Sorting out a strange election - Page 3

What the Nov. 6 results mean -- and don't mean

|
(120)
London Breed beat three flawed progressive candidates to win the D5 race.
GUARDIAN PHOTO BY BETH LABERGE

On election night, Olague told us she believed her split with the Mayor's Office really had more to do with CleanPowerSF –- which the board approved with a veto-proof majority over the objections of Lee and the business community –- and with her insisting on new revenue from Prop. E than it did with Mirkarimi, whose ouster she dismissed as "a power play" aimed at weakening progressives.

"They don't want to say it, but it was the whole thing around CleanPowerSF. Do you think PG&E wanted to lose its monopoly?" she said.

Yet Olague said the blame from her loss was also shared by progressives, who were hard on her for supporting Lee, courting his appointment to the D5 seat, and for voting with him on 8 Washington luxury condo project and other high-profile issues. "The left and the right both came at me," she told us. "From the beginning, people were hypercritical of me in ways that might not be completely fair."

Fair or not, Olague's divided loyalties hurt her campaign for the D5 seat, with most prominent progressives only getting behind her at the end of the race after concluding that John Rizzo's lackluster campaign wasn't going anywhere, and that Julian Davis, marred as he was by his mishandling of sexual impropriety accusations, couldn't and shouldn't win.

Olague told us she "can't think of anything I would have done differently." But she later mentioned that she should have raised the threats to renters earlier, worked more closely with other progressive candidates, and relied on grassroots activists more than political consultants connected to the Mayor's Office.

"The left shouldn't deal with consultants, we should use steering committees to drive the agenda," Olague said, noting that her campaign finally found its footing in just the last couple weeks of the race.

Inside sources say Olague's relations with Lee-connected campaign consultant Enrique Pearce soured months before the campaign finally sidelined him in the final weeks, the result of his wasteful spending on ineffective strategies and divided loyalties once a wedge began to develop between Olague and the Mayor's Office.

Progressive endorsements were all over the map in the district: The Harvey Milk Club endorsed Davis then declined to withdraw that endorsement. The Tenants Union wasn't with Olague. The Guardian endorsed Rizzo number one. And none of the leading progressive candidates had a credible ranked-choice voting strategy -- Breed got nearly as many second-place votes from Davis and Rizzo supporters as Olague did.

Meanwhile, Breed had a high-profile falling out with Brown, her one-time political ally, after her profanity-laden criticism of Brown appeared in Fog City Journal and then the San Francisco Chronicle, causing US Sen. Dianne Feinstein to withdraw her endorsement of Breed. That incident and Olague's ties to Lee, Brown, and Pak may have solidified perceptions of Breed's independence among even progressive voters, which the late attacks on her support from landlords weren't ever able to overcome.

Ironically, while Breed and some of her prominent supporters, including African American ministers in the district, weren't happy when Lee bypassed her to appoint Olague, that may have been her key to victory. Latterman noted that while Olague was plagued by having to divide loyalties between Lee and her progressive district and make votes on tough issues like reinstating Mirkarimi –- a vote that could hurt the D5 supervisor in either direction -– Breed was free to run her race and reinforce her independence: "I think Supervisor Breed doesn't win this race; challenger Breed did."

But even if Breed lives up to progressive fears, the balance of power on the Board of Supervisors could be up in the air. District 7 soundly rejected Mike Garcia, the hand-picked successor of the conservative outgoing Sup. Sean Elsbernd.

Comments

Just like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin.

The right is smaller but does disproportionately well because the left insists on dividing itself into a thousand schisms, and often end up hating each other more than the hate conservatives.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

And I already raised the Antonini vote which made no real difference in policy whatsoever. Lee would have just appointed someone else who would have voted exactly the same way.

8 Washington is really the only vote that Olague made to cross progressive goals. Period.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 7:21 pm

Olague's final political obituary: First, the multiracial left in the city, not just the "white guys" of the Guardian, but radical, diverse tenant activists, queer activists, immigrant activists, anti-displacement activists and African-American and Chicano/a and Latino/a activists had every legitimate political reason to criticize and condemn Olague right out of the gate when she opportunistically aligned herself with Mayor Lee's campaign to defeat progressive Latino challenger John Avalos. Olague doesn't get a free pass from progressive activists on the city's left; and certainly a multitude of grassroots activists of color and white progressives in the Mission didn't buy her shit, since Olague wasn't ever a central figure in the Mission's anti-displacement movement, labor struggles or anti-gentrification battles over the decades in San Francisco. (She was never a central organizer in the 1990s or early 2000 when MAC was in full-swing, despite her false reportage -- do a google search for that era and you'll discover the truth yourselves). At that time, in fact, Olague was working as a secretary in a major stock brokerage firm in downtown San Francisco, serving the 1%. Olague was never anti-capitalist but a bourgeois liberal that played every imaginable card known to humankind: sexual orientation card, race card, gender card, immigrant daughter card, class card, etc. and so forth. In the end, she shuffled, dealt and got played out. Aligning herself with Lee was a smooth tactical move by Enrique Pearce, Jane Kim and David Ho, as they had no (and still don't) significant liberal or progressive activist support in diverse communities to counter Avalos; so they straight up, pimped it, and gave the false and ludicrous impression that Lee was broadening his social base in the election. It was a no-brainer, as all of them: Pearce, Kim and Ho, have no real, genuine ties to Latino/a, progressive queer or African American communities. But it wasn't a genius political move in the making. Christina was always willing to negotiate a better deal to advance her lackluster, lazy and unappealing political career and financial prospects. It was easy: she didn't have to do much heavy lifting; the Mayor's people would do all the financing; Pearce would manufacture the literature and pimp out, again, a field plan with Captain Save-a-Ho. Olague would be off the Planning Commission; and Mayor Lee would have a high profile bisexual Latina who was the current President of the Planning Commission on his team. All smoke and mirrors, baby. No real funk in that play. Malcolm X once said, "that's why they call them tokens -- (referring to sell-out people of color) because they pick up on the tokens thrown on the floor."

Olague once busted a move for Willie Brown when he first ran for Mayor in 1994: made a donation, didn't walk precincts, and followed the conformist current. No courage shown then to break with the machine. (Olague was never part of the write-in grassroots movement supporting Tom Ammiano -- check the facts; and she was a rather minor, self-serving figure in the Gonzalez Mayoral campaign of 2003, despite her overreaching, exaggerated political importance of her participation in that campaign.) And now, after having hired Pearce; having worked with Lee's other consultants and corporate lobbyists for months, and professing a history of activism in progressive movements and in communities of color -- now it's time to be guided by grassroots steering committees? Believe me if she had won, and Uncle Ed hadn't kicked her to the curb, you can bet the house Olague wouldn't be saying shit about condemning consultants and needing steering committees.

My bet is she won't be working for Uncle Ed any time soon; nor receive a new Commission appointment to secure healthcare benefits.

Remember the Pink Palace and the Black Panthers of the Fillmore! Power to the People!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 1:14 am

"First, the multiracial left in the city, not just the "white guys" of the Guardian, but radical, diverse tenant activists, queer activists, immigrant activists, anti-displacement activists and African-American and Chicano/a and Latino/a activists"

Nobody cares what these people think. They are unable to translate their ideology into any sort of political messaging that connects with San Franciscans. One reason is because of this:

"Olague was working as a secretary in a major stock brokerage firm in downtown San Francisco, serving the 1%."

If you're making it so that a secretary cannot be part of the progressive coalition, then you're narrowing down the coalition to a handful of stalwarts.

The nonprofits who take city money to intercept demands for change and translate them into a trickle of social services for the lucky few poor do more to serve the interests of the 1% than any brokerage secretary.

The reason why Christina abandoned the progressives is the same reason why I did and it has to do with the inward looking narrowing of a coalition to the point where it is mathematically impossible to win in today's San Francisco.

Get back to me when you all want to expand a coalition beyond the stalwarts that you think that you can trust, and overcome your rampant prejudices as to how politics is determined by income, how progressive politics can only exist in the way that you conceptualize, how a progressive political program is fashioned by serial exclusion.

Get back to me when you're wanting to put together a coalition that can contest the corruption on the non-social services public facing departments, in the DPW, in the Muni, in Rec and Park. Because until progressives make themselves relevant to those who do not consider themselves "the most vulnerable" or still have enough liberal guilt to be hoodwinked into supporting these operators, we are going to continue to see a narrowing of the progressive base and a continued descent into irrelevance.

It is all about moving radical ideas expressed in mainstream language that appeals to a majority of San Franciscans.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 6:45 am

That is a whole lot of commentary etc. And you still manage to ignore even the possibility that Olague lost due to her vote for Ross. Didn't even enter your head?

Posted by D. Native on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 8:52 am

It not only entered our heads and was subjected to our thoughts and critical scrutiny, it entered the story, where we shared those thoughts through our words. You should try to read the words in the stories you comment on, and then maybe you wouldn't pose ridiculous rhetorical questions.

Posted by steven on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 11:11 am

had a big hand in defeating herself by not having a strong base. People have been reading all kinds of "Greater Meaning" in this from change in the nature of 5th district to "anti-Mirkarimi" backlash or whatever.

I don't buy these reasons. It was simply that Olague did not have a strong base. She got in via an appointment by Lee and ever consolidated her base. Never went to connect with her district. The one vote to retain Mirkarimi was not enough to bring in a big Progressive turnout for her in a divided field. She was never a leader and went back and forth between Lee and Progressives never quite making up her mind. Not at least until the 11th hour. The sad thing was that no Progressive got the spotlight. Well such is life and for now D5 has to regroup and deal with their horrible sup.

Posted by Akvanediv on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 6:16 am

"... the Harvey Milk Club endorsed Davis then declined to withdraw that endorsement..."

Aw, gee. Steven and Tim, you have *got* to be feeling a bit wistful about your move regarding Davis even if you won't admit it even to yourselves.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 6:33 am

The only time that the gang that can't shoot straight can shoot straight is when they're in a circular firing squad. Will there be any accountability for this debacle? Of course not, nobody will lose their job, except for Christina, the nonprofit Greek chorus of handmaidens to gentrification will continue to get paid.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 6:46 am

The three progressives in this race were all held accountable by voters: Olague for her divided loyalties, Rizzo for his passivity, Davis for failing to deal honestly with his past and the people he alienated. As for second-thoughts about Davis, Lilli, none for withdrawing the endorsement. Frankly, if he had bulled his way through this with lies and misrepresentations and actually won this race, it would reinforce his worse traits and I think we would have a potential future disaster to deal with worse than a Supervisor Breed. Accountability is about supporting good people and then holding whoever is elected responsible for representing the values of her/his district. That's what we've done and will continue to do.

Posted by steven on Nov. 15, 2012 @ 11:23 am

Steven, when will the San Francisco Bay Guardian and the narrow and reiterant coterie of nonprofit "community leaders" who comprise your sources be held accountable?

Posted by marcos on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

He barely squeaked in and should be chose to continue with his fiery defense of the "sex workers rights" wing of the party and align himself with Avalos he could very easily find himself on the losing end of his next election. The vast majority of the votes went to someone OTHER than Yee - let's hope he doesn't follow the example of more recent RCV victors like Jean Quan in letting that fact guide his choices.

Still - it sure will be interesting.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 11:59 am

It's true -- only 35% of the people who voted last Tuesday had Yee anywhere on their ballot. He was only a 'majority' winner because of the nonsense of RCV. In 99% of the country he would have had to defend his ideas in a runoff and either win over more people or step aside.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

Actually, that is absolutely false.

Historically, runoff elections have had *far* lower voter turnouts than normal with the ultimate winner of such contests often getting far fewer votes to win in December than the loser garnered in the November balloting.

And while its true that only 35.42 percent of voters selected Yee, it should also be noted that for over a quarter of all voters Yee was the first choice -- compared to less than 22 and 16 percent first choice votes for Crowley and Garcia.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

case, the fact that Yee failed to win 65% of the votes is irrelevant. He was the least bad choice as decided by the voters of that district and that is really all that counts.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

Why did the Guardian fail to endorse Christina Olague?

The SF Greens gave her a #2 endorsement, which she shared with Davis. Rizzo was endorsed number 1.

This article refers to Olague as one of the progressive candidate. Why was she not endorsed?

Posted by Erika McDonald on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

Sadly, Olague was tainted by her decision on Ross, and that crippled her credibility. Contrast that with Mar who really should have lost but his vote to oust Ross garnered him thousands of crucial last-minute votes.

Candidiates don't need to just be endorsed. They need to listen to the voters.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 6:46 pm

Please point to a link of where the SFBG endorsed Olague.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

switched their allegance to Olague. Unfortunately, by then, she had become as toxic as Davis due to her support for Ross.

Rizzo was lethargic and everyone else other than Breed was a non-starter.

Result for Breed.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 7:14 pm

but instead you decided to continue wrapping fluff around a BS core. Oh my, look at what you have made!

(please take it with you when you leave.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

their allegiance from Davis to Olague because of his indiscretions and overdone attempts at damage control? I would not have thought so.

Anyway, it's moot because the SFBG carries litttle weight with the average voterr and Olague and Davis both lost for othe reasons.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 6:27 am

but instead you decided to continue wrapping fluff around a BS core. Oh my, look at what you have made!

(please take it with you when you leave.)

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

that the anti-Mirkarimi haters excel at.

These people have absolutely *no* care in the world in regard to being factual.

Facts to them are not immutable objects to be weighed and sorted and combined together, they are just statements made for the purpose of serving as some core on which to wrap a bit of rhetorical fluffery.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

and threw him under a bus?

This should be interesting . .

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 7:00 am

...officially. Unofficially, of course, they ran several articles hinting that progressives should give Olague another look. So everyone's right.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

routinely gives a secondary endorsement to a no-hoper as a gesture, and of course because you can make up to three picks.

But once Davis threw himself under a bus, it was always a straight choice between Olague and Breed.

And the SFBG doesn't hold so much sway that they could counter the anti-Ross critical mass that destroyed Olague.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

...the SFBG didn't actually ever endorse Olague officially. They just strongly suggested progressives take another look at her. It was a backdoor endorsement, of course, but it was never official.

As far as it being a straight choice between Breed and Olague, I think there was a lot more to it than that.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 20, 2012 @ 7:10 pm

Spewing out false crappy lies just like Karl Rove and Ron Conway.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 16, 2012 @ 7:59 pm

uhm... interesting. Though it comes off a little petty, with a whole lot of finger-pointing (almost none of it at yourself), but it's definitely an entertaining read. It seems to me, and forgive me for being merely a D5 resident of SF and not a wonky Progressive insider or some millionaire's spin-lackey, but it seems to me that the Props the Moderates and Progressives compromised on were, by far, the most popular among voters. That's your conclusion too, yes? So why are you mocking the Mayor for compromising?

10 years ago, Progressives talked as if they were a hair's breadth away from seizing the government and setting up a guillotine in Civic Center Plaza. Their was no talk of compromise. Daly wouldn't stand for it. But, in the end, Newsom kept his head (even while he was getting head) and your hardline, no-compromise position hasn't really amounted to very much. I wouldn't say it's been a complete failure, but your movement never reached it's full potential in my opinion.

Here's my point - compromise isn't always a good thing. I don't like art when its compromised. I don't like my food compromised. Ditto for sex. But, when it comes to moving San Francisco forward? When it comes to making decisions for the City as a whole? Compromise is usually what works best. That might be a lesson worth learning, guys.

Next weeks' lesson will be on the perils of stereotyping wealthy citizens of San Francisco and will feature a panel of landlords that voted for Rizzo. Yes, they exist. I'm looking at one of them right now.

Posted by Snoozers on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

line; just thought I'd point that out.

As for the remainder of your comment concerning compromise, perhaps you should direct that to Mayor Lee who demonstrated -- and demonstrates -- no intention or capacity to compromise with Ross Mirkarimi.

He didn't compromise by even asking the sheriff -- or his wife! -- what had really happened between them before summarily attempting to destroy the man by stripping him of his job and income; and he hasn't compromised subsequent to Mirkarimi's reinstatement by being the least bit civil and cooperative.

Lee has been acting like an asshole. He's been acting as though Ross Mirkarimi actually committed the sort of heinous (moral turpitude) felony which would actually have made him subject to removal, but somehow got away with it.

Snoozers, I'd like you to deliver as clear an example of uncompromising attitude coming from progressives that you explicitly characterize all of them by. When exactly was the talk about a guillotine?

Hint: spare SFBG forum readers any further mention of your sex life, as it suggests you are either highly under- or over- engaged in that respect.

Posted by lillipubicans on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 5:58 pm

A sex life that is. From the looks of the picture you use on your Disqus account you're a 75 year old virgin who considers Liberace-style scarves and coke bottle glasses the height of fashion.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 6:26 pm

lol, you don't think I get my own cheesy references? And it's not the Velvet Underground, lilli, it's solo Lou Reed.

I agree that Lee needs to compromise too. In fact, I felt like he showed great potential for compromise when he was first appointed to serve out the remainder of Newsom's term. Unfortunately, he's failed to live up to that potential. Though I will say that I like how Progressives worked with him to get some good legislation onto the ballot this cycle. Good jobs all around.

Lighten up a little, lilli. All you do is argue on this board. Take a break every 10,000 key strokes or so and say something nice to somebody. I'll give you an example - I like your screen name. It makes me think of being tied down while dozens of tiny little Karl Roves crawl all over me like fat, white slugs. Very creative and a fitting image for the Republican Party :)

Posted by Snoozers on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 7:52 pm

proud of myself for coming up with it, and did so -- gratifyingly -- completely on the fly while staring at the registration screen on SFGate; inspired only by the preponderance of names on that site then containing within themselves an inherent insult to liberals etc.

It is, as you and others of intellect know, a reference to Jonathan Swift's characters.

As for the VU, I knew that they didn't record WOTWS with Lou, but I'd been led -- seemingly wrongly? -- to think that they'd recorded it after he left the band. Here's something for you:

https://www.crackle.com/c/Velvet_Underground_Under_Review

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 9:12 pm
D5

Another round of harsh judgment of others won't do much for progressives going forward but here are a couple facts to weigh going forward:

A) According to the latest RCV ballot image report from today the combined Davis-Rizzo-Selby and Rizzo-Selby ballots summed to 1239 ballots. That is down from 2325 ballots in 2004 in D5 that voted the SFBG's Mirkarimi-Haaland-Feldstein slate.

In fairness much of that difference can be explained by the fact that neither Mirkarimi nor Haaland faced the press headwinds the 2012 SFBG slate did but there may be something else at work too. An added element to weigh is that the editorial line at the SFBG was different from the Examiner in 2004.

B) The assumption insiders had that an Olague vote for Mirkarimi would secure her re-election proved false. Had support for Mirkarimi in the suspension vote been critical to D5 voters, Olague should have won despite herself and/or her campaign. That she lost suggests otherwise. That assumption was a miscalculation.

These facts have been overlooked in the D5 discussion.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 17, 2012 @ 11:46 pm

It's simply that the city is moving to the center due to changing demographics. And indeed, this is the real reason Tim etc. ALWAYS opposes building new homes over 500K, or retaining vibrant businesses like Twitter in the city.

Think about it - Daly was replaced in D6 with the more moderate Kim, and now Ross is replaced with the more moderate Breed in D5. Factor in that Lee had a landslide 60-40 win over Avalos and it is clear that the high water mark of left-wing politics in SF was ten years ago.

The new SF voter - young, knowledge worker, moderate but not liberal - is carry the weight these days, and they have little time for socialist dinosaurs.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 7:06 am

..that someone is again challenging your oft repeated complete nonsense about Lee winning by a landslide..

It is absolutely ridiculous to call a race in which no candidate wins more than 50% of the votes in the first round of counting..

a landslide...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 11:44 am

about wholesale vote fraud -- Lee *did* *not* achieve a landslide by the most generous definition of the term; even by that definition a landslide requires sixty percent of the vote which Lee did not achieve.

Perhaps these lying trogs would seem more credible if they didn't lard their comments with unneccessary lies on a regular basis.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

and in that Lee was over 60.

If you have proof of voter fraud, send it to the DA. Otherwise that sounds like nothing more than a bitter allegation by a sore loser.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 1:03 pm

Lee got 31% in the 1st round and only broke 35% in the 9th round. Counting tens of thousands of voters who only settled for Lee as their 2nd or 3rd choice, as part of a 'landslide', is laughably ridiculous.

Since a full one half of the voters who ended up in Lee's column clearly preferred someone else above Lee, how by any stretch of the imagination can you label such a vote a 'landslide'.

Oh, I forgot, you live on a different Earth, with a different Europe, different San Francisco, and apparently a completely different concept of the word 'landslide'...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

Obviously if there are a large number of candidates then nobody will get 60% on the first round.

But when it came down to the main two candidates, Lee walked it.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

And how, pray tell, is your comment made less ridiculous by the fact that you are lamely parsing some tangential pseudo-mathematic definition of the word 'landslide' that does not bear any relation whatsoever to the way anyone else uses that word (besides apparently, yourself)?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

The left made their arguments and lost massively. SAccept that and elarn from it.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

in the forest, and no one is there to hear him,

is he still wrong?

Enquirer-ing minds want to know...

Posted by anonymous on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 8:23 pm

than the much closer Newson-Gonzalez race. Lee-Avalos wasn't close at all, with Lee getting 50% more votes than Avalos in the final analysis.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 6:48 am

We don't really know if there was a landslide, because we are one of the very small handful of cities that uses RCV to simulate a runoff. We get 'results' but the other benefits of a runoff are, sadly, a complete loss.

But in the RCV simulation the Moderate leader defeated the Progressive leader by a wide margin, 59.64% to 40.36% (Hey @lilli! Can you please do your rant that it *WASN'T 60%* -- it really cracks me up. Also maybe the babbling about it not being an *ELECTORAL* landslide. I like that one too but don't want to be greedy)

So the sad fact is that we don't really know if Lee has an electoral mandate because of RCV but the simulation model that we use says that he was right there.

Posted by Troll on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 6:49 pm

quibbling about exactly which form of RCV was used is seen for what it is - rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Lilli, Eric, Marcos and Tim need to seriously review why their candidiates and policies consistently lose, and moreover have been on a downward trend for the last 10 years. Clue: it's not our voting system.

The GOP have taken note of why they failed to advance in 2012 on their 2010 victories. Why can't the left do the same self-exemination, rather than sorely quibble about the voting system, or make other lame excuses?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

And there are several reasons to emphasize that -- especially in view of the repeated nonsensical claims to the contrary.

All the talk about "landslide" represents the troglodytes in effect "whistling past the graveyard"; they hope to convince themselves as well as everyone else that the Brown/Pak machine is invulnerable when the fact is otherwise.

Not only did he *not* win sixty percent of the vote -- which means that no way did he achieve a "landslide," even by the most liberal interpretation of the word -- and not only were some of his votes were fraudulently cast; but subsequent to him revealing himself to be capable of acting the major-league asshole in regards to the Ross Mirkarimi affair (and there was the matter of apparent perjury too) it stands to reason that his support is significantly less than it was.

Lee will be vulnerable next election cycle, even moreso if further revelations concerning his past misbehavior as the city administrator come to light.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 18, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

can't see Lee losing next time around, although I suppose he might not want to stand. The only election in recent times where a progressive has come close was Matt against Gavin, and even then Gavin got 10% more votes, which isn't that close.

But Matt was a good candidiate and the elft can get close if and only if they have a top drawer candidiate, which Avalos has shown that he is not.

So, come up with a good candidiate and it will be close, otherwise 60-40 for the moderate will be the norm.

Oh, and where is your proof of voter fraud. That's a red herring.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 6:51 am

Show me the poll. Better yet, show me a poll which has any revelence to the way things are now. People have seen that Ed Lee is *not* a moderate but rather more of a recalcitrant a-hole and Willie Brown apparatchik.

As for Gavin Newsom vs. Matt Gonzalez, he won by 14,000 votes than Gonzalez after spending ten (10x) times as much money. Maybe that's where your "confusion" about 10% comes from? Or were you rounding-up?

GAVIN NEWSOM. . . . . . . . . . 133,546 52.81
MATT GONZALEZ . . . . . . . . . 119,329 47.19

http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=1709

And as to the Lee vote fraud?

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-candidates-seek-monitors-over-...

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 7:59 am

more votes than Matt. Not a landslide win like Lee-Avalos but comfortable enough.

I note you have no newer poll to contradict the poll from earlier this year showing Lee's approval ratings higher than the 60% he got in the election.

And since most voters supported Lee over Ross, that has only added to the pro-Lee tsunami.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 19, 2012 @ 9:11 am

Related articles

Also from this author

  • "This was such a wipeout psychologically": Mirkarimi tells the story Lee didn't want to hear

  • Occupy Nation

    Let's take back the country — starting now, by planning a tour to occupy the country

  • Redrawing the map

    Obscure task force charged with creating new supervisorial districts could have a big impact on the city's political landscape