Anyone but Lee - Page 2

The incumbent is falling fast in the polls, and it's actually possible for Avalos to win
|
(198)
Down he goes.

The Leland Yee campaign has taken direct advantage of that perception, releasing a parody of the hagiographic Lee biography written by political consultant Enrique Pearce. "The Real Ed Lee story," which repeatedly talks of his connections to unethical power brokers, hit the streets this past weekend.

Lee also sided with the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce over a coalition of labor and consumer groups with his veto of legislation by Sup. David Campos that would have prevented employers from draining $50 million per year from health savings accounts set up to comply with city law. Many restaurants even tack a 3-5 percent surcharge onto customers' bills, making it essentially consumer fraud.

"It's important for us to take a stance on the issue and say that what the mayor did was wrong," Campos told us. "It's a defining issue for us in City Hall."

Then there's OccupySF. Nobody knows for sure, but it's likely that a majority of San Franciscans are at least somewhat sympathetic to the group's message. And Lee has so far avoided the public relations disaster of Oakland's crackdown.

But the left is unhappy with Lee's constant threats to clear out the encampment, and the right is unhappy that he hasn't sent in the cops already — and even the San Francisco Chronicle has denounced his lack of decisiveness.

Lee put the police on high alert and had them moving around in buses, ready to move in — than at the last minute changed his mind. "What this shows," said former Supervisor Aaron Peskin, "is that we don't have a mayor with a firm hand on the tiller."

Most observers expected that the Chronicle would join the San Francisco Examiner and endorse Lee. But the paper came down on the side of Supervisor David Chiu. Chiu is still running well behind in the polls, and not that many voters follow the Chron's advice, but the endorsement was a huge boost to his campaign.

"Ed Lee's had a bad couple of weeks, and some of the others have had a good couple of weeks," Cooks said.

 

RANKED CHOICE

Ranked-choice voting puts an interesting twist into all of this. Several consultants and election experts I talked to this week said that Lee would be far more vulnerable in a traditional election. "He would lose a runoff against almost any of the top challengers," one person said.

But every poll that's tested the ranked-choice scenario — even recent polls that show Lee faltering — still put him on top after the votes are all tallied and allocated. That's in part because supporters of candidates who are lower in the pack — Chiu, for example — tend to put Lee as a second or third choice. The Bay Citizen/USF poll showed that when Chiu was eliminated, most of his votes wound up going to Lee.

"Ranked-choice voting clearly favors incumbents," Cook told me.

And, people walking precincts say, there are still some Herrera and even Avalos voters who put Lee second or third. And the only way Avalos -- or anyone other than Lee -- can win the election is if progressive and independent voters stick to a clear "anyone but Lee" voting strategy.

Avalos is doing well in recent polls; in fact, one shows him ahead of Herrera in first-place votes. Herrera does better when seconds and thirds are counted. Michela Alioto-Pier gets a fair number of first-place votes, which isn't surprising since she's one of only three women in the race, the only woman with citywide name recognition — and the only real credible conservative.

Yee and Chiu are both in the running, and Yee has come out strong attacking Lee and is running hard for progressive votes. He showed up at OccupySF the night a police raid was threatened and has been the leading critic of the alleged voter fraud.

Cook says a scenario where somebody beats Lee is still "an inside straight" — but it's not at all impossible.

Comments

He's the only progressive with a connection to fiscal moderates...I think Chiu #2 makes sense too- not sure about #3 at all...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

My advice is to start working for your top picks. I got polled Tuesday, live in the Sunset, and it was Lee, Yee, Herrera and Chiu as the only ones asked for. I've already voted and on my list of three it was Yee, Herrera and Avalos, 1, 2, 3. These are the candidates that the SFBay Guardian endorsed but in reverse order. If Mr. Ed wins, remember he gets to pick a sucessor to Ross who may win for Sherrif. If Gascon wins he will protect the Lee administration for sure. As a nurse, Yee was my first choice due to his work on behalf of nurses with CNA who have called upon Leland to fight for staff nurse ratios and agains the health insurance corporations.

A little while ago, 5 candidates stood out in the rain on the steps of City Hall to denounce the campaign, supporters and Mr. Ed himself, for the latest campaign fraud allegation. Those 5 were Herrera, Alioto-Pier, Yee, Reese and Jeff Adachi.

I thank all of them for putting their runs for mayor on the line, once again, to high light the fraud scandels of Mayor Ed and his supporters who can't wait to make sure progressives of all strips pay for the next 8 long years.

Time to put aside critiques of who can win and who can't. Work for your candidates. That is what I'm going to do and hope like heck it is one of the candidates endorsed by the SFBay guardian.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

Those allegations are just that - self-serving accusations by Lee's enemies. Dirty tricks by a desperate set of candidates who are way behind in the polls.

You have to go to the issues that most voters say is number one - jobs. And that means a candidate who supports the businesses that provide most of our incomes and whose taxes sustain our services. Folks like Yee and Avalos are mired in the unions and would be drive out wealth from our City.

It has to be Lee next week. I like Hall and Aliota-Pier but they have no more chance of winning than Avalos or Baum.

Jobs, investment, business and the economy. It's all that matters.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 3:25 pm

Video evidence of voter fraud and written evidence of illegal money taken by the Ed Lee Campaign are hardly just "accusations".

Honesty and integrity matter to the voters of San Francisco.
Ed Lee has proven repeatedly that he has neither.

Have a nice time in jail, Enrique Pearce!

Posted by matlock on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

and determine whether it is valid, or whether it is fake and phoney. So there's no reason to assume anything other than that we are all innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Lee's opponents, sensing defeat, are desperate to spread dirt rather than debate the issues. It's that simple.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

There have been crime after crime reported in the paper and on the news for it all to be coincidences.
Where there's smoke there's fire, and at first I thought I might vote for Ed Lee, but after learning about all of his corruption and bribery, I will vote for anyone but this terrible man that is bad for San Francisco.

Posted by Charlie on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

There's no proven evidence and no charges.

It's typical at this stage in an election that the challengers to an incumbent will seek to throw dirt at him, regardless of merit. Lee is innocent of all charges unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 5:27 am

Shoot! I voted for ED. I need you guys to vote for Anybody But Lee to neutralize my vote, please.....................

Posted by Guest edlee on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 9:13 pm

Open Letter to the, hopefully, still somewhat
Honorable, and hopefully, Interim Mayor.
WHEREAS; In light of the multiple reports of suspected money laundering and violations of the electoral process committed by your campaign operatives, supporters and close affiliates.
WHEREAS; You have stated publicly that "..you wish they wouldn't do it...but you have no control over their actions..."
WHEREAS; I beg to differ and assert you could immediately identify ALL such dubious contributions and either freeze or return them; you could demand that John Arntz, Dir of Elections, invalidate all 'completed and bagged' ballots and any that originate from the various addresses where 'suspicious' activities have taken place (the current City Attny can advise you on this).
WHEREAS; You Da Man, you have the power, you CAN DO IT; and if you can't figure out how, you can ask Da Mayor, we all know he can fix it.
THEREFORE; Be it known by all those present that I request you consider one of Tom Ammiano's campaign slogans. IT'S ABOUT INTEGRITY - GODAMN IT.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 10:06 pm

Also the many others who have done the crimes with him, people like Enrique Pearce.

The DA has started two investigations into Ed Lee's campaign, due to the video evidence of Ed Lee's people stealing the vote of innocent San Francisco voters. I Do not think that is normal for any mayor's campaign. It is only a matter of time before Ed Lee and his henchmen will face justice for their crimes.
In the mean time there is no way I would vote for this Mayor, but probably Leland Yee.

Posted by Charlie on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 8:25 am

moreover those are of course allegations made by those with the most to gain from people believing them.

Intelligent voters aren't going to be thrown off by muck and dirt. They will make a decision based on polcies issues, and not on who can most misuse public money by making this election dirty.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 9:42 am

Enough fraudulent ballots have been turned in to determine the election?

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/san-francisco-chinatown-ac...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 9:15 am

We need to await any DA investigation before jumping to conclusions.

It would hardly be a shock if most voters in ChinaTown support Lee anyway. I've seen no evidence that these activities, even if they are true, would materially alter the result of the election.

Voters will decide based on the issues, and not on spurious claims made by Lee's enemies.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 10:04 am

and he is bad for small business. He only helps huge corporations and rich like Larry Ellison.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 11:39 am

We shouldn't want a mayor who just supports business, but then we should support one who just supports the unions either. What we need is a moderate who can see all sides of an argument and get people to work together, as he did with the budget.

This is the wrong time to have an extremist in power.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 11:51 am

Really,

Just off the top of your head let us know how the vote will shake out when the 'voters' have made their final decision.

h.

Posted by h. brown on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 11:56 am

wrong so I'd have to go with their predictions i.e. Lee with around of one third of first choices, with nobody else much over 10%. Then Lee reaching 50.1% after a few rounds on the basis of those choosing him 2 and 3.

There may be some polls this week-end, but personally I'd be surprised if they are much different. For the record, I see your guy, Adachi, coming the closest to Lee. After that we'll see Herrera, Yee, Chui, Dufty and Avalos in a bunch.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

He has given tax dollars away to enormously successful companies (sorry small businesses - Ed Lee still wants YOUR meager profits) and he gave raises to two powerful unions in the midst of a world wide economic meltdown.

He has dispatched police to attack innocent American citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free speech.

Also he and his campaign have committed voter fraud in no less than three documented instances.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

Was this a new article or column? Check out CompareAndDecide2011.com for some interesting info on folks in the election

Posted by Guest on Nov. 06, 2011 @ 9:14 am

Does this mean we are going to have more conservative than typical voters this time around? Does this really tell us anything about the Mayor's race results?

Matier & Ross:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/06/BA561LQQHN.DTL

Raw Data:

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/docs/SFvbm.pdf

Posted by Guest on Nov. 06, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

His strongholds have already come out in force. He's clearly the top choice in Chinatown, and getting good traction in the Southeast areas of the City with heavy Asian populations. The Westside Chinese voters may have some Yee selections in there, but I expect Lee to be somewhere on their ballot as well (if not #1, then #2).

If Lee winds up with around 30% on the first run, be interesting to see where the 2nd and 3rd choices are that put him over the top. I think he's got the Northside, Pacific Heights, Newsom loyalists. Gets the City's most conservative areas in St. Francis Woods. And the citywide casual voter who knows he is capable and done ok saw he was ranked in the SF Chronicle's Top 3 and Examiner's Top Pick. And then guys like me.. who realize the guy's got some involvement with shady characters, but he's effective and can run a city without simutaneously trying to change to world. So he'll get my #2 or #3.

Posted by Longtime-Lurker on Nov. 06, 2011 @ 11:08 pm

With such a split field, the Asians pulling strong for Lee makes it very hard for anyone else to win.

Lee will also pick up a lot of #3 votes. My wife is going with Adachi/Chui/Lee while I'm voting Hall/Dufty/Lee.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 6:11 am

Your wife matched my vote! I was beginning to think I was the only one with that combination...If Gascon wins, the first thing he'll do is sweep the Lee investigations under the rug.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 9:10 am

so even if some corners were cut in collating the postal votes, it seems implausible that that would have had any material effect on the result.

If someone in Lee's campaign technically infringed a rule, that will be established. But it would not per se "taint" a victory that looks like it's going to be so clear-cut that it could only derive from a major mandate from the people of this city.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 9:30 am

Ooh, I like that frame!

Um... how about "broke the law"... or "committed a crime?"

You have a major ballot-stuffing operation where campaign workers are going around and filling out people's ballots for them and stuffing them in bags.

Oh... no problem here. These people are just "cutting some corners." No harm in that.

No, Guest. The Lee/Brown/Pak machine is fucking with our democracy. Any candidate who doesn't respect the basic premise of democracy should be automatically disqualified. If they're so popular, they should be able to win without cheating.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 10:01 am

There is certainly some evidence that some voters in ChinaTown were assisted with completing their ballots. That is to be expected in a close-knit community like ChinaTown, particularly when many voters there are elderly, confused and often don't even understand English. It is natural that ChinaTown's business and cultural organizations would furnish assistance.

However, to regard that as anything mroe than a reasonable shortcut requires affirmative answers to these two questions:

1) Do we really believe that voters in the most pro-Lee part of the city, where cultural cohesion is highly valued, would really otherwise have voted for anyone else?

2) Do you have real proof that Lee's immediate campaign staff orchestrated any technical infringement of the correct protocol?

The answer to both questions, based on what we currrently know, is a resounding "No".

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 10:15 am

If we allow any gaming of our voting system whatsoever we will be on a path to its destruction. In the Jim Crow south such games were allowed and they ran rampantly out of control and disenfranchised -generations- of black voters, completely undermining the balance of powers and representative democracy in the House and Senate.

Lee's campaign is 'helping' people to vote who never would have voted in the first place (thereby -inflating- Lee's votes) as well as filling out people's ballots -for- them which is not just illegal, it is -deeply- illegal and should never be tolerated because it is a road to coercion of voters (just like the coercion we saw in that Jim Crow era).

Your casual tossing aside of the most fundamental laws of our constitution and democracy is unconscionable and un-American.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 10:43 am

It can take the form of giving rides to the voting station, offering advice and information or helping with language translation.

I worked for a company in SF where the CEO made it very clear whose campaign we should donate to and how we should vote. Unions do something fairly similar.

If someone in a campaign broke a regulation, then that should be noted and addressed. But there is a big difference between a technical infringement of protocol and widescale fraud.

From what I've seen, elderly residents of ChinaTown who can't understand English would in any and all event have voted for Lee. Why would they ever have voted for a hispanic like Avalos?

So the fact that most people and voters are "tolerating" this issue is becaue most reasonable people recognize it has only the most marginal effect. And if anything, voters are disgusted with the efforts by some of the other candidiates to try and use this to make the campaign dirty.

It seems that those who can't match Lee on his policies and achievements want to degrade the entire debate.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 11:00 am

Do us all a favor and crawl back under your rock.

And prepare your legal defense for when we come after you and your fellow conspirators hardcore for participating in the patently illegal rigging of votes for Lee.

You should be sweating hard right now buddy. For the second time, you foolishly didn't consider the power of cellphone cameras, and this time, it is going to get you into some very deep shit.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 11:32 am

doesn't need to resort to dirty tricks to walk this election. so these accusations make little sense. A camera can lie, and a prejudicial loser can exaggerate. but I'm still waiting for clear evidence that the result of this election is affected even slightly by any alleged cases of any over-enthusiasm of Lee supporters.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:04 pm

Total bullshit. Even in the completely bogus Bat Citizen poll, Lee was 15 points up at best, and that was long before his public pummeling for this vote rigging scandal.

Avalos has shot -way- up in numbers and is now likely within single digits of Lee.

Your boy is close to going down.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:21 pm

with the others bunched around 10% or less.

Where is your poll? Wishful thinking on your part doesn't count.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

I'm not basing my projections on polls.

And your polls? Bullshit. What polls? Post the urls.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

started coming out a couple of months ago. you must be new here if you haven't been following those discussions. Google will find them all.

What I haven't seen is a poll showing Lee under 30%. Have you?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 1:31 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

Every poll published and discussed here shows Lee with a 20% lead. I'm sure if you could cite a poll disproving that, you would, but you can't.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

What a laugh. You are referring to polls that came out weeks ago and even months ago!!?? Where did you study political science, barber college?

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

but you're now changing your argument to one of timing?

I rest my case.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

Nope. I'm not changing anything. We are discussing two aspects of the election and polling. 1) The absurdly outdated polls that -you- keep unfathomably referencing. And 2) the newer polls that have undoubtedly been taken, but which no one has released...

No political pollster or campaign manager in their right mind would pay any attention to a poll several weeks old. The idea is totally ludicrous.

Lee's campaign machine has undoubtedly done new polls since the long outdated Bay Citizen poll.

Yet they haven't released these new polls (even though Lee has been roundly attacked in the media up-down-and-sideways for corruption).

There is only one thing that could mean.

Lee is in deep shit.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

We need a hot mayor. I mean, c'mon, Willie was hot, Gavin was hot. San Francisco needs a mayor with style, a fedora, or a cross-gender attractiveness. We have a reputation to uphold. City politics, and the dependencies of the three branches of city government are too complicated to rely upon position papers alone. Lets line-em-up and turn on the hot-o-meter.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 06, 2011 @ 10:22 pm

If Lee/Ross wins on Tuesdat, Ed gets a pik for Ross' seat. Choose your three carefully. For me it was Dr. Yee, Herrera and Avalos.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 5:47 am

even though I think he's a better candidate than Yee or Herrera, he is clearly a late adopter to the dirty tricks and accusations that have sadly formed the bedrock of their campaigns for the last few weeks.

Despite all the noise I have seen zero evidence that any technical infringements of voting protocol by over-enthusiastic supports of Lee will have any measurable effect on the result of the election.

This is mostly just the usual last-minute opportunistic dirt that losing candidiates always try. The voters are smarter than to buy this.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 11:33 am

I have never seem more faulty references to "numbers" and polls when there is no evidence and no polls.

It's not that complicated - it's against the law to use mayor money to pimp ballot mesaures although I would agree that flyer sums up Lee perfectly with his proposition advocacy:

"Please shield high paid employees like me from contributing my fair share to my pension but let's instead tax the poor with a sales tax increase and tax the middle-class for the potholes I never fixed."

Sincerely,

An Unmasked Ed Lee

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

he will take votes away from Herrera and Yee, both of whom are more likely to beat Lee.

If Lee doesn't win, I'd prefer Adachi.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:47 pm

How about a Mayor whole will clean up the Planning Dept by addressing allegations of ageism racism and homophobia? DR reform advocates exclude people of color and of less means. Management should reflect citizens of the City. One should not have to own KKKondo for residual benefit to get a job at the Planning Dept.

Posted by KKKondoTit4Tat on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:15 pm

what the majority of residents like about him is a lack of ego and ideology. And his focus on working hard to build up the economy. Jobs are the number one issue for voters, not ideology. They want a can-do Mayor.

There may well be isolated injustices if you look hard enough for them. But they are quite simply not the issues that determine how people will vote.

And once you've got a dynamic economy, a healthy job market and a growing taxroll, then other problems can be addressed just as easily.

But let's not let the tail wag the dog here.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:24 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:13 pm

The election poll shows 30%+ intending to vote for Lee.

But his approval ratings, which have been occasionally polled since he won office, have been in the 70%-80% range.

It's been widely publicized - just google it.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:38 pm

Citing them weeks and months later, one day before the election, is a laughable fiction.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:55 pm