Campos on the next mayor


Just spoke with Sup. David Campos, who has some interesting thoughts on the next mayor and whether the supervisors should seek to change the City Charter to create a special election instead of filling a mayoral vacancy by appointment.

"I don't have a problem with people having the final say," Campos told me. "And they will, since there will be an election for mayor next year anyway.

"But the current system has been in place a long time, and a district-elected board appointed Dianne Feinstein mayor, and nobody had any problems with it back then. It's just now that Newsom has decided to run for another office that he's talking about this. It's really self-serving."

Yep, that it is.



I admit that I don't know as much about Campos as I ought to but has there been any consideration for a Campos mayorship? At least we would get a former police commissioner that would put that asshole Gascon in his place (or, if necessary, out of his place as police chief) and would be able to robustly and unapologetically implement the sanctuary policy. Plus, the fact that he is just plain nice really counts for something.

Posted by Matt Stewart on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

Sounds like the Uber Left are scared of the electorate picking someone they may not like. Which is usually the way in City Wide elections.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Mar. 12, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

Feinstein was appointed because the mayor was assassinated along with Harvey Milk. The fact Campos can't see the difference between an emergency appointment after a heinous act of violence which traumatized the city and led to the White Night Riots and the mayor being elected to another office is absurd.

But then again Campos spent much of his childhood in Guatemala so perhaps he's ignorant on that count.

The Guardian is slowly but surely (as expected) coming around to the idea that "progressives" on the board should use their will to appoint to office someone who would never be elected on their own - like Aaron "Tiny" Peskin, and then use that appointment to ram through unpopular legislation which the previous mayor vetoed.

Do that and we'll see the end of district elections. Regardless (and hopefully) we may soon be seeing the end of them anyway.

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 10:26 am

I don't have a problem with an election either, SO LONG AS THERE IS NO PRIVATE CAMPAIGN MONEY INVOLVED. For all of you like Chris, if you really believe in democracy you should support removing private campaign financing from the at large elections in the City if you want us to support electing a mayor when there is a vacancy. Otherwise, you're just trying to maintain a right winger in the mayor's office by any means you can. If San Francisco really wanted a right winger for mayor, why would it constantly elect left wingers as a majority on the board? The only reason that jerks like Newsom get elected is that they can grossly outspend their opponents with their corporate cash.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 10:42 am

The reason the mayor is to the right of the Supes is because they are elected by differing systems.

Personally I like to see checks and balances in a system and both the Mayor and the Supes counter-balance each others' excesses.

Where you are really lucky is that we do not, like other major metro areas, have a single Bay Area Council. That would be far more right-wing than what we have in SF. and more representative of the 5 million folks who live here.

Posted by Tom Foolery on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 12:24 pm


1. You just don't get it. Large elections are not representative at all, because they depend on large amounts of money, which are used for P.R. lies and propaganda. The general public has no idea what's going on, and in large elections they are more easily brainwashed by P.R. campaigns, whereas in small districts that money doesn't do much. There would be nothing at all representative about this fascist Bay Area Council that you propose, it would be a horrible idea. And BTW, where are these supposed councils? I've never heard of them.

2. How exactly do these different systems, per se, cause different outcomes in the same electorate? Aside from the corrupting influence of money in the at large election for mayor, that is.

3. The checks and balances you espouse is just a way of saying that you don't like the progressive supervisors, so you are willing to impose a right wing mayor with tyrannical veto and other powers on them. These are not two equal sides; this is the rich and powerful v. everyone else. Of course there are exceptions, but that's basically what it boils down to.

Because you do not address the legal buying of elections and subsequent bribery of the winners that's called private campaign contributions, I cannot take your comments seriously. Even the extreme right wing John McCain says this is a serious issue. So until you address that, everything you say is just supporting the rich and powerful and has no credibility.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 3:30 pm

Like the far right, the far left seldom tells us what they really think, here Jeff tells us what the left really thinks of us, we are all too stupid to know whats good for us.

Other than other progressives with the inside knowledge, we are all just easily duped morons.

Posted by glen matlock on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

Thank you Jeff Hoffman ,

I didn't realise that I was a stupid twit until you pointed that out, thanks,

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between my elbow and my ass, I remember one time i put my elbow in the toliet and you can imagine what happened next...

Posted by Guest on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 8:20 am

@jeff, I am happy to see corporations limited on how much money they spend, and unions too. I dont really see how this would be done but I am sure smarter people than me have ideas.
I am left wing by normal standards, probably right wing by yours.
But lets face it Democracy is a shit system, just better than the rest (sort of para-phrasing Churchil).
Anyway no matter how you see it SF city wide elections will elect a more conservative Mayor than the Board.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 4:42 pm

neighborhoods to one vote per precinct in recognition of the fact that most of them are property owners and as such are guilty of bourgeois crimes. Or split the city so the only neighborhoods allowed to vote for mayor are the Haight and the Mission.

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Mar. 13, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

That Jeff's comment isn't serious. If it is serious, it's offensive.

Posted by Patrick on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 7:32 am

Well, deal! If voters were so smart, no one would spend money trying to buy elections, because campaign lies and propaganda would have no effect. I was not necessarily referring to anyone on this board -- the posters here are almost certainly more politically aware than the average voter -- but we are a tiny minority of the voting public.

Glen, I did not tell you what the left thinks, because I'm not a leftist. I happen to agree with the left on most issues, but my main issues are opposing war and advocating for the natural environment. Everything else is secondary. Leftist think that money is the most important thing in the world, just like right wingers do. They just have opposing views on how it should be distributed. While I favor the left regarding those issues, they take a back seat to the natural environment and preventing wars.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

Leftist think that money is the most important thing in the world, just like right wingers do. They just have opposing views on how it should be distributed. While I favor the left regarding those issues, they take a back seat to the natural environment and preventing wars.


Well, I'm about as leftist---nonpartisan, vegetarian progressive---as one can get and I do not think that money is the most important thing in the world. I live very modestly, I'm not at all materialistic, I can't stand shopping and buying garbage to end up in a landfill. I'm far from wealthy and I can't stand social classes. And I'm very concerned about the environment and I despise the wars/occupations of Bush/Cheney and now Obama (Mr nobel "peace" prize...clearly that award is meaningless). So, I don't know how you are defining "leftist." Because what you said does not at all apply to me nor to the leftist I know today and have known in the past.

Posted by Sam on Mar. 17, 2010 @ 2:06 am

My main problem with special elections is the low turnout, which skews the results to favor candidates with money, name recognition or a single particular interest group that's well mobilized. Whenever possible, you should try to hold elections at a regularly scheduled date when everything that needs to go before the voters can be decided.

If Newsom were going to leave in the middle of his term, I'd say: Let's have an election at the next possible date. I'm not sure that having a special March election in a year when there's a mayoral election in November anyway makes a lot of sense.

I think Campos has a point: This isn't about democracy. (Newsom has never once suggested that supervisorial vacancies by filled by special election; why should he? He got his job through a mayoral appointment.) It's about not likely a particular outcome and wanting to change the rules to avoid it.

But again, for the record: I'm not against a special election for mayor, as long as the change in law also requires special elections for supervisors when that job becomes vacant -- and the election includes public financing, and is consolidated whenever practical with an existing, scheduled election.


Posted by tim on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

i could support Tim's idea if the public financing portion is strong enough. So long as anyone can run on equal financial footing, I'd compromise and agree to that.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Mar. 15, 2010 @ 6:45 pm