Not to over-rationalize, but...

I got this comment yesterday to my March 15 column about Gregg Underheim:

Anonymous said...

The vote was 62% to 38%, proving Underheim a bigger loser than anyone predicted. Truly an 'Under'heim.

Let's give the poor guy a pass on posting anonymously. He's probably a liberal, and as we all know they've been having a tough couple of years.

Intstead, let's focus on his characterization of Tuesday's result: yes, my guy did lose, but there are victories and then there are victories. Some thoughts:

• 38% was actually better than some prognosticators thought Gregg would do;
  
  
• his campaign forced WEAC to spend $350,000 - money they won't have when the next Assembly, Senate, and gubernatorial races come around - and that's in addition to the $200K+ Burmaster raised from various interest groups and private contributors;
  
  
• our main allies did not blow their own wads trying to win a largely symbolic position with very little actual authority, which, given the dynamics of the election, we probably couldn't have won no matter how much we spent;
  
  
• most importantly, I got material for three whole columns out of it, and I'm mulling a fourth.
  

So, Gregg and our side lost the battle, but overall, I'll call this one a strategic win.