A case for Avalos, Yee and Dufty - Page 2

An SEIU 1021 political organizer explains his union's ranked choices

|
(121)

For labor and progressives, Ammiano's Healthy San Francisco legislation was the single most important piece of legislation of the last decade. And while history has been rewritten, and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom now takes credit for the legislation, then-Mayor Newsom did not come on board until after Dufty declared his support, and as the 8th supporter, created a veto-proof majority.

Each of these candidates have shown their capacity to grow and transform as leaders making them the best choices for progressive labor, and we believe for the San Francisco. Whatever you do, you have three votes, make them count. 

Gabriel Haaland is a transgender labor activist and the SEIU 1021 San Francisco political coordinator.

 

Comments

Since he will not be working for the tax payers of the city. It sucks that we are paying his salary now.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

I wonder if any of the candidates will do anything to address the fact that no HIV Prevention Services money was allocated to serve African American Transgenders who have the highest rate of HIV infection in the Transgender Community.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:40 am

As a 1021 member working for all 3 candidates Avalos but in full disclosure mostly Dufty and Yee either would be a good leader for the city. And vote roll mirkarimi for shariff please.

Posted by Guest Brenda Barros on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 11:24 am
IRV

Gabriel, you are much more astute than I when it comes to these strategies, but here's my 2c. I'm 100% behind John, and have been from Day 1. How do we make that happen. I had been considering Terry as #1 figuring that her votes would transfer. I won't get into it about Jeff, I've had my ears pinned back by many and have responded elsewhere, both C & D suck and we have to go after the "1%", anything else is futile posturing and just prolonging the misery.
I have recently been persuaded that pragmatically, though she most powerfully speaks my truth, a vote for Terry is not in our best interest at this time, if for no other reason that there won't be that many to make much of a difference in the end, sorry Terry.
Obviously we need to maximise #1 votes for John. The key is going to be #'s 2 & 3. Yee is absolutely preferable to Lee, Herrera, Chiu, "Ramp Girl"; I think most of the rest are long shots at best, though I do respect Tony Hall as being true to his principles, better an enemy you can trust than a fairweather 'friend'.
So then it's who else. I like Bevan personally but not politically, I do not think many of his votes would transfer to John. I think many of Jeff's might, and he will get a significant number, despite some of his recent mistakes. I think that poses the question of if it's; 1) Avalos, 2) Yee, who should be 3) to ensure that we get the maximum number of votes transferred to John and Leeland when it gets down to the wire. It won't be Bevan. Jeff seems to the best option.
So my current strategy is:-
1) AVALOS
2 & 3) YEE & ADACHI.
I would be ecstatic if John, Jeff and Leland were the last three left standing. John is solid, the other two can be persuaded and 'got to' when necessary. Objective, constructive criticism and feedback welcomed.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 12:46 pm

Adachi is far too dangerous to risk getting him elected by ranking him.

Instead of all of this angst about who to rank as number three, it is far more important for us to focus on getting as many people as possible to rank Yee somewhere in their votes.

It is crucial to educate as many voters as possible that if Avalos does not win, Yee is the only possible progressive third rank fallback who can defeat Lee.

This needs to become a mantra.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 1:32 pm

Hats off to my union sister and for me it was Yee, Avalos for 1 and 2. I've lived in the Sunset and know Leland well. He is a fighter and has detailed plans to revitalize San Francisco. He has been taking on Mr. Ed since Ed declared, a risky thing with IRV. My reasoning for giving him the number one node is simple, experience and a progressive record especially on health care, labor and edcuation. Who ever you chose for 3, make sure it includes Avalos and Yee for your first or second choice. Avalos is a great supervisor and may be one of the few left on the BOS if Lee remains our mayor and Ross goes on the be Sherrif. That would give Mr. Ed and appointment for progressive seat. Not a great prospect when you think that Avalos and Mar might be the only real progressives left standing.

With 30% of the electorate still undecided, the number 2 is as important as number one. The Asian American community is engaged in this election and Leland was on Stockton/Broadway and his plans for education were being taken like hot cakes, according to another SEIU member with him today.

Anyone but Lee sounds great but at somepoint, progressives must pick the three that we could live with for the next 8 years.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

Jeez,

For the combined output of crap from Eric Brooks and now Gabriel Haaland has crawled out from under Hellman's bed.

Yee's anti-rent control. He favors the Parkmerced plan. Except when he's talking to Parkmerced tenants. He loves the environment. Except when a big garbage company pays him to one of 3 votes in the 40 member State Senate to vote against the environment.

When he got arrested cruising for crack whores he told the cops that he was the chief of police! He's a shoplifter. He was Willie Brown's errand boy to the 2000 Board.

He lied about where his own children lived to jump ahead of others and get a better school placement.

He was known as, "White-out Leland" at the CCDC because he fraudulently changed so many records and applications.

Yeah, I can see why Gabriel likes him. Wasn't it Gabe who sat in SEIU headquarters pasting the head of Malia Cohen over the Chris Jackson endorsement? Literally thousands of them? Haaland is an expert at voter fraud. He's been doing it for years.

Brooks gets his money from PG&E laundered through Joshu Arce's Brightline Defense.

You got yourself some team here, Tim.

Adachi for Mayor!

Avalos for Mayor!

Baum for Mayor!

Hall for Mayor!

Miyamoto for Sheriff!

Gascon for DA!

Yes on D and H and no on everything else.

go Niners!

h.

Posted by h. brown on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

Neither I nor any group that I represent, nor anyone in either of those groups has ever received, nor will we ever receive, a penny from either PG&E or Brightline Defense Project.

Likewise, Brightline Defense Project has never received a penny from PG&E. Brightline does excellent work, and is responsible for the new local hiring law in San Francisco, among many other progressive victories. See Brightline's web site at:

http://brightlinedefense.org/

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

h.,

I am fed up with your bullying and your lies about Gabriel and Eric. Eric has already said that he doesn't work for PG &E. And you've never offered the slightest evidence for your assertions. That makes me think that you can't prove what you're saying because you're making it up out of whole cloth.

As a regular BG reader, I'm really tired of being subjected to this crap. Somehow, I doubt that I'm the only reader who feels this way.

Slandering people's reputations is serious business. It can be a cause for legal action. So, put up or shut up, h! And, while you're at it, ease up on the bottle, little man.

Lisa

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 3:59 pm

The organization that I coordinate has been a leader in fights against PG&E, and has openly and publicly attacked PG&E, which can be seen on our campaign pages at:

http://our-city.org/campaigns/16stopped.html

and

http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html

It's pretty far fetched that PG&E would be paying us to openly attack it.

Furthermore, Brightline Defense Project has been a key ally and leader in the fight to replace PG&E energy with the CleanPowerSF program in San Francisco.

If we are somehow benefiting from PG&E, we sure have a strange way of showing it... ;)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 4:22 pm

Ignore his fevered ramblings. Everyone else does.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 6:54 pm

and I'm an angry ass conservative.

just like you.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

That was a piece of work coming from you...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:31 pm

@h, if you had to choose the three candidates who might realistically and preferentially be 'left' standing in the final round, apart from Jeff and John, who else would that be, hopefully acknowledging that Tony and Terry are 1,000 to 1 outsiders.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

@h. Before I open another bottle of rojo and pack my bags to head up to the River for the weekend. WhoTF is #3 except for Lee. The number of votes that Terry and Tony, god love 'em, might git don't mean shit. Am I wrong here but doesn't #3 have to be a choice who's votes might transfer to Jeff or John.
GO NINERS

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 3:55 pm

Ooops, that was a premature posting, climax to follow.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 3:57 pm
Posted by Lisa on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

Hope I wasn't coming a cross as a 'bully', just trying to get in my 2c.
Could I repeat/suggest
1) AVALOS
2 or 3) YEE or ADACHI
Whatever the result, We The People will at least have a chance to take it from there ?

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

Pat,

No companero, I wasn't referring to you. I certainly don't see you as a bully. Unlike h, you don't make up shit about people simply because you disagree with them. I respect that about you. And I enjoyed your 2c, Pat. Here's mine, for what it's worth~

1) AVALOS
2) BAUM
3) YEE

En la lucha,
Lisa

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

Tx, appreciate feedback. My 2c backatcha. I understand your vote for for Terry, she really is closest to my heart, but I think we have to be realistic and pragmatic, the number of disposable votes she may get are not gonna make much difference. At least this time it's not the lesser of evils, John is Da Man. But as I've said before, 2 & 3 are critical, IMHO supporters of Yee and Adachi are most likely to pick John as 2 or 3 and that is what is most important right now. I know that many have crucified Jeff for being the first to raise the 'pension issue'; I just erased a whole paragraph on that topic as I have posted it elsewhere; but everyone is now addressing that issue in one way or another. They are ALL wrong. Until 'they' find the cojones to confront the real problem, the "1%", they are nothing but co-opted castrati, I think John may have90=io-pl;. a pair.
So it comes down to how to allocate your three choices in order to maximise the chances of someone who will be responsive, compassionate, respectful and committed to us becoming our next Mayor. However you may want to rate them, I suggest it has to be the troika of Avalos, Adachi, Yee, anything else is cutting out your heart and soul to satisfy your personal prejudices and agendas.
Just another 2c

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

Pat please do me a big favor. Go to Justin Herman Plaza this weekend and talk to the protesters about pension, reform.

You might find it enlightening. And it might change your voting strategy.

Please do this, as a favor to another old, windmill tilting, campaign war horse...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 7:20 pm

Hers will be the 1st or 2nd transfers - all 200-300 of them.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 7:29 pm

Re; h.
And you are what exactly, apart from a monosyllabic, bottom feeding hagfish. If you had as much knowledge about the political history of our city in your whole sorry body as h does in his little finger, your opinion might carry some weight, as you don't, why not just go back to watching 'Butt-fucking Babes of Boise', or whatever you and your kind use to stay current with social events.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 7:38 pm

carried the weight of all of 42 voters with him when he last ran for supervisor.

Looks like being an old drunk, misogynistic, anti-semite really doesn't have the appeal to San Francisco voters that people like Patrick Monk RN believe it does. That's what happens when you live in an echo chamber - you really start believing your own shit.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
IRV

@Eric, will try and f/u in the morning before I head up to the river.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

hey pat, it took me a minute to figure out that "f/u" stands for "follow up."
at least, i hope that's what it stands for.

Posted by Tony Kelly on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 8:16 pm

old nursing abbreviation, can be creatively used in reference to wet behind the ears, arrogant doctors

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 8:31 pm

Eric..don't think my first response posted yet, in case I have time in the AM, give me some meat to chew on. What are your objections to my 'strategy'.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 7:51 pm

Two Problems with your strategy.

1) Not ranking Terry Baum at a crucial time when we -must- strongly build alternative parties to challenge the Democrats, badly undermines that objective and keeps us entrenched in decrepit one party monopoly in San Francisco that is degenerating more every year for lack of a strong challenge from the left.

2) Adachi has indeed tied his future to a new global attack by wealthy elites on the 99%. (The fact that he crafted his pension measure with Joe Nation proves this.) If we elect Adachi, he will end up doing to San Francisco exactly what is being done now to the workers and the lower classes in Greece. Trust me, that is the intention of his funders. And this means that he would actually be -worse- for us than even Lee/Willie-Brown. We must not allow global financiers to take over the control of our city government. The local real estate bastards are actually preferable.

All of this means that you might as well vote your conscience for first choice - then rank Avalos and Yee, and then -pray- like a snowman in hell... ;)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 8:09 pm

Ps: Here is the link for a great little interview that David Barsamian just did with Noam Chomsky which also delves into these public worker issues.

http://chomsky.info/interviews/201109--.htm

Note that the interview is from September -before- the Occupy uprisings began. And taken in the new light of the Occupy movement, the interview is even more powerful...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 8:43 pm

How much longer the 99% pablum...?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:04 pm

Idealistically and in principle I concur.
Realistically I think there are now only three ways that 1/2 Party system monopoly will be broken.
A total collapse of the world economy, which is imminent.
World wide environmental disaster, which is imminent.
Massive, hopefully-but doubtfully- bloodless, popular uprisings, which are happening
Terry is my dream, but her chances and her votes are next to nothing.
The rest are all tied to the status quo, to a greater or lesser degree, they are politicians. I think John is the cleanest, hence my #1. Many people I respect, of all persuasions, have been supportive of Leeland for a long time. You and I and many of our companeros will never again agree on Adachi, despite our love for him a little over a year ago, so be it. I still trust him to do the right thing much more than I do the rest of the bunch, you don't, fair enough. But again I ask if we need an IRV strategy, which we obviously do, to elect John, which of the other candidates could garner enough 2 & 3 votes for John that could put him over the top. That is an open question begging an answer. Tempus fugit muddah-fugghas.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 9:01 pm

Pat, if you and most other progressives keep saying that Baum won't get any votes, instead of voting your conscience, that is exactly what will happen. Are you really going to let fear mongers disenfranchise you yet again?

And this is not just about winning, it is about giving Baum and the Greens as many votes as possible so that they will once again become realized and utilized as a more powerful force in San Francisco politics. Baum doesn't have to win to make that happen, she just needs to finish with much higher than expected support. That won't happen if you and most other progressives wimp out.

Get your courage up, and do what's right.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 9:19 pm

It's a waste of a crucial IRV choice in almost every scenario that can be envisaged.

Adachi, Herrera, Yee, Avalos and Chui all have a chance of catching Lee. Baum doesn't. Even with a 5-pick IRV ballot, a token vote for Baum would be risky.

With only 3 picks, you risk shutting out 2 strong alternatives to Lee.

Pat gets that. You don't.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 10:27 am

I've already gone over why it's so important to vote for a Green party candidate in the mayor's race.

More importantly, once again, you behave as if defeating Lee is the only objective. But there are some other -equally- imperative goals:

1) Chiu absolutely must not be allowed to come even close, because any politician who so completely screws the progressive base that elected him for political gain -must- get the message loud and clear that we will not tolerate it.

2) Multinational finance capitalists -must- not be allowed to get control of City Hall. That is even more important than defeating Lee. So Adachi -must- not be allowed to reach the mayor's office.

3) Huge real estate speculators -must- not be allowed to -continue- to control City Hall. Hence Herrera also, must not be allowed to become mayor.

What is blaringly obvious here, is that Yee doesn't have anywhere near as serious negatives as those other candidates, and if everyone will just stop fooling around and support him as second or third choice, we will have the best chance of defeating Lee -and- keeping the -other- three horsemen of apocalypse out of room 200.

So let's do it.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

Chui and Adachi are making advances. So his goose may already be cooked.

We won't know for sure until the day before, but we need to vote for the three candidates who can most likely defeat Lee, and not the three most hopeless liberals.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

And even if what you are claiming were true, why would that be a good reason vote for Chiu or Adachi?

You're not making sense.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

You're claiming that Yee is "gaining" for no other reason that you'd like him to.

I'll believe polls over somepone who thinks a vote for the hopeless Baum will help the progressive movement.

Matt and Ross were decent candidates. Baum is probably the worst candidate the Greens have ever come up with. Even the SFBG say her campaign is a failure, and even the Tenant's Union have rejected her. Neither endorse her.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

As previously noted by myself and others the methodology of that poll is absurd.

And I would much rather see Avalos gaining actually.

It's just logical that as Lee takes the heavy media hits he has been dealt lately, a lot of voters will shift to Yee, because he is the most perceptually similar in temperament and demeanor.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 3:16 pm

it stands with more credibility than no poll at all, and mere self-serving conjecture.

Moreover, the BC poll largely corroberates other polls. You need a reason to ignore ALL the polls showing Lee walking it.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 5:08 pm

Bank on bad polls because there are no good ones? Silly logic.

The polls gave no guidance on the D-10 race, and likewise they are not doing so for the mayor's race.

I have my doubts as to whether polls have any meaning at all in a ranked choice race with a lot of strong candidates.

Election returns will definitely surprise us.

We should focus on doing good electoral work and pursuing a winning strategy, and pretty much ignore the polls.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

we all know you;d be singong their praises.

Nobody who wants a specific result should be consulted on the accuracy of polls.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

No, I wouldn't. I would strongly question such a poll, and tell fellow Greens not to relax, and instead to get their asses out their and campaign hard due to the poll likely being wrong.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 6:33 pm

OK ageist hagfish, Waiting for the kettle to boil so I can fuck with you a little. First I congratulate you for being able to string together enough words to make up ONE AND A HALF Paragraphs !! You are today's Maggot Come Loudmouth. As you also managed to include more than on word of over three syllables, you also win a self paid vacation to Sarah Palin's Alaska estate where you can enjoy the scenic beauty of Mother Russia while wrapped in warm environmentally procured road kill furs (actually killed on the road after being shot from an S-70A Black Hawk).
How many votes did you get last time you ran for any office other than bathroom monitor.
I have no comment about anyone's enjoyment of legal or illegal substances.
Apart from regurgitating unsubstantiated slurs that have appeared on this site, and which I have personally checked out with the posters who have essentially retracted or modified them, what personal experiences can you share to substantiate your accusations that h is either an anti-semite ( I happen to know a lot of yids who we are both friends with) or a misogynist ( I happen to know he has utmost respect for women, especially those of substance and strong opinions). Like me he is an old fart and we may not always act 'appropriately' or be politically correct, I think we're both doing the best we can in our own peculiar ways, but it ain't easy turning a shaggy old Lion into a couch pussy, and no woman worth her salt would want that anyway. Though maybe your partner, whoever he or she may be, likes you that way, that's cool, different strokes.
Guess it's obvious that I could give a shit what you think, just using you as a punching bag like poor old PaulT.
Ooops kettles boiling, time for tea. Bottom line I guess I'd rather believe in my shit than live in it like you do. Nyah, nya, ny, nya Nyah.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 9:47 pm

You may need to start considering a structured environment. You and h. together. You're the past - make like a leaf and blow away.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:02 pm

If 'we' had started years ago by contesting and winning seats as 'dog catcher', on 'school boards' etc, we might be in a stronger position of influence right now. The only two locally i'm aware of who started out on that path and achieved electoral success were Matt and Ross. Correct me if I'm wrong but once they got their feet on the ladder of political advancement, didn't they both change color. I don't have the answer, there is probably not enough time left for building from the ground up any more, collapse or confrontation seem to be the options. But any third party candidate running for any elected office of significance; eg Supervisor or above; is draining support away from 'more desirable' mainstream candidates who are much closer to our egalitarian ideals. That's what 'they' count on, divide, confuse and conquer. I despise the Democrats almost as much as the Republicrats. Two sides of the same corrupted coin.
I don't want to reopen this old wound; especially as I don't know the answer; but if all the votes that went to Nader, McKinney(my choice); and other left of centre candidates had actually been cast for Gore, would the Supreme Court have had the opportunity to fix that election and feel empowered to start their dismantling of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I dunno, just asking.
AVALOS
ADACHI
YEE
OCCUPY ROOM 200
GO NINERS

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

Pat, that doesn't happen under ranked choice voting! Will you wake the hell up please?!

The whole point of ranked choice is that it prevents the divide and conquer paradigm.

And yet people are apparently still telling you it doesn't, and you are apparently fool enough to actually believe them.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:56 pm
Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:36 pm

it was telling him that the party is over.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 10:23 am

A faux progressive claiming to fight for workers and drops the rank and file like a bad habit for political expediency. None of these people is progressive. Coward is more appropriate...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 23, 2011 @ 11:53 am

Also from this author

  • The right to transgender health care

    Labor takes the lead

  • A new feminism for San Francisco

    How to create a world of compassion, redemption, and accountability

  • GUEST OPINION: The Mirkarimi case -- is this justice?