About the Mirkarimi poll

|
(193)

It's no suprise that lawyers for suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi are calling a recent poll biased. The poll, paid for by a group of local women, many of whom have been in the forefront of the efforts to remove Mirkarimi from office, found that 61 percent of people wanted the sheriff ousted. More significant, it broke the results down for the supervisorial districts where there are contested elections; the goal, of course, was to put pressure on the supes to support the mayor's removal efforts.

But nobody has published the actual questions in the poll -- although I got a call from Greg Kamin, a San Francisco resident who was among those contacted by the robo-poll, and he said it was unusual, to say the least.

"In a normal push poll, they ask you your opinion first, then give you information to see if it changes your view," he told me. "In this one, there was just a barrage of negative information first, before they asked a single question."

One question went more or less like this: Which factors would most convince you the sheriff should be removed -- the fact that he pled guilty to false imprisonment, the fact that the Ethics Commission ruled against him, the fact that he was involved in domestic violence, or the fact that he's on probation?

"There was no way to answer the question that didn't say you wanted him removed," Kamin said.

Given the way the poll was structured, Kamin told me, "it's surprising Mirkarimi got as much support as he did."

Worth considering.

Also worth considering: For all the talk about domestic violence and zero tolerance and the need to remove the sheriff, there's been very little discussion about the impacts on the people in the county jail -- who are overwhelmingly African American and Latino. It makes a difference who the sheriff is. Someone who really believes in rehabilitation and wants to treat inmates in a decent, humane way can change lives -- and radically improve public safety in a state with a 70 percent recidivism rate.

Again: Just something that ought to be part of the discussion.

 

Comments

imping his/her/its intellectual betters. Such imping accounts for close to half the posts on this topic it seems, and the above somewhat sensible item which seeks to apologize and excuse previous outrages is no exception.

I imagine, momentarily, what it would be like to be so devoid of intellectual capacity and so full of hatred at the same time -- which is my assessment of the imp/Troll who plagues this site -- and I find it to be a most disagreeable vision.

Poor, poor, imp/Troll. Has no worthwhile intellectual basis for commenting, and can only satisfy his/her inchoate rage by mindlessly disturbing others with insane rubbish.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 9:55 am

What are these "pretty solid clues?" Your determination to get to the bottom of this mystery is admirable but will you share with us the methodology you intend to use to crack this case?

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:48 am

Troll II fails the intelligence test... in public.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

The Chronicle has published a poll today saying that 61% of people want Mirkarimi to retain his job.

I voted five times online in favor of our dear sherreef

Posted by Corvus Conrix on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:43 am

Should San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi lose his job?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Ethics Commission concluded he engaged in misconduct 142 ( 14.6% )
No, the Ethics Commission has not said he should be fired 627 ( 64.6% )
Yes, he pleaded guilty to domestic violence charges 148 ( 15.2% )
The board of supervisors will decide if he loses his job 54 ( 5.6% )

So despite being a push poll and giving only one option to answer "no" that itself contains a clause that many Mirkarimi supporters would question the validity of -- and despite the fact that one of the "yes" answers boldly mischaracterizes the number and character of the "charges" the sheriff plead guilty to -- the fact that respondants favored keeping the sheriff by a two-to-one margin is remarkable.

(Of course, I'm sure this can be explained by the repeated promises by Mirkarimi-haters to fix the SFGate poll in his favor... yeah. Sure.)

Still, it is too bad that respondants weren't offered the chance to answer "No, the sheriff has not committed any official misconduct despite what a majority ethics commissioners pretend to think."

Or, how about "The mayor conducted misconduct much more clearly than the sheriff ever did when he decided to use the power of his public office to settle a political vendetta against Mirkarimi"?

Those giving the neutral answer should probably be counted as supporting the sheriff's case, considering.

Not a scientific poll, but at least as valid as the bogus push polls which have been promoted so incessantly by trolls and gossip columnists.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:41 pm

The only problem with this poll is you could vote several times. I voted six times.

Posted by Corvus Conrix on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

It is sad that Ross' natural constituency of DV prevention/prosecution advocates has been turned against him, and they should consider -- at least! -- the degree and verve with which they attack him.

The DV advocates should remember that the mayor and the DA *had* their chance to go beyond the admitted momentary arm grab. They could not prove their nasty allegation that Ross was some sort of "wife beater." They could not do so. Mayor Lee *lied* when he referred to Ross Mirkarimi in such terms.

I seriously doubt that the DV advocates really believe the repeated claim that Ross' momentary arm grab of Eliana -- given the particulars of the nature of their argument, which it astounds me I'm even alluding to on a public forum -- is tantamount to being the kind of thug who commits acts we commonly associate with domestic violence prosecutions; acts which leave women scared and often in need of medical care.

Ross' mistake of a momentary arm grab -- and his further mistake in using fateful language in regard to it -- does *not* make him a "wife beater." It certainly shouldn't give the mayor the power to overturn the results of the last election. That is wrong.

You may think the DV prevention is important enough to sacrifice Ross Mirkarimi on a skewed alter of justice; that in making an *example* of him, you avoid the slightest chance that thuggish domestic violence criminals might otherwise feel more safe with their criminal habits.

You may feel that with a suitably crucified Ross Mirkarimi, such criminals may feel, if ever so slightly, more of a sense of timidity.

DV advocates, I urge you to reconsider. Not only are such premises far fetched, but more importantly, if you think that way, you are imperiling your own integrity by sacrificing a rather self-evident component of fairness: other people are not props for your agenda.

Remember Ross Mirkarimi's past service, and remember his track record specifically with regard to domestic violence and other policing issues.

Ross Mirkarimi is one of the best and most honest -- and thoughtful -- politicians San Francisco has been fortunate to see in some time.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

If lillipublicans is asking - then maybe we should all reconsider...

Posted by DV advocates of San Francisco on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 4:35 pm

highly effective to simply assume he is wrong every time. Not much downside to that.

If Ross had wanted the support of DV activists, he should have kept his hands off his wife's arm, and not kidnapped her in his car.

Oh, and in the video, Elaiana points to her bruise and says "It's happened before". DV perps rarely do it just once. They keep doing it until they get caught. That's why we have a zero-tolerance approach to DV, and Ross was treated no differently than any other DV perp.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 9:06 am

The fact is that she said almost *nothing* of the kind. No suprise that you are lying about it, since by telling such a lie you hope to sway opinion.

As a matter of fact, the Ethics Commission when analyzing exactly what Eliana said and what she later testified was her intent (of referring to the altercation about taking their son out of the country) found that there was no basis to find that she was claiming that she'd been had her arm grabbed previously.

In fact, if you don't just take that vignette out of context and misquote the woman, your intimation seems quite implausible. That analysis doesn't even take into question lawyer Ivory Madison's role in the making of the video.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 10:10 am

mean that the EC had to take it into account, since they define their own scope. They declined to consider all kinds of evidence but it does not follow that such evidence is false.

If I had a bruise caused by Ross and I point to it and say "it's happened before", as Eliana did, then it is a substantial stretch to believe that means anything other than what is seems.

That said, Eliana has been caught out in some other lies, so it is possible that there was not an earlier bruise, and Eliana was lying anout it to make Ross look bad.

Regardless, what we do know is that Ross admits "I committed an act of violence against my wife". You can't spin that.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 10:16 am

mean -- or perhaps you are a compulsive liar? -- but the fact that Ross Mirkarimi expressed his regret for a momentary arm grab and correctly identified the nature of that act does *not* make him a "wife beater" which you and the mayor would so much like to establish.

Who's spinning? Ross Mirkarimi has consistently been as forthright as the situation would allow. It is the mayor and a cohort of anti-progressive (i.e.: reactionary) propagandists who have been busy spinning for all these months.

And the mayor's sudden disappearance from the witness stand under cover of "bomb threat?" Investigation please Sheriff Mirkarimi.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 11:05 am

point in you pretending that it hasn't happened. We're merely quibbling over how many times.

It's well known that DV typically repeats itself until the perp is caught. It was probably lucky for Ross he was caught "early" and of course he is in a 52 week program that may help him manage his admitted problem.

So did it happen once, twice or more than that? We can't know since Eliana is currently saying whatever she thinks will get Ross his job and paycheck back.

Was Eliana lying when she said "it's happened before" or was she lying later when she denied that? We don't know but, either way, she has not proven to be a consistent witness.

We'll only know the truth after this is all over and, no doubt, it will come out in a nasty divorce.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 11:20 am

that he actively "is violent."

Well, your "everybody knows" what is "typical" does not justify your falsely impugning the character of Sheriff Mirkarimi -- or Eliana -- or Theo for that matter, just in case you might find some angle on that.

To the contrary, all of the bold-facedly lying anti-Mirkarimi haters may attempt to promote the idea that guilt is assigned regardless of proof being shown -- and of course, it's all done in service to the cause of reducing the influence of progressives on local politics -- but I expect most San Franciscans know better.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 12:53 pm

"I committed an act of violence against my wife". So was he lying when he said that?

You seem to be contradicting Ross and claiming he is wrong about his admission.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 1:10 pm

Your purpose for doing so is anybody's guess. Ross admitted to his momentary mistake and correctly identified the nature of that mistake.

That you find it necessary to lie about exactly what he said suggests that either you are a compulsive liar or that on some esoteric level, you believe yourself to be furthering your political objectives by doing so.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 1:55 pm

It's not clear to me why you would deny Ross's own words, especially since you then go on to admit he made a "mistake" which is, of course, that act of violence that he admits.

You cannot credibly deny it happened. We're just debating whether it was an isolated incident or whether, as Eliana originally declared, it had "happened before".

It's possible it was just once, if Eliana was lying. But DV is usually a systemic pattern of abuse and not an isolated incident. You either respect women enough not to assault them, or you don't.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

You are only lying in an attempt to establish your "right" to lie; even while the substance of the lie is without importance. Utterly psychopathic.

If you were able to prove your assertion, you'd post a link to the video, or the transcript, of course.

And I'm still waiting for proof that "Eliana lied." No proof exists, of course, and your habitual mischaracterization of the video both in its origin -- i.e. its apparently unethical producer, Ivory Madison -- and a misquote and/or non-contextual analysis of the words which Eliana spoke into Madison's camera does not equate to such.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 2:54 pm

Lilli, are you seriously suggesting that Ross did not say those words? And on camera too?

Off the fence now. Did he or did he not?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

I've given you several opportunities to try to prove that your misquotation is actually an accurate quote. The fact that it is really an immaterial falsehood on your part reveals a strange -- if not psychopathic -- need to win every argument at any cost.

Cop lover.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

Ross's words are unambiguous and damning.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 3:57 am

your avoidance for identifying the video evidence of your encephalopathic claim.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 7:33 am

I said that he made a statement, on video record, that he committed an act of violence against his wife.

And we've all seen and heard it, so I really don't understand what mileage you think you are getting from denying something that Ross has already admitted, Eliana has corroborated, and that Ross has apologized for.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 10:30 am

And now you are squirming away.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 10:56 am

So Lopez never lied. Let's go back and watch the video she and Ivory Madison made, then, shall we? Which time was Lopez telling the truth?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 3:42 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 11:07 am

Well, through her lawyer, she said Ivory Madison practiced law without a license.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

"Holding a Juris Doctorate, formerly a James Madison Law Fellow for Americans United for Separation of Church & State, intern at the California Supreme Court, and Editor in Chief of the Law Review"

http://www.linkedin.com/in/ivorymadison

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 11:12 pm

Yup. I checked the LinkedIn page and what he says is true!!! It is right under the headline that says:

"CEO, entrepreneur, writer, and non-practicing lawyer".

I haven't looked up @lilli's profile but I'm sure that it says 'non practicing dancing bear; practicing clown'.

Posted by Amused Guest on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 5:54 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 7:37 am

She's a big backer of Ross Mirkarimi's too. What interesting bedfellows this sordid episode makes - extremist Republicans teaming up with extremist progressives to decry the "persecution" of poor Ross Mirkarimi and screech about the excesses of modern feminism.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

Lilli does it just because he is a drone to the progressive agenda, if it was anyone not on the progressive island he would be ranting and raving about "conservatives" and their lack of respect for women.

Schlallfly does it because she has all along said these laws went overboard.

She does it because that is her thing, Illi does it because he can't help being a flunky.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 1:39 pm

been a conservative who committed DV here.

But Lilli would be saying the exact opposite i.e. that DV is a terrible thing rendering a politician incapable of holding office.

Lilli's views are 100% opportunistic and idelological.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

Rather dumb in fact but good at regurgitating the progressive line, over and over and over. A progressive-bot, the kind San Francisco machine politics are good at turning out.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 2:13 pm

even more irksome than their repetitive chanting of tedious doggeral.

We're hard on Lilli but he's really no worse than the rest of them - he just evidently has more time on his hands.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

You may find that your use of such terminology does not, as you seemingly might think, serve purpose you intended.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

Each word was chosen for a very specific purpose.

You're fighting a losing battle here.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 3:17 pm
Posted by Troll II on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

Why doesn't the Bay Guardian commission its own poll. Or don't "progressives" want to know what the majority of San Franciscans want?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

Do you think glories leader Mirkarimi who was unfairly fired by the imperialist running dogs should get his job back so that he can revolutionise the fascist states unjust and racist prison system.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

This bears repeating

"77% of domestic violence victims recant their claims."

And so did Eliana. She buckled under to violent male dominance.

Phyllis Shafly is a Ross supporter because she hates feminism, hates equal rights for women, hates gay people.

KrisKraft and others are bedding down with this evil woman.

Posted by Corvus Conrix on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

Way to position yourselves Progressive SF!

Posted by Scram on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 4:31 pm

"It's no suprise that lawyers for suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi are calling a recent poll biased."

No, it's not. Any poll that has results that don't favor his client would elicit that response, of course. Next!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 8:55 pm