Well, when this was too much even for San Francisco… Observation 1: there were 83484 valid signatures in the recall petition, and only 74335 votes to remove, with 49591 votes to keep, in the...
Well, when this was too much even for San Francisco…
Observation 1: there were 83484 valid signatures in the recall petition, and only 74335 votes to remove, with 49591 votes to keep, in the actual referendum. The turnout was 25.85%.
Observation 2: looking at the list of endorsements, one sees that two San Francisco Board of Supervisor members supported the recall whereas six opposed (out of ten). I made a small research and looked at those people's stances on housing/NIMBYism/new construction, and the outcome was unsurprising. All six Boudin's supporters are anti-housing (with some cases of talking about being pro-housing, but their vote history indicates the opposite). As for the two who endorsed the recall, one was elected last month so there is not enough information, and the other one somehow managed to avoid the topic of housing—which is still better than being pro-NIMBY.
I'm not in San Francisco, but in general this was a pretty boring election for statewide offices. Most incumbents are Democrats and have no viable opposition. (Even some that we really should get...
I'm not in San Francisco, but in general this was a pretty boring election for statewide offices. Most incumbents are Democrats and have no viable opposition. (Even some that we really should get rid of like Fiona Ma.) And therefore it looks like the November elections are going to be boring too, other than the propositions.
What's the connection between the district attorney and housing policy?
AFAIUC, Chesa Boudin's policy to fight crime was basically to ignore it, and even San Franciscans got fed up. This is simply my original research. And the connection is not between the district...
this was a pretty boring election for statewide offices
AFAIUC, Chesa Boudin's policy to fight crime was basically to ignore it, and even San Franciscans got fed up.
What's the connection between the district attorney and housing policy?
This is simply my original research. And the connection is not between the district attorney and housing policy, but with the support of a crime-tolerating district attorney and housing policy. And I am not surprised.
In two words, limousine liberals. Also, while I am not surprised with my findings, I did not exactly expect them before I looked at San Francisco Board of Supervisor members' Wikipedia pages.
In two words, limousine liberals.
Also, while I am not surprised with my findings, I did not exactly expect them before I looked at San Francisco Board of Supervisor members' Wikipedia pages.
From Mission Local This seems like a downside of instant-runoff elections? People can claim that the winner doesn’t actually have the people’s support. Then again, that’s often true anyway.
[…] Boudin, in 2019, won with a plurality of first-place votes in a razor-thin ranked-choice contest in a low-turnout election aided in no small part by the mayor’s heavy handed appointment of his main rival to the vacant DA post. That was crass: An operative in a rival campaign told me at the time, “if Chesa wins, this is why.”
So, that happened. And, as we wrote in 2019, it was unclear if San Francisco voters were enthralled by Boudin’s ideas, or simply rewarded the best-run campaign.
Boudin triumphed, with 36 percent of first-place votes in an election that only featured 42-percent turnout. But he governed as if he had a mandate. He never had a coalition comprising 50+1 percent of the electorate, and cementing one was not a goal. And that left Boudin vulnerable to a recall — and, once one made the ballot aided by bottomless wells of cash distributed via a veritable matryoshka of political action committees, Boudin was behind the eight-ball. There were no opponents to run against — Larry Elder will not become DA after Boudin leaves office — and this DA never had majority support.
This seems like a downside of instant-runoff elections? People can claim that the winner doesn’t actually have the people’s support. Then again, that’s often true anyway.
(Content warning: stories of people dying in the streets.)
It is difficult to remember now, but the Boudin election was thrilling for the city. It occurred during the heights of rage against President Donald Trump, when more and more people were becoming aware of police violence against Black people and demanding criminal-justice reforms. London Breed, the city’s first Black female mayor, wanted a liberal moderate for D.A., but Boudin ran to the left as a fierce progressive ideologue whose worldview was shaped by his imprisoned parents, members of the Weather Underground. He was a public defender, not a prosecutor at all. He had worked in Venezuela and in 2009 congratulated the former dictator Hugo Chávez for abolishing term limits. Boudin was a charismatic figure. His campaign manager called him “a national movement candidate.”
The article's' description of "dogmatism" is pretty spot-on. I've loved SF since I was a little queer kid who saw the sea of pride flags in the Castro. But it's also clear that the city has been...
The article's' description of "dogmatism" is pretty spot-on. I've loved SF since I was a little queer kid who saw the sea of pride flags in the Castro.
But it's also clear that the city has been long led by people who are more concerned about ideology than practicalities and on-the-ground realities. Some might denounce capitalism, but capitalism's mechanisms are still very real — and they failed to effectively operate its levers to achieve results.
For years the city's coffers have bursted with tech money windfall. Pragmatic leaders would have used the money to transform San Francisco in an urban utopia for rich and poor alike, creating an Amsterdam or Copenhagen of the West Coast.
It's a real pity to see what it has become — or failed to become.
Well, when this was too much even for San Francisco…
Observation 1: there were 83484 valid signatures in the recall petition, and only 74335 votes to remove, with 49591 votes to keep, in the actual referendum. The turnout was 25.85%.
Observation 2: looking at the list of endorsements, one sees that two San Francisco Board of Supervisor members supported the recall whereas six opposed (out of ten). I made a small research and looked at those people's stances on housing/NIMBYism/new construction, and the outcome was unsurprising. All six Boudin's supporters are anti-housing (with some cases of talking about being pro-housing, but their vote history indicates the opposite). As for the two who endorsed the recall, one was elected last month so there is not enough information, and the other one somehow managed to avoid the topic of housing—which is still better than being pro-NIMBY.
As someone who use to live in SF (only moved out during the pandemic years), everyone I knew who bothered to vote, did indeed vote for the recall.
I'm not in San Francisco, but in general this was a pretty boring election for statewide offices. Most incumbents are Democrats and have no viable opposition. (Even some that we really should get rid of like Fiona Ma.) And therefore it looks like the November elections are going to be boring too, other than the propositions.
What's the connection between the district attorney and housing policy?
AFAIUC, Chesa Boudin's policy to fight crime was basically to ignore it, and even San Franciscans got fed up.
This is simply my original research. And the connection is not between the district attorney and housing policy, but with the support of a crime-tolerating district attorney and housing policy. And I am not surprised.
Sure, but why are you not surprised? What's the connection you see?
In two words, limousine liberals.
Also, while I am not surprised with my findings, I did not exactly expect them before I looked at San Francisco Board of Supervisor members' Wikipedia pages.
From Mission Local
This seems like a downside of instant-runoff elections? People can claim that the winner doesn’t actually have the people’s support. Then again, that’s often true anyway.
On the other hand:
How San Francisco Became A Failed City (The Atlantic)
(Content warning: stories of people dying in the streets.)
The article's' description of "dogmatism" is pretty spot-on. I've loved SF since I was a little queer kid who saw the sea of pride flags in the Castro.
But it's also clear that the city has been long led by people who are more concerned about ideology than practicalities and on-the-ground realities. Some might denounce capitalism, but capitalism's mechanisms are still very real — and they failed to effectively operate its levers to achieve results.
For years the city's coffers have bursted with tech money windfall. Pragmatic leaders would have used the money to transform San Francisco in an urban utopia for rich and poor alike, creating an Amsterdam or Copenhagen of the West Coast.
It's a real pity to see what it has become — or failed to become.