Anyone but Lee

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

tredmond@sfbg.com

Two weeks ago, the race for mayor of San Francisco seemed in the bag. Mayor Ed Lee was so far ahead in most polls that everyone else looked like an also-ran. A Bay Citizen simulation of ranked-choice voting showed Lee getting enough seconds and thirds to emerge easily as the winner. His approval rating with voters was above 70 percent. The money was pouring in to his campaign and to the coffers of independent expenditure committees promoting him.

But that was before the voter-fraud scandals, OccupySF, Sup. John Avalos appearing on national TV, a controversial veto, Sup. David Chiu getting the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle, and an attack on City Attorney Dennis Herrera backfiring.

"It's changing," Corey Cook, a political scientist at the University of San Francisco, told us. "I don't know whether it's tightening up, but it's certainly changing."

One campaign consultant, who asked not to be named, was more blunt: "The Lee campaign is one bad news story away from free-fall."

That's not to say Lee is going to lose, or even that he's anything but the clear front-runner. But over the past week, as Lee has taken a series of hits, supporters of the other candidates — particularly Herrera and Avalos — are starting to wonder: Could somebody else really win?

The answer, of course, is yes — anything can happen in the week before an election. But defeating Mayor Lee will take a confluence of events and strategies that starts with a big progressive turnout — and with voters who don't like the idea of an incumbent with ties to a corrupt old political machine carefully allocating their three ranked choices.

 

NO SURPRISE

So far, there's been no crushing "October surprise" — no single event or revelation that can change the course of the election. And the impact of anything that happens in the next few days will be blunted by the fact that 27,000 absentee ballots have already arrived at the Department of Elections.

By all accounts, Lee's campaign and the somewhat sketchy independent expenditure groups that are working in parallel, if not in concert, have done an impressive job of identifying and turning out absentee voters. Local consultants from most of the campaigns agree that at least 20 percent of the final turnout will be Chinese voters — and Lee will get at least 75 and as much of 90 percent of that vote.

But as Cook notes, there are still "huge undecideds" for this late in a race. And while Lee was polling above 30 percent a few weeks ago, by most accounts his numbers have been dropping steadily. One recent poll shows him falling 10 points in the past two weeks, leaving him closer to 20 percent than 30 percent.

"If the election were held three weeks from now, he'd lose," said one consultant who asked not to be identified by name.

What's happened? A confluence of factors have put the incumbent in a bad light.

The voter-fraud allegations have made headlines and the district attorney is discussing a criminal investigation. Although Lee and his campaign weren't directly involved — the possibly illegal efforts to steer voters to Lee were run by one of the IEs — the last thing a politician wants to see in the waning days before an election are the words "voter fraud" and "criminal investigation."

And the allegation — that Lee supporters in Chinatown filled out ballots for absentee voters then collected them for later delivery — play right into Lee's weakness. While voters generally have good impressions of his work at City Hall, the fact that he's connected to sleazy operators and tied to the old discredited Brown machine continues to haunt him. And this sort of activity simply re-enforces that perception.

Comments

They know that's all part of the dirty tricks tactics that those losing elections desperately resort to.

Anyone can make an allegation. But the DA has delivered no verdict, and many doubt they are valid.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:11 pm

The reports in the papers are not allegations. They are facts.

And you just made a totally unsupported allegation - that voters don't care about what is in those news reports - without backing it up in any way with any new evidence or poll numbers at all.

Again. Can you post the urls to prove your totally unsubstantiated claims about what voters think?

No?

That's what I thought...

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

Yes. I am wondering what sources "guest" uses to arrive at his/her claims. Yet I have a feeling if we ask for sources and/or proof, we will be told to go find it ourselves.

Posted by Michael W. on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

from everyone else, while never providing any "proof" themselves.

It's all a mask. All that ever gets expressed here is hopes and wishes. Yet everyone dresses them up as proof or evidence, yet never provides it.

This place is a joke but, in the end, the voters aren't stupid,. They repeatedly make the right decisions and repeatedly don't get suckered by dirty tricks and mud-slinging.

And that must break your heart.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

You made a claim.
You are unable to support it with facts.
Same as always.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:00 pm

Saying it ain't so don't make it not so.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

for a while, the polls that have been published all showed Lee well ahead of the field. I have no reason to doubt that. But the real poll is tomorrow and the election will be decided on the issues, like jobs and the economy.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:12 pm

I wish that voters would decide who to vote for based on issues. But they don't. Voters decide based on 1) high profile media stories and buzz around the candidate, 2) the voters' personal values and how a given candidate mirrors those values in public messaging and branding, and 3) based on their personal economic circumstances.

Issues, are unfortunately irrelevant.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:30 pm

During the progressive decade we were told about all the great things we were getting from our issue oriented progressives, and how smart the voters are here for voting in their best interests.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

And how often have you seen candidates win campaigns by focusing on issues?

Issues are not the reason that Lee and Avalos are leading.

It's all about values and mirroring those values to the voters; as well as economics.

With Lee, conservatism, civility, staying the course, and traditional growth economics.

With Avalos, integrity, championing the 99%, standing for progressive values, and fighting for a redistribution of wealth to the people from corporate interest.

Now ask yourself which of those two frames is resonating more with voters now that the Occupy movement has risen.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

and the most pro-jobs candidiate is way ahead in all the polls we know about. So it could be that the voters are less stupid than you give them credit for.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

...are two entirely different things.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:52 pm

I have never seen any proof that is true. Most voters I talk to can see things quite clearly.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

Search George Lakoff on the web and you'll see what I'm getting at.

And I'm not talking about whether voters 'see things clearly', I'm talking about the difference between how voters respond to polls, what they think about actual issues, and what makes them vote for a particular candidate for office, which are very divergent things.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

Tail wagging the dog?

You mean like Willie Brown, Steve Kawa, Rose Pak, and their Wall Street developer funders, determining every move that Ed Lee makes?

That kind of tail wagging the dog...?

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

I'd rather have a Mayor with a power base that is firmly based in those who can create wealth for the city and jobs for it's people.

Than an ideolog who wants to sacrifice the economy of this city on the back of some Leninist craptrap.

All politicians are ultimately corrupt. You just have to choose one who will help build the city. Lee is pro-jobs. That's the number one issue for voters.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 2:57 pm

If the staff were reflective of the City, the Planning Director and the Neighborhood Planning Director would be Asian American --- Indeed.

Posted by Fengshui anyone? on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 6:54 am

Yes, then perhaps subordinate staff would not be subject to dismissive statements pointed at support staff of color or disparaging statements pointed at a former Planning Director, Planning Commissioner and staff by Planning Sr management. Which by the intent of recent and ongoing investigations, and a slam by Grand Jury re the City's Ethics Commission rulings of inappropriate activities, The City's Personnel Dept refuses to cop to.
Furthermore re all the postings about Lee Brown et al equals crooks only strengthens the arguments that prejudice is very prevalent in the city of St Francis and this is proven by statements made by senior planning staff pointed at people of color.

Posted by 5thsunchild on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 9:40 am

If the Planning Dept reflected the diversity of the City, then the Director of Planning and the Director of Neighborhood Planning would be Asian American --- Indeed.

Wouldn't you agree DHR?

Posted by Fengshui anyone? on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 9:08 am

of polls. If these mythical polls that you allude to actually existed, and IF they showed Lee's lead declining, then you can bet that Lee's opponents would be publicizing them.

I have real polls supporting my position. You have alleged, mythical polls supporting your POV. Hmmm . .

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

Give - me - a - break.

You are actually asking us to believe that the massively funded Ed Lee campaign has not taken any internal polls in over a month. ;)))))))

Total, bullshit. Of course they have.

The question is, why haven't they released them?

And again, there is only one answer to that question.

Posted by Aragorn on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

commisioned polls? You might as well ask why they aren't publicizing their findings. The default has to be that the numbers haven't changed, so there's no news to repeating them.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 3:59 pm

I'm really not trying to troll you here, but you have to get real with this. You are putting way too much emotion into something that's not going to turn out the way you want it.

Here's the short response. I'm sure Lee's camp has done internal polling, and I'd be willing to bet it shows his top candidate status dropping from the 30-35% range to 25-30% range following the allegations. It also still shows he has the election on lock. So at best, it would serve to slightly deflate his base while not providing any sense of motivation.

What's most significant here - and what you're choosing not to acknowledge - is that virtually all candidates have internal polling. And the fact that *none* of them have released a single poll showing them edging up and creating something of race with Lee is what is truly telling. As mentioned before, Herrera would kill for an opportunity to show he's within single digits of Lee, Adachi would love to show he's closing in, Avalos' campaign is in massive need of something showing his support has surged.

And you get crickets.

I was still holding out for an outside shot for Herrera, as he has a lot of crossover support, but the breaking story from Matier and Ross pretty much killed it. The Chinese are voting at levels never seen before (particularly in Lee's strongholds), and have pretty much sealed it. Those numbers they produced were very impressive.

Sorry dude - it's what it was.

Posted by Longtime Lurker on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

given that Lee has a lock on that (even though Yee, Ting and Adachi are all standing) is highly significant. Plus Lee's campaign is much better funded and more efficient.

Aragorn and Eric can whine and bleat but in their hearts, they know they have lost this one. Reading behind the lines, it's been obvious the SFBG has given up on this election - they haven't even tried to rally the troops these past few days, preferring to whine about direct mail nad focusing way too much on Oakland.

The left fumbled last January more than theyc an ever know but, in the end, the City is better served.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

In a recent poll, Avalos comes up #2. So, his star is rising. But you can go on deluding yourself. You just may be in for the shock of your life on election day.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 5:12 pm

The highest I've seen Avalos polling is at 7%, which would place him 5th or 6th.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

Really.

For the 300th time - there is NO poll showing Avalos anywhere above 7.5%. There is no poll showing him in second place. There is no signs that he is surging. If there was such a poll - any poll, from any source - we would all love to see it. But it doesn't exist.

This is like watching a die hard Indianapolis Colts fan tell me that their team is heading to the Super Bowl - even though they're 0-8. You can keep telling me that, and yourself that they're really good, but at some point people are going to ask what planet you're on.

PS - In 2003, Gonzalez was polling in a dead heat with Newsom up until election day. He still lost. Point is, it's not a secret conservative conspiracy to hide polls and bring down progressives - it's just that Avalos isn't going to win.

Posted by Longtime Lurker on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

Perata was far above 25% and lost his -ass- in Oakland.

It is telling that Lee has not released a new poll.

And if I were Avalos, I might not release one showing me gaining if it still showed Lee with a 10 point lead.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 7:23 pm

Lurker I agree with you, but based on how little money the Avalos campaign has I imagine they actually haven't done any internal polling themselves. I've heard the rumors that a recent poll shows Avalos second as well. Its most likely a Hererra/Yee, etc poll showing that which the campaign is not releasing because it doesn't show their candidate doing anything, but word has gotten around.

Avalos surges to finish second but Lee is too far out in front and from what I've seen the Avalos campaign hasn't bothered outside their base voters and that isn't enough to carry him home.

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

We want you, David Chiu!!!

We need you, David Chiu!!!

SF people support Chiu~

Posted by We want Chiu! We need Chiu! on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 3:10 am

#1) Jeff Adachi

Most talented candidate in the race imo. Do believe he is independent. Like the fact that unlike other candidates, when he says "I will fight powerful interests" - he's not kidding. Unlike SFBG, I do think pension costs are a serious problem.

#2) David Chiu

Seems to be the ony candidate in the race that is serious about improving City government efficiencies via technology when other candidates don't seem to care. He comes off as insincere sometimes on other subjects. Thought Chron endorsement made some sense.

#3) Ed Lee

Really struggled here. Don't like Ed Lee. But it comes down to lesser of evils. Just don't like Yee and Herrera at all, so given a late choice I would take Lee or Chiu over those two. Thought seriously about just not voting here - but would want some say in the matter if and when Adachi was out. DO NOT like RCV.

(Would be interested in similar, two sentence take on how others voted...)

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 9:58 am

Thank you, Longtime Lurker, for consistently pointing out facts to the SFBG lunatic fringe.

There's one additional point that needs to be made, now that the die is cast for a comfortable Lee victory.

Progressives never managed to align on a coherent, winnable RCV strategy. The Daly-Peskin-DCCC-SFBG "machine" tried to rally behind Avalos, Herrerra and Yee, but the progressive troops never bought into Herrerra or Yee, rightly viewing their voting records and electoral histories as far too moderate. Indeed, the only "progressive" point in their favor is their mild independence from the dominant Brown-Pelosi-Newsom power nexus that will continue to run this town for four more years under an elected Mayor Lee.

Interesting that progressives, the main proponents of RCV, have been outplayed by moderates once again.The biggest beneficiary of RCV in this election is Ed Lee, who has the first place votes of around 30% of the electorate, and who would be only a mild favorite in a run-off.

The only way a progressive can win a city-wide, non-gerrymandered election in SF is by (1) truly exciting the center-left electorate, bringing in casual and first time voters and (2) running against a candidate with major negatives among mildly liberal and working class swing voters. Neither of those circumstances were evident this year.

I reluctantly voted for Lee-Dufty-Chiu, only because the alternatives were even worse. I would love to see a strong mayor who could bring this city together and reform our budget, pension and tax systems to encourage job creation, housing development, transportation reform, and effective social programs. But instead, we'll get four more years of Willie Brown.

Paul Noe Valley

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 10:31 am

In the end, it's the only choice I feel comfortable with whichever of them wins.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 10:39 am

Yes, unlike most folks, I'm special in that I effectively get several votes. Once for me, and then again for my extended family. Mind you, I don't do anything illegal- no stencil like Ed Lee, and I don't actually mark their ballots for them like Ed Lee's campaign workers. I just go over the ballot pamphlet, they might have a pick for some big national office, but they always go my way on the local stuff, because they don't care to get involved in local politics. Makes for some interesting combinations, like voting for George Bush and down-the-line progressive locally.

So anyway, here's how I voted:
#1 Avalos. It was tough to decide between two good candidates, but I went with Avalos because he seems to be surging in the polls and may have the best chance of catching Lee, and he came out early and strongly in support of the Occupy movement. Add to that his history of fighting for the rights of the working class, the people who have the least, those who actually make our economy run but don't receive the benefits -he'd make a fantastic mayor.

#2 Leland Yee -not as progressive as I'd like, but he's the one moderate I know who's able to listen to all sides, and I mean really listen -not based necessarily on who can deliver him the most votes. He's a true independent, and he'd clean house in room 200, something we sorely need with all the filth and corruption going on

#3 I really had to hold my nose on this one. I went with Jeff Adachi because of his progressive history, and his views on criminal justice. I was wavering till the end because of his deeply right-wing ideological approach to balancing budgets on the backs of the working class, but I promised someone that I'd vote for Adachi 3rd if they voted for Yee 3rd, and I kept that promise.

For my relatives I reversed #1 and #2, partly because I really do think either Yee or Avalos would make a fine mayor, and it was just easier to justify Yee-Avalos than Avalos-Yee, to people who are a lot more conservative than I am. They were feeling pretty positive about Yee anyway, and when I discussed all the corruption of the Brown machine, that pretty much sealed the deal. I had them leave 3rd blank, because even Adachi is so marginal that I don't think he'd be much of an improvement over Lee, and his campaign left a really bad taste in my mouth.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 12:58 pm

Don't agree but it's an interesting read.

"...his deeply right-wing ideological approach to balancing budgets on the backs of the working class." (Is Jerry Brown a right-wing ideologue?)

I think this is just silly. In the end, Adachi thinks police and fire should contribute more for their pensions (unlike Prop C) since they contribute 17% to the fund and take out 34%. It's more practical than ideological imo. The average wages and benefits of a SF sworn fire fighter, including rookies, in the 2011-12 budget is $178,732 and the average pension beginning at 55 is $108,552 - we have differing definitions of "working-class" I guess.

Dan Borenstein, an independent columnist for the CoCo Times wrote over the weekend that City's combining police and fire in the same pension pool as the rank and file is deeply unfair to the rank and file since shortfalls are being fixed on their backs. No other state county pension fund does this.

Nothing Adachi is doing here is even remotely "balancing the budget." More more has to be done in other areas of reforms, cuts, and revenues.

I believe this issue will get more attention when the layoffs fall disproportionately on the lowest paid City workers. Adachi's pension measure was more progressive than City Hall's and that's a literal fact. No question his first run at it (Prop B) had a couple flaws.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 2:21 pm

Hey dude, way to go, Chicago style !!!

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 1:22 pm

So not quite 'Chicago style.'

Posted by Greg on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

Why not let others make up their own minds?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

What I'm doing is perfectly aboveboard.

And they did make up their minds. They made up their minds that I know a lot more than they do about local politics, so they trust me.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 3:22 pm

tiresome and tedious left-wing rhetoric. But I guess your mother believes you anyway.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 4:19 pm

of your tiresome and tedious right-wing rhetoric.

That's what she told me this morning.
At least I think that's what she said.
Her mouth was really full.

Posted by Gust on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

C, D, E, and F, are all abominations, attacks on both 'workers' and the will of the people.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

I voted no on virtually everything. Incidentally, I was explaining my positions to my aforementioned relatives, and it really struck me how easy it is to explain, even to some very conservative folks.

C/D: I said this is pretty simple -two propositions that cut the pensions of working people in different ways. Don't even need to get into details of how they cut the pensions, because the whole concept is unfair. People negotiated those contracts in good faith and now they want to take money out of the pockets of working people after the fact. No on Both.

E: Basically the Supervisors want to cancel out the will of the voters and overturn initiatives -NO. The question was asked, well aren't there some initiatives that voters approve, and later it turns out that it's not the right thing for different circumstances in the future? Absolutely, I said, and there have been times when the voters have gone back and overturned it themselves, which is their right, not the Supervisors'. But more often, the Supes are going to use it to overturn things that the voters passed and they don't like, and that's the intention.

My favorite was explaining H, to folks who are generally pro-neighborhood schools. After I explained that right now, at least we have a lottery based on what the parents choose, and most get one of their top 3, and this would take that right away from parents and *force* them to send their kids to a certain school... when I broke it down that way, they got it -no on H.

When you take out the money-fueled spin, it's amazingly easy to explain the issues in a way people can understand.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

"...People negotiated those contracts in good faith..."

Actually don't know if you are just ignorant or lying. Prop D covers pension contribution rates only. Contribution rates are set by the City Charter. This is not a collective bargainin/contract item that was negotiated in good faith between the City and its employees- never has been and never will be. Can only be changed via charter amendment and the item amount is always subject to the will of the voters.

I feel blessed I don't have to rely on relatives who have no idea what they are talking about when I vote...

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

Close enough for this horseshit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLR4iZJLgc4
nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 3:14 pm

They were in M&R the other day - 80% of the anticipated Chinese voters have already cast their abs. This has been over for weeks. Sorry folks.

Here's how it will go down tonight:
At 845pm, the tallied abs will be released and Ed will handily take the lead. Staff at campaign parties will say its early and will cheer every time their candidate gets a little bump. Yay!

But each time a tally is released, as the other candidates bob up and down, Lee's going to inch closer to the magic number. So while Bevan surges in the Castro and Dennis beats Michela and Joanna in Pac Hts (or something along those lines), Lee's going to be adding to his totals.

At some point, the nervous guy by the computer at the campaign party is going to see that his candidate has no chance and is going to be eliminated in a run-off round.

By midnight, it should be clear who's still standing and by looking at the way the numbers have come in, we should have a pretty good sense of whether Avalos, Herrera or Yee can catch Lee. Anyone below 10% at this point is toast.

I don't see how Lee won't get a large enough share of # 2 & 3s to win as the "corruption" charges simply never stuck. There wasn't enough reasons to vote against the guy to keep him from earning the needed share of second and thirds.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Lee wins tonight. Polling for a mayor's race is tricky when you have major registration and GOTV efforts focused on a large, group of new and irregular voters. Polling models don't account for those voters, many of these voters won't or can't participate in polls.

It's unlikely but possible.

Posted by BeckyBayside on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

The ink is not yet dry on yet another bought and paid for 'election/selection', and Elsbernd & Farrell are already scheming to invalidate RCV (Stay tuned for Wiener and Chu tagging along, plus - Cohen, Chiu...?). Could be an indication of how close this might turn out to be. Their paymasters may be soiling their shorts at the revolting peasants rising up and mounting a challenge to the monarchy and have issued edicts to their minions.
Aw, c'mon, a man can still dream, even/especially when the nightmare might get darker.
I thought you colonials overthrew the monarchy once before. Time to do it again. Live Free or Die.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 5:48 pm

The only interesting question is how many rounds to make 50%. Not too many when you've got 40% and the next highest challengers are lapping up the rear at 10%. Even assuming many of the mail-in ballots are from Chinatown and other targeted Ed Lee voters (what an amazing GOTV absentee voter effort by the Chinatown Development Corp folks by the way), obviously no one will even come close to catching Mayor Lee.

Decent showings by Avalos, Herrera and Chui should mean we have three respected leaders to provide some balance and occasional push-back to Mayor Lee's governing agenda when needed. Not a terrible result at all considering 90% of city government is on auto-pilot with previously negotiated labor contracts, and the only big questions are who and what gets cut as pension and retirement payouts absorb more and more of the city's budget. Boring, yet nasty negotiations.

Any guesses on how Chris Cunnie's votes get split? "Anyone but Ross" or a more even split? That's an interesting race, but hope it's not Mayor Lee who gets to pick the next D5 supervisor since that would be an otherwise important election next year for vaious progressive subsets to organize and camp[aign. Beating an incumbant is almost impossible if the incumbant has any legitimacy and voter base in the district. One of the few political missteps by Mayor Brown during his reign of terror. Juanita Owens? Berceril?

And what happens again if both C and D win? I know absentees and mail-in ballots often have very different voting atterns, but it looks like those measures might pass with such a strong initial showing.

And many thanks to the voters for rejecting (apparently, hopefully) the .5% regressive sales tax. It looks like the voters are far ahead of The Guardian opposing regressive taxes. That's one good outcome from this election.

The pothole tax looks like it could be in trouble too. Nothing like bond financing to give more interest income to the 1%ers - just ask The Guardian management and city unions who seem to adore bond financing rather than taxing gross rents or gross receipts to raise much-needed revenue for long-term funding streams. Apparently the city family doesn't want wealthy landlords or big businesses to chip in for any of the city's funding needs when they can tax homeowners instead, especially newer homeowners who pay 5-10 times more tax than long-term homeowners. Who cares about fairness when the only argument allowed is "we need the money" and "big landlords and big businesses are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party so we can't try to tax them!"

It looks like the school bonds will pass - the 55% threshold helps there -but voter rejection of 2 out of 3 regressive taxes is still a decent outcome. Welcome mayor Lee. Let's both have a good laugh together when the clueless "progressives" start the recall campaign since we all know how effective that will be after such a lopsided win. The recall campaign worked wonders to topple Sophie Maxwell too, and kept some of the progressives busy with their fury and more nonsense.

Too bad Arthur's not here to savor another moment where we watch the election outcomes when progressives - once again - act as their own worst enemy. Some things never change.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 08, 2011 @ 9:42 pm