skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Local Democrats Endorse David Alvarez For San Diego Mayor

San Diego County Democrats endorsed Councilman David Alvarez for San Diego mayor. Alvarez received the endorsement during the first round of voting Tuesday night.

Channel 10 News

City Councilman David Alvarez is running to be mayor of San Diego in the 2013 special election.

Special Feature Special Election

A 10News/U-T San Diego poll shows that if the special election were held today, Alvarez would receive 17 percent of the vote. Former Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher would get 30 percent of the vote; Councilman Kevin Faulconer, 22 percent and Mike Aguirre would get 9 percent of the vote. Three of the four front-runners are Democrats. The only Republican contender is Faulconer.

A group of about 20 Alvarez supporters chanted, "Alvarez for all of us" and "Democrats for David" outside the meeting. Many of them took their signs inside once the meeting got started.

A candidate must have 60 percent of the central committee vote to get an endorsement.

To view PDF documents, Download Acrobat Reader.


Avatar for user 'progressivebuthey'

progressivebuthey | September 24, 2013 at 10:09 p.m. ― 3 years, 4 months ago

who in the hell is running the local democratic party? endorsed and then didn't vote to remove filner, now you endorse a very, very inexperienced politician. obviously you're going after the Mexican/latino vote and labor, but you guys are digging a big hole as you are losing any credibility.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'RLA'

RLA | September 25, 2013 at 7:37 a.m. ― 3 years, 4 months ago

Let's see, last time they endorsed an experienced and severely flawed (understatement) politician. Didn't turn out too well for the city.

Now, in their infinite wisdom, they have endorsed an inexperienced young idealist who, in the ways of SD politics, will be completely beholden to the PARTY and the UNIONS. Mr. Alvarez is entering in to a deal with two groups that have proven that character, values, and ability to govern mean nothing next to THEIR need for power.

San Diego voters should be looking for a proven, experienced leader. Filner proved that character does matter and voters should look beyond the party rhetoric into the the candidates' true strengths, experience and abilities to work with all groups to come up with real solutions.

Bob's gone, Francine and her crew should be next.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | September 25, 2013 at 7:58 a.m. ― 3 years, 4 months ago

The comments above are cherry-picked spin, right out of the play book of Republican Bosses.

Large political parties endorse tons of candidates, and both sides don't always get it right.

The Republic Party has backed plenty of perverts, bribe takers, and all around scum-buckets over the years, so get over yourselves.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | September 25, 2013 at 8:02 a.m. ― 3 years, 4 months ago

Yes, the unions, the unions, the unions.

Republican Political Thugs have done. Good job making the word "union" a bad one.

Like anything else, unions have some good aspects and some bad.

This lop-sided GOP idea that they are always evil and employees should have zero bargaining power when it comes to their employment is totalitarian drivel.

The power should be BALANCED.

Oh, but hat about prison and police unions? Republicans seem to kiss up to them.

Development special interests allowed to run unregulated and write their own checks in the city have caused far more problems than "unions" have.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CarlosDangler'

CarlosDangler | September 25, 2013 at 12:32 p.m. ― 3 years, 4 months ago

The unions the unions the unions. I agree with you that we do need balance. Let's pull that thread Peking. The 'Thuggish' unions too require scrutiny just as you suggest do the 'Thuggish' Republicans. I'd go further and suggest that BOTH ends of the political spectrum Democrats and Republicans require scrutiny. I'm not one to back either extreme end of the political spectrum in an argument but when i see comments that appear to me to be extreme, i see the need to balance the argument.

The Republicans were lobbed a softball by the Unions during the Filner fiasco... they were given fodder based on how the Unions were conspicuous in their silence and apathetic to the plight of the harassed women during the Filner Scandal. Many were outraged and completely offended by the Labor Unions in particular.. silence and overt support for Filner even up until his ouster and during Filner's pathetic departure speech. They emerged from the scandal and were seen as led by morally bankrupt self-interested individuals who would sell the souls of their collective group for special interest.

Not all the Unions are bad... I agree with that comment. Labor Union leaders are bad. "Tom Lemmon and Richard Barrera. Tom, head of the San Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council, said labor stands by Filner." And Richard Barrera, who is head of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council remained completely silent.

Pathetic folks. SO pathetic that i will vote for an alternate candidate to anyone they endorse. There endorsement should be considered cryptonite to a mayoral candidate.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CarlosDangler'

CarlosDangler | September 25, 2013 at 12:32 p.m. ― 3 years, 4 months ago

Now lets look at real world examples of what happens when bad labor leaders get their way in an election. Elected Representatives who were elected by the unions and back unions as payback while in office often negotiate deals using private email accounts for public business in order to evade the state’s public records access laws and keep the press and the public uninformed. Many examples exist in San Diego where secret and devious arrangements take place intended to circumvent a city ordinance approved by voters. Often they will abuse the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to attain economic objectives unrelated to environmental protection. They subvert fair and open bid competition by requiring construction contractors to sign a contract with unions as a condition of work. They get Union favoritism. They'll appoint someone with obvious union connections to a government board in exchange for union support of a project. They use Government intervention in the relationship between a private employer and union officials who are eager to represent their employees (for a price) in exchange for union support of a project. They will cause cost increases on a government projects resulting from reduced bid competition and increase administrative costs of an arguably unnecessary labor contract. They will abandon environmental objections which may have been identified by the California Coastal Commission to be legitimate concerns.

They in doing these types of activities arguably perpetuate civic decline by surrendering to organizations that exploit California’s burdensome legal code for personal gain.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'hazarts'

hazarts | September 26, 2013 at 7:32 a.m. ― 3 years, 4 months ago

The union has not found the solution to the issues that they face and Mr. Alvarez is not experienced enough to provide the leadership needed to run our city. The role of City manager as part of these duties makes the job much more substantive than it was in the past. Our only hope is to find the candidate from those who are on the ballot who have the leadership skill, vision, experience and grasp of the issues to move us forward. While Bruce Coons has not been endorsed by the big unions, he is a candidate that provides our city with an exciting and compelling vision and future. He is not invited to some of the debates and that is a mistake because it is a game changer having him next to the others. I hope that despite the lack of interest by the media in covering Bruce Coons that anyone interested in where we are going as a city will consider Bruce Coons for mayor because he is just better prepared for the job.

( | suggest removal )