Mediaboss Marketing

Mayor London Breed has come out against a San Francisco ballot measure that would change the timing of mayoral elections, saying it would help the progressives whove put it on the ballot and needs more public input before it goes to voters.

But a Chronicle analysis of San Francisco election data found that while the measure would probably boost overall voter turnout, areas that are more moderate and therefore more likely to back Breed could actually see the biggest increases. Moreover, neighborhoods with higher support for Breed in her most competitive election in 2018 may have larger increases in turnout.

In the upcoming Nov. 8 election, voters will face Measure H, which its backers say is an effort to boost turnout by moving mayoral elections, currently held in odd-numbered years, to coincide with presidential elections in even-numbered ones.

Supporters of the proposition call it a crucial voting rights measure that aligns with the citys progressive policies. Leading the group is Supervisor Dean Preston, who proposed the measure and is considered the citys most progressive supervisor, according to a previous Chronicle analysis of roll call votes.

Breed opposes the initiative, saying a robust public input process is needed before putting it on the ballot. Breed went even further on KCBS Radio. telling the station that the measure was being pushed by Preston and a group of democratic socialists who want to have more control and power of being able to get more of their people elected. Breed is generally considered a moderate among San Francisco politicians.

The city currently has three major elections presidential, gubernatorial and mayoral that operate on different four-year cycles. Mayoral elections, which include contests for other city officials like district attorney, city attorney and sheriff, happen in November of odd-numbered years. The next one is scheduled for 2023 or 2024 if the measure passes in November. Gubernatorial races coincide with federal midterm elections, which happen two years after every presidential election; the next gubernatorial election is coming up in November. Between these major elections are municipal races for other local offices and special elections, like recalls and runoffs.

S.F. voter turnout is typically highest in presidential elections. Since 1995, average turnout in presidential races was 75%, compared with 59% for governor and 44% for mayoral and primary elections. Other special races have even fewer voters, with an average of just 30%.

Results from the most recent elections show the greatest differences between mayoral and presidential turnout. While 42% of San Francisco voters cast ballots in the 2019 mayoral election, 86% did in the 2020 presidential race.

The gap, however, is probably narrower, as some voters leave questions regarding local races blank on presidential ballots. In 2020, an average of 37,000 voters left the 13 city propositions unmarked, bringing the actual voting rate on local races down to 79%.

Still, the difference in turnout from 2019 to 2020 is almost 40 percentage points, and moving mayoral elections to the presidential cycle could nearly double voter turnout.

After Los Angeles moved local races from odd years to even years, it found a significant boost in turnout across the city. According to research from California Common Cause, the city saw four times more ballots cast in city races in 2020 compared with the previous local race in 2015.

To understand the political implications of this change, The Chronicle compared neighborhood-level turnout with the progressivity of each area. To do this, we used the Progressive Voter Index (PVI), which uses an areas voting history on different ballot measures to score it from most to least progressive by San Francisco standards. Each area gets a score ranging from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating more progressive voting records.

We found that neighborhoods with low PVI scores (i.e. less progressive voting behavior) are more likely than high-PVI areas to have higher turnout in presidential than mayoral elections.

Take, for instance, the Marina and Pacific Heights area, which has a relatively low PVI of 42. In the last two mayoral elections, the average turnout there was 40%, compared to 89% in the previous two presidential elections. Thats a 49-percentage-point difference, the largest gap among 26 San Francisco neighborhoods, as defined by the San Francisco Department of Elections.

In contrast, the north Bernal Heights area the highest-PVI-scoring neighborhood, at 91 saw a 36-percentage-point difference in turnout between the most recent presidential and mayoral elections.

Moreover, the population in low-PVI neighborhoods is much larger than in high-PVI areas. In other words, switching the timing of mayoral races in which the dynamics between progressives and moderates are more pronounced could shift the progressivity of the electorate more to the right than in past municipal elections.

Its important to note that we dont know whether the progressivity of this group of voters those who vote in presidential but not mayoral elections reflects the PVI of their neighborhood. Its possible that they hold significantly different viewpoints from those in the area who regularly voted in past elections.

According to Supervisor Preston, the measure is not meant to favor one side over the other. Nonpartisan groups, like California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, led the initiative to gather support for the measure.

Its not about picking winners, its about making sure the most San Franciscans have a meaningful voice in choosing the citys most powerful elected leaders. Its about strengthening our local Democracy, Preston wrote in an email to The Chronicle.

The measure, in fact, received support from supervisors who typically disagree politically. Among the seven supervisors who voted to put the measure on the ballot were Supervisor Catherine Stefani, Ahsha Safa and Myrna Melgar, who are among the least progressive board members and typically do not vote in agreement with Preston on contentious issues.

According to political strategist Ruth Bernstein from EMC Research Inc., we can expect other changes in voter demographics. Compared to low-turnout elections, voters in high-turnout races tend to be younger, more diverse and generally look more like the overall city demographic.

When you have 80 to 85% turnout, its going to look like the full demographic of the voting population or community, Bernstein said.

What might the scheduling change mean specifically for Breed and her reelection chances in 2024? We compared the turnout difference from recent elections with results from Breeds 2018 win over Mark Leno and Jane Kim. The citywide results from ranked-choice voting show over a third of voters chose Breed as their first choice, compared to 24% each for Leno and Kim.

The neighborhood-level data shows that areas with more first-choice votes for Breed in 2018 are associated with greater increases in turnout between presidential and mayoral elections.

When the ballot measure was introduced to the Board of Supervisors, Mayor Breed voiced objections, saying not enough public opinion had been gathered to understand the effects of the change. She pointed to the public input process that Los Angeles and San Jose two cities that made similar election changes went through to gather feedback about how to improve turnout before putting something on the ballot.

A poll from David Binder Research found that 43% of likely voters would vote in favor of the measure, while 15% were against it and 41% were undecided. The poll surveyed 600 likely Nov. 2022 voters in San Francisco from May 31 to June 5, 2022.

The supervisors who opposed putting the measure on the ballot voiced concerns around reducing the number of elections and the specific timing of Prestons proposal. When asked about other potentially negative effects, Bernstein said it may be harder for local candidates to get their messaging across to voters because of the many federal and statewide ballot items, which typically get more attention. This is evident when looking at the campaign finance totals going to statewide propositions compared to city measures in the upcoming November election.

When you vote in presidential elections, there are a lot of things on the ballot, like the presidential race, statewide measures and other offices, Bernstein said. It can be harder for local candidates to break through in communications because theres a lot more going on.

Nami Sumida (she/her) is a San Francisco Chronicle data visualization developer. Email: nami.sumida@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @namisumida

See the original post:
San Francisco may shift its mayoral elections to line up with presidential races. Is that good for progressives or moderates? - San Francisco...

As the federal investigation into Donald Trumps handling of top-secret documents unfolds, Hillary Clinton's measured and somber response marks a stark contrast to Trump baselessly accusing her of crimes during their 2016 presidential campaigns.

The tables have turned, indeed.

Simply put, if you think of Trumps lock her up chant like a death metal song loud, boorish and incoherent Clintons remix is soft rock by comparison. Easy listening and somewhat bland. But for good reason.

When asked Sunday on CNN whether she believes Trump should be "treated like any other citizen" and indicted if the Justice Department determines he has committed a crime, Clinton gave a somewhat protracted response that ultimately landed on, yes.

"I think it's a really hard call, and I cannot predict what the Justice Department will do at the end of its investigation," Clinton said. "But I do think the rule of law holding people accountable is central to our nation.

I really believe, at the end of the day, no one is above the law, she added. And no one should be escaping accountability if indeed the facts and the evidence point to them having done something that anyone else in our country would be investigated for and maybe even charged.

Clintons line about having answered every question Ive ever been asked is, intentionally or not, a dig at Trump, who last month invoked his Fifth Amendment right nearly 450 times during questioning by New York state investigators probing his business practices. (Trump, youll remember, has claimed Clinton campaign associates who invoked the Fifth during an investigation into her emails were admitting guilt). But in total, Clintons comments, which were appropriately solemn and logical, were markedly different from Trumps wildly irresponsible accusations in 2016.

Unlike Trumps "lock her up" chant, Clinton's remarks to CNN were, deliberately, not the words of a carnival barker trying to energize onlookers. These were carefully chosen thoughts spoken with a delicacy and diplomacy that suggested they could soon be realized.

Ja'han Jones is The ReidOut Blog writer. He's a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include "Black Hair Defined" and the "Black Obituary Project."

See the original post:
Hillary Clinton remixes Trump's 'lock her up' chant with DOJ probe remarks - MSNBC

Elections hinge on voters

Cal Thomas stated in his guest column that voters swimming in a red wave of anger and disgust over the Biden administration may vote for Republicans. His reasons stated are the loan forgiveness program, inflation, and gas prices.

On the other hand, voters may be smart enough to know how important promoting affordable education is, and that the dictator Putin, often praised and coddled by ex-president Trump, is a prime reason for our economic woes because of attacking Ukraine.

Voters also have a memory and sense of right and wrong. Which party continues to lie about the outcome of the last election, encouraged and still condones the invasion of the capital on January 6, approves of denying women the right to self determination, and has tolerated white supremacy and homophobia?

People are also reading

Finally, why has the law and order red wave supported a man who hid behind the Fifth Amendment over 400 times to hide his tax records, who stole top secret documents and hid them in his residence and resort, and then badmouthed the FBI reclaiming them after he rebuffed giving them back peacefully?

The next election will hinge on what issues unaffiliated voters think are most important. Let's hope it is not just the temporary economic downturn.

The choice in November: tyranny or freedom

With midterm elections soon to occur, the GOP playbook is to scare the voters into believing that if the former President is indicted for criminal wrong doings, riots would take place through out the country. Since we are a peaceful country, voters could favor Trump in order to avoid widespread violence.

The alternative is to elect Trump, whereby a law-breaking tyrant could rule us without regard to democratic norms and principles.

The platform for the GOP is highly diminished now that their party has opposed climate change mitigations, veteran benefits, clean energy incentives, infrastructure funding, student loan partial forgiveness programs, prescription drug cost reductions, Medicare cost reductions for the elderly, and improved gun safety measures.

It only leaves opposition to President Bidens agenda and nebulous talk of reducing inflation. Already gas prices are going down and unemployment is at a 50-year low. Higher interest rates should reduce the demand for inflationary growth, which is a prime mover for inflation in the macro economy.

Voters should ask themselves which party has done the most to help most of the people. Being against progress should not become a winning strategy. Women should have some say in their reproductive health. It is a fundamental human right, and a long held legal precedent.

There should be rare exceptions to abortions for cases of rape, incest and life of the mother. An absolute ban places doctors and their patients in ethical and moral dilemmas, not to mention jail time. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court does not see it that way. With gerrymandering by right-leaning state legislatures and with more Republican Secretaries of State on the horizon, fair and accurate elections could result in skewed and undemocratic results.

In my opinion, Joe Bidens approval rating should be higher than it is. At least there is some good benefits to show for his agenda versus the alternatives. The FBI and the U.S. Justice agencies are doing a most through investigation on the secret and highly classified documents found in the former Presidents Country Club residence in Florida. After delays and denials by the Trump operatives, over 100 sensitive documents were discovered. This mishandling is highly illegal, and it should result in penalties by the proper authorities.

Instead, a Trump-appointed judge chooses to intervene with an obstructive process discrediting the prosecution by the proper authorities. An independent judge is not needed to circumvent established law (the Espionage Act), and it would only delay a needed criminal finding. Justice should be blind without political bias. High-level decisions should base findings on facts.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the rest here:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Election issues and Trump GOP choice - Independent Tribune

What might we call this moment? The politics of pouting? To paraphrase the late comedian Henny Youngman, Take Rick Scott, please!

Floridas most junior Sen. Rick Scott, R-Im Gonna Tell Mom! has been in a self-righteous hissy-fit mode lately, not to mention full-blown hypocrisy.

The Fifth Amendment senator was outraged, shocked, miffed and scandalized, that President Joe Biden had the gall to go on vacation.

It seems the Senates answer to The Day the Earth Stood Stills Gort, slammed Biden for heading off to his Delaware home instead of burning the midnight oil in the White House.

What an inspiration, Scott was, managing to find the time to pull himself away from the poop deck on a luxury yacht he happened to be vacationing on off the coast of Italy to castigate Biden for going to Delaware, which is a mere 111 miles from Washington.

All presidents are frequently knocked for taking time away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. George W. Bush often visited that dreadful ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he spent much of his time clearing brush. Ronald Reagan went to California, to also (sigh) clear brush. (What is it about some presidents and the epidemic of brush to clear?) Barack Obama jetted off to holiday fairly infrequently compared to his peers. And, of course, Donald Trump put in plenty of time at his various resorts, perhaps to spend time caressing top secret classified documents.

Its possible Scott, the Senates token hologram, doesnt realize presidents dont vacation like the rest of us. Where the president goes so does the apparatus of the White House. Unless, perhaps, if youre Donald Trump and you have to be watched constantly to make sure you dont flush the nuclear codes down the toilet. But we digress.

Do you appreciate the sense of ironic balderdash that Scott was lambasting Biden for merely going down the road a bit to his house from a man whose party is less productive in the Senate than Lucille Ball and Ethel on the candy wrapper assembly line. Really now, Uday and Qusay showed up for work more often than the U.S. Senate.

Indeed, Scott himself came in for some flack for running off to Italy instead of performing his own duties as the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is supposed to be working to elect GOP candidates to the worlds foremost collection of right-wing demagogues.

Who knows? Its possible Scott was trying to lock up that critical Amalfi Coast vote.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

To be fair, Scotts job trying to elect Republican candidates has been, uh, challenging inasmuch as the crop of aspirants often looks like Dumb & Dumber meets Triumph of the Will.

The field is littered (literally) with election deniers, sexists, head cases, Trump-loving lawn jockeys and the odd antisemite thrown in just for chuckles.

In Georgia, Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker who has been dogged by revelations of children he has sired and then abandoned, spousal abuse and being just plain stupid, said this recently about Democrats climate, health care and taxes bill: Theyre not helping you out because a lot of money, its going to trees. ... Dont we have enough trees around here?

Blake Masters, who is running for the Senate from Arizona, has suggested World War I was instigated by Jewish banking houses and hired two fake electors from the 2020 presidential election to work on his campaign.

Mehmet Oz, vying for a Pennsylvania Senate seat, until recently lived in New Jersey and incumbent Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson is still ducking questions about his efforts to hand over a slate of fraudulent electors to then Vice President Mike Pence in an effort to overturn the lawful election of Biden.

Scotts already daunting prospects werent made any easier when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a rare act of candor, noted the Republicans had a candidate quality problem, which was really another of saying, Were doomed by this assortment of dopes.

That prompted an angry Scott to rebuke McConnell by suggesting his partys leader had committed: An amazing act of cowardice, and ultimately treasonous to the cause.

Is that so? Really? Stating the obvious is cowardice and treasonous, too?

What is truly cowardly is not standing up to the seditious loser of Mar-a-Lago, who is responsible for promoting a slate of grifters, insurrectionists and dimbulbs. What is treasonous is cooking the books to fix the midterm elections and beyond by trying to elect, ahem, to put it gently, semi-fascists to office.

And that, Sen. Scott is like sailing your yacht into an iceberg of tyranny. Bon voyage.

Read more from the original source:
Sen. Rick Scott exemplifies the politics of pouting | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Steve Murray has been farming in Kern County for decades, and he knows firsthand the thrill of harvest and the agony of the freeze.

So when you ask him about the pros and cons of a government program designed to end the practice of open-field burning, don't expect him to sugarcoat his response.

Murray knows growers have used open-field burning since time immemorial to get rid of grapevines that have seen better days or tree orchards that have outlived their usefulness.

But he's also aware that the San Joaquin Valley is a topographic bowl that traps air pollution, and therefore understands that burning thousands of tons of almond trees, pistachio orchards and table grape vineyards every year is an outdated methodology.

"Nobody now wants to burn," he said of most growers. But there are challenges in finding alternatives.

Last year, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District received $178.2 million in new state funding to launch an expanded grant program to assist farmers in phasing out the open-field burning of woody waste through the use of new, cleaner practices, including the chipping and grinding of material for incorporation into the soil.

The Alternatives to Agricultural Open Burning Incentive Program a name only a government agency could love essentially pays farmers to chip material instead of burning it.

Then the woody product is integrated into the soil in a process sometimes called whole orchard recycling.

Not only does it keep particulate pollutants out of the air in the form of smoke and soot, it keeps millions of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere through carbon sequestration.

According to studies sponsored by the Almond Board of California, growers can increase their yields by chipping up their old trees and incorporating the material back into the soil. The process reintroduces needed minerals and helps orchards retain water.

But not every grower is yanking out vineyards or ripping out aging trees.

Tom Pavich is a grape grower east of Edison. He's aware of efforts to end open-field burning, but he doesn't expect it to affect him anytime soon.

"I am a grape grower," Pavich said, "but I have not pulled out any vineyards recently and don't have any plans to in the future.

"In theory, I support the concept of an incentive," he said. "Without an incentive, removing a landowner's right would be an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment, which would require some form of just compensation."

The program is available to growers throughout the valley, with dedicated and enhanced funding available to smaller farming operations like Pavich Family Farms.

"Working with valley growers, communities and state partners, the San Joaquin Valley is once again demonstrating unique leadership in tackling air quality and climate challenges through the only-of-its-kind strategy to eliminate open burning of orchard and vineyard removals," Samir Sheikh, executive director of the air district, said in a news release.

"We strongly urge growers, especially smaller farming operations, to carefully plan for these new requirements and take advantage of new resources for new alternatives that help with our air quality challenges and also provide significant additional crop and carbon-reduction benefits," he said.

According to the air district, since the adoption of the new phaseout requirements, and the incentive programs that help growers swallow that pill, the valley has charted a significant reduction in ag burning, and is on track to achieving a 90 percent reduction by the end of this year.

Anyone who remembers the huge plumes of smoke that rose from neighboring farm fields in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, will recognize how historic such a reduction in ag burning is.

And the help isn't just for mega-farms and corporate operations.

Additional requirements for smaller growers at the end of 2022 and 2023 will continue to provide for additional reductions in open burning prior to the phaseout by the end of 2024, the valley air district said in its news release.

The district, in collaboration with the California Air Resources Board, intends to phase out most burning by the end of 2024.

"Working with our valley growers to reduce this practice through new technologies is critically important to improving public health for our residents, particularly in rural valley communities, Tania Pacheco-Werner, both a valley air district and CARB board member, stated in the release.

"Newly available resources will help valley growers transition to these new practices in a feasible manner that protects our communities' health and livelihood," she said.

For Murray, practical challenges sometimes get in the way of worthwhile goals.

He talked about the metal wire that gets caught up in and wound around grapevines that makes chipping difficult. And wood posts sometimes used in vineyards are chemically treated to keep from rotting in the soil.

"You can't burn the posts or bury the posts or take them to the dump," he said. "That's a whole nother issue."

But Murray is all for chipping and reusing the wood products he grows and integrating them back into the soil.

"It's one of the things we aspire toward," he said. "It's an inevitability. Everything we can do, we got to do, to clean up the air."

Reporter Steven Mayer can be reached at 661-395-7353. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter: @semayerTBC.

See the article here:
The goal is to end open-field burning by growers success may be in the air - The Bakersfield Californian