Congratulations to the Winners and Losers.

And yes there are losers.  And it’s quite alright to lose, because you know what?  Today exists.

Congrats to Maggie who will win and Virginia who will likely win.  Chris – please don’t concede, just let the votes become official like John Fullerton did in the last election.  We are in no hurry.  Democracy sometimes takes time.

Special heart felt thank you’s to both Chris and Sharon who took on extremely long shots with energy and grace.  Neither (likely) winner could embrace their base, but you both did.  It resulted in fairly non-descript debates, but you gave those that believe that there does exists a vision outside the current status quo growth structure a chance.

You also most likely changed the debate.  The current BOS would probably not have made the reasonable concessions on some of the Housing Element and Open Space Element that Mary Ella Anderson and Virginia Graziani have reported on.

Sharon and Chris, you both stood up for a position, you’re opponents could not.  This was reflected in their inability to answer questions on LoCO for example.  The less amount of public access to likely continuing Supervisors Sundberg and Bass, the better.   And, no, giving out your cell phone number doesn’t count as public access because you are still not accountable.

Why do I say Ryan and Virginia could not stand up for their position?   Because their default position is we will not be doing anything substantial at the local level about climate change and they could not say they did not want to address it and they could not say they did not agree that climate change is real and we are causing it.  While Republicans at the Federal level obstruct with the help of a dependence on the filibuster, we at the local level, even though our constituents live basically at sea level, are going to keep our head in the sand.

Having said all that.  The public has spoken (likely spoken in Chris’s/Virginia’s case) and congratulations again to Ryan and Virginia.  I for one will go back to learning and watching and trying to pass on what I see from a liberal perspective.  I will continue to fight to find ways to make our local political system work again and help define differences between candidates even if some candidates choose party affiliations for practical reasons rather than principled ones. (Chet, I’m looking at you, but sadly, not only you.)

Candidates who do lose, especially liberals, progressives, Democrats, whatever.  Stay involved publically.  I know people, (largely on the other side, but on our side too) like to make being in public as difficult as possible for ordinary people.  Please don’t disappear a la Larry Glass, Patrick Cleary, etc.  Be part of a thoughtful and public politics.  Politics should not be a bad word, we should remind people that civics depends on honest, open, thoughtful politics and thats what I think your campaigns, Chris and Sharon, were largely about.


12 thoughts on “Congratulations to the Winners and Losers.

  1. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    I say, forget congratulations. It’s one thing to accept that people who don’t support progressive economic and environmental policies have prevailed, but certainly the likely impacts of that can’t be celebrated. Rather, take it as a sign that progressives and environmental advocates need to start now preparing for the next election. The turnout here was only just shy of 30%. More effort could have pulled this election another way. The fact that two late entries to the supervisor’s race did so well indicates that there is really only token support for the right-leaning, well-funded candidates. A few weeks are needed to recover perhaps, but then the effort has to start all over again.

    1. Good call to action Mary! No rest for the weary!

      For me the first step for the June 2016 election will figuring out what the Dems should do about the broken by-laws. This is a recurring problem, this round will not have Linda Atkins taking the lead on making sure the process goes all the way through and there is a problem that our Representative, Jared Huffman also endorsed the opponent of a HCDCC-endorsed candidate.

      I know it seems like getting in the weeds and partisan bickering, but it’s goes a long way to defining who is a “Democrat” and who isn’t. What is a “Democratic value” and what isn’t. We’ll see, it should be interesting, but spoilers. I don’t think the HCDCC will have the intestinal fortitude to do what it did to Melinda and Marian last winter when they endorsed Fullerton over Ollivier.

      Other’s like Virginia intentionally held back their endorsement of Fullerton, but they didn’t this time in publicly endorsing Ryan (Decline to State) when Sharon was the HCDCC endorsed candidate.

      Here’s a tidbit and Richard Mark’s first reaction to the question.

      And here is the list of Ryan’s endorsers.

      In addition to the typical and possibly counter-productive political party stuff, there should be progressive efforts to build databases, precinct captains, lists of volunteers, etc outside the embattled Party structure. We can do this and we have a good base of volunteers from the 4th and 5th campaigns. Let’s hope people stay active and involved.

  2. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    Speaking just as an outsider, I can see how party structure can be a pain, but the conflict over what it means to be a Democrat is important. I am not part of a party structure. At least the Democratic party has members and meetings. The Greens don’t seem to meet at all or even be a factor in local politics. If Greens were active they would be the logical alliance for the progressive Democrats. I find it disturbing that The NC Journal and Bay Keepers could turn out a large crowd of people to advocate for trails, but that whole community has been completely ineffective in advocating for the rest of GPU, including important life giving aspects such as wetlands and streamside protections. No crowds for that. Crowds for a GMO ban but no crowds for streams, rivers and agricultural land. The struggle is ongoing. It’s not a recreational activity; it’s essential to the future of all of us, from frogs to human beings.

    Perhaps there are things going on of which I’m not aware, but a turnout of a little less than 30% of registered voters is not a sign of a healthy, involved electorate.

  3. Bill Williams says:

    Lets get serious!, if the HCDCC continues to endorse weak unelectable candidates like Latour, they will be not viable as an effective force. So why did all of the big folks go with Sundberg,, because he would win.

  4. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    To say that “all the big folks” went with a winner is to make it seem as if the election was all about “winning” without regard to the policies the winners espouse. I wouldn’t support a party that goes with “winners” regardless of the policies they intend to follow. Maybe it’s that lack of vision that discourages so many people from voting.

    1. One shifts the dialog foundation. Planning, sustainability, etc. as they imply cannot succeed by winning one election. It’s about changing the conversation towards one based in reality, instead of politics as usual.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s