Who's your candidate for mayor? Vote today

|
(188)

If the mayor's race were held today, who would be your top choice?

 

Free polls from Go2poll.com

Comments

Arthur, if you don't understand the bigoted nature of your comment and the "comparison" maybe you're watching too much "Wizard of Oz".

And your last comment compared "munchkins" with "dimished capacity" - nice work sir, way to dig yourself into a huge hole.

Just ask Billy Barty.

Posted by Ian Waters on May. 02, 2011 @ 12:15 am

We all love the Emerald City, but the politicians are a different matter.

In terms of intelligence and creativity, the city's governing class lags behind people in the arts, sciences, and industry. The politicians' diminished capacity is evident across the political spectrum, from left to middle to right. Their operatives are even less elevated.

So let's stop pretending otherwise. We'll each back the politicians whom we regard as the least mediocre and toxic.

But there are no heroes on the stage.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 02, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

Eric, you're ducking the questions,

You've put forth lots of electrons but haven't explained why you accept that Yee changed his votes in the legislature over 100 times 'after-the-fact'. More than any other legislator.

And, please address your feelings on Leland's anti-rent control stance.

Now write 50 paragraphs.

Giants tied in D.C. 1-1

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

H, I already answered these questions from you a couple of months ago on another similar thread...

Yee's rent control votes happened under his tenure as the local Supervisor of a conservative western homeowners' district. His general posture has shifted to be much more progressive now. Specifically on rent control, we need to ask him and make sure we get a good answer. But regardless, he will likely be a lot easier to work with on rent control than a Downtown controlled mayor.

On the alleged 100 votes he switched after the final bell. Sacramento politicians do that all the time as a matter of course. It is unfortunately a far too common practice.

I said that Yee is our last line of defense against an unacceptable Downtown victor, not a saint...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 2:35 pm

Eric, I understand that your choice of Yee is a matter of strategy. But if Yee is our last line of defense, we're in trouble. Couldn't we tap someone else? What about Art Agnos? He was willing to be interim mayor, and he has a high enough profile to give Lee, Yee and Herrera a run for their money. Besides, he's a genuine progressive who knows how to run a successful campaign. He balanced the budget, and he's good on housing issues. I understand that he broke the record for construction of affordable housing. Let's draft Agnos!

Posted by Lisa on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

Nope. Agnos is bad news. Much less progressive than Yee. He supported the incredibly destructive mega development on the salt flats that is being forced down Redwood City's throat. See http://www.baycitizen.org/real-estate/story/showdown-salt-flats/

Agnos has joined the bad guys and is now no better than pro-Lennar David Chiu.

Yee, on the other hand, opposed Lennar corporation's grab of state park wetland habitat last year for its Bayview Hunters Point monstrosity, even when most of the SF Board of Supervisors supported both the land grab, and the project.

That vote was a clear signal from Yee that he wants to join the progressive camp.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

Well, I'll have to do give this some thought. Somehow I can't stomach Yee, but if it gets down to the wire with no viable alternative, I may rank him third.

Posted by Lisa on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

Why do you hate Jews?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 01, 2011 @ 10:02 pm

h, what is Leland Yee's anti-rent control stance?

Posted by marcos on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 1:37 pm
Posted by Lisa on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

Hogarth has no cred, he's Randy Shaw's bitch and Randy Shaw is in bed with the real estate industry, you can't trust anything either of them writes.

Has Leland Yee prevented the production of more affordable housing than the advocates for affordable housing have prevented, is the question one should keep in mind when reading Puff Ho.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

Marke,

Why the hell aren't our comments posted as received? Have you any idea what a pain-in-the-ass it is to try and jump around these things?

Marc,

In the future, do your own homework but he backed 'Hope SF'. Eric, address the fact that Yee is the TOP vote shifter in Sacramento? You and Marc are backing a monster here.

Adachi for Mayor!

Gonzalez for Mayor!

Campos for Mayor!

Giants win 2-1 in true 'torture' fashion,

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 3:35 pm

the page needs to break in order for our site to remain operable, h. 

Posted by marke on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

Wow.

Our local progressive sect is in total disarray when it comes to the mayoral race. And they are in denial that they are in disarray. And they resent it when someone points out both the disarray and denial.

Look at some recent comments in this thread:

“please address your feelings on Leland's anti-rent control stance.”

“Yee is our last line of defense against an unacceptable Downtown victor, not a saint...”

“Let's draft Art Agnos!”

“Agnos Is Bad News. Not Progressive.”

“perhaps this will be of help (sorry to quote Hogarth)~”

“Hogarth has no cred, he's Randy Shaw's bitch …”

“Adachi for Mayor! Gonzalez for Mayor! Campos for Mayor!”

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 4:52 pm

I know, it's hilarious. You have H. Brown, Eric Brooks and Marc all saying different things, and yet the latter is saying that progressives are unified. They can't even decide if Leland Yee is progressive enough or not, and if Art Agnos is a progressive anymore.

How long before they start excommunicating each other?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 8:53 pm

"How long before they start excommunicating each other?"

- Guest

Good question.

I used to think that SF progressivism, after it had deteriorated into a sect, was malicious only toward outsiders. In fact, however, they often treat each other just as badly.

They wrap their penchant for malice in rhetoric and call it righteousness. Such is the essence of all Phariseeism.

If they were sensible, they would all unite behind John Avalos, now that he has come forward as their standard-bearer. Avalos, for his part, would conduct a positive, inspiring campaign, engage middle voters in intelligent dialogue, and keep the crazies in his retinue out of public sight.

He would still not win, but he would use the election to promote progressive ideas with the electorate.

But they are not sensible, and it is doubtful that Avalos has the depth of character needed to rise to the occasion.

So they will continue their flight to marginality, lose political clout, and blame everyone but themselves.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 9:44 pm

We are, uniting around Avalos.

Wake up man...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 10:51 pm

"We are, uniting around Avalos."

- Eric Brooks

This comment reminds me of when you claimed your antics improved David Campos' chances of being appointed interim mayor.

Luckily, human beings have a generous sense of humor when it comes to watching politicians and their operatives. Otherwise, they would be totally insufferable.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 01, 2011 @ 9:07 am

John Avalos is saying and doing the right things so far, as evidenced by an article just published in “Fog City Journal” (link below).

Here’s a good quote from Avalos:

“We’re going to run a positive campaign that reaches out to everyone in San Francisco, to talk about common solutions to common problems.”

Also, FCJ reports that his campaign “will address the city’s projected budget shortfalls, improving Muni effectiveness, improving public safety, increasing neighborhood livability as well as addressing city employee pension and healthcare costs.”

If Avalos lives up to these goals, he will do the best he possibly can in the race, given the resources he has available.

The big test for him, however, is whether he can keep his crazies, who are many, from sabotaging his efforts. This is the classic problem for progressives in city-wide races.

Here’s the link:

http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2796/overheard-in-fog-city-the-p...

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 01, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

It is about Job growth, we need jobs, real jobs, private sector jobs. So if you don't live in the city but work there, don't see the problem with that, If you live in the city and work elsewhere what is wrong with that. Last time i cecked we are living in the US. Public sector has grown way too much to be supported, it needs to balance out. Twitter and other business will pay the other taxes and fees.

Posted by Garrett on May. 01, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

"We" don't need jobs. Unemployed folks need jobs. San Francisco needs tax revenue. "We," as a matter of public policy, should take steps to create those kinds of jobs.

Any public policy that creates jobs that don't employ unemployed San Franciscans and/or don't pay business taxes takes resources that would otherwise serve existing San Franciscans and mortgages them to serve the interests of others.

It is not like we are swimming in excess public sector resources that we can afford to subsidize jobs that only cost us more in the end. There is a political ideology that holds that we should do that, and that ideology is held by David Chiu much to his protestations to the contrary, which is neoliberal, trickle down economics.

-marc

Posted by marcos on May. 01, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

Marcos doesn't think San Francisco needs jobs! I guess that's consistent with his position that mid-Market is not blighted and any market-rate residential construction is "bad" (especially if it's over 40' tall)!

Here's a progressive solution that the guardian.com trolls can rally around - why don't we set the San Francisco financial district on fire! That way we can eliminate all those annoying corporations who "own" the Mayor's office and who apparently don't pay taxes enough for Marc's wonderful "public sector resources" like MUNI workers who just authorized a strike or SEIU organizers who think they can eliminate our retiree healthcare and pension deficits through "smoothing" returns.

Thank God for the ineptitute of progressives. David Chiu owes whatever prominence he has to Chris Daly's inability to get along with Ross Mikrami. The fact that people like Marcos hate him has convinced me to give him my number 3 RCV.

Now, back to the Eric Brooks / Marcos / Arthur Evans shit show!

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

"We" need jobs that employ San Franciscans and generate business tax to pay for themselves.

"We" need housing that houses folks who are marginally housed.

"We" came within 15,000 votes of winning eight years ago after four months of work slapped together overnight.

Now "We" have many months to run a real campaign and are highly unified due to David Chiu's sociopathic practice of politics. It is fortunate that Daly and Mirk didn't get along and that Chiu's political judgement is so poor.

No wonder you all are scared now that "WE" are unified and organized.

Posted by marcos on May. 02, 2011 @ 5:32 pm

I think it's telling that you guys are still talking about being 1st place losers nearly a decade ago. Since then, what has gone well for you guys?

Aaron Peskin managed to become the chair of an irrelevant organization whose endorsements mean diddly squat, Chris Daly's running a bar, Matt Gonzalez endorsed a Republican, and the Green Party a pale vestige of what it was.

Your "unity" is a lie and everybody knows it. The more you tighten your grip on progressive purity, the more supporters will slip through your fingers. You don't even know who you can trust anymore.

David Chiu managed to school all you guys within less than a single term, and your politicians have been getting their asses kicked for a year. Exactly why David Chiu's getting my 1st place vote.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

And you will be part of 13% of San Franciscans who support David Chiu, he will come in 4th or 5th in November and will be ousted from the Board of Supervisors the next year.

Posted by marcos on May. 02, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

That last post was brutal.

Posted by Sambo on May. 02, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

"And you will be part of 13% of San Franciscans who support David Chiu, he will come in 4th or 5th in November and will be ousted from the Board of Supervisors the next year."

Keep living in your fantasy land. Everyone very well knows he's going to do a hell of a lot better than that. Face it, Chiu's a frontrunner.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 9:38 pm

Chiu needs foreign consultants to tell him what San Franciscans who love it here already know about how to win contested elections in our city.

Having alienated the left, Chiu has foreclosed the possibility of branching out to the left. Having demonstrated to the right that he cannot be trusted, Chiu will not find much succor there.

With Leland Yee in the race, a tried and tested Chinese candidate with a record of victory, Chiu will do little more than serve as a funnel for younger and Chinese voters into Leland's column.

This is going to be fun!

Posted by marcos on May. 03, 2011 @ 6:48 am

Leland Yee's may be more established, but he's also hated by a good segment of the Chinese community who won't give him a 2nd or 3rd RCV. Without a doubt, Yee is the Perata of this race, who is measured better in RCV by the amount of people who hate him.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2011 @ 6:39 pm

Of course there are people out there who aren't fans of Chiu and/or have another preferred candidate.

But to say only 13% of San Franciscans support him? And to say he'll finish 4th or 5th?

That's just delusional.

Where's that statistic from? Is that like the statistics that said only 20% of Americans approved of health care reform? Because at least 20-40% more approved ... they just didn't approve of HCR in the form that it was taking at the time.

MAYBE if we were living in an exclusively far-left progressive city, candidates like Avalos would stand a better chance. But I think SF is somewhat more moderate than that. Not far left ... just left of left of center. In my humble, humble opinion.

But regardless of all that - do you realize how much you sound like a Tea Partier? "Oh, our Congresswoman says she's conservative - but she's not a REAL conservative!"

Keep trying to push SF towards the left and you'll see how well that has worked out for the Republican party.

Try and argue salient points instead of just "Chiu alienated the hard-core progressives in SF and therefor will lose. A lot. Tons and tons of losing." It's just not realistic. Say your guy will win. That's cool. But you really take away from your argument and your credibility with this frothing-at-the-mouth knee-jerk reactionary Code-Pink-on-crack attitude.

Cheers! It should be a very interesting six months.

Posted by Alex on May. 03, 2011 @ 9:52 pm

I guess this means that David Chiu is not a progressive like he tells audiences that want to hear that, huh?

Posted by marcos on May. 02, 2011 @ 8:42 pm

"I guess this means that David Chiu is not a progressive like he tells audiences that want to hear that, huh?"

David Chiu's a progressive, just not a progressive as you define it, which apparently is some sort of secular religion which defines itself only through differences and not similarities.

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2011 @ 9:56 pm

If I may...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHA. Hahahaha.

In addition:

Tee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee.

And, of course, for good measure:

Chortle chuckle guffaw chortle snort.

You guys aren't insane. You're just reality-challenged.

Posted by Don Quixote on May. 03, 2011 @ 9:54 pm

"No wonder you all are scared now that 'WE' are unified and organized."

- marc salomon

You've been spending too much time shouting slogans on bumper stickers.

The moderates are not scared. The progressives are not unified and organized.

John Avalos gets credit for coming forward and articulating a positive and appealing message (so far). However, many progressives remain divisive, impractical, and even suicidal.

The moderates, on the other hand, are satisfied with a number of candidates, which will work to their advantage with ranked-choice voting. They're practical and well funded. Their sentiments are in tune with what ordinary voters want to hear.

One of the moderates will likely be elected. Whether this is a good thing or not is another question. But a bumper-sticker mentality will not help reduce the likelihood of a moderate victory.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 02, 2011 @ 7:11 pm

So why is Avalos first exactly? Did you try to start off in alphabetical order and then just ... #FAIL? Get lazy? Both?

You guys are adorable.

Posted by Alex on May. 03, 2011 @ 9:41 pm

John Avalos!

Posted by tommarc on May. 03, 2011 @ 9:54 pm

Personally I don't find any of the candidates refreshing! I think that is she had one term under her belt, Jane Kim would be a great choice to run for mayor!! Maybe after this term and when she reaches closer to that magiacl age of 40, she will by then have plenty of political clout and also a resume' that is quite impressive! I was glad she won the hotly contested 6th district. I think that we will continue to hear the name Jane Kim in San Francisco politics for many years to come!!!

JANE KIM FOR MAYOR!!!!

Posted by Guest Edward on May. 13, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

I'm a lifelong Democrat! After coming to a strongly Democratic city like San Francisco I find it humorous when I hear issues with it being Progressives vs Moderates. We should all be proud to be Democrats PERIOD!!! Moderates are likely just a little more middle of the road on some financial issues but as for social issues I think most of us are on the same page. We should all be more than glad to have ANY of these candidates for mayor instead of some nutcase like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Donald Trump, Rick Santorum and a list of complete idiots! I myself think that David Chiu is a good choice for mayor being that is is very educated, experienced, young so he represents a lot of our youth in the city as well as a lot of our minority voters which make up our great and diverse city!! I think a vote fr David Chiu is a vote for the future of San Francisco!!!

Posted by Eddie on May. 15, 2011 @ 11:21 am