SF Chamber poll distorts the facts...again

|
(61)
This logo on the Chamber website sends visitors to select results, but not the underlying questions, statements, or data.

The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce this week released its annual City Beat poll – promoting its results at the top of its website and feeding it to media outlets such as the San Francisco Examiner, which faithfully reported its finding, apparently without seeking underlying data – and once again the poll was marred by distortions and hidden agendas.

For example, the Chamber claims that 58 percent of the poll's 500 respondents prefer runoff elections (up from 52 percent in 2011) and 31 percent prefer ranked-choice voting (down from 42 percent last year), with the balance refusing to answer or saying they don't know. But what the Chamber doesn't say is that voters were read a series of arguments for each system first, and the anti-RCV statement contained a flat-out inaccuracy.

“Critics of ranked choice voting say that it is a confusing system that results in lower voter turnout – as the last Mayoral election had the lowest overall voter turnout in more than 35 years. They say candidates are getting elected with extremely low number of votes which doesn’t represent the true will of the voters. Instead of ranked choice voting, they propose having run-off elections so that voters have a clear choice on something as important as Mayor,” the statement read.

Yet it's simply not true that November's 42.47 percent turnout was the lowest in 35 years (as you can see here). Off-year elections have far lower turnouts, as did the last mayoral election in 2007, which had a turnout of 35.6 percent. Even the hotly contested, pre-RCV November mayoral election of 2003 had a turnout of 45.67 percent, just a few percentage points higher that the low turnout that the question implies that RCV causes.

But Jim Lazarus, the Chamber's vice president of public policy, won't concede the error, telling the Guardian that respondents understand the statement to apply to only closely contested mayoral elections. “We believe the average voter realizes a competitive race is what we're talking about,” Lazarus said, dismissing the 2007 mayor's race as uncompetitive.

Yet Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, which supports RCV, said the poll was deceptive and seems designed to achieve results that are consistent with public policy stands that the Chamber has taken. “I think they do a better job of making their arguments than the RCV arguments,” he said.

“Supporters of ranked choice voting say it gives voters more choices and does not force voters to vote twice in just five weeks on the same contest. They say it has resulted in more diverse representatives for the city. They also say that it encourages campaigns to find common ground and ways to work together because they must win supporters of other candidates,” reads the polling statement.

Richie concedes that supporters of RCV have made these statements, but he said they aren't the strongest arguments or the ones they generally tend to lead with, such as how big spending by well-funded independent expenditure groups tend to dominate the low-turnout runoff elections, which more conservative candidates win every time in San Francisco.

But Lazarus claims the Chamber was trying to honestly gauge public opinion, not influence it in favor of Chamber positions. “We didn't skew it, we're trying to get honest answers,” he told us. “It doesn't do us any good to fake the outcomes. We aren't doing this for PR reasons or press releases.”

Yet many of the issues the poll dealt with are active campaigns in which the Chamber is trying to influence the decisions made at City Hall, such as its longstanding crusade to repeal the city's payroll tax. In the poll results, 57 percent of respondents said the supported a “payroll tax decrease from 1.5 percent to 1 percent, making up the difference with other revenues.” In the Examiner story, the paper even deleted that last crucial clause.

Yet what neither the Chamber nor the Examiner told readers was that the question was set up with this statement: “It has also been suggested that reforming the city’s payroll tax system could spur job growth. I would like to read you some potential tax reforms that have been suggested to help spur job growth.”

But even with that repetition of “spur job growth” as a prompt, only 25 percent of respondents agree with the crusade of the Chamber and its allies in City Hall to “Eliminate the payroll tax all together, replacing lost revenue with higher license fees and taxes on businesses.”

On the half-dozen tax measures the poll asked about, none of which received majority support, the questions were set up with this statement, “Some members of the Board of Supervisors have suggested a vote on new taxes may be necessary to help solve this budget deficit,” referring to the oft-demonized legislative body that enjoyed 45 percent in this poll, rather than Mayor Ed Lee, who has made similar suggestions and enjoys 68 percent support.

The poll was conducted by David Binder Research, and Binder was out-of-town and unavailable to answer questions. Lazarus said the language in the questions was jointly developed by Binder and the Chamber.

Comments

We've gotten used to thinking of bias in surveys in terms of push polls, where it's blatantly obvious. But that's not the only kind of bias.

The bias in the question about RCV was a little bit subtle, but very effective (for the Chamber of Commerce and its allies). In addition to the inaccuracy pointed out above by the SFBG, the anti-RCV paragraph ends with "... they propose having run-off elections so that voters have a clear choice on something as important as Mayor." Does David Binder Research really want to defend that as neutral question wording?

And then there's the wording of the either/or question that followed the two introductory statements: "After hearing these statements… When no candidate receives 50% of the vote in an election, would you prefer to (ROTATE) Hold a run off election OR Use ranked choice voting?" Hmm ... you don't use RCV "when no candidate receives 50% of the vote in an election", you use it all the time. That's a confusing sentence, and the confusion probably nudged some respondents toward the more clearly stated option (runoffs).

Posted by Bob Richard on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 6:29 pm

@Bob, yes, the statement "They propose having run-off elections so that voters have a clear choice on something as important as Mayor" clearly isn't neutral but it wasn't supposed to be.

The corresponding pro RCV statement was also used: "They say it has resulted in more diverse representatives for the city. They also say that it encourages campaigns to find common ground and ways to work together".

You can't criticize the statement that you don't agree with for being biased while not even mentioning the corresponding pro RCV statement that was also used.

The second argument that you make about RCV being used all the time goes absolutely nowhere.

Nobody expected a C of C poll to be accepted as fair and impartial.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 6:59 pm

If the C of C was really trying to paint a negative picture of Ranked Choice voting they could have said that the TWO ranked choice Mayoral elections have resulted in the lowest turnouts of the past 35 years. It is true. The 2007 Newsom uncontested election that you refer to was also RCV, although Newsom won a majority in round 1.

They also could have said that the turnouts in the last two Mayoral December runoffs (1999 and 2003) were 47% and 54% respectively while this year's 'Instant Runoff' represented only 30% of the electorate. That was a huge difference. In other words, if they were really trying to skew the results they had a lot of ammunition that they didn't use.

RCV proponents would be wise to stick to subjective arguments and avoid as many facts as possible IMHO. It might be a necessary evil for District Races but it is a disgrace that the city uses it for Mayoral elections

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 6:33 pm

No, Guest, turnout last year wasn't 30 percent, it was 42.5 percent, as I reported in this article.

Posted by steven on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 10:44 am

I said "this year's 'Instant Runoff' represented only 30% of the electorate".

Lee: 84,457
Avalos: 57,160

Total: 141,617

Registered Voters: 464,380

Pct: 30.5%

http://www.sfelections.org/results/20111108/

Do you want to tell me again how people are not confused about rank choice Voting?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 11:34 am

And 55,625 people voted for candidates other than Lee or Avalos, up to three of them, votes that your analysis ignores for some strange reason. It's just flat-out inaccurate to say only 30 percent of voters participated in the mayoral election.

Posted by steven on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 11:34 am

Steven, because it is important that you see one of the major flaws of RCV, I'll go back and include the 55,625 people that you say that my "analysis ignores for some strange reason":

Lee........... 88,457 44%
Avalos.......57,160 28%
The rest:...55,625 28%
TOTAL....201,242 100%

OK, Steven, I added them back in. But now Lee only got 44% of the vote, not the required 50% needed to win. So, what, the election isn't over?

It is actually our RCV system that ignores these votes, not me. The official term is 'exhausted'.

It is important that you understand this because it is one of the worst flaws of RCV but, frankly, I'm not expecting any miracles at this point.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

any system of voting that is imaginable. Steven is desperately searching for a voting methodology that allows the liberal third of the voters to out-vote the moderate two thirds. Not surprisingly, there isn't one.

But it's harmless to let him try.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 5:32 pm

Gee, I thought it was shady until I say that they read a positive statement to compare. It is basically the mantra used to support RCV.

After seeing that, I'd say that it is pretty fair.

The turnout for the Mayoral runoff was actually much lower than reported - 30.5% (141,617 of 464,380 - http://www.sfelections.org/results/20111108/data/mayor.html

What is very interesting, the Department of Elections site also shows that turnout was lower in Chinatown in this election by about 25% than that of the Dec. 2003 race which had 51.8% and there were no Chinese candidates.

You would think that with so many Chinese candidates this time around, turnout in Chinatown would have been way up, but it was way down.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 6:48 pm

No, Guest, that's not what the chart you link to shows. It clearly shows there were 197,242 votes for mayor. The 141,617 figure you cite is the number of voters who cast ballots for Lee or Avalos, with the difference being voters who didn't list either of them, but who had their votes counted up to three times for losing candidates.

Posted by steven on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 11:03 am

The final official tally was 60% Lee, 40% Avalos.

So where were these other votes counted? On the appendix on page 36?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 11:36 am

situation that simulated an old-style runoff. And Lee won more than 50% more votes than Avalos which, techncially, is defined as a landslide.

I think Steven is trying to dress up the stats that makes it look like Lee's win was marginal but, sadly for him, the actual numbers do not support his spin.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 11:51 am

No, those votes were tallied right in the chart that you linked to. That's what the chart was, a round by round tally of where each of the mayoral votes went for the 42.5 percent of registered voters who cast ballots in the fall. C'mon, Guest, you can't be a dumb as you're pretending to be. 

Posted by steven on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 11:39 am

Ed Lee is the legal mayor because of the final round of RCV voting, not because of the first round. Either show us how 42% of the voters participated in the final decisive round or stop sounding stupider with every comment.

Yes, there were 42% at the start of the process but when the official tally was taken only 30% were counted. Before RCV the people who voted neither Avalos or Lee would have had the right to vote in the final, official runoff. But no more. Great system, that RCV.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

It seems Steve is using two different denominators for his calculations to make them look better.

But you can't use different ones to calculate turnout and % support. They must be the same.

Either you had ~ 42% turnout and a Mayor elected with ~30% support (using 194,418), or you had ~31% turnout and a mayor elected with ~55% support (using 141,617).

Otherwise, it's Madoff style accounting.....

Posted by Guest on Mar. 07, 2012 @ 11:37 pm

This isn't really a mathematical difference we're having, it's a semantic debate. It's indisputable that we had a 42.5 percent turnout, and I don't dispute your point that about 30 percent of voters remained after the RCV tallies were done. But just because 55,000 voters weren't represented in the Lee and Avalos totals doesn't mean their votes weren't counted. They were, usually three times. By your logic, I suppose you'd also have to eliminate the Avalos voters from your total as well considering they weren't "counted" in the winner's total either, but I think that's a rather silly way to look at this. Bottom line: 42.5 percent of registered voters participated in this mayoral election, period.

Posted by steven on Mar. 08, 2012 @ 11:26 am

What about the fact that if you include those 55,000K in the final tally then Lee never reached a 50% majority and hence is not the Mayor. I noticed that you choose to ignore that one to talk about.

I can look at the final tally and see the people who voted for Avalos. But I can't see the other 55,000 people in the final, official tally. The one that matters. The one that, legally, got Lee 50%.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 08, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

yes, of course, some people effectively didn't get to vote on that because they voted for three other candidates. That's the issue with RCV - some people get disenfranchised.

But there is zero evidence that Lee could have failed to win on any conceivable alternate voting methodology.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 08, 2012 @ 2:10 pm

Actually, everyone's votes are represented in that final tally, which was linked to in this thread, so go see for yourself. And there's nothing magic about 50 percent: many jurisdictions around the world use a plurality of votes rather than a straight majority, including our own presidential primaries. By your logic, Bill Clinton wasn't really elected president in 1992 and George W. Bush wasn't really elected president in 2000 because neither won a majority of the popular vote in those presidential elections (yes, yes, I know that it's the Electoral College that actually chooses presidents, which is even less democratic than RCV, but the point is the same: in a multi-candidate field, there's nothing magic about a majority). Elections are about who gets the most votes, and nobody (well, nobody reasonable) is disputing that was Ed Lee in this election.

Posted by steven on Mar. 08, 2012 @ 6:25 pm

"And there's nothing magic about 50 percent: many jurisdictions around the world use a plurality of votes rather than a straight majority, including our own presidential primaries."

Well, yeah, but what about THIS jurisdiction, the City and County of San Francisco? The one that says that the Mayor must receive at least 50%+1 vote?

Do we just ignore that little law because it is inconvenient?????

Posted by Guest on Mar. 08, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

Yes, we know that those 55K people went to the voting booth and fulfilled their civic duty by voting. But when the final tally was compiled, the one that declared their Mayor, their votes were nowhere to be found.

They were excluded because of who they voted for.

And this is a good thing...why...Steven? It certainly didn't exist before RCV.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 08, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

>" the difference being voters who didn't list either of them, but who had their votes counted up to three times for losing candidates."

Yup. And before we had RCV these voters would have had the right to revisit the situation and participate in the official run-off election that decides who would be the Mayor.

They no longer have a way to participate in that final election now, because of who they voted for.

Is that another 'feature' of RCV that we just haven't come to appreciate yet?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 11:45 am

Lazarus' comments are hilarious. No respectable pollster would do these kinds of practices. No Bay Area media outlet should reports on Chamber polls (or another polls) without providing the questions.

Posted by Downtown skeptic on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 6:49 pm

Like Jim Lazarus told the Supervisors about his personal opinions:
traditional runoffs are nightmares.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 9:29 pm

>"Lazarus said, dismissing the 2007 mayor's race as uncompetitive."

Well what would you call it? Newsom got 70% of the vote, the 2nd place candidate got 6%

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 9:52 pm

So the pro-RCV argument that "big spending by well-funded independent expenditure groups tend to dominate the low-turnout runoff elections, which more conservative candidates win every time in San Francisco" really is false. Using RCV Newsom won in 2007 and Lee won in 2011.

That's really a poor argument anyway. We should not be instituting various tweaks to the electoral system to ensure conservatives are defeated in San Francisco (and neither Lee nor Newsom are conservatives). People should be able to elect whomever they want. Using this argument just goes to show you that the supporters of public financing and RCV aren't interested in a more "fair" system - they're interested in one which ensure victory for those candidates they consider ideologically acceptable.

Too bad the citizens of San Francisco disagree with them.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 9:55 pm

If you look at the pro RCV literature you come to the realization pretty quickly that RCV is the great hope of those who feel that they could never win in a traditional election. They may not win with RCV either but maybe they'll have a chance with a different system.

The part that really bothers me is when they start talking about the need to eliminate some of those 'expensive elections'. Funny place to try and save a little money. Elections.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 10:52 pm

The fact that Lee and Newsom won doesn't make my statement invalid: the more conservative candidate won in the runoff system as well. In fact, San Francisco voters generally tend to elect the better-funded and more fiscally conservative candidate in the mayor's race. But that's not always the case in supervisorial races. Nonetheless, that doesn't matter either, this isn't about gaming the system. The Guardian has supported RCV because it addresses the problem that I identified, but that doesn't mean it necessarily skews toward more progressive candidates, and our intention was never to try to do so. We just want fair elections where the corrupting impact of disproportionate spending by the wealthiest 1 percent is minimized, but that doesn't guarantee any particular outcome.

Posted by steven on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

Here's a poll championed and promoted by Fair Vote some time ago:

"Suppose the outcome of this election results in a different winner than there would have been in a traditional primary and general election. Which of the following best describe your opinion if this happened?"

"I would prefer he RCV result because it is more ACCURATE"

"I would prefer the traditional primary and general election result, because it is tried-and-true"

51% fell for the false and deceptive push, wanting a more "ACCURATE" result and Fair Vote issued a press release.

Fair Vote reps have been accused of slanting their "polls" - even admitted to faking southern accents to fit in:

http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2009/08/slanting-exit-poll-of-carys-in...

Shameful.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 02, 2012 @ 10:06 pm

A game in which progressives fully take part in when it works to their advantage.

Jones complains that a poll doesn't reflect his biases.

Posted by matlock on Mar. 03, 2012 @ 1:45 am

wants to see elected even though we know he would support any system that would give them a better chance, regardless of any objective merits.

Only Ross has benefitted from RCV and look what good that did him in the end!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 03, 2012 @ 7:40 am

of DCV have not come about.

Meaning the benefits that the progressives saw in it.

More of the "disenfranchised" have not come out to vote, we still get the same loser candidates what we would have got anyways. The progressives still have all their lame excuses about why they lose, or make up crazy, like Avalos having momentum on election day when most everyone knows that moderates and conservatives vote by mail in greater numbers that lefties.

RCV was just reworking the rules to their own benefit using the racialist code words, while bemoaning reworking the rules when anyone else does it, for example top two in state elections.

Posted by matlock on Mar. 03, 2012 @ 12:13 pm

David Binder is hardly an independent researcher. He is well known for skewing his polling during the disastrous Prop 8 battle. Swallow his findings with a huge dose of skepticism - regardless of the topic at hand.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 03, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

I've generally found Binder to be a reputable pollster (more than others whose polls I've challenged over the years), which is why I asked Lazarus about how these questions were developed and why I'm anxious to hear back from Binder to answer my questions. Once I hear from him, I'll update this post, and if you don't see an update then he wasn't willing to return my call to answer questions about this poll, and we can all draw our own conclusions from that.

Posted by steven on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 11:23 am

Not because he's hiding anything.

I mean, you guy are like half of the size of the Weekly at this point. And the only people who seem to comment on your site are people telling you how bad you suck.

Posted by Longtime Lurker on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

...they tell you that they don't make any pretense about being impartial. But when someone doesn't want to take part in their propaganda, well, you can just draw your own conclusions about that!

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

You can't be both. So why does SFBG even try to masquerade as a newspaper? It's free and weekly, meaning that it can never convey information. While it's "deeper" investigative stuff is typically shallow, grossly partisan and often falls over on the facts.

There's probably 10,000 people who get their news from the Chron for every one here. I suspect when Bruce pops his clogs, or gets tired of subsidising his loss-making business, that'll be a wrap for this last throwback to the sixties.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

So, I write a factual story about a biased Chamber poll that used verifiably false information that was uncritically parroted by the daily papers, and all the trolls accuse me of bias. Hilarious.

Posted by steven on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 1:22 pm
Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 1:48 pm

No, just those who spend lots of time on the website of a newspaper that they claim to despite and/or consider irrelevant, but who nonetheless feel a need to regularly undermine our reporting with repetitive, baiting criticisms intended to ridicule and provoke rather than promote an honest discussion of the issues raised by the article. Those are trolls, and their work is well-represented in this comment thread. I've always welcomed and encouraged people to challenge or disagree with my work. That's why we have a comment section, and I often enjoy the exchanges among people of goodwill who have varying political perspectives. But I think it's a shame that this blog is so often sullied by people who prejudge our work and come to this website simply to try to undermine the Guardian. Frankly, I assume some of you actually being paid to do so (or at least you work for organizations like the Chamber with which we often joust); as for the rest, perhaps you're just bitter people who should probably get more life-affirming hobbies.

Posted by steven on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

"but who nonetheless feel a need to regularly undermine our reporting with repetitive, baiting criticisms intended to ridicule and provoke rather than promote an honest discussion of the issues raised by the article."

Your own editor just admitted to trolling in his own Blog, lol.

"Don't get me started. I'm against all kinds of laws, pot laws and prostitution laws and gambling laws .. lots of 'em. But I thought my plan to ban condos for the rich near schools would suffice to drive you nuts."

Posted by tim on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

Here's a link for you, Steven...

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/03/06/food-truck-battle-board-supes#co...

Posted by RamRod on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 5:48 pm

Steven, you need to realize that a lot of people who love this city have been embarrassed by the Peskin-Daly circuses. We are NOT uncaring people when it comes to the needs of the less powerful segments of society. We support compassionate issues at levels that exceed the rest of the country.

But there also needs to be a balanced approach to dealing with business and wealth. Tim Redmond was literally hurling expletives in this paper at the kids who got rich by starting a company (Facebook) that changed the world. Because they got rich. A beautiful waterfront housing complex for the rich at 8 Washington? Well, junior, that's why you want to stay in school and work hard.

There are those of us who are thrilled at the moderate turn that city hall has taken, especially at the BOS level. Thank the heavens that the voters continually reject your endorsements but it remains important to point out the common irrelevancy of your positions.

Posted by Troll on Mar. 09, 2012 @ 9:55 am

Facebook has changed the world? Really?

There is no correlation between staying in school, working hard and becoming rich. Microsoft and Facebook are testament to that.

There is no balance in San Francisco between the wealthy and the rest of us, they get 8 for each 1 we get. Further imbalance means they get more and we get less. Watch the nonprofits pull out the knives for each other as that game of musical chairs rolls on.

As for Daly and Peskin, similar to the media attack campaign against Mirkarimi, the Chronicle has spilled reservoirs of ink to emblazon Peskin and Daly as evil in the political psyches of Chronicle readers.

This was needed, after Peskin and Daly passed a torrent of legislation that tried to restore balance to San Francisco, incrementally, by changing that 8:1 ratio of rich to San Franciscans to a ratio more favorable to San Francisans but still nothing remotely approaching parity. The late Donald Fisher called Newsom into his office in late 2005 and the ruling elites charted a course to coopt professional progressives and move for permanent dominance. UNCLE, cried the nonprofiteers!

Posted by marcos on Mar. 09, 2012 @ 10:32 am

working hard, and with success and prosperity. That's why people work for eyars and get themselves into debt to go to college.

Those who argue it's all random, and maybe theft or inequity, are invariably those who didn't put in that effort but want to share in the spoils anyway.

I've no idea what your 8 to 1 "ratio" is or means. But if the problem you are identifying is that the hard working, educated and successful make more money then all I can say is "DUH".

Posted by Guest on Mar. 09, 2012 @ 11:29 am

If anything, the more difficult the work the lower the compensation.

Hard work is not the determinant of success.

The key factor is ruthlessness, selfishness and drive.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 09, 2012 @ 11:45 am

never either worked hard nor been successful. Trotting out cliches to diminsih the success of others isn't persuasive. It just sounds like sour grapes.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 09, 2012 @ 12:16 pm
Wow

>"Facebook has changed the world? Really?"

Yeah. It has. 800 Million people use it to communicate. The leaders of Tahir Square credit it for helping to organize the Egyptian revolution. Yes, it has changed the world. Read the papers.

>"There is no correlation between staying in school, working hard and becoming rich. Microsoft and Facebook are testament to that."

Okay. I thought there is evidence that college graduates earn more than non graduates but you have proven otherwise. And certainly, the fact that 2 people left Harvard to start successful companies totally proves that there is no correlation between education and financial success. Yup. Of Course. Thanks for the clarification.

As far as Daly and Peskin, I don't need the Chronicle. I watch channel 26 and saw them in action. And I live in D3 and have heard multiple accounts from my neighbors of the extreme condescension they received from Peskin anytime they approached him. Both are extremely low level, vile individuals. And key reasons that the Progressive movement is in the sorry state that it is today. But go ahead, keep on following them. Don't let me stop ya.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 12:34 am

Yes. Because you never showed any 'verifiably false information'. It was just something that you dreamt about.

I can't believe that you are low enough to even say that you aren't biased. The more honorable SFBG writers readily admit that they are.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

lame piece on resdistricting or voting methods or committees and so on. They're obsessed with the process because the process alrgely bypasses them.

While if you want material, incisive objective journalism, go elsewhere.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 12:30 pm

All these posts sound exactly alike. Like every other paper in this town, including the Chron, SFBG is struggling to stay alive. Yet somehow, this paper just keeps on keeping on. And those of us on the left aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Sorry to disappoint all you haters (or just one idiot posting the same silly shit over and over). Not too concerned.

Posted by Sky on Mar. 05, 2012 @ 4:17 pm