The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) may reconsider its August 11 endorsement in the race for District 6 Supervisor. File photo by Luke Thomas.
By Luke Thomas
September 2, 2010
With only a few weeks to go before the November campaigns kick into high gear, word has it the San Francisco DCCC may reconsider its endorsements in the race for District 6 Supervisor.
The reason? It’s finally dawning on some of the more enlightened DCCC progressive members that without a ranked choice voting strategy, the D6 seat could be lost to downtown.
Why? Because there are so many strong progressive candidates vying to replace termed out Supervisor Chris Daly, the progressive vote is likely to be so diluted that it avails a golden opportunity for an organized counter ranked choice voting strategy by the moderate candidates in the race to steal the seat.
That reality is not lost on those who care about progressive politics, but is lost on those progressive candidates that can’t see past a me, myself and I, myopia.
Prime example? Debra Walker. When asked if she will endorse a second and third place progressive candidate, Walker told FCJ, “I’ll announce my decision on November 2.”
In its last endorsement meeting, the majority of progressive members aligned with Walker on the DCCC voted against endorsing a second and third candidate in the D6 race in large part because Walker fears a second place endorsement of School Board President Jane Kim will increase the probability that Kim will win the seat. Instead, the DCCC anointed Walker as the Democratic Party’s sole choice for the seat.
As a supporter of progressive politics, wanting the team to win and not so much concerned about who scores the goals as long the team wins, the DCCC headed by Chair Aaron Peskin should absolutely start thinking about maximizing the probability of ensuring the D6 seat is held by a progressive candidate.
To do otherwise is a risky proposition with potentially disastrous consequences.
The DCCC endorsement is the by far the most influential endorsement in San Francisco politics and has proven time and time again its power in electing those candidates it endorses. If the DCCC fails to endorse a second and third place progressive candidate, and the D6 seat is lost to the downtown money machine, the DCCC members who voted against a D6 ranked choice strategy will have no one else to blame but themselves.
That’s egg on their faces that could last for eight very long years.
Editor’s Note: Luke Thomas is a resident and voter in District 6. In the interest of transparency, he has provided photography services to the campaigns of Jane Kim, Jim Meko and Debra Walker.
Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is a former software developer and computer consultant who proudly hails from London, England. In 2001, Thomas took a yearlong sabbatical to travel and develop a photographic portfolio. Upon his return to the US, Thomas studied photojournalism to pursue a career in journalism. In 2004, Thomas worked for several neighborhood newspapers in San Francisco before accepting a partnership agreement with the SanFranciscoSentinel.com, a news website formerly covering local, state and national politics. In September 2006, Thomas launched FogCityJournal.com. The BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, New York Times, Der Spiegel, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Magazine, 7x7, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly, among other publications and news outlets, have published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521 and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Follow Me:
The Hunger Site
September 7, 2010 at 9:07 pm
This is kind of a tangent on what I wrote earlier, but I figured I might as well throw in an email exchange I had a few months ago with David Chiu on his chickenshit maneuvers to fuck over progressives. The first email I sent to him was pretty weak but, long story short, I took him to task for his backroom deal with Newsom regarding the MTA measure. Here is the response he gave me:
Matt — I appreciate your perspective, but wanted to share another perspective on the situation:
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/07/muni_charter_killed.php#more
And by the way, I made a decision on the merits of the measure by itself, separate from the budget.
David
Here’s my response to his response:
Here’s the thing, David: instead of swinging for the bleachers, you have a repeated tendency to just bunt. Your alacrity to single-handedly compromise with Gavin Newsom doesn’t speak well of your confidence as a leader of the progressives (or just merely a leader, for that matter). What’s worse, the fact that you have a hard time challenging Newsom when he most needs to be challenged deflates, disenchants, and disengages your base, ultimately making you unappealing to everyone. Could the measure have passed? Maybe yes, maybe no. But one thing is for sure: Muni is still going to royally suck in spite of your impotent half-measures. Stop being a push-over and show some balls for once.
He didn’t respond to this one.
September 6, 2010 at 9:47 pm
@h, lemme get this straight, you whine and caterwaul every board meeting about how progressive supervisors are selling San Franciscans out to corporations, offering up your constructive suggestions (don’t do it).
But they always end up doing it and screwing us.
I think that progressive supervisors screwing their base in favor of corporations is a problem as well.
Do either of the two leading progressive candidates in D6 think that this is a problem? I’m not exactly hearing much messaging on that myself.
@Patrick, I’m quite continent, thanks. h. is just pissing on my leg while Gonzalez blows smoke up his ass.
-marc
September 6, 2010 at 7:37 pm
@marc. it aint raining. cut back on your Flomax.
September 6, 2010 at 11:12 am
@h, what’s getting boring is the insistence that there is a difference when at the end of the day there is no difference.
Quit pissing on my leg and telling me that its raining.
-marc
September 6, 2010 at 10:55 am
Jerry,
Good to hear you too. Reading occasional blurbs on your adventures in parenting. Trip, huh?
Jerry and David, your candidate not only shows no spirit of collegiality but does the opposite and, like Meko, Kim, Sparks and Zamura who all cross candidate picket lines to enter exclusionary forums. I asked David to help with a lawsuit Gonzo will work with us on to challenge this practice amongst 501 (3) c’s and haven’t heard a peep. I gotta assume that you prefer your candidate only associate with the moneyed group?
Marc, if you look at my work you’ll see that I ALWAYS have alternatives when I attack a person or institution. For the last months you never have an alternative. That get’s boring fast.
And, to Walker’s people. Tell her the time to stop talking to the Press is after she get’s elected, not before.
Giants in an hour!
h.
September 6, 2010 at 10:32 am
@David, THE leading progressive in the race? Looks to me like there are at least two, perhaps several leading progressives in the race.
-marc
September 6, 2010 at 10:12 am
@David, I apologize if this article comes across as a “character attack,” but Debra’s response to my question about a 2nd and 3rd place endorsement speaks for itself.
September 6, 2010 at 10:03 am
@Luke: Your stated commitment to ensuring that a progressive – any progressive – retain the D6 seat is at odds with your character attack on the leading progressive candidate in the race.
September 6, 2010 at 9:12 am
@Jerry, y’all was busted pure and simple. You see, the Green Party was stronger in values and appearance than it was politically, and this made it ripe for all sorts of pluckings by the better organized. The real DemoGreens did this in 2002-03, the sectarian socialists did it in the form of Petroni’s Left Party and the ISO with Peter Camejo.
Resistance was not futile, however it was messy. But there was no other option.
@h, I’ve got an email archive of the better part of a decade with you going negative on anyone and everyone, most namely, the Board of Supervisors for the past four years for folding like chairs, going down like $3 whores for the corporate interest we both detest.
B.F. Skinner taught us that conditioned response is the best way to elicit behavior changes. Rubbing a dog’s nose in its shit after it goes in the wrong place is all that I’m doing here. Perhaps they will learn?
-marc
September 6, 2010 at 6:58 am
Hi h. long time no see. I have not had the time to post anything anywhere for some time, nor the inclination, whether anonymous or otherwise. in fact, I cut way back on politics because it tended to bring out my least admirable qualities (something about personal attacks by others instead of focusing on the issue tends to make me cranky). since then, I have managed to be much more restrained.
unfortunately, I let myself get dragged into this and at a time when I am sleep deprived from caring for my infant daughter. cranky is my base line right now and not a good state to post comments in. so, sorry, Matt and others, if I have come off as “over the top” in defending my good friend Debra Walker. Debra is one of the best souls in politics anywhere and she deserves better.
one last thing Erika. while the rules for percentage of vote to gain endorsement did not change, there was a more important rule change that made that unnecessary. the party decided to change the definition of “active member” during the endorsement meeting to as to allow the scored of new members brought in by matt that night to vote for him and meet that percentage threshhold. funny, but the Greens prior to that had criticized Dem clubs for their endorsement practices that allowed club “packing.” I have never seen a worse example of endorsement abuse that that night at the Green party.
September 5, 2010 at 4:02 pm
By the way, I’ll add that “practical” and “pragmatic” also serve as subtle epithets against progressives. What’s unfortunate is that (in addition to “moderate”) many progressives have internalized these words and have regurgitated them for some time now. It’s kind of like how some African Americans refer to themselves and other African Americans using the “n” word.
September 5, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Jerry,
Two things. First, please forgive Marc. He’s been nothing but negative for around 6 months now. We both know he’s better than he’s displaying. He simply looks for any opening to attack and cause trouble. You stuck your head up and so you become his latest target. He hasn’t added a single positive thought to the arena in some time.
And second, don’t give me this crap about you always being “forthright”. Gimme a break. The last few days is the first time in years I’ve seen your name on a post. Tell me that you haven’t been publishing things (nasty and not) during all this time under anonymous handles?
And, Erika. When the Green Party didn’t endorse Matt in 2003 I urged him vehemently to drop out of the party and run as an independent. Hell, he dropped out of the Democratic Party in mid-race in 2000 over questions of the fairness of the Dems.
SF Greens are a think tank and a damned good one.
They are not a political party.
Go Gigantes!
h.
September 5, 2010 at 9:50 am
As the SF Green Party spokesperson, allow me to set the record straight in reference to this allegation:
“a party that saw fit to change its endorsement rules during an endorsement vote so that the majority’s candidate can win a sole endorsement.”
The SF Green Party makes decisions by consensus. If consensus is not reached, a vote may be taken. The threshold for endorsement is 75%. These rules have been in place as long as I have been active in the party.
Matt Gonzalez received the SFGP endorsement at a meeting that took place September 11, 2003. He won the endorsement upon receiving 77% of the vote of the active membership present at the meeting. The minutes of the meeting are available here:
http://www.sfgreenparty.org/events/minutes.psp.
As the minutes make clear, no rules were changed to achieve the outcome. Though we try to reach consensus on all decisions, votes on endorsements decisions and other issues are not uncommon.
September 4, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I don’t think that any honest San Franciscan is of the opinion that the main problem facing us is that there is too little influence from non residents of San Francisco in our politics.
District Six is the special needs district of San Francisco.
I don’t think that many residents of District Six think that the main problem facing us in District Six is that there is too little influence from nonresidents of District Six in our politics.
Whether in the for or non-profit world, very few of those with political power over our district live here.
Self determination is key to political power. This should go without saying in progressive thought.
Offers of unsolicited political advice in a climate where everyone BUT D6 residents influence and benefit from political decisions made here is just plain rude, even if from ostensible allies.
The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of the press or speech. Luke Thomas is not Congress. He is not compelled to allow any speech on FCJ. The antidote to rude, unsolicited political advice from outsiders is to call them on it and name it for what it is.
-marc
September 4, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I have certainly said all I want to about this article. but Marc wants to dig up his old paranoid fantasies and focus on them. I left the Democratic party when my grandfather died of asbestos cancer because I was sick of national Dems taking corporate money and refusing to hold corporations responsible, resulting in the deaths of untold numbers of Americans. I did so while still the President of the Harvey Milk Democratic Club and almost got the club decertified in the process. My choice also almost cost me my office as President. Members of the Green County Council asked me if I would be willing to serve on that body, and I reluctantly agreed. No sooner had this happened, than Marc began a rumor campaign that Dems had hatched a plot to infiltrate the Green Party and hijack its endorsement process. The number of hysterical lies he told to support that rumor campaign was truly disheartening and made me question his sanity. That campaign served its purpose, however, which was apparently to convince Greens to abandon their principles of consensus based endorsements, and have a straight majority vote. This was the only way Gonzalez could gain the sole endorsement of the Green Party and deny Ammiano an endorsement in that race. I had thought perhaps Marc has let this go and had gained more judgment since then. I appear to have been mistaken.
September 4, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I guess Luke didn’t get my post about Elaine Zamora. I’m too lazy to write it over again.
However, I’m not too lazy to re-respond to Marc: I haven’t and will never hide the fact that I don’t live in San Francisco (largely because I can’t afford to live there). More importantly, however, I do not and never will feel ashamed of this fact and, as such, I will continue to voice my strong opinions about issues affecting San Francisco. I’m like the Rock of Gibraltar on this concept. But I will tone down the snide remarks.
September 4, 2010 at 11:43 am
Most arguments for #2 endorsements here are theoretical or moral as opposed to trying to assess their significance in the real world. Watching RCV fundies hold onto the significance of 2nd place votes in a district supe race is fun. Again, they have never counted for anything in a local election, and the dynamics of D6 in 2010 won’t change that– 14 qualified candidates, reasonably diverse candidate field in a multi-racial district, endorsements minor, major and otherwise moving in different directions. It adds up to a random allocation of 2nd place votes. These dynamics have been seen several times now in District Supevisor contests.
Right now in D6, it’s a race between Debra Walker and Jane Kim because of money, endorsements and the fact both candidates have run for local office before. In the scenario that is currently generating such angst, Kim #2 or Walker #2 endorsements are not even of theoretical value.
Here is a new angle for political junkies that has some bearing on the real world. Ballot order. It can count for a certain percentage of votes in district supervisor contests. Here is what the D6 list looks like:
Dean Clark
Debra Walker
James Keys
Jane Kim
H Brown
George Vazhappally
Theresa Sparks
Nate Payne
Elaine Zamora
Jim Meko
Matthew Ashe
Matt Drake
George Davis
Glendon Hyde
Source: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ccrov/pdf/2010/august/10261ar.pdf
Other than Dean Clark’s Chihuahua and the obvious fun Glendon Hyde can have with this ordering, this is something of a wash although if you’re Theresa Sparks or Jim Meko,Lady Luck is not doing you any favors.
September 4, 2010 at 10:59 am
Does anyone know anything about Elaine Zamora and how much support she is getting among District 6 residents (and remember, as Ed Jew has proved, it is a district election)? She trots out the usual conservative red signals of “practical” and “pragmatic” in her grassroots campaign*. She has also managed to avoid bickering in an IRV election. Furthermore, as a conservative, wouldn’t she “take” votes from Theresa Sparks? (assuming you buy the theory that ideology (or, perhaps more importantly, the lack of ideology but astuteness of character) defines how a person will vote?) Anyway, she has almost as much money as Sparks. (and Walker, for that matter)**
http://elainezamora.com/*
(http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2010/02/campaign-finance-public-funds-disbursements-november-2-2010-election.html) and she seems to avoid the partisan bickering.**
P.S. Marc, I’m not, never have, and never will hide the fact that I’m not from San Francisco. And, more importantly, I’m not going to make any apologies for this fact. I’m the Rock of Gibraltar on that concept. However, I will tone down the snide remarks.
September 4, 2010 at 10:04 am
I get your point, Marc, but freedom of speech is unassailable.
September 4, 2010 at 9:42 am
@Luke, what is this, the forum for people who don’t live in San Francisco to comment on San Francisco politics as if it were some sort of spectator sport, divorced from real consequences to real residents?
-marc
September 4, 2010 at 8:34 am
Marc and Jerry (but especially Marc) would be obnoxious if they weren’t so over the top.
September 4, 2010 at 5:04 am
@Jerry, you’re repeating yourself. Please refer to my previous response:
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2010/09/overheard-in-fog-city-dccc-to-reconsider-d6-endorsement/#comment-6284
It’s good to know we agree, however, that the DCCC should have endorsed a 2nd and a 3rd candidate in D6, as should the SF Bay Guardian, as has the Central City Dems, Green Party, etc.
The DCCC is the only political body so far to endorse just one candidate in the D6 race. Why is that Jerry? If they don’t like Kim, why not Meko, Keys, Hyde, etc?
Everyone else seems to get the concept of RCV, a voting system the SF Democratic Party once enthusiastically supported and endorsed.
September 3, 2010 at 8:26 pm
h, I offered up ten years of alternatives. Gave the nonprofits and folks ample opportunity and ideas. All they wanted was their rock of heroin and control of the process. By almost every measure, the things I’m interested in languished and lost ground over the past five years: housing, transportation, ethics and bicycle safety. I’d prefer a progressive win, but given the poor record over the past four years, it would not make as much difference now as it would have ten years ago if it went to a conservative.
Moving forward, there is no place in SF politics for average San Franciscans. Stakeholders are designated by staffers based on who takes City contracts and is controllable. Thus, you get advocates cheerleading staff rather than pushing the envelope. The result is a few showcases and general deterioration otherwise.
City government has contempt for San Franciscans, progressive electeds by and large seem to have no problem with that so long as the nonprofits get paid. The nonprofits have no democratic legitimacy to be the gatekeeper/stakeholders of progressive politics. The model is patronizing and disempowering for residents.
Perhaps Jerry’s time would be better spent exchanging suburban day care hints with Sarah Low Daly, what, with both having cast a vote of no confidence in San Francisco’s future? I don’t begrudge them their choices, but you gotta think that buying out of SF and never having lived in D6 in Jerry’s case might disqualify him from being taken seriously as respects our next supervisor.
-marc
September 3, 2010 at 5:56 pm
h., how do you know they were staffers and not just volunteers?
September 3, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Is it any wonder ‘we the people’ get the short end every time. Trying to get the ‘left’, the ‘progressives’, etc to drop their ‘isms and agendas and unite for the common good is kinda like…
….well here’s an example:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yglTMvp8
September 3, 2010 at 2:06 pm
@Luke: “That reality . . . is lost on those progressive candidates that can’t see past a me, myself and I, myopia.
Prime example? Debra Walker. When asked if she will endorse a second and third place progressive candidate, Walker told FCJ, “I’ll announce my decision on November 2.”
So, you seriously contend that this does not and was not intended to portray Walker as ego driven? Really?
and then there is your follow up comment: “Kim: “No, but I’m definitely going to do a number 2 and number 3 and we are definitely talking about – at least in our campaign – a progressive strategy; how we can support other progressive candidates.”
A big difference compared to Walker’s response.”
So, even though Walker has taken exactly the same position as Kim on endorsing other candidates, you make a false comparison between kim’s response to that issue and Walkers response on the DCCC endorsement process.
as I said, your bias has become obvious to your readers, if not to yourself. as for my bias, I am forthright about it. you might try that approach, for a change.
September 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Luke,
Sorry to vent on Marc. It just always peeves me when someone is full of criticism for the candidates and offers no alternative.
Just back from Fresno and behold, there’s a Debra Walker for Supe office across the street from my digs. I dropped in and there were 3 people there. I asked them to clear up the confusion as to whether she would endorse 2 other candidates as Jerry Threet assured us she would. I even mentioned Fog City Journal. The two at the front desk (huge space with only 3 people there) said they didn’t know and I had to ask ‘Susan’ but she was on the phone and unavailable.
Note: I asked a staffer how long til the election. Brightly she guessed, “76 days!”. There are 61 days left. Does that tell you anything at all?
Go Giants!
h.
September 3, 2010 at 1:59 pm
I gotcha Luke, but when the progressive Board of Supervisors rolls over and plays dead for Michael Cohen, and that is not a major issue in the 2010 campaign, and candidates are claiming a record of land use accomplishment and progressive values, then all I can say is “what the fuck?”
Either progressive land use values are meaningful in San Francisco or they are not. Since they are the determinant of future voting patterns, losing on land use, as we have been doing, is a prescription for the extinguishing of progressive politics from even this minimal level of influence in San Francisco.
On the IRV merits, I’m thinking that if I pick Anna Conda and James Keys as first and second–the largest demographic in D6 is neither lesbians nor Korean Americans, rather class gay men of modest or moderate means–then that would leave me with either Jane or Debra for number three. But which? How to square that circle?
Jerry’s still pissed that their two year long project to join the Green County Council to smooth Tom’s endorsement did not go off as planned. Ironic that my first choice for Mayor in 2011 at this point is Tom Ammiano. His liberal/progressive values are unassailable, he knows the nuts and bolts, and I think that his experience is well positioned after a few decades of brash outsiders coming in to shake up the system, cut up the credit cahds, etc. and fucking things up.
I actually registered Democrat and helped vote the DCCC into place!
-marc
September 3, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Matt Stewart has asked me to post a letter he recently sent to the DCCC:
SFDCCC members,
I’m writing to ask that you all take full advantage of IRV for the race in District 6. I find it bewildering that the vast majority of you made only one endorsement. Your reasoning for this decision is, at best, murky and, at worst, destructively selfish.
Though you have already chosen Debra Walker as a first choice, my preference would have been James Keys. He’s a real marine and can be counted on to be a forceful advocate for the poor and dispossessed and I ask that you consider him for a second choice. I also ask that you consider Jane Kim for the third slot. Though I don’t have as much faith in her judgment and I worry that she might become another David Chiu, I think her heart is in the right place.
Very sincerely yours,
Matt Stewart
September 3, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Like I said, if progressive politics is going to remain mired in elementary school lunch room style contests, then it bores me.
The slash and burn going on here is what happens when progressives don’t meaningfully engage with corporate interests. Locally it means corruption in contracting and capital projects and a dysfunctional service delivery system that offers crumbs for the poor mediated through nonprofits, nothing for middle income families and everything for the rich and connected.
Nationally, it means that the middle class is going the way of the Amazon rainforest under Obama.
My license to bitch is backed up with property tax payments and ten years of volunteer work, bitchez.
-marc
September 3, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Foggers, let’s keep the discussion and debate respectful and on topic. Personal attacks are distracting and unproductive.
September 3, 2010 at 12:36 pm
@Marc: I have a good history to bring a a discussion about the Green Party, a party that treated every person who came to it from the Democratic Party as an invader whose motives were suspect and who needed to be driven therefrom; a party that saw fit to change its endorsement rules during an endorsement vote so that the majority’s candidate can win a sole endorsement; a party that talks a good line about values and process but may just throw them out the window to reach a desired result.
and Marc, you should not assume I am against the DCC endorsing more than one candidate. In fact, I do favor such a process, despite my support for Walker as first choice. My other picks would be Glendon Hyde and James Keys.
but, hey, don’t let me stop you from your usual slash and burn approach.
September 3, 2010 at 12:17 pm
h, you’re running the vanity campaign and now it is all about me?
That’s rich!
-marc
September 3, 2010 at 11:56 am
So Marc,
You have absolutely zero credibility with me on this race anymore. You want it to be all about you even though you lacked the fortitude to stand up for election yourself. Pick a side or shut up.
Jerry Threet, welcome to the discussion. This your first time posting here?
h.
September 3, 2010 at 11:41 am
@Jerry: “and has also been involved in nearly every significant fight involving its future.”
Are you trying to argue this as a qualification?
Progressives have gotten rolled on all development issues in D6 over the past ten years. For every one we got, they got 8.
Jerry, you should be the last one speaking with legitimacy about Green registration as a political tactic given your history.
The question here is whether progressives want to take steps to hedge risk that a downtown candidate might win. Putting party loyalty before the substance of policy means that you’re putting your party before the working families of D6 which is much easier when you live in the East Bay but hold a cush City job.
So long as government is all about getting paid, and the point of contesting elections is to ensure that the “right” people get paid, then the progressive project is defunct.
I always thought that it was the Greens who the Democrats attacked with more vigor than they attacked the Republicans. Empirically that seems to he the case in San Francisco, where the progressive Democrats seemed to prove their loyalty to the regime by circling the wagons around the Greens and essentially demolishing the party.
Progressives and liberals are abandoning the Democrat Party in droves because it has abandoned us in favor of Wall Street. The DCCC endorsement is important, but not decisive in and of itself.
-marc
September 3, 2010 at 10:52 am
@Jerry, not once have I promoted who should get the a #2 or #3 DCCC endorsement in D6. What’s important, in my view, is that the DCCC doesn’t waste the opportunity to minimize random scatter, as it did with the D8 endorsement of Mandelman and Prozan, and hope it will do with the D10 endorsement.
I have also not implied Walker’s response to me was “ego driven.” They are your words, not mine.
If anything is laughable, it is your insinuations which, quite frankly, are steeped in your own bias towards the candidate you’re supporting.
September 3, 2010 at 10:28 am
If you review the Green Party endorsement questionaires of the candidates, both Walker AND Kim state that they are still considering who they will endorse second and third, but they both plan to do so. On this question, the two are the same.
Where they may differ is on the DCCC endorsement. Kim wants a second place endorsement because she needs it to make winning plausible. She also wants it despite having been a member of a party that regularly and vociferously attacks Democrats, even more so than Republicans. Kim believes she should be able to abandon the Green Party in pursuit of her ambition, re-register Dem, and then walk into the central committee of her new party and expect an endorsement, just like that. She apparently also thinks its OK to move into a district shortly before and election and expect to be elected to represent its interests.
Walker, on the other hand, has never hidden her loyalties to the Dems and has worked tirelessly to push them in a progressive direction, with much success locally. she also has lived in the district she is running in for many years and has also been involved in nearly every significant fight involving its future.
In this context, is it really so hard to understand why Kim did NOT get the DCCC nod?
And Luke, your pretenses that Walker’s position is ego driven while Kim is free of such burdens, is laughable.
By the way, please lose the response you picked up from Ruth Snave. You don’t escape any responsibility for your views by responding “Don’t shoot the messenger.” Your bias has become obvious.
September 3, 2010 at 9:23 am
@marc: Could you be a little more specific about “not willing to organize to bring structural progressive change to how San Francisco government works.” My first rsponse is: you mean bring the Redevelopment Agency under control of the elected Board? But I don’t know what all you might mean.
September 3, 2010 at 8:48 am
Thank you Jiro for dispensing with those myths.
September 3, 2010 at 8:01 am
Just a suggestion to Bruce, Tim, Steve, et al; it might help buff up your somewhat tarnished street cred if you endorsed James Keys in D6; giving a nod to Nyese Joshua in D10 couldn’t hurt either.
September 3, 2010 at 7:12 am
What I’m saying, h., is that it does not much matter to me which progressive candidate wins because so long as they’re not willing to organize to bring structural progressive change to how San Francisco government works, we’re relegated to the spinning of the merry go round.
The sum total of a progressive supervisor is thus reduced to funding nonprofits, perhaps checking a conservative mayor’s worst inclinations, and maybe voting once or twice a year on a consensus policy initiative.
That bores me.
-marc
September 2, 2010 at 10:40 pm
@Chris, though you may be right; that the Bay Guardian endorsement has more sway than the DCCC endorsement in D6, a non-ranked DCCC endorsement has less strategic value than a ranked DCCC endorsement.
This is an academic consideration based on the mechanisms inherent in RCV. The goal being to minimize random scatter.
September 2, 2010 at 9:57 pm
In the D6 race, the Bay Guardian is a more important endorsement than the DCCC. While many believe the Guardian will endorse Walker, It doesn’t seem as if they’ve made up their mind about ranking. Meanwhile, there is little to no chance that the DCCC will reconsider. So I think energies would be better directed that way.
On that subject, if the Guardian endorses Keys #1, I will endorse their #2 and #3 as well. That way, 2 of the 3 most important endorsements in the race will be ranked with the same candidates.
September 2, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Is this sudden anxiety about Walker’s campaign based on polling?
September 2, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Luke,
When you publish trolls who attack you I wonder about your judgment. That’s so, so … Bay Guardian.
And Marc, I keep asking you who you’re backing in D-6 and you keep simply attacking everyone. Honest to God, do you have anything positive to say about anyone on anything? We already know that no one can possibly match you but of the 15 candidates who put their names on the ballots, which one is the least offensive to you? Or, better yet, which 3?
h.
September 2, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Let’s dispense with a few myths:
#1 The DCCC isn’t going to reopen the vote. That would take 22 votes and it’s not happening. Most elected DCCC members do not want to give Nevius or Garcia a new set of clubs to whack a mole the body. These members have their own ambitions and on pure self-interest grounds this would be self-destructive. With respect, it would make them appear clownish.
#2 There was an alternative to present race. It was called a progressive primary. The way it was structured may have been an element in why it did not come together. Also some myths about RCV persist (See #3 below). One contingency came with a steep price but it was a vehicle for progressives to get to “one candidate.” Now the field is set and it’s a race to the finish. To date, Sparks is shaping up to be a fairly anemic candidate so the progressive community may be able to dodge the bullet on this one.
#3 In the real world where facts might want to count or be important to campaigns, a #2 endorsement is 98% useless. There will be some true IRV believers out there chanting the 1-2-3 mantra –much like Republicans and some Democrats say our biggest economic challenge is deficit spending in the face of effective double digit unemployment– but to date #2 votes in 6 local election cycles have proven irrelevant, and they won’t be in this year’s district supervisor contests either.
A high profile Mayoral contest potentially could be a different matter, and that’s quite iffy, but on down-ballot contests, forget them. Getting voters in high SES districts like District 8 to appreciate even 3 facts about a Wiener, Prozan or Mandelman candidacy, is a challenge much less asking voters to rank their preferences 1-2-3 in a meaningful, coherent manner. Try that on 6th Street please or with a disinterested investment banker. A plurality of first place votes equals a win with ranked choice. So, logically, candidates/campaigns should focus on just rounding up as many #1 votes as possible. Kvetching about #2s is sour grapes and like other flora and fauna on the local political scene, a useless time sink.
September 2, 2010 at 4:07 pm
@Jim – The SFGOP held it’s endorsements meeting last night. Teresa Sparks did not return our questionnaire or appear. We did not endorse in the D6.
September 2, 2010 at 4:01 pm
@Skatemate8, I can assure you I am not “making stuff up.” There’s a real chance the D6 seat could be lost to downtown. As for my objectivity, I think I have made it abundantly clear that I care more about holding the D6 seat in the hands of a progressive candidate than anything else.
Instead of shooting the messenger, address the issue presented. I have not mentioned any names because I did not speak on the record with my sources and it would be unfair to them to do so, especially since at least one of the DCCC member sources is supporting Debra Walker.
All I am saying is that the DCCC, like it did in the D8 race, should rank three prog candidates. They’ve already ranked Debra #1 and that shouldn’t change. Just make sure #2 and #3 are not wasted.
I take it you understand the concept of exhausted ballots and that the winner must get 50% + 1 of the vote to win?
September 2, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Ok, Luke. I think it’s clear that you’ve lost your objectivity in this race, and it’s been obvious for a little while now. Who is your source on this? The fact that you mention no names suggests you are just trying to stir something up for your preferred candidate.
It’s NOT on the agenda and there’s no way 2/3 of the membership of the DCCC are going to agree to amend the agenda to reconsider D6. So stop making stuff up.
September 2, 2010 at 2:29 pm
@ConcernedinSF, thank you for the reminder to add my standard disclaimer at the foot of all articles related to the District 6 race, now added to this article as well.
I have also added a disclaimer to articles related to other races where I have supplied photography services, such as the school board race.
September 2, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Luke, in covering D6, you really must disclose that you have been assigned to take photographs for the Jane Kim campaign. That is so regardless of whether the position is paid or not, and whether the assignment is ongoing or was merely temporary in nature.
That is a fundamental rule to which any journalist who takes his or her credibility seriously adheres. If you are unclear on this, please peruse the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
Paul Hogarth of beyondchron seems to get this.
Even if your coverage was without a clear bias, which it is not, you are obliged to disclose this information.
September 2, 2010 at 12:59 pm
On Saturday, August 28th Central City Democrats (the only chartered Democratic club for District 6) held it’s endorsement meeting for the November ballot.
It resulted in the following ranked-choice endorsements for District 6 candidates:
1) James Keys
2) Glendon “Anna Conda” Hyde
3) Debra Walker
Also the membership elected Michael Nulty to serve as Club President.
September 2, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Scortched earth!
September 2, 2010 at 10:09 am
But I don’t think the DCCC would fill all three slots with viable progressives.
September 2, 2010 at 9:28 am
@Marc, without a DCCC ranked choice strategy, the 2nd and 3rd choice votes will be scattered.
I agree, however, that a perfect RCV system is one that ranks all candidates. SF’s RCV system, alas, is half-baked.
September 2, 2010 at 8:38 am
Luke, the presence of 5 candiates and 3 choices confounds such a strategy given the history of exhausted ballots.
Having knowledge about a district based on tenure is a good thing. But toiling in the fields and not reaping a harvest is not.
Being a good progressive legislator requires the ability to organize a community to demand progressive solutions.
By the numbers, unfortunately, none of the progressive candidates in D6 bring to the table a record of community organizing that produces progressive results.
Raising money and winning an election is one skillset, effective progressive legislating is quite another.
-marc
September 2, 2010 at 8:23 am
@Marc,
“Instant partial exhausted ballot runoff voting is what I’m seeing here even if candidates go through the formal process of declaring second choices.”
That probability and risk is reduced by a DCCC slate card with a 1,2,3 endorsement.
September 2, 2010 at 8:16 am
From Jim Meko via email:
“I sometimes wonder what game the rest of the ‘team’ is playing. So many warring camps! ‘Team Kim’ expected that they’d be able to not only parachute into District 6 but also into the Democratic Party for its endorsement. ‘Team Sparks’ has so many mixed messages going that I wouldn’t be surprised to see Theresa accepting the endorsement of the Republican Party too. The DCCC should embrace instant runoff voting and fill all three slots with viable Progressives. They should also show some respect towards those of us who’ve been working in the trenches all these years. I made up my mind about my second and third choices a long time ago and both of them gave me strong assurances that I’d be one of their top three picks too. Keys is my second choice and Walker is number three. All three of us share the same values. I just think I’d make a better legislator.”
September 2, 2010 at 8:09 am
I am disenfranchised by being limited to only three choices when there are perhaps five candidates for whom I’d consider voting.
Instant partial exhausted ballot runoff voting is what I’m seeing here even if candidates go through the formal process of declaring second choices.
-marc
September 2, 2010 at 7:44 am
@h, spoke to Jim Meko. His #2 is James Keys and his #3 is Debra Walker.
September 2, 2010 at 7:16 am
@h, yes, I asked Kim the same question. Here’s what she said:
FCJ: Do you have a number 2 or number 3 in mind yet?
Kim: “No, but I’m definitely going to do a number 2 and number 3 and we are definitely talking about – at least in our campaign – a progressive strategy; how we can support other progressive candidates.”
A big difference compared to Walker’s response.
September 2, 2010 at 7:00 am
JAMES KEYS.
September 2, 2010 at 2:13 am
And Kim?
Really. Did you ask her who she’s endorsing second? Meko? And, come to think of it, Sparks? Zamora?
It’s not just Walker that has that “me, myself and I” attitude, it’s the entire Democratic party. Frankly, things have gone way downhill since 2004 when pretty much every single one of the 22 candidates in D-5 endorsed 2 other candidates. Because I harassed the hell out of them until they did.
I agree with you Luke. But, why just the D Triple C? Why shouldn’t every candidate endorse 2 other candidates?
So, ask Kim who her second and third choices are.
h.