Green pulls ahead of Dem in SF Mayoral runoff race - 1st Green Mayor?

[eablair3]

The First Green Mayor of a Major U.S. City??

I had seen where the leading establishment Dem candidate for Mayor of San Francisco had gotten something like 40% of the vote, while the Green candidate finished second with 20% in the general election last week. They're in a runoff in early December. (Got to like SF where the Repugs' candidate only received 2.8% of the vote.)

A new poll out now has the Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez ahead of the the Dem, 49% to 47%. With the error rate, it's a "statistical dead heat." Apparently 59% of those who voted for other candidates in the general election early last week said they'd vote for the Green, while only 29% would vote for the Dem.

It's kind of surprising to see the Green candidate make up ground of over 20-25% in a little over a week.

We could realistically see the first Green Mayor of a major U.S. city.

Here's the story:

Poll: Gonzalez Leads Newsom in SF Mayor's Race

Hank Plante

Supervisor Gavin Newsom was pounding the pavement in Chinatown hard Friday, but now it looks like his battle for mayor may be tougher than anyone imagined.

Our exclusive Eyewitness News Poll, conducted by Survey USA, shows Supervisor Matt Gonzalez is leading Newsom by two points, 49% to 47%. Four percent are undecided. The margin-of-error is 4.4%. We told Newsom about the poll Friday.

"We know it's going to be close race," he said. "We're working hard, and we've been running as if we're 30% behind, so we'll continue to fight."

We caught up with candidate Matt Gonzalez at City Hall, who said he was happy but not surprised.

"We're pleased to see that," he said. "I think it says something about how fiercely independent San Franciscans are. We'll certainly continue to campaign hard."

The poll was taken over three days, from November 11th through 13th, and it samples 543 San Franciscans who said they were "certain" to vote in the December 9th runoff. But perhaps the most interesting statistic in it, was the question for people who voted last week for candidates other than Newsom or Gonzalez. When asked who they would vote for now, Gonzalez beats Newsom by about two to one: 59% for Gonzalez, to 29% for Newsom.

"Polls don't vote, people vote," Newsom said.

snip

http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2003/11/14/Poll%3A_Gonzalez_Leads_Newsom_in_SF_Mayor%27s_Race.html

[La_Serpiente]

1. I think this would be significant

Although the Libertarian party has more members, they have never have never really been on the national scene. If Gonzalez wins, he could bring representation to his party.

In fact, this could translate into something bigger. If he does a really good job in San Francisco, and the voters like him, he could replace Feinstein later on when she retires.

However, I don't think Bernie Ward really likes Gonzalez. I think he has a thing against him.

[eablair3]

2. Agreed, it could be real significant -& comments on Bernie Ward

Although I am a regular listener to Bernie Ward and like his show, I have listened to him enough to know that he is in many ways a hypocrite. He espouses progressive views primarily, but when the chips are down, he'll back the establishment politician. I assume his progressive views are to cause a stir and generate his ratings.

He doesn't like the Greens, but practically everything he espouses is a progressive type Green platform. I think he gets many of his issues and topics for his shows off of KPFA, only he's about 2-3 weeks behind KPFA, Democracy Now, and Flashpoints. He sits there night after night talking about progressive issues and wondering "what happened to the Dems?" "What happened to the Dem opposition?" "Why aren't the Dems standing up to the Repubs?" But, in the end he'll back the Dems even if he can't stand them. He spent months ripping Gray Davis, saying he would vote for the Repug Richard Riordan instead. He voted for Repug Tom Campbell.

But, wrt to the Greens, Bernie will rip the Greens, even though his rhetoric is really closest to the Greens.

You've got to remember that Bernie works for the corporate world. He works for Disney and ABC. He's exactly what he says he doesn't like - a product of the corporate world, part of the corporate media. He knows his job and position is at stake if he starts supporting progressive candidates. He wants his show. His ego is huge. He wants a national show as the "Lion of the Left." When it comes time to vote or really back a candidate, Bernie Ward will not go with the progressive candidate. He'll go with the establishment Dem, or even a Repug. I've heard him in the past where he said he'd vote for certain republicans like Richard Riordan and Tom Campbell over even the Dems.

So, although I like his show and his views, I've noticed for quite some time that he is often hypocritical.

[La_Serpiente]

3. Yea, I totally agree with you

One day, He was talking to this dude that wasn't opposed to Newsom (D), but had a minor disagreement about some land issue. Now, I am not from San Fran, but the caller gave a pretty good explanation about it. Well, Bernie goes BALLISTIC!!!! The Runoff had not even occured yet and said that if he doesn't support the Newsom, he could get a worse candidate. I found it totally unethical of him to do that simply because it wasn't really a life or death situation at that time.

Also, the caller shut Bernie down with the facts on every single question of his. After Bernie ran out of questions did he start to become belligerent.

I like Bernie, but sometimes, I don't like his train of thought.

[snowfence]

4. The guy is nuts.

He wants to ban cars by forbidding garages and parking lots for new residences. Typical green nonsense. Thats why they never win elections.

Of course,SF elected Willie Brown so go figure.

[La_Serpiente]

5. Here is his transportation

platform:

http://www.mattgonzalez.com/article.php?id=103

[Scott Lee]

27. Just read his transpo platform.....snowfence, are you high?

There was nothing in there even close to the hyperbolic lying nonsense flouted by snowfence.

Why is it that raw facts just slay Deanophobes and GreenHaterz?

Weird.

[AP]

29. Did you hear Democrats want to get rid of property rights?

That's the level snowfence is operating on.

[0rganism]

6. Do you have a source reference for that one? Did a little bird tell you?

> (Gonzales) wants to ban cars by forbidding garages and parking lots for new residences

I'd love to see where you found that in Mr. Gonzales's platform. Go ahead, cite a source for this "typical green nonsense". Shouldn't be too hard to find -- and keep it in context, please. Of course, it's quite a fantastic stretch to presume that banning garages in new residences is equivalent to banning cars. But let's see what you've got.

As for why Greens "never win elections", from what I've seen it's primarily due to prevalance of a winner-take-all electoral system which pushes 3rd-party voters to pick a candidate from a major party, to avoid contributing to the "spoiler" effect. Despite this, Greens ARE winning elections across the country, to city councils, school boards, and utility/resource districts. The case of Gonzales leading the SF mayor's race may well be due to lack of a viable republican candidate in the capitol of progressivism, as opposed to anything intrinsically superior about candidate Gonzales.

[Tinoire]

15. And Newsome isn't nuts?

The man whom the Gettys enriched and for whom they Gettys bought a political career...

Newsome is loathesome!

Unless of course you agree with how we wants to "clean up" the homeless problem.

Come live here a while so you can understand the wisdom behind what you call typical Green nonesense.

[noiretextatique]

42. have you been to portland? no cars downtown

but the buses and bikes are free. i would love to see that in SF...it will have to happen sooner than later.

[snowfence]

12. Bernie

He has already revealed this asshole to be worthless. Bernie is for good gov. He has dissed the currant mayor enough to prove it. Greens are bottom feeders. Witness the recall election. Has there ever been a Green elected anywhere? I will be waiting.

[AP]

17. Greens are the fastest growing party in the US right now.

They number getting elected rises almost exponentially every hear. Of course they're mostly local elections, but you have to start somewhere.

GN is way more conservative than a dem should be. He should be ashamed of demagoguing the poor the way he has. And he's the candidate for developers, who are just looking for the highest profit margin development possible. SF needs housing which cops and school teachers can afford to live in. GN seems to be the candidated who's supposed to prevent SF from arriving at that inevitable conclusion too soon for developers' taste and bottom line.

[Ardee]

31. The future is Green, to be sure!

Newsome is loathsome ( hey Gavin Loathsome has a ring to it), building a political career on the backs of the homeless.His policies re these unfortunates is unworkable, unfunded and inhuman. Gonzales will make a good mayor and, more importantly, will highlight the growing numbers of folks voting Green.

I know that the vichy democrats here will quickly insult San Francisco, denigrating the results as coming from a "wacky city" but thinking folks will certainly begin to ponder the type of candidates put forth by the democratic party as juxtaposed with the types of candidates the electorate craves.

I have not yet registered Green but am more and more sympathetic to them and look more and more to them for the political stances that I wish for my nation.

[Room101]

22. snowfence - You are ignored

You are ignored for that sweeping freeper logic generalization of the Greens. There are Independents like my self and Greens here at DU who are all working for the same goal. so watch your self. If you don't like a particular Green fine go after him not the whole color.

No answer. Greens roll drunks.
Save the one line insults for the AOL chatrooms.

[MisterP]

34. never mind...

(tombstone)

[stickdog]

70. You are arguing at the same level Bernie uses to diss Matt. (nt)

[Room101]

21. I agree with you about Bernie..

He is far behind KPFA and mentions things we knew 3-4 days prior here at DU as if they were breaking news revelations. I was disappointed to learn he is backing Newsroom when he talks the progressive game; I guess he doesn’t like to walk it. I sent him an email that I won’t listen to his show anymore until he takes BBV seriously. He spent one hour on Rush Limbaugh and 5 min. reading a Salon article about Bev, where the hell are your priorities Bernie?

[Hieronymus]

59. I agree with you.

I listen to Bernie and admire his knowledge of politics but, at the same time, he is woefully ignorant of many things and a bigot. He's never visited the South. Why not? He was old enough to march with King. He's very much a bigot on that subject, having railed against Southerners and the Confederate flag, but then backing Dean's comments.

[durutti]

52. LP Has Less Members

As of 2001, the Green Party is the largest third party in the country.

[Terwilliger]

7. not surprising at all

during the regular election, there were 8 or 9 candidates...now that only 2 are left, those votes will go to one of the two

[snowfence]

13. Ah

No answer. Greens roll drunks.

[eablair3]

30. How much is Newsom spending - $2 million in a month?

Many thought that Newsom's lead (40% to 20%) was too big to overcome, and that at least another 10-15% and maybe more that had voted for Alioto, Ammiano, Leal and the Repug would easily go to Newsom. It doesn't look that way, at least according to this poll.

It was interesting to see former Dem Mayor Art Agnos come out in favor of Gonzalez.

I can't recall how much Newsom is spending. I believe I read reports where he spent $2 million in the 1st round of the general election. I thought I had seen a report that he was again going to spend another $2 million in the month between the general elections and the recall.

What has Gonzalez spent? I thought I had read or heard that it was only something like $5,000? I thought that couldn't be right.

In any case the BIG MONEY is going to Newsom. Developers. Big Corporations. Hotels. Owners of office buildings.

I'd be interested in seeing the campaign spending numbers, if anyone knows where they are at.

[KG]

8. go greens!

:)

[Renew Deal]

14. Go home

We don't need Greens or wanna be greens taking 93,000 votes in Floriida.

[AP]

18. We don't want "democrats" who exploint homelessness and serve the

interests of developers who only want to build high profit margin homes and office buildings.

[KG]

20. go jump!

:)

btw - what does the mayoral election in SF got to do with FL?

[GreenInNC]

37. florida votes

or 3,000,000 Democrats in Florida voting for Bush.

[noiretextatique]

44. i believe you meant 300,000

but you make an excellent point :hi:

[stickdog]

71. General Clark & Navin Gruesome -- two establishment peas in a pod. (NT)

[burr]

32. Amen!!!

no one can say Greens are "stealing votes" from the Democratic candidate this time!! Nor are they electing a "repuke mayor."

If the Democrat loses it's his own damned fault, and if the Green wins...it is because conservative and liberal voters are pissed with the two-party system! :thumbsup:

And none of those bogus anti-green arguments will float this time!

[snowfence]

9. Lets hope not.

This idiot wants people to walk.

[AP]

10. This reminds me of one of the Tory tactics when Labour went ahead in '97

Every plan Labour had was exaggerated. Labour wanted to give hikers rights of way on unused privately-owned land. So the Tories wheeled out semi-coherant Barbra Cartland (I think that was her name) to say, ooh Labour wants to steal everyone's land and give it to the poor.

Mostly, people lauged at her and her fucked up make-up.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Walk! Oh no!

But...but walking is unAmerican!

Anyone over 16 who walks is a loser or a tree-hugging environmental freak!

Don't they know that all true red-blooded Americans are supposed to sacrifice the second-largest portion of their wealth and destroy the beauty of the landscape and the urban scene in favor of the Great God Automobile?

:crazy:

[Scott Lee]

28. We must sustain our right to drive ten yards to the 7-11!

Multiple times, daily! If we walk or ride bikes for short trips, the terrorists have won.

[stickdog]

69. What are you talking about? (nt)

[HFishbine]

11. Wouldn't be the first.

Largest city perhaps, but not the first.

http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html

[IronLionZion]

19. holy shit!

I didn't know there were Greens in my redneck area.

But, seriously, local elections are great. I really wish you would not hand the national elections to the Republicans. I know how strongly the Greens want to go national (I used to be one) but think about the progressive big picture. Please, for the good of all, don't do it!

[mot78]

23. My only concern about this is that it could make the Greens arrogant

to the point that they choose to run Nader or some other spoiler against us in the Presidential election. We can't let a possible Green victory translate into a mandate for Nader '04.

[KG]

24. yes, that's more important than SFers getting the best man for the job

:eyes:

[mot78]

25. What I meant to say is that it will galvanize the Greens

to the point that they say "screw those corporate whore Dems. We don't need them, like at San Fransico. Nader '04!!!" The Greens can become a viable party (and they have every right to do so) but for the sake of Liberalism as a whole, DON'T RUIN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!

[AP]

26. If they were that stupid they wouldn't be so close to winning this race.

It's always good when the most liberal candidates possible win eletions and lead.

It's even better when they lead in a way that gets them reelected.

[Ardee]

33. Just who exactly is ruining elections?

By failing to delineate a position, by voting for the agendas of Bush and the far right, by their cowardice in two elections now it is by far the democratic party who has ruined the two party system here."Ruining elections" indeed, what the hell is your view of the process anyway? Silly person.

By putting forth candidates ,either emulating the positions of the republicans or gagged in order not to upset any potential corporate donors it is the democrats who have deserted the electorate. I look forward , with great relish, to the growth of the Green Party to national stature. I look forward to a progressive agenda being continually placed before the american people, and i look forward to the bewildered looks on the neocons who now run my former political party as the voters continue to desert them.

[eablair3]

36. nice post, ... the establishment Dems' NIGHTMARE

very well put.

The establishment Dems must really be thinking that if it wasn't for this runoff voting, they'd have power. Newsom would have won already if it was just a plurality vote. This has got to be Exhibit A for the establishment Dems to be against runoff voting.

SF passed Instant Runoff Voting last March, and it looks like SF officials (Willie Brown's people??) haven't been too quick to implement it.

Now, they have their nightmare come true in a runoff. They actually had the election on a plurality basis (40%), but could very lose it all by the runoff requirement.

Also, the state and national establishment Dem insiders must be really watching this race. I'd imagine they're going to or have already made arrangements to have significant money pumped into this race to stop the Greens and bolster their man, Newsom. I seriously doubt that they want a Green taking the Mayor's office in what they view as one of their strongholds. It's the Dem House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi's district. Senator Dianne Feinstein was a former Mayor there and is from SF. She went on to the Governor's Office and then the Senate. Senator Barbara Boxer is also from the area as well (Marin, just to the North across the Golden Gate). Yes, the dem establishment can't like this development in what they think is their stronghold.

[Ardee]

38. excellent point eablair3

Now I understand why Newsome (Loathsome) is breaking records for campaign contributions here in SF. The democrats must be frantic to stop the Green express, which, if continuing to elect supervisors, mayors, and other grassroots level office holders, will have a forum and the public access to show plainly the traitorous nature of the democratic leadership.

[sujan]

35. go greens

[Terwilliger]

39. Leal and Leno endorsed Newsome

Leno? Mark Leno? That's disappointing.

[AP]

40. They're Dems, right. They were NEVER going to endorse a different party.

The real question is, will their SUPPORTERS endorse Gonzalez.

I bet their supporters will.

[Terwilliger]

41. still surprises me about Leno

he's one of the more progressive types in the city...I'm surprised by it

[WillyBrandt]

43. BOOOO!

I don't want any association betweeh the words "Green" and "victory" any time before Bush is booted and replaced with Clark. Having a more progressive mayor somewhere is an insufficient trade.

[Terwilliger]

45. isn't that too bad!

and awfully weak

[noiretextatique]

46. it's not a "trade"...it is an election

you know, like the kind we used to have in this country.

[JVS]

47. But Clark had nice things to say about the Bush regime

So they must be OK.

[durutti]

53. It's not just "some city".

It's a major, very important city. A Green win in SF could be a stepping stone to state and national elections.

[jsw_81]

56. Nonsense

The greener idiots might win in SF (a city that's gone so insane that a sensible moderate Democrat like Newsom is considered "conservative"), but that does not mean they'll win statewide.

Screw the greens. And remember, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground. If you people want to support greener morons I suggest you go elsewhere.

[noiretextatique]

57. apparently, this 'sensible moderate' is unappealing

to the voters in SF...don't the voters still get to decide in this country (except of course in national elections)? and that's democratic underground, not Democratic underground. if you don't understand the difference...perhaps it's you who should visit some'free-er' sites :hi:

[KG]

58. gee, Karen

isn't it wonderful the loyalists from elsewhere in the country can so cavelier about the kind of city gov't SFers should live with?

it doesn't matter to them which candidate will do the best for working class SFers, as long as that candidate isn't a green.

[stickdog]

67. Fuck off. Some of us have to LIVE there. (nt)

[pasadenaboy]

48. the repubs

would rather elect the green. Anything to diminish the democratic party.

As usual, the greens are helping the republicans with their agenda. A weak democratic party and a small green party are much easier to steamroll than a united democratic party.

[noiretextatique]

50. doesn't anyone but a republican apply in this case?

if democrats want green support, why doesn't it apply in reverse? how about a united OPPOSITION to republicans, regardless of party affliation?

[eablair3]

60. yes, where is the OPPOSITION to Bush

where was the opposition in voting to authorize Bush to go to war?

where was the opposition in voting on the Patriot Act?

Answer, in part: when they weren't voting to authorize Bush to do all that, ... they were busy putting up another establishment Dem to run against incumbent democrat Cynthia McKinney and now they are marginalizing democrat Dennis Kucinich by making him out to be an "extreme lefty" and "unelectable".

[durutti]

54. So?

If the Democratic Party is going to continue its rightward shift, I'll gladly support its weakening.

[The Commie]

61. This is crap...

The more people vote Green the sooner the Dems realize they need to quit acting like Republican-lite. If the Dems want to win they have to EARN the far-left vote. Quit with the guilt trip crap.

[KG]

62. the official repook candidate is out of the race.

now it's up to SFers to send the repub-lite dem. packing, too.

[eablair3]

64. the official repug was never "in" the race

that's why the official repug got only 2.8 percent of the vote.

the repugs know that a repug candidate has no chance in SF, and they know that they have to bite the bullet and back a "moderate" or conservative dem, at least one that is dem in name. by backing such a candidate, they can keep the progressives out of office, and most importantly, "back the winner" so that they can get access when they want things. the candidate they want to see win is Dem Gavin Newsom.

Most of the Repugs in SF sure as hell don't want to see Green Matt Gonzalez get in. Better that a conservative or moderate dem win for them.

[KG]

68. so it would seem Newsom is the repooks choice for mayor.

hmmm.

[stickdog]

72. Sure, buddy. That's why they've pumped millions into Newsom's

campaign -- to help Gonzales.

[jobycom]

49. Now THAT's the kind of election I want to see!

Two liberal candidates arguing over who's vision of liberalism is best to follow. Damn, must be nice. The rest of us are arguing about how liberal our candidates can appear without losing to the friggin' wacko Nazi party.

Go Greens! I hope you lose, but it would be a lot easier to take a Democratic loss in this scenario.

As for what it would signify for the Greens and the nation as a whole-- nothing, probably. Remember when Ventura won in Minnesota, and everyone predicted the Reform Party would become viable? What happened was that every kook and crazy who had a beef with the main two parties joined it then, hoping to take over and win for their side, and they imploded it. Same here. The way the system works now is that most of these battles over liberal/moderate/conservative get handled in the primaries, and everyone dissatisfied with that system joins a third party. When one of those parties gains some momentum, all the malcontents flock to it (Understand, I'm not saying that Greens are malcontents, I'm just saying that when you become successful, the malcontents from the other parties will expand yours). They will expand it, bloat it, fight over the message, and disrupt it. That conflict of message will be visible to those outside the party, and the party will lose direction.

Meanwhile, most of the people already in the Democratic Party will stay there and hope you self destruct.

All that may not be fatal, it will just be distracting and destructive, and the Greens would have to overcome it.

And, hate to say this, but it's still San Francisco, where everyone expects weird results.

Now, two or three such victories, and things start to turn. Of course, when they do, you will have more offers for corporate backing, and the introduction of money to your party will bring out the moderates who want to fight for corporate funds so that they have a chance of winning, and the leaders of the party will slowly start to make small concessions, and that will destroy your message, and then you will have to leave and found another third party, because the Greens will have become the Democrats. That's why the Democrats are the way they are in the first place.

[eablair3]

65. interesting, but ....no corporate money is taken by Greens

interesting points you bring up, and I'd like to address them in more detail, but I'm strapped for time. (Got to go see the new Matrix movie at the IMAX.)

In any case, some of your points are worth considering, but some show that you are not very familiar with Greens. One that sticks out is your point about corporate money coming in once the Greens get some traction. Greens are adamant about NOT TAKING CORPORATE MONEY. No Green takes corporate money. It's against the party platform or philosophy. By definition, if a Green takes corporate money, he or she is no longer a Green. It doesn't happen. It won't happen. It's grassroots all the way. It's a party of the people, not big corporations.

I'm sure others can fill in more of the details, and I'll try to come back later to discuss some other points you make because they raise good issues to think about imo.

[Forkboy]

51. Sweeeeet!

:)

[durutti]

55. Endorsements

Gonzalez has gotten a lot of impressive endorsements.

He's won the support of the Sierra Club, the Deputy Sheriffs Association, the SF Bay Guardian, the SF Bay View, Hotel Employee Restaurant Employee Union Local 2; SEIU Local 790, SEIU Local 535, UFCW Local 101, the League of Conservation Voters, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the Community Tenants Union, and the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club.

In addition, he's been endorsed by Jello Biafra, Peter Camejo, Chris Daly (SF Supervisor District 6), Mike Feinstein, Tim Fitzmaurice (former Santa Cruz mayor), Bruce Frohman (vice-mayor of Modesto), Jame McGoldrick (SF Board of Supervisors District 1), and Michael Moore.

[SahaleArm]

63. Jello Biafra...

Of the Dead Kennedys? California Uber Alles;).

[stickdog]

66. Progressives are working their asses off for Gonzales.

Newsom is a Getty Oil-backed pro-corporate Ken doll come to life.