To the wonderful folks at Occupy SF/Wall Street/Everywhere

Occupy SF supports teachers protesting Rupert Murdoch Oct. 14. Photo by Rebecca Bowe

First of all, don't get depressed by this sort of stuff. During the occupation and blockade at Diablo Canyon, when about two thousand people managed to prevent the opening of the nuclear power plant, the mainstream news media kept reporting that the blockade was failing, that the protesters were getting tired, that everyone had given up and was going home. One person starting walking around with a poster that said "The media is getting tired and hungry and going home."

Press accounts typically understate the numbers and dedication of protest movements. Instead of talking about how amazing it is that so many people have given up everything else in their lives to protest economic injustice, the press will say: Why aren't there more?

So hang in -- overall, the message is getting out. As we said in an editorial this week:

If the demonstrators don't have all the solutions, at least they've identified the problem. And that's more than Obama, Congress, or the mainstream news media have done.

But as someone who has watched, written about, worked on, joined and been otherwise involved in direct action and community organizing efforts for more than 30 years (yeah, I'm old), let me make a friendly suggestion.

Saul Alinsky, who pretty much invented modern community organizing, always said that building an effective organization and agitating for social change was as much about empowering the powerless as it was about winning a specific battle. He and his students learned quickly that nothing is worse for an organized movement than the frustration of constant failure. The movement that arose against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars suffered from that -- when it was clear that nothing any of us did (including electing Obama) was going to bring the troops home and end hostilities, a lot of people gave up and stopped marching.

The people I learned from back at the Connecticut Citizens Action Group, which practiced Alinsky-style organizing, used to say that victories, even small victories, would prove to people that they really could fight City Hall. If a low-income neighborhood was worried about cars speeding down the streets where kids were playing, fine: Organize everyone and demand stop signs, speed bumps and police patrols. Once you've shown disenfranchised people that they can force the powers that be to listen and respond, you have the basis for something much more ambitious.

I guess what I'm saying here is that you might want to think about setting a goal that's a little bit short of decentralizing all of society. When I worked with the Abalone Alliance, we were all about changing the way people related in the world; everything worked by consensus, we spent an immense amount of time discussing power relationships and we all had a radical model for rebuilding the United States (and the world). But we also wanted to stop a nuclear power plant from being built on an earthquake fault. And when that happened -- the protests actually delayed the opening for several years -- it gave tremendous life and energy not just to the movement but to all the people in it. It was radically empowering.

The Livermore Action Group, which emerged out of the Abalone Alliance, was dedicated to ending the threat of nuclear war (and all war), among other things. But it had as an immediate first step ending weapons reasearch at the Lawrence Livermore Lab.

Around the same time, the American Friends Service Committee came up with a campaign called the Nuclear Freeze. The bumper stickers read: "Step one: Freeze Nuclear Weapons." The idea: When you're in a hole, stop digging. Nuclear proliferation was threatening the world; as a first step, we ought to stop building more bombs. 

Since this is all about Wall Street, and you've got momentum on your side, maybe you want to start talking about something specific. How about "Step One: Tax Wall Street Transactions and Create A Million Jobs." A transactions tax dedicated to public-sector job creation would do wonders for the economy. It's the kind of campaign that a wide range of allies could join. It's got simple, populist appeal. It's not everything you want, but it's not bad -- and remember, it's ony Step One.

Just a thought from a friend.



I'm probably a one percenter myself but if you're willing to suspend belief that that makes me the anti-Christ, then I'd say that you've grasped the dilemma here.

The protests do reflect an anger that exists broadly and even within many of us who live off the markets, and that feeling is that the greedy among us have tainted all of us, even the honest ones on Wall St. (and they do exist). It's harder for me to get an edge these days because I'm competing against institutions that have essentially been bankrolled, backstopped and indemnified by the government.

I think the bad banks should have been allowed to go to the wall. That would actually have been better for the markets.

There is an adorable but self-defeating naivity to these protests. Their objectives are too broad, ill-focused and diffuse. They're not going to change the world, overthrow capitalism, dismantle the Fed, institute socialism in america or herald a brave new world.

In fact, not a single financial institution will be harmed by this.

But if the very real energy and consensus could be harnassed, then some objectives could possibly be achieved. but those demadns have to be modest, realistic and, most important, narrowly defined.

I'm still voting for Lee, though. Sorry, but a leopard can only change one spot at a time.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 11:40 am

Marie Antoinette could not have said it any more clearly. You are a fool.

You'd better wise up. Stop your deeply naive and arrogant patronizing, and start negotiating, or that movement out there will likely become an unfortunate refrain of Bastille Day; a result which would serve no one, most especially yourself.

You are not above the power of people. (Machiavelli wrote about that, remember?) And you will be brought down -low- if you don't wake the hell up and start behaving far more ethically and respectfully.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 2:00 pm

Such an ill-informed comment shows a gross lack of knowledge of what Machiavelli believed as well as the content of his writings. He was interested in the role of fortune in governance as well as the supremacy of power. He was not interested in "power of the people" as "the people" had little-to-no power under the absolute monarchies which existed during his time.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 2:38 pm

'Guest' you clearly have either never read 'The Prince', forgot the whole text, or you paid it no real attention when you read it.

The Prince, possibly the most brilliant text ever written on the methods and politics of power, -repeatedly- references the reality that if a ruler loses the support of the people, that ruler can neither prevail nor survive; and that one key method of success is to make sure of that support, or at least tolerance, on the the part of the people.

Why don't you go back and read it again. And this time put your dominance ego and presumptive libertarian 'free market' ideologies aside, and actually pay attention to the words on the page.

There is a good public domain online text version at:

Here is just the -first- mention that Machiavelli made of 'the people' in that text, in the conclusion of its mere dedication, which totally flies in the face of what you just claimed about Machiavelli's writings and perspectives. (And the remainder of The Prince, is even -more- explicit on the role of the people.)

"Nor do I hold with those who regard it as a presumption if a man of low and humble condition dare to discuss and settle the concerns of princes; because, just as those who draw landscapes place themselves below in the plain to contemplate the nature of the mountains and of lofty places, and in order to contemplate the plains place themselves upon high mountains, even so to understand the nature of the people it needs to be a prince, and to understand that of princes it needs to be of the people."

'Guest' you not only speak like Marie Antoinette, you think, with equal alacrity...

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

Hardly. Machiavelli wrote extensively in "The Prince" on the necessity of a ruler to act justly so as to influence Fortuna to smile on his rule. But that doesn't translate into a thundering endorsement of the "power of the people." The Prince ruled not at the behest of "the people" during the time in which Machiavelli lived - but at the behest of his sponsors and of Fortuna. I'd hesitate to claim Machiavelli as a supporter of mass democracy - which would be absolutely alien to him and his way of thinking.

Learn to grasp the metaphors which sprout like wild mushrooms amongst Machivalli's writings. And perhaps add a few writings of the ancient but learned temptress Hrotsvitha, who predates Machiavelli, into your repertoire as well.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 3:52 pm

And the fact that you cannot grasp this fact when it is staring you right in the face on the page, shows all too clearly how much of an arrogant dolt you really are.

Democracy is not the issue.

The issue is that if you do not make sure that the people are on your side, or are at least tolerating your methods of rule or governance, you are in trouble as a ruler.

This is precisely the situation that elites now face in the Occupy movement.

Elites like you, who are blind to these truths (and there are all too many today) will go down ignominiously like old clowns with fading makeup.

It's going to be fun to watch.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

Are responsible for every good thing to ever happen to mankind. Sadly - it's the uneducated, the illiterate - who are responsible for the ills which plague us today.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

There are no provisions for uprisings either in absolute monarchies or liberal democracies, that much they share in common. Neither form of government can persist if it alienates sufficient people as this one has. Just the Florentines could not vote out the prince, we cannot vote out Wall Street.

The whiz kids that decided that we had reached the end of history and that creating exotic financial instruments, 40:1 leveraging, corruptly rated mortgage backed securities, that comingled risky and reliable mortgage loans and did not allow for them to be unbundled to isolate risk, taking banking and insurance off-books and repealing Glass-Steagall were good ideas are the ones who cratered the economy.

Even those Harvard Fucktards advised by village idiot Lawrence Summers got bamboozled out of $500m in a bogus interest rate swap.

Yes, there were a minimal number of borrowers who were irresponsible but the banks poisoned the well with their MBS tranching models and the problem cascaded through the broader economy, catching those who had done no wrong while those so-called responsible adult smartie pantses got away with the inside job.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 7:22 pm

You know who else was amazing at amassing the people? Hittler. Truly understood the "Power of the People". You're a clown. Where dose all those tents come from? How do you get food? Industry allows you idiots to exist. Who is bringing you fresh water? Who supplies toilets? What about that computer you've typed that dribble on? Or that phone in your pocket that allows you to check to meaningless rants of your "friends" on facebook. The movement isn't going to bring about shit because there is no real disturbance. They cordin off the protesters like cattle and let them graze. I work downtown and have not encountered any occupy presence what so ever. Pissing in the wind.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 24, 2011 @ 8:25 am

Before this thread degenerated to a pissing contest about testicles and beer between partisans of various mayoral campaigns, I believe the topic was OWS, how the corporate media wants to pretend they don't exist, and how they shouldn't get discouraged by that.

Well on that subject, there are a few interesting polls that have come out:

Time Magazine's poll has says that OWS is more popular than the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, or president Obama.
Tea Party: 27% favorable, 33% unfavorable
Views best represented by: Democrats 30%, Republicans 17%, Tea Party 12%, other parties: 4%, none of the parties: 35%
Obama: 44% approve, 50% disapprove
OWS 54% favorable, 23% unfavorable... and great majorities agree with all the major issues raised by OWS

Wow... that's something else, huh? And this has sprung up how many days ago?

But wait, there's more... in New York, people overwhelmingly back OWS
67% according to Quinnipac, and 87% support their right to stay in the park.
Another poll found overwhelming support in New York for a tax on millionaires.

I saved the best for last:
FOX News launched a poll of their own viewers, probably expecting a negative reaction considering their coverage.
Results so far: 69% support, 27% oppose

The message resonates. Keep it up!

Posted by Greg on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 10:25 pm

She's an opera critic, for crying out loud.
Maybe NPR should read the Fox News poll.

”This sudden concern with my political activities is also surprising in light of the fact that Mara Liaason reports on politics for NPR yet appears as a commentator on FoxTV, Scott Simon hosts an NPR news show yet writes political op-eds for national newspapers, Cokie Roberts reports on politics for NPR yet accepts large speaking fees from businesses. Does NPR also send out ‘Communications Alerts’ about their activities?”

NPR must be taken to task for this.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 6:59 am

how the corporate media wants to pretend they don't exist, and how they shouldn't get discouraged by that.

Channel five I believe has a little movie of the occupy Oakland people screaming about how they don't want the media to have anything to do with them.

Posted by moloch must die on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 8:15 am

It would help if you could actually post the video link to prove your statement rather than just toss it out there without even knowing if it is true yourself.

Posted by 'anonymous' on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 8:26 am
Posted by moloch must die on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 9:04 am

Guest wrote "In fact, not a single financial institution will be harmed by this."

You has crystal ball?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

The protesters might have some effect in the financial industry.

It's broad catch all leftism isn't going to play well with the actual 99%.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 7:18 pm

There is nothing radical or leftist to most people about evicting finance capital from controlling the government.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

and you will have populists on the left and right on your side and can start a movement that people will join.

Associate it with Israel, leftist racialism and the rest of the dogmatism and relegate yourself to the history books.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 7:52 pm

I'm trying to make the point to San Francisco's leftists that anything shouldn't be about everything. That relatively narrow focus--evict finance capital from the government--is why OWS is capturing the public imagination and that is why the leftist grab bag of oppressions and disempowerment has been irrelevant for the past 40 years of shrieking at people over microphones during political actions, giving everyone a reason to ignore them.

This is pretty much unique to SF's radical activist culture, activist for life sinecure and nonprofit ecology. Not once on Tuesday did any of the screechers say the words "Join Us." But they did screech "It took millions of people organized for the Chinese to get rid of their 1%." Everyone around me looked at each other in horror at that one, and we all asked in unison "And how well did THAT work out?"

Their incessant chanting and screeching only dwindled the crowd and did not attract anyone to join a movement that on the merits enjoys overwhelming popular support. That says it all.

Fortunately, the movement is fault tolerant by design, any one city can go south without impacting the broader project.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

David Brock has an awesome bit about the right ripping off Saul Alinski.

Now that the left has taken over much of the establishment they have shown they are just as useless and bone headed and anti individualist as the right ever was.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 7:15 pm

Today, tens of thousands of protesters marched in London, Frankfurt, Madrid, Rome, Sydney, Hong Kong, New York and in other cities across the world. Occupy Wall Street has gone global~

Ah, but where was Jeff Adachi? How about Matt Gonzalez? You'd think these so-called "leaders" would show a bit of courage by coming out to support the cause. Or are they too busy having caviar with billionaire bud, Mike Moritz? Well, nice to know that somebody sides with the 1%...must be lonely.

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

Jeff Adachi has done more for the disenfranchised in the last year than you will do in your entire life.

Thank you Jeff Adachi and Matt Gonzales for sticking up for working class SF families who are being assaulted with taxes in a severe recession (see Props B & G) and service cuts (see potholes and privatization of parks) to support the bloated pensions of the City's $200k club.

Occupy City Hall!!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 8:20 pm

Everyone's entitled to a strong, vigorous criminal defense, but do you really think that folks overly concerned about the pension "crisis" (as well as the political corruption crisis that Adachi conveniently ignores) are going to be grateful to Jeff Adachi for helping the "most vulnerable" escape prosecution often on technicalities for violent crimes?

The 99% are the most vulnerable these days. At least one Democrat who has not tried to paint himself as a progressive has it right:

Treasurer Bill Lockyer spoke at a seminar on public retirement where he talked about an idea by labor economist and New School Professor Teresa Ghilarducci to create a retirement program for private employees that could be run by an entity such as California Public Employees' Retirement System.

Lockyer described it as a pooling of individual accounts with tight rules on preretirement withdrawals that could, after 40 years of contributions and combined with Social Security, be worth a yearly sum that amounts to 56 percent of a worker's final earnings. That worker would retire at 65.

"What I'm thinking is that it would be a very smart political and policy move by those who want to keep defined-benefit public pensions to link the move for pension reform to a demand for a meaningful retirement security option for California private sector workers," Lockyer said, according to a transcript released by his office.

He continued, "It seems to me that we have the makings of one very powerful message if we are prepared to say, 'Gov. Brown, public sector workers and public sector managers are ready and willing to make reasonable concessions about the size and shape of future benefits, but if we do, we want California to start the work of restoring retirement security to everyone else who works for a living in our state."

Something in it for everyone? That could make the discussions much more interesting.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 9:10 pm

Let's be clear-

If you think Adachi's record in helping the poor/disenfranchised is limited to criminal defense, then you are woefully ignorant about his record. We have rampant corruption of course, not exclusive to City employee compensation which is as corrupt as the day is long. Pay to play corruption is a major problem but funny I don't see Adachi taking money for his mayoral campaign from Twitter (Lee), public sector unions (Yee) and law firms with City contracts (Herrera). I don't have a scintilla of doubt Adachi will in the end- have spent the least per vote of any of the top ten finishers.

The 99% certainly don't have the pension and health care guarantees of the public sector and frankly they shouldn't have to come out-of-pocket (see Props B & G) to pay for it.

Regarding Lockyer, this is a guy who has been going around for the last two years saying the average state pension is $2,500 a month which is a flat out lie.

The issue is defined benefit pensions i.e. guaranteed. Any idea that the state would ever support/insure/back-up private sector pensions is a good laugh. The state is $500 billion short of its current pension commitment. Lockyer's comments are just misdirection trying to take the heat off the public's insistence on MAJOR reforms. The state's pension system as SF's is likely to implode regardless so these discussions in the end are probably moot.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 12:05 am

Retirement and health care for city employees ARE social services and are negotiated as deferred compensation.

Adachi is too afraid to challenge the real entrenched power, the political corruption that drives firehoses worth of public wealth into the hands of the already rich.

It is just easier for the politically spineless like Adachi to go along with the Tea Party and demonize public employees just like the cops tend to prey on the homeless who are not armed instead of the drug dealers who are armed.

Lockyer is voicing a desire for all Californians to have retirement and health care security backstopped by government because we are too big to fail just as government bent over backwards to save Moritz' and Cowan's fortunes from obliteration in the casino.

At least Lockyer is trying to solve the problem using liberal and progressive values as opposed to Adachi who probably has a career as a Fox News commentator once we run a progressive to take him and Gonzalez out over at the PD's in three years.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 6:01 am

Interesting. How does it serve low income and working class San Franciscans to save them from one attack and then launch a new attack on their pay and benefits?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 7:21 am

Low paid City employees are exempt from pension reform - are the unemployed exempt from Props B & G....?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

and Pops C & D are just the preliminary attacks on the lower income and working class San Franciscans. Adachi said openly that it doesn't stop with Prop D.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 6:48 pm


Where are all the people clammoring for Adachi to occupy City Hall? Do tell. Where's the grass roots campaign of activists breaking out their torches and pitch forks to go after public workers?

The most exciting thing to me is that the protesters who are occupying Wall Street and other cities is that they are refusing to buy in to your game of scapegoating of public workers. Many of them have even told the cops that they love them. That's right. They have gone up to them and said, "you are the 99%. You are one of us." They recognize that the concerted attacks on public workers are being funded by billionaires and their right-wing foundations~ that is, by the 1%.

Guest, I take it you are part of Adachi's conservative base. You gave yourself away when you said that (for you) the issue is defined benefit pensions. So, I guess you'd prefer we switch all public employees to defined-contribution (401k) plans, is that right? That's interesting because that's also the agenda of right-wing think tanks and foundations. So it appears that your thinking is in line with theirs.

Fortunately, the people in the streets get it. They know that if the billionaires succeed with their pension reform initiatives, it will drive down wages and benefits for ALL worker (public AND private sector). In fact, it will spell the end of pensions that guarantee a secure retirement for workers.

The Center for American Progress issued a recent report that showed that “the percentage of unionized workers tracks very closely with the share of the nation’s income going to the middle class.” Public sector employees are the last bastion of unionized workers in this country. If we care to recover from this recession, we need a strong middle class to stimulate demand for goods and services.

You know what I think is infantile? People who scapegoat others~ whether it is people of color, immigrants, students, the poor, or public workers. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what Adachi and Gonzalez are up to. And that's why I'm calling them out and will continue to do so until these powerful pols finally get it. What they're doing is unacceptable.

Well, the workers and students all across this country are on to their game. And they are rising up. This is what a true grassroots effort looks like.

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

"They recognize that the concerted attacks on public workers are being funded by billionaires and their right-wing foundations~ that is, by the 1%"

If this were true, why do City employees support pension reform? As least they understand the math.

"So, I guess you'd prefer we switch all public employees to defined-contribution (401k) plans, is that right?"

Correct - not all but clearly the $100k plus type defined benefit are no longer affordable - this is inevitable. Again- math.

"They know that if the billionaires succeed with their pension reform initiatives, it will drive down wages and benefits for ALL worker (public AND private sector). "

Of course, this is not even close to being correct. Public employees make up less than 5% of the workforce - their wages and benefits are not driving the market. This is a classic lie that people like yourself say over and over - wonder if it works...?

"You know what I think is infantile? People who scapegoat others~ whether it is people of color, immigrants, students, the poor, or public workers. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what Adachi and Gonzalez are up to."

This is just plain dumb.

"Well, the workers and students all across this country are on to their game. And they are rising up. This is what a true grassroots effort looks like."

Although OWS has no clear message I don't think "pension reform is a bad idea" would make the top 25 of any protester.

You would have a credible argument if the City were not taxing and cutting services to the poor to cover these large pensions.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

Lisa, please don't bother replying to this nonsense. No one in their right mind would take this manifesto length, totally inaccurate, absurdist diatribe seriously.

The only semi cogent point this clod makes is on City employee unions' support of Prop C, and the obvious answer to that point is that the City employees union leaders were so afraid that Prop D might pass that they foolishly caved and agreed to the really bad devil's bargain of Prop C, simply to keep D from prevailing.

There's no mystery there. The public union leaders are gutless, and the rank and file should vote them out for supporting Prop C.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

This is just too surreal,

Luke Thomas just over for a beer after 3 hours of photographing a demonstration that was 5,000 strong and marched right past the Chronicle amongst other ...

The Chron ignored it.

As did the Guardian?


Go NIners!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 7:41 pm


Jeff Adachi fights corruption where he finds it with the tools at his disposal. No public official has gone after corrupt cops as has our Public Defender.

Looks like another warm one.

Go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 4:55 am

Too bad Adachi doesn't also fight corruption in himself.

We can do without heroes who get their funding from the same billionaires who fund Tea Party attacks on workers in other states as well.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 7:17 am

I can't deny that Adachi has been good on criminal justice issues. It also can't be denied that he's gotten in with a really bad crowd and he's lousy on the concept of economic justice.

He's a fine public defender, but he shouldn't be allowed to be anything more. Electing him mayor is a very risky proposition. Fortunately I don't think we're in danger of that.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 8:12 am

We made Adachi and we can and should break him.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 8:54 am

Adachi will win,

The Chronicle nailed it when they said, "His independence is unassailable.". This week their Insight magazine called your POA buddies' ad tying him to Walker, "the most despicable ad of the campaign season to date". I'm certain Eric can get lower though.

I'm very grateful to Chris Daly for getting John Avalos into the race. Avalos is a really good guy and my $20 a month in donations went to him for 4 months in a row. The last 2 months they've gone to Adachi. It's not much but if an old man on Social Security living on Skid Row can donate so can everyone else. The only candidate I prefer to these two guys is Terry Baum and sadly she doesn't have a prayer. She'll certainly get one of my 3 IRV picks.

I like Miyamoto for Sheriff and Cunnie entering the race gives him a chance. My main concern with Mirkarimi is that he wins and any of the Moderates elected Mayor immediately give us a Right-wing shill like London Breed for 9 years as supe of D-5 which is the Progressive bedrock.

To me Gascon is the most intriguing candidate in the City. This guy's a salmon swimming upstream against dams for his entire career in law enforcement. He's already amazed me with his courage in confronting the lawless POA hierarchy and the corrupt cops they protect. I truly believe he'll be a great District Attorney.

Bulldog picks for propositions are Yes on D and H.

No on everything else.

Now I'll pass the mic back to that ray of sunshine, Eric Brooks.

Niners in 18 minutes!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 8:47 am

Again, I'm against both C and D. Both come from the same ideological framework. I'm not interested in debating the precise method by which working people get robbed of their pensions. I'm interested in building a discourse where billionaires like Conway and Moritz are held accountable for the mess they've gotten us into.

Prop H... the rich go to nice schools, the poor go to crap schools... loverly sentiment. Long tradition for that one. Goes back to the "No bussing" crowd who opposed Brown vs Board of Ed.

Gascon standing up to the POA??? Wha??? He's covering for them! Whatever. Don't even get me started on Gascon. You know that one of the things they initially charged the Occupy protesters with, was Sit-Lie. Oh yeah, thank you George Gascon!

As for Adachi winning... he has no constituency. I say maybe 10%. Maybe.

Ross... agree with your argument. But none of the other candidates are remotely acceptable to me. Both are typical law enforcement hacks. It's the type of mediocrity I'd expect in Omaha, or Cincinnati, not my wonderful San Francisco. So far I see zero evidence that Miyamoto is one iota better than Cunnie, or vice versa. So for me the choice comes down to: Keep your fingers crossed and vote for Ross, or I don't know... leave it blank?

But then you say Adachi's going to win, so we don't have to worry about London Breed, do we now? Ah... but the fact that you're even making that argument tells me that even you ain't buyin what you're sellin.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 10:08 am

Breed would be a one term supervisor unless she completely changed her political positions and became a strong progressive.

I can handle a short conservative term in D-5 to make sure that we have another progressive like Hennessey running the Sheriff's office.

We need to defend ourselves against ICE and Homeland Security citywide. That is far more important than who turns out to be the temporary rep of D-5.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 10:20 am
Posted by Guest on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

Oh yeah? Well I say John Avalos wins with 82.6% of the vote in the first round. So take that!

What? I have just as much evidence for my assertion as you do, so there!

Did you mean 4.3% instead of 43%? Or are you just trying to be funny?

Posted by Greg on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

I notice you never responded in the affirmative to my bet.

Cat got your tongue?

No guts, no glory H...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 7:22 pm

H, I'll bet you a beer right here and now (good microbrew on tap, no Budweiser type crap) that Adachi won't win the mayor's race.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 10:12 am

than Avalos or Baum. In fact, only Lee and Yee are likely to do better. In Lee's case, much better. I'd bet a case of beer on that, and not just one. Pliny the Elder too.

The opposition against Lee is split too evenly so that, even under IRV, it's very unlikely Lee's twenty point lead over his rivals can be over-taken.

And of course, Lee supporters only need make one IRV choice. They don't need to help his rivals. His rivals will eat each other.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 11:09 am

There is a whole field of conservatives, moderates, and centrists sharing the pursuit of Lee type votes, which is just as significant and the field of progressives sharing pursuit for eachother's votes.

This is especially true when we recognize that Adachi's votes are majority anchored in the conservative camp, and candidates like Herrera get lots of votes from the right, along with a large center vote that he also shares with Lee.

Your analysis simply doesn't bear even a brief cursory scrutiny.

And with the Occupy movement rising, and Avalos and Baum clearly standing as its lead allies in the Mayor's race, it is likely that Avalos will out poll Adachi.

Especially when we recognize that Adachi isn't really even running for mayor at all. He's running to pass Prop D.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 11:24 am

Notwithstanding the 99% rhetoric, most people don't see it as a viable political solution, and expect it to fizzle out as the weather gets worse. These things usually follow that pattern.

I've seen no evidence that Lee's big lead is eroding. Where's your evidence?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

The point regarding the Occupy movement and this election, is that it has powerfully energized the left and this will result in higher progressive voter turnout and more progressive volunteer mobilization for candidates like Avalos and Baum.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 1:55 pm

How is anybody going to collect from you when they win or vice versa?
You're nothing more than a chattering ghost on the internet, and your far right bias blinds you to all facts just like the extremes of the other sides.

By the way, where's your imaginary poll that shows "Lee's twenty point lead over his rivals"? Is it with the other polls you failed to produce that showed his 30% lead, and that showed his lead undiminished from 30% only last week?

Because that's what you were chattering about.
A fact here and there could really add to your argument.

Posted by meatsack on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 12:36 pm

They do show him with a 30% support, but that only gives him a 20% lead.

More significant is that nobody else is polling over 10%. IRV favors a frontrunner when the rest of the field is evenly split

Posted by Guest on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 1:34 pm

Do you have actual documentation of the claim in your last sentence?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

Related articles

  • Valentine's Day dump the banks rally: If only all break-ups involved this much singing (VIDEO)

  • What are people?

    Occupy protesters and progressive politicians call for end to corporate personhood

  • Occupy is back -- with horns and glitter

    An energetic day of action shows that the movement is very much alive