Charlie, the major of San Francisco is Mayor London Breed. In your embedded quote, she's the person that called out the school board member who made all the anti-Asian American remarks that you quoted. Why do Democrats that do the right thing get no acknowledgement? We daily read articles about Liz Cheney. I understand why. But why is it that this site amplifying the nuts on the left only and not ever acknowledging the people who aren't doing that? You certainly have no issue with suggesting maybe people like Mike Pence maybe did a small good thing. Is this just a blind spot?
If Biden's numbers are down in CA I don't know who they are polling. Everyone I know are very moderate, and a few left and right. We think he is doing fine.
As for San Fransisco, it sounds like it's just Collins. And just because she had some stupid ideas doesn't mean they were all going to be adopted.
There are always going to be extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. You can't judge a whole state or a whole party by looking at the extremes
I agree with many of the sentiments below. I’ve lived in California my entire life and I am a moderate Democrat. As a former school administrator, I wish elected folks would focus on supporting schools instead of issues that are not of primary importance to the classroom. However, it’s one city in a very large state where we also have “red state” wackos in the red parts of California. And it’s Newsom, not Newsome.
Wow! Lively discussion group today. I’m a bit surprised at the level of pushback to the “woke article”.
I think Charlie’s message is spot-on. My Dem analogy for the point is that even though the crosswalk light says “Walk”…doesn’t mean you walk into the crosswalk when a semi’s barreling toward you that’s supposed to stop. You’ll be DEAD right which isn’t a great outcome.
Let’s make sure we don’t focus on battles that don’t help us win the war. 70+M voted for Trump…many in opposition to the woke Left.
Here is a problem that the Democratic party (and progressivism, in general) faces:
Have you ever noticed (at work, at home, pretty much a lot of places) that any time some sort of change is floated, there is immediately a great deal of resistance. A huge number of objections. Myriad problems with the proposed change or its potential effects... or the general opinion that it is unrealistic or undoable.
Some of these things have merit, some of them don't. It has been my experience that more of them do not have merit than have merit.
A large number of people are averse to change--even if it is change to the better. A crappy present is preferable in many cases to a potentially better future. People will expend a great deal of rime and energy fighting change (and it always takes less fight and energy to maintain the status quo than to effect change).
It speaks to a general cynical turn of nature, fear, and a lack of confidence in the ability to make meaningful and positive change... or to sometimes even see change as both meaningful and positive.
How much of this is due to "human nature" and how much is a product of the media environment in which we live (and how ideas are presented)? I wonder sometimes.
While the PR firm is indeed hard at work making sure everybody can judge a dumb move. Here in NH, we don't have the capacity to mine this sort of thing for what it's worth or you would see that three of our state legislators have introduced a bill calling for the State to secede from the union. I'd prefer that it succeed myself.
"The Democratic governor’s failing grades on homelessness and crime blared from a new Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll. Three years into Newsom’s tenure, voters have seen so little progress on a protracted homelessness crisis that two-thirds believe Newsom has done a poor or very poor job on the issue — including half of Democrats and most independents."
Well of course he hasn't done enough about the homelessness issue which is in reality a LOCAL issue and the State should be working to support LOCAL solutions.
[Sarcasm alert] Besides most of the Democrats who dissatisfied because he isn't building them condos (in other peoples neighborhoods) and the Republicans want him to put them on buses and deport them to elsewhere. How on earth could one satisfy both constituencies? [End sarcasm alert]
And this is the dynamic Democrats have to fight on virtually every issue with the exception of immigration. Politics used to be local. Republicans are nationalizing local issues and forcing Democrats to answer for things that are only happening in the imagination (CRT) or ideas that have already been considered and mostly rejected (defund the police) and crime. These are local issues and must be resolved locally. It is up to local Democrats to to put a stop to the madness, offer real world solutions to problems in their community. And that is what happened in San Francisco.
Republicans will habitually lie about and misrepresent ANYTHING Democrats say and do. So Democrats need to stop addressing Republican lies and keep their focus not on the Republican Kulturkampf but on the real world needs of their people.
Democrats also need to harass and harangue Republicans and their threat to democracy.
I'm in LA - mod Dem - my child goes to public Charter Jr High - it's gone full looney left - race is at the center of Everything/ at the expense of basic academics ("Math is White Supremacy, Homework is racist, etc") - my kid has begun to think racism is just a joke (which is not a great lesson!) - and we are running to private school for high school. Im no RWinger - we are fine w/ kids learning/ discussing 1619 Project and our kids just re-read Maus -- but there is some ridiculous stuff happening on the far left that Dems need to address/ runaway from. Our younger kid's elementary school has not succumb to the crazy - but then again, that school is majority Asian families/ Asian principal. They are progressive/ inclusive, but not at the expense of math/ science/ reading comprehension.
What happened in SanFran? What happens in most places. Activists took over political institutions while most folks were worrying about work, health, and family. Eventually, the most engaged of the activists got elected, the folks farthest from the center. The same thing has happened on the right in other cities. And once the most-zealous of the activists went too far, everyone else started paying attention and did something about it. It's a longstanding cycle, caused by civic avoidance by the majority of the population. No obvious fix for that. And I don't see the point in repeating how far from the mainstream these wackos are, something that we already knew.
I see Charlie has fired up the more progressive leaning readers today. Here's my perspective:
I live in the state of Nebraska. Not that many years ago, we sent Bob Kerrey to the US Senate, and since then a more conservative Democrat Ben Nelson (remember the Cornhusker Kickback that delivered the final vote for Obamacare?) To our East, Iowa had Tom Harkin. To our North, South Dakota sent Tom Daschle and North Dakota Kent Conrad. As it now stands, it is almost unimaginable that a Democrat could win a statewide race in any of these states. Charlie, yesterday asserted that a Mandela Barnes nomination will mean six more years of Ron Johnson. Is he wrong? Couldn't a Democrat in the mold of Amy Klobuchar win in Wisconsin?
When I read Charlie's piece today, it's like I'm reading something entirely different than a lot of today's commenters. The question in my mind is what do the S.F. events mean for the Democratic Party brand in the minds of voters that need to won over to make the party competitive in many more states.
The far left social justice warriors are so immune to reality. The fact that voters in major cities kept voting for them in the last decade is creating a real drag for President Biden and mainstream Democrats in swing districts.
You can't take a local election anywhere and extrapolate the results to a national level. especially school board politics. They are a beast unto themselves.
I've seen some wonderment at the asymmetry of accountability between the two parties, a wonderment I share, as to why one party suffers no consequences for its lunatics, and honestly their lunatics are far more dangerous, while the other party gets hammered because of their fringe elements. Perhaps part of the reason is this: Republicans are targeting democracy, which is an existential threat, and terrifies me. But what the Democrats do, mask policies in schools, school closures, elimination of merit based entry into advanced studies programs, targets people's kids. And people really don't like that.
A couple of observations from a San Francisco resident and native who voted for the school board recall: first, SF is among the most diverse counties in the nation. It's also a city of transients in an economy centered on rent-seeking services - finance, property and tourism - that contribute to serious wealth inequality and breed deep resentments. The electorate is divided principally among voters who live here but have little other investment in the city and a political class of activists, civil servants and hacks who rise to elective office with little exposure to the outside world.
The recent election should be a wake-up call to everyone. As voters we don't pay enough attention to down-ballot local elections or understand the implications when dumb, evil people fill the public spaces vacated by the rest of us because we're too busy or we assume "they're all crooks.".
Full disclosure: I don't tend to vote progressive, and I read the ballot statements closely before elections, but I honestly can't remember who I voted for in the last school board election. I say this for the benefit of voters in book-banning localities. Curb your schadenfreude about the left coast and pay attention in your own communities. Our problems are the same.
I want to say how glad I am that you are reconsidering what is going on in San Francisco.
The recent race for governor in Virginia may be a clue that swing voters find Dems a tad more scary.
Charlie, the major of San Francisco is Mayor London Breed. In your embedded quote, she's the person that called out the school board member who made all the anti-Asian American remarks that you quoted. Why do Democrats that do the right thing get no acknowledgement? We daily read articles about Liz Cheney. I understand why. But why is it that this site amplifying the nuts on the left only and not ever acknowledging the people who aren't doing that? You certainly have no issue with suggesting maybe people like Mike Pence maybe did a small good thing. Is this just a blind spot?
If Biden's numbers are down in CA I don't know who they are polling. Everyone I know are very moderate, and a few left and right. We think he is doing fine.
As for San Fransisco, it sounds like it's just Collins. And just because she had some stupid ideas doesn't mean they were all going to be adopted.
There are always going to be extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. You can't judge a whole state or a whole party by looking at the extremes
I agree with many of the sentiments below. I’ve lived in California my entire life and I am a moderate Democrat. As a former school administrator, I wish elected folks would focus on supporting schools instead of issues that are not of primary importance to the classroom. However, it’s one city in a very large state where we also have “red state” wackos in the red parts of California. And it’s Newsom, not Newsome.
Wow! Lively discussion group today. I’m a bit surprised at the level of pushback to the “woke article”.
I think Charlie’s message is spot-on. My Dem analogy for the point is that even though the crosswalk light says “Walk”…doesn’t mean you walk into the crosswalk when a semi’s barreling toward you that’s supposed to stop. You’ll be DEAD right which isn’t a great outcome.
Let’s make sure we don’t focus on battles that don’t help us win the war. 70+M voted for Trump…many in opposition to the woke Left.
Here is a problem that the Democratic party (and progressivism, in general) faces:
Have you ever noticed (at work, at home, pretty much a lot of places) that any time some sort of change is floated, there is immediately a great deal of resistance. A huge number of objections. Myriad problems with the proposed change or its potential effects... or the general opinion that it is unrealistic or undoable.
Some of these things have merit, some of them don't. It has been my experience that more of them do not have merit than have merit.
A large number of people are averse to change--even if it is change to the better. A crappy present is preferable in many cases to a potentially better future. People will expend a great deal of rime and energy fighting change (and it always takes less fight and energy to maintain the status quo than to effect change).
It speaks to a general cynical turn of nature, fear, and a lack of confidence in the ability to make meaningful and positive change... or to sometimes even see change as both meaningful and positive.
How much of this is due to "human nature" and how much is a product of the media environment in which we live (and how ideas are presented)? I wonder sometimes.
While the PR firm is indeed hard at work making sure everybody can judge a dumb move. Here in NH, we don't have the capacity to mine this sort of thing for what it's worth or you would see that three of our state legislators have introduced a bill calling for the State to secede from the union. I'd prefer that it succeed myself.
"The Democratic governor’s failing grades on homelessness and crime blared from a new Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll. Three years into Newsom’s tenure, voters have seen so little progress on a protracted homelessness crisis that two-thirds believe Newsom has done a poor or very poor job on the issue — including half of Democrats and most independents."
Well of course he hasn't done enough about the homelessness issue which is in reality a LOCAL issue and the State should be working to support LOCAL solutions.
[Sarcasm alert] Besides most of the Democrats who dissatisfied because he isn't building them condos (in other peoples neighborhoods) and the Republicans want him to put them on buses and deport them to elsewhere. How on earth could one satisfy both constituencies? [End sarcasm alert]
And this is the dynamic Democrats have to fight on virtually every issue with the exception of immigration. Politics used to be local. Republicans are nationalizing local issues and forcing Democrats to answer for things that are only happening in the imagination (CRT) or ideas that have already been considered and mostly rejected (defund the police) and crime. These are local issues and must be resolved locally. It is up to local Democrats to to put a stop to the madness, offer real world solutions to problems in their community. And that is what happened in San Francisco.
Republicans will habitually lie about and misrepresent ANYTHING Democrats say and do. So Democrats need to stop addressing Republican lies and keep their focus not on the Republican Kulturkampf but on the real world needs of their people.
Democrats also need to harass and harangue Republicans and their threat to democracy.
I'm in LA - mod Dem - my child goes to public Charter Jr High - it's gone full looney left - race is at the center of Everything/ at the expense of basic academics ("Math is White Supremacy, Homework is racist, etc") - my kid has begun to think racism is just a joke (which is not a great lesson!) - and we are running to private school for high school. Im no RWinger - we are fine w/ kids learning/ discussing 1619 Project and our kids just re-read Maus -- but there is some ridiculous stuff happening on the far left that Dems need to address/ runaway from. Our younger kid's elementary school has not succumb to the crazy - but then again, that school is majority Asian families/ Asian principal. They are progressive/ inclusive, but not at the expense of math/ science/ reading comprehension.
What happened in SanFran? What happens in most places. Activists took over political institutions while most folks were worrying about work, health, and family. Eventually, the most engaged of the activists got elected, the folks farthest from the center. The same thing has happened on the right in other cities. And once the most-zealous of the activists went too far, everyone else started paying attention and did something about it. It's a longstanding cycle, caused by civic avoidance by the majority of the population. No obvious fix for that. And I don't see the point in repeating how far from the mainstream these wackos are, something that we already knew.
I see Charlie has fired up the more progressive leaning readers today. Here's my perspective:
I live in the state of Nebraska. Not that many years ago, we sent Bob Kerrey to the US Senate, and since then a more conservative Democrat Ben Nelson (remember the Cornhusker Kickback that delivered the final vote for Obamacare?) To our East, Iowa had Tom Harkin. To our North, South Dakota sent Tom Daschle and North Dakota Kent Conrad. As it now stands, it is almost unimaginable that a Democrat could win a statewide race in any of these states. Charlie, yesterday asserted that a Mandela Barnes nomination will mean six more years of Ron Johnson. Is he wrong? Couldn't a Democrat in the mold of Amy Klobuchar win in Wisconsin?
When I read Charlie's piece today, it's like I'm reading something entirely different than a lot of today's commenters. The question in my mind is what do the S.F. events mean for the Democratic Party brand in the minds of voters that need to won over to make the party competitive in many more states.
The far left social justice warriors are so immune to reality. The fact that voters in major cities kept voting for them in the last decade is creating a real drag for President Biden and mainstream Democrats in swing districts.
You can't take a local election anywhere and extrapolate the results to a national level. especially school board politics. They are a beast unto themselves.
I've seen some wonderment at the asymmetry of accountability between the two parties, a wonderment I share, as to why one party suffers no consequences for its lunatics, and honestly their lunatics are far more dangerous, while the other party gets hammered because of their fringe elements. Perhaps part of the reason is this: Republicans are targeting democracy, which is an existential threat, and terrifies me. But what the Democrats do, mask policies in schools, school closures, elimination of merit based entry into advanced studies programs, targets people's kids. And people really don't like that.
A couple of observations from a San Francisco resident and native who voted for the school board recall: first, SF is among the most diverse counties in the nation. It's also a city of transients in an economy centered on rent-seeking services - finance, property and tourism - that contribute to serious wealth inequality and breed deep resentments. The electorate is divided principally among voters who live here but have little other investment in the city and a political class of activists, civil servants and hacks who rise to elective office with little exposure to the outside world.
The recent election should be a wake-up call to everyone. As voters we don't pay enough attention to down-ballot local elections or understand the implications when dumb, evil people fill the public spaces vacated by the rest of us because we're too busy or we assume "they're all crooks.".
Full disclosure: I don't tend to vote progressive, and I read the ballot statements closely before elections, but I honestly can't remember who I voted for in the last school board election. I say this for the benefit of voters in book-banning localities. Curb your schadenfreude about the left coast and pay attention in your own communities. Our problems are the same.