I would have asked you and Elaine to address the fact that Jim Provenza has been the School Board President during the percolation of our current financial crisis. What questions should the voters in the Supervisors election be asking themselves and the candidates to give that reality its just due?

  16. DPD, I caught the last 10 minutes or so. I even called in, but just as my phone rang you it cut out. I would have asked you and Elaine to address the fact that Jim Provenza has been the School Board President during the percolation of our current financial crisis. What questions should the voters in the Supervisors election be asking themselves and the candidates to give that reality its just due?

  17. Richard,

    Thanks for the links:

    “there has been an obvious shift in public sentiment from Obama to Hillary in the last week to 10 days, it shows up everywhere, in the results in Texas and Ohio, in the national polls, and even, most alarmingly, in an upcoming state where he is supposed to do well, North Carolina, which may become his firewall.

    I can’t help but think that, at the last minute, voters just can’t bring themselves to nominate a black person as the Democratic nominee for President. It has happened too many times now.”

    I may be blind to it, but I don’t think that there is “a Bradley Factor” in the Democratic Party primary vote. If someone is racially prejudiced, I don’t think he is going to:

    1) register for a liberal political party; and

    2) tell pollsters he is going to vote for Obama; but then

    3) actually vote for the female candidate because of her hue.

    Keep in mind that the actual Bradley Factor, assuming it really happened, was in a General Election, not in a primary. Tom Bradley won multiple elections (primary and general) in Los Angeles, despite the fact that blacks were a very small percentage of his constituents; and Bradley, when running for governor, won the Democratic Primary in California by the same percentage the Field Poll had predicted.

    Also, it is notable that Obama has faired worse in states where only registered Democrats were allowed to vote. He has done better in states which permit non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary.

    I’m not sure what explains all of the change in momentum in the Obama-Clinton race. However, I think the change in outcomes is mostly just the make-up of the states.

    Those with higher percentages of younger voters, blacks, liberals and independents are Obama states. Those with caucuses are Obama states. Those with higher percentages of Hispanics, older voters, moderates* and don’t permit independents to vote in the Democratic Primary are Clinton states.

    Knowing that, here is what should happen in the states to follow, with the key factor in bold:

    WY: caucus — Obama
    MS: blacks — Obama
    PA: moderates — Clinton
    GUAM: caucus — Obama
    IN: moderates — Clinton
    NC: blacks — Obama
    WV: moderates — Clinton
    KY: moderates — Clinton
    OR: liberals — Obama
    MT: liberals — Obama
    SD: moderates — Clinton
    PR: caucus — Obama

    * By “Moderates,” I mean Democrats who are less ideological and less educated. These are working class voters, who may be conservative on some social issues, like abortion or gays.

  18. Richard,

    Thanks for the links:

    “there has been an obvious shift in public sentiment from Obama to Hillary in the last week to 10 days, it shows up everywhere, in the results in Texas and Ohio, in the national polls, and even, most alarmingly, in an upcoming state where he is supposed to do well, North Carolina, which may become his firewall.

    I can’t help but think that, at the last minute, voters just can’t bring themselves to nominate a black person as the Democratic nominee for President. It has happened too many times now.”

    I may be blind to it, but I don’t think that there is “a Bradley Factor” in the Democratic Party primary vote. If someone is racially prejudiced, I don’t think he is going to:

    1) register for a liberal political party; and

    2) tell pollsters he is going to vote for Obama; but then

    3) actually vote for the female candidate because of her hue.

    Keep in mind that the actual Bradley Factor, assuming it really happened, was in a General Election, not in a primary. Tom Bradley won multiple elections (primary and general) in Los Angeles, despite the fact that blacks were a very small percentage of his constituents; and Bradley, when running for governor, won the Democratic Primary in California by the same percentage the Field Poll had predicted.

    Also, it is notable that Obama has faired worse in states where only registered Democrats were allowed to vote. He has done better in states which permit non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary.

    I’m not sure what explains all of the change in momentum in the Obama-Clinton race. However, I think the change in outcomes is mostly just the make-up of the states.

    Those with higher percentages of younger voters, blacks, liberals and independents are Obama states. Those with caucuses are Obama states. Those with higher percentages of Hispanics, older voters, moderates* and don’t permit independents to vote in the Democratic Primary are Clinton states.

    Knowing that, here is what should happen in the states to follow, with the key factor in bold:

    WY: caucus — Obama
    MS: blacks — Obama
    PA: moderates — Clinton
    GUAM: caucus — Obama
    IN: moderates — Clinton
    NC: blacks — Obama
    WV: moderates — Clinton
    KY: moderates — Clinton
    OR: liberals — Obama
    MT: liberals — Obama
    SD: moderates — Clinton
    PR: caucus — Obama

    * By “Moderates,” I mean Democrats who are less ideological and less educated. These are working class voters, who may be conservative on some social issues, like abortion or gays.

  19. Richard,

    Thanks for the links:

    “there has been an obvious shift in public sentiment from Obama to Hillary in the last week to 10 days, it shows up everywhere, in the results in Texas and Ohio, in the national polls, and even, most alarmingly, in an upcoming state where he is supposed to do well, North Carolina, which may become his firewall.

    I can’t help but think that, at the last minute, voters just can’t bring themselves to nominate a black person as the Democratic nominee for President. It has happened too many times now.”

    I may be blind to it, but I don’t think that there is “a Bradley Factor” in the Democratic Party primary vote. If someone is racially prejudiced, I don’t think he is going to:

    1) register for a liberal political party; and

    2) tell pollsters he is going to vote for Obama; but then

    3) actually vote for the female candidate because of her hue.

    Keep in mind that the actual Bradley Factor, assuming it really happened, was in a General Election, not in a primary. Tom Bradley won multiple elections (primary and general) in Los Angeles, despite the fact that blacks were a very small percentage of his constituents; and Bradley, when running for governor, won the Democratic Primary in California by the same percentage the Field Poll had predicted.

    Also, it is notable that Obama has faired worse in states where only registered Democrats were allowed to vote. He has done better in states which permit non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary.

    I’m not sure what explains all of the change in momentum in the Obama-Clinton race. However, I think the change in outcomes is mostly just the make-up of the states.

    Those with higher percentages of younger voters, blacks, liberals and independents are Obama states. Those with caucuses are Obama states. Those with higher percentages of Hispanics, older voters, moderates* and don’t permit independents to vote in the Democratic Primary are Clinton states.

    Knowing that, here is what should happen in the states to follow, with the key factor in bold:

    WY: caucus — Obama
    MS: blacks — Obama
    PA: moderates — Clinton
    GUAM: caucus — Obama
    IN: moderates — Clinton
    NC: blacks — Obama
    WV: moderates — Clinton
    KY: moderates — Clinton
    OR: liberals — Obama
    MT: liberals — Obama
    SD: moderates — Clinton
    PR: caucus — Obama

    * By “Moderates,” I mean Democrats who are less ideological and less educated. These are working class voters, who may be conservative on some social issues, like abortion or gays.