Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Avatar for AndyC

( AndyC )

Comments made by AndyC

David Alvarez Supporters Analyze Loss In San Diego Mayoral Runoff Election

Peking-

You're right, there is a huge difference between what one says while running for office and what one does while in office. Still, what a candidate SAYS during the campaign is what gets him (or her) elected in the first place. Faulconer won because he presented himself as the centrist non-partisan-ish candidate.

What happened during the mayoral race really doesn't matter anymore, except insofar as we can learn from those mistakes and apply them to the midterm election. There are two city council seats up for grabs that were in Republican hands, as well as a Congressional District seat that will be hotly contested. Whether or not Democrats learn from the Alvarez experience will go a long way toward determining if those races are competitive, or if the Republican runs away with them like Faulconer did the mayor's race.

You know the base voters don't show up, so don't make them the focal point of your campaign. Employ the same GOTV efforts, but instead of reaching for the left, reach toward the center. The way I see it, you can either win an election by broadening your appeal, or you can lose by running an ideological, base centric race. I'd rather play to win than to make a point.

April 14, 2014 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

David Alvarez Supporters Analyze Loss In San Diego Mayoral Runoff Election

Alvarez and the unions ran a base campaign, knowing that base Democratic voters typically don't show up in mid-term and special elections. Their strategy apparently was to rile up the base and drive enough of them to the polls to overcome the Republican advantage in special elections. They completely ignored the more centrist Democrats--the ones who likely voted for Nathan Fletcher, or maybe grudgingly voted for Faulconer in the primary.

Had they been asked, many of those voters might have voted for Alvarez. Only they weren't asked.

Faulconer, on the other hand, went out of his way to court those voters. He ran as far away from the Republican base--knowing they would show up and vote for him regardless--and painted as moderate, centrist a picture as he possibly could.

Faulconer's strategy worked like a charm; Alvarez' backfired spectacularly.

Here's a broader recap of what went wrong for Alvarez and the Dems:

http://politicsoffootball.wordpress.c...

April 14, 2014 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New Community Radio Station KNSJ Launches In San Diego

Correction: KLSD didn't go "belly up." It was a corporate decision made by the owners of the station, Clear Channel Communications, to shut down the city's only progressive/liberal talk format station so that it didn't compete with their other talk radio property, the staunchly conservative KOGO. Clear Channel has a clear conservative bent, so despite the moderate success seen by KLSD, they decided to change it to the current all-sports talk format we have today.

Can't compete with themselves, but it's okay to compete with 1090.

See: http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/07/...

July 5, 2013 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Olympic Rules May Disallow San Diego-Tijuana Bid

Not a totally unprecedented concept. Remember that the 2002 Wold Cup was split between South Korea and Japan, with sites throughout each country. <sarcasm> From what I understand, the World Cup of soccer is a pretty big event, and they made it work pretty well </sarcasm>. The San Diego/Tijuana region is essentially one gigantic metropolitan area, so logistically this is an entirely doable concept.

It'll be interesting to see if the IOC can be convinced to go for it.

May 1, 2013 at 11:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego Council Votes To Direct Filner To Sign TMD Agreement

benz:

The funding is made possible through the contract with the City. Really, the TMD is only a quasi-private entity (the TMA touts it as a "public-private partnership," so really it's not a totally private entity). They've directly involved the local government in the collection of this "fee" and have placed it in a trust, which the City Council controls. The whole thing is rather murky, which is why it's working its way through the courts.

Bottom line, if the money is spent (and thus gone), and the funding is deemed an illegal tax, the City ultimately becomes the responsible entity. The City Attorney himself--who is a big supporter of the TMD contract as it stands--has admitted as much.

March 27, 2013 at 3:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego Council Votes To Direct Filner To Sign TMD Agreement

What the City Council and Council President Todd Gloria did yesterday was an enormous disservice to the taxpayers of the City of San Diego.

Contrary to the commentary at yesterday's City Council meeting, at no time has Mayor Filner EVER opposed the marketing of San Diego's tourism industry. Rather, his problem from the very beginning was with the particular structure of this 5 year operating agreement. Specifically, there are virtually no protections for the city's general fund.

There is a pending court case challenging the legality of the TMD funding mechanism; whether it amounts to an illegal tax under Prop 26, as clearly articulated in questioning by Councilwoman Marti Emerald. Mayor Filner has made it clear the he believes this "fee/assessment" is, in fact, an illegal tax.

Regardless, the Mayor was willing to allow the funding to be released in its entirety to the TMD to serve its marketing purposes if the Tourism Authority board members and City Council would agree to install adequate protections for the general fund, and thus the taxpayers of San Diego. City Attorney Goldsmith himself admitted that the city is exposed liability wise, and Filner merely sought to close that loophole by requiring the TMD to take out an insurance policy to protect the city in the case of a ruling against the funding.

The court case is not expected to be decided for a year or more.

In the meantime, the City Council has essentially authorized the release of up to $30 million per year to the TMD. Under the agreement as approved by the Council yesterday, the TMD is the "responsible party" should the courts rule against the funding. The money would then have to be repaid. But how? The TMD will have already spent that money. The hoteliers who will directly benefit from the campaign are completely shielded from any liability, and so any money that the TMD is unable to pay back will by necessity have to come out of the city's general fund.

This would not be a problem if the funds were collected as a part of the TOT, but they are not. Thus, there are no protections for the taxpayers, the City Council, or the Mayor himself.

The Mayor's concerns are perfectly reasonable, yet he was willing to go along with the plan so long as the city was protected.

The clear statement made by the City Council yesterday is a big 'ol "SCREW YOU" to the taxpayers. There was an easy solution to this problem that would have satisfied all parties involved, but instead the City Council chose to antagonize the Mayor and the taxpayers.

Once again it has become crystal clear that the members of the City Council do not represent the interests of the voters, and have once again acted irresponsibly. It was irresponsible actions on the part of the City Council that led us to the "Enron by the Sea" label, and it is irresponsible actions by the City Council that again threaten the finances of the City of San Diego.

March 27, 2013 at 2:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )