June 2018 California Primary Analysis (I): Introduction and Gubernatorial

I just got my sample ballot for the “Statewide Direct Primary Election” on June 5, and boy, is it going to be a confusing election for people. We have two contests with enough candidates to take two pages (27 candidates for Governor, 32 for Senator, and two contests for our assembly district: one for the “short term” because the previous assemblycritter left early thanks to #metoo, and one for the “full term”, with the same candidates). Then there are all the other state, county, and district contests, plus the propositions. Not to mention the fact that California does “jungle primaries” (which I’m growing to dislike) where all the candidates from all the parties are on the ballot. The theory was that this would lead to more moderate candidates; the reality is that all major moderate candidates split the votes sufficiently to allow candidates folks don’t like to squeak through, and it is more of a mess. There are going to be a lot of posts as I work through this. Here’s the sequence as I see it (note: links to articles not yet posted will not work or may be incomplete):

California Governor

Let’s start with the Governor’s race, and the 27 candidates. Going in to this analysis, I know two things: (1) I’m not a big fan of either of the front runners, Gavin Newsom (FB) or Antonio Villaraigosa (FB), and (2) I was very impressed by both Delaine Eastin (FB) and John Chiang (FB) during the one debate I saw. So I have a feeling where this will end up. But I do try to at least consider all candidates. I’m going to divide them into tiers: the first tier are those who have any chance of winning a place in the general election due to name recognition or publicity, the second tier are those who might have a political future somewhere, and the third tier are the unqualified rest.

[Read through the analysis below, and then come back here. I’ll wait. Note that normally I’ll have a “Conclusion” at the end, but this one is so long….]

Now that I’ve gone through the candidates, my initial feelings were confirmed. I like both Delaine Eastin (FB) and John Chiang (FB). I’m giving Chiang the edge right now for three reasons. First, he uses a state highway shield as his campaign logo. Second, he has a better chance of breaking through to the top two than Eastin. Third, he’s got more of a Southern California connection.

Now, on to the detailed analysis that led to the above….

First Tier Candidates

[✓] John Chiang (D)

First and foremost, a highway guy has to like anyone who used the California Highway shield as part of his campaign logo.

John Chiang (FB) is the current state treasurer, former controller, and former board of equalization member. So he knows his financial policy, and appears to be a great candidate to keep the finances of the state in order. I also like the fact that he’s not the typical white male — we need to encourage leadership that is reflective of the state’s diversity. He’s also from Southern California (counteracting the Northern California bias we often see), and the child of immigrants (so he understands California and its relationship to immigration policy).

Reading his position statements, he seems to be saying the right things. He’s supporting education, a clean environment, addressing the homeless problem. He supports making UC and CSU more affordable. His main weakness is that I don’t see any position statements regarding transportation and transit.

He doesn’t have a large number of endorsements, but is endorsed by our congresscritter, Brad Sherman.

[✗] John H. Cox (R)

John Cox (FB) is the main, top-polling Republican candidate. His bio notes that he is “endorsed by the California Pro-Life Council” and that he “supports 2nd Amendment rights and strongly opposes Jerry Brown’s “Sanctuary State” and boondoggles like the High Speed Rail “Train to Nowhere.”” If you read my core values statement, you know that many of those positions go against my values. In particular, during the debate he made clear that his support for the 2nd Amendment is not reasonable regulation, but removing regulations.

He supports repealing “Jerry Brown’s massive $52 billion gas tax increase”, in other words: He’s against SB1. I monitor Caltrans, and I see the good SB1 is doing. I understand how infrastructure and transportation is funding in this state — through the gas tax — and I also understand that poor infrastructure makes this state bad for business. SB1 is a small price to pay for having good roads and good transportation. Another knock against him.

He does not talk at all about improving education, and about how he will improve things. I happen to like the direction the state has taken under Brown. I can’t support Cox.

[✓] Delaine Eastin (D)

Delaine Eastin (FB) is the other candidate that impressed me from the debate I saw. She’s a past State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and comes out of UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara. She’s also been in the state assembly. She’s also a woman, and I feel that one of the best ways to address the environment of sexual harassment that is endemic in Sacramento is to elect more women.

Her platform, understandably, is focused on education and improving the state’s educational institutions. I read through her positions, and I like what I see. She does explicitly address the need to rebuild our infrastructure, although she doesn’t say how she will do it.

In general, I see little about Eastin that I do not like, other than her polling numbers.

[✗] Gavin Newsom (D)

Gavin Newsom (FB) is the 800-lb gorilla, the front runner. He’s the former mayor of San Francisco and the current Lt. Governor. He’s got loads of endorsements, He’s got loads of cash (he was also born into it). He’s got progressive credentials galore. What’s not to like?

Well, he’s been a so-so Lieutenant Governor, skipping out on duties. C’mon guy, you get a ceremonial post and you can’t even do the few responsibilities of the job? He had an affair with his chief of staff’s wife — not the greatest thing in this day and age.

He’ll likely win the primary, and I’ll hold my nose and vote for him in the General Election, but I don’t have to make it easy. I can live with his positions on the issues; this is more of a case of having trouble with the underlying man.

[✗] Antonio Villaraigosa (D)

Antonio Villaraigosa (FB). Tony, Tony, Tony. The 700-lb gorilla to Newsom’s 800-lb gorilla. I would really like to like to like you. After all, you know Los Angeles, you love Los Angeles, you’ve been mayor of Los Angeles. You would bring attention and business to Southern California. But as you know LA, I know you. Frankly, I wasn’t that impressed with you as Mayor. You are no Tom Bradley, you are no Dick Reardon. During your administration, you seemed more focused on making connections that would take you to higher office than you did running the city. You had a great staff that led to the accomplishments that you claim. And need we mention your dalliances with that news anchor while married. As we are in the #metoo era, that doesn’t bode well on your attitudes towards women. There is just this vibe about you that — even though you would be great for LA — makes me second guess myself.

I’ve read through your website. You have the right experience. You have the right positions on the issues. But you have flaws of character. In the 2018 primary, we Democrats had flawed candidates with flawed characters, and I held my nose and voted. There are other candidates this primary election that don’t have your flaws, and have equally strong positions. At least for the primary, I’m going to support them. If, as may be the case, the general election is between you and Gavin, then I’ll reconsider your flaws a lot closer, and decide whose I can accept, and whose strengths we need more. It may then be you. But for now, I think I’ll pass.

Second Tier Candidates

[✗] Travis Allen (R)

Travis Allen (FB) is the second tier Republican candidate to John Cox, who is sucking all the Republican hot air. He has elected experience, having served in the state assembly. This elevates him about the third tier, who often have the ideas and enthusiasm, but not the political chops or capital to carry them out. There are times I’ve gone Republican (John Anderson Z”L), but the values can’t clash with my core values. And even in his bio, there are whistles that make me nervous, particularly ” He is active in the Christian and Jewish communities and is a strong supporter of a number of pro-Israel charities.” Why does that bother me? Many (but not all) Christians who support pro-Israel charities, while providing great support for the state, are also the same category of Christians that go for covenant or salvation theology, and then try to steer in the direction of that theology — which I don’t support.

So let’s look at his positions. He wants to repeal the gas tax. That’s one strike: we need SB1 to fund badly needed infrastructure improvements; where does he think the money will come from otherwise? The Liberals driving Priusii? He thinks our current revenue (which is already allocated to necessary projects in the budget) and High Speed Rail (which is actually funded by bonds, not tax revenue). He wants “tough on crime” policies, which means putting (and paying for) more people in jail (when we need that money for schools). Better to use money to prevent the crime.  His notion of education improvement is “pro-parent choice”, which is whistles for using government funds for students in private schools from religious institutions. That hurts our public schools. About the only position of his with which I agree is completing the State Water Project.

There is just too much disagreement on issues for me to support Allen.

[✗] Amanda Renteria (D)

Amenda Renteria (FB) is a Latina chief of staff who has worked for two Democratic senators. She has an interesting resume of public service, but the positions seem mostly advisory. Reading through them, I don’t think she’s held elected office before. Governor may be too big of a leap: she should work her way up in elected state government: state assembly or state senate, or one of the elected executive position. She’s worth watching for the future, given her resume.

Looking at her positions, they seem quite reasonable. Implementable, I don’t know. I did find telling her claims of sexual misbehavior of another candidate, Gavin Newsom. I’m not just sure she has the political skill, given her experience, of achieving them. We’ve seen what electing someone unfamiliar with elections and governmental processes can do, and we’ve also seen what an experienced governor can bring. I really hope Renteria acquires some seasoning. I’d love to see her running for Senate at some point, for some high executive state offices such as Attorney General, or even for Congress or the state legislature.

Third Tier Candidates
[✗] Akinyemi Agbede (D)

Akinyemi Agbede (FB): When I initially googled this fellow, the search brought up an article from four years ago that started “a Fresno doctoral student and self- proclaimed “super-genius” who wants nothing more than to …” Not a glowing start. It continues on his webpage, where he states, “This super genius man came to the United States of America in the year 2001 when he won the United States of America`s Permanent Resident Lottery. However, since being in the United States of America, he has tremendously used his super genius brain to the benefit of the American students by instilling in them skills, confidence and competence in solving ANY Mathematical problems.” Any? So a “super-genius” can teach them to solve NP-complete problems? Come again?

This fellow is from Nigeria originally, and (alas) he writes like a Nigerian Spam email: “We should all say the truth because the major factor for our economy to go down drain is the way we spend our money in this country. Truth is bitter but we must say it in order for us to move forward in this great country of ours.” His positions are more about Federal-level problems than state, and on one of his position page he even notes: “Therefore, if giving the opportunity to serve in Washington, I will make sure that health care costs are lowered, because lowering health care costs is essential to growing our economy and creating jobs in our country.” In Washington? I fear he doesn’t understand the position of Governor, and am confident that he doesn’t have the ability to govern.

Additionally, we’ve all seen what happens when we elevate “super-genius”es to position of power. I think not.

[✗] Juan Bribiesca (D)

Juan Bribiesca (FB) is a retired medical doctor from Mexico, a cardiovascular perfusionist and a teacher, who was born in Tijuana, Mexico. No jokes about immigrants from across the border taking American jobs. The more significant aspect, for me, is that he has not held elected public office, nor has worked previously “for the public good” on committees, boards, or appointed positions. As such, he has no practical experience in how the sausage is made.

His party preference is Democratic, but his positions seem to be a mix of left and right: lowering taxes, supporting the police, decreasing the size of government, but with progressive social stances. But they are at the level of a single sentence, with no details about how he will achieve them. There’s no much depth in his webpage. He’s not at the crazy-level of some of the other candidates in this tier, but he’s not seasoned sufficiently, nor does he have the experience, to run the state. I suggest that he aim first at the Assembly or State Senate from San Diego — we can use some good social progressives from that area.

[✗] Thomas Jefferson Cares (D)

Thomas Jefferson Cares (FB). One should always be careful when your name sounds like a Google search prompt meme. The guy doesn’t have a web page (well, he does, but it points to his FB page), although there is a fake suicide note from him after Trump’s election. The SD Union-Tribune found this for his platform: “You’re going to love having me as governor. I’ll revolutionize credit with a platform where every Californian can create their own cryptocurrency, and make enforceable and monitored promises to make it redeemable for things like services, or a fraction of future income. Your potential will be money. This will change a fundamental framework of society to focus us on potential, so that we can reach it, individually and collectively. It’s a complete game-­changer, and one of many reasons you can’t waste your vote on a traditional candidate. Some other things you’ll love: A Department of Dignity, overseeing that all government­-civilian interactions are dignified for the civilian. A Department of Potential that will empower everyone to find meaningful, creative work and growth. Incarceration rates below Canada’s, instead of 6 times higher. Re-engineered education that focuses on creativity and abandons cookie-cutter matriculation requirements to nurture every students’ particular talents. As we head into an age of automation, non-creative work for humans may be scarce. Zero tolerance for police brutality and renaming the Bay Bridge after Oscar Grant, and the Sacramento Tower Bridge after Stephon Clark, so it’s not forgotten. A ground-­breaking digital direct democracy platform, with no binding power initially, that will eventually become the standard for political systems worldwide. Everyone can act as a legislator when they want to, and be represented by their favorite person when they don’t; with an overall leader, directly accountable to voters in real time. The status quo of winner­-take-­all districts and quadrennial elections will look archaic. A network of self­-driving, synchronized, narrow cars (Traffic solved!) Studying peaceful/legal secession/independence in case things worsen.”

Everyone with their own crypto-currency? A Department of Potential? Renaming the Bay Bridge after Oscar Grant?

We have no experience, and completely bonkers ideas. Next…..

[✗] Christopher Carlson (G)

Christopher Carlson (FB) is part of Güber: The Green Party Musical Campaign. I kid you not. But what do you expect when he lists his occupation as “Puppeteer/Musician”. His bio, according to Ballotpedia, is “Carlson received a bachelor’s degree in theatre arts from California State University, Sacramento in 2010. His professional experience includes working in puppetry and musical theatre, including the Les Miserables Marius Tour; Gavroche, Berkeley Repertory Theatre Groundfloor Internship, Kennedy Center American College Theatre Festival Regional Puppetry Workshops, and the counties exhibits at the California State Fair.”

His platform, if there is one, is “With puppets and music, we can change politics dramatically.  It’s what you leave behind that counts.” He also indicates “Please do not make any contributions to this campaign. If you must throw money away for politics’ sake, find a local animal shelter or aquarium and help them pay the rent. Lastly, Thanks to the friends and family I have tormented with this idea. Wouldn’t even be alive without you.”

Translation: This is a sham candidate and a sham campaign. Don’t throw your vote away.

[✗] Yvonne Girard (R)

Yvonne Girard (FB) is a Republican with no background on her website. According to SmartVoter, when she ran for Congress in 2014, she has some political experience: ” I graduated from California State University, Los Angeles with a Bachelor’s in Political Science, while serving as student body president, and Vice President of the CSULA Foundation Board of Trustees. After college I volunteered on Mayor Bradley’s gubernatorial campaign while waiting to start a management training course.” Most of her experience is managerial, with a stint as a judicial assistant. Translation: She’s not one of the crazies, but is a bit inexperienced for Governor.

As for her positions, that’s a different story. Here’s one quote: “Justice belongs to all people:  from babies in the womb, families of fallen Military and First Responders, to historical wrongs not fully amended. To ensure this, I believe Fallen Military and First Responders should be retired when killed in the line of duty, and their families receive their retirement benefits.  The State of California should apologize for its part in the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, and give the victims and/or their survivors, 30 million dollars for pain and suffering.  Jewish Americans should be able to obtain State help in retrieving possessions stolen during WWII and located within California’s borders.  Indigenous and, African American descendants of slaves, should receive Congressional Reparations, on top of  the apology Congress has already issued to both parties.  The United States should push to obtain an apology for Armenians  from the country of Turkey for the genocide of Armenians during the last century.” Needless to say she’s pro-life, believing abortion “to be a Crime Against Humanity which violate a baby’s Civil and Due Process rights, and abortion is a form of torture.”

In this case, knowing my core values, I don’t agree with her on issues, and feels she needs more experience. I would encourage her to run for State Assembly or State Senate however. There are districts where her ideas might resonate.

[✗] Shubham Goel (None)

Shubham Goel (FB), according to his webpage,  is a 22 year old Virtual Reality Manager in San Francisco, California who graduated from University of California, Los Angeles with an Economics and Film degree. That’s younger than my daughter! I’m not sure a governor that young is suitably seasoned; he clearly has no electoral experience with statewide or even major city offices.

As for his positions, he believes the UC Regents shouldn’t be appointed by the Governor, but should be elected by the students of the UCs. He wants to enact huge tax cuts for California and lower regulations on small businesses to encourage economic growth. He wants to ban social media usage for kids in K-12 schools across California. He wants to measure happiness with quarterly happiness surveys to California residents and learn from the data what we can do to improve happiness.  Yes, really. He wants to kill High Speed Rail, and take a fraction of that budget and build new freeways, add lanes and expand the BART line, which will actually help with the extremely long commute time for workers and with traffic mobility. So he doesn’t understand induced demand for freeways.

I don’t agree with him on issues, and I think he is far too green of a candidate.

[✗] Robert Davidson Griffis (D)

Robert Davidson Griffis (FB) has no website, other than his Facebook page. That has no biographical information or positions. All I can find is that he was a Libertarian candidate for President in 2018, but now states his party preference as Democratic. His personal FB page gives more information. He’s a managing partner at Simulation Series. Former Owner at Oakland Flower Mart. Former Director at JPMorgan Chase & Co. Former Strategy Consultant at Fair Isaac. Studied Engineering-Economic Systems at Stanford University. Studied Business Intelligence Systems at University of Virginia. He seems to be active in something called “Young Americans for Liberty“. Their description statement says nothing “Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is the largest, most active, and fastest-growing pro-liberty organization on America’s college campuses”, but they are endorsed by Ron Paul.  They do say they are “a movement aimed at making the ideas of the Constitution mainstream American thought”. These all sound like dog whistles for an extremely libertarian group.

No thanks.

[✗] Zoltan Istvan (L)

Zoltan Istvan (FB) is another Libertarian running for office, although Psychology Today describes him as “a world leading transhumanist”. According to his webpage, “Zoltan is the founder of the Transhumanist Party, the author the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, and a frequently interviewed expert on AI and genetic editing.” More significantly, “he has been compared in major media to a young Al Gore and described as a modern-day Ayn Rand.” Ayn Rand? That’s a big strike against him, in my book. He does not appear to have been elected to any office.

Although I can agree with the Libertarian social positions, I disagree with their position on government, because I do see a role for government. This guy is a kook, but in a different way than other libertarians. I know folks that would love him. Just not me.

[✗] Josh Jones (G)

Josh Jones (FB). Green. Buzzword lover: “Stay tuned for our heat map showing problems and solutions we’ve found in all of California’s 58 counties. We’ve made our Governor campaign focus on inbound communication, unlike other Governor campaigns which focus on outbound communication.” The guy is a Bernie supporter, and then worked for Jill Stein. No real elected experience.  His bio does note that “Josh co-founded and was elected President of the Berniecrats-Labor Alliance of Yolo County. Through this work, he was able to expose widespread fraud and corruption in the Democratic Party, as well as what he calls a culture of transactional politics.”

His platform is suitably progressive, just as Bernie’s was. He won’t win. He won’t get my vote either.

[✗] Gloria Estela La Riva (PF/Socialist)

Gloria Estela La Riva (FB) is the only Peace and Freedom-leaning candidate. Yes, the P&F party is still around. But that’s just her public affiliation — her candidate webpage makes it clear: she’s socialist. Now there are those who believe Democrats are Socialists, but there is a big big difference.

I do not support socialism. Here’s a summary of the differences. But I do believe capitalism is a good system; we just need to rein in some of the excesses that greed drives people to.

[✗] Peter Y Liu (R)

Peter Y Liu (FB), other than stating a party preference, gives no information in the ballot. When he ran for mayor of Oakland, he stated “I am the Worldʼs Smartest Leader.” According to SFist, when he ran for mayor of Oakland, be believed “that all the “good men” in Oakland should be armed with concealed weapons and should become part of militias under his Community Empowered Safety Plan. He also thinks that San Francisco is a “dirty city” and that homosexuality is a grave and deadly sin — as he said in an email to Zennie Abraham — and he says he “enjoys being offensive” and “war changed me, man.” With respect to transportation, “An alternative form of transportation I support is horses. I am an animal lover and those ponies are cute. With my trusty horse sidekick, HORSEY, I’ll ride like a western cowboy slinging revolvers and my horse shit all over Oakland grass patches as natural fertilizer for the trees and flowers.”

Yeah. Right. Next.

[✗] Albert Caesar Mezzetti (D)

Albert Caesar Mezzetti doesn’t appear to have a web page, and is 91 years old. From a news article I found on him, he was  a United States marine in three wars. He served on the Manteca City Council and holds degrees and teaching credentials from the state of California.  If elected, Mezzetti would protect the second amendment, fight for women’s rights and work to keep drugs like marijuana far away from young people.

But 91? Even with good odds, he won’t be in great shape for the job.

Not getting my vote.

[✗] Hakan “Hawk” Mikado (None)

Hakan “Hawk” Mikado (FB). Can you have confidence in someone who calls himself “Hawk”. Whose subtitle on his FB page is “The True American”. He claims to be part of a “True American” movement. A number of the statements of this movement seem like dog whistles: A True American Never Folds To Oppression, Invasion Of Privacy, Or The Right Given To Them By The Founding Fathers Of Our Great Nation, These United States Of America. True Americans Give A Hand Up, Not A “Hand Out”, To Those In Need. True Americans Deserve And Demand Publicly Directed Government Spending To Uphold What They Hold Most Dear.

However, he has no other statement or platform. No statement of experience. Nothing that makes me believe he’s more than a kook with a platform and a non-existent page for the movement behind that platform.

Not getting my vote.

[✗] Robert C. Newman II (R)

Robert C. Newman II, Republican. It’s clear on the front page of his website. “Life begins at conception and is determined by God. To terminate a life in the womb or at any other stage of life puts the killer in the place of God.” Less taxes. Less regulation. And… that’s about it. His most succinct self description: “I am a believer in salvation through Jesus Christ. The fields are white for harvest in Sacramento. The Office of Governor of the State of California is the mission field to which I have clearly felt the call.”

If you’ve read my core values, you can see why this guy doesn’t get my vote.

[✗] Michael Shellenberger (D)

Michael Shellenberger (FB), according to Wikipedia, is an American author, environmental policy expert, cofounder of Breakthrough Institute and founder of Environmental Progress. He’s a progressive democrat, who is actually in favor of nuclear power. He received a bachelor’s degree in Peace and Global Studies from Earlham College in Indiana in 1993, and a masters degree in anthropology from University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1996. Naturally, he lives in Berkeley 🙂 . Although he has been an activist, he doesn’t appear to have held an elected position.

He has some interesting progressive policies, but I’m not sure they could be implemented. As with some other candidates, I’d prefer he start at either the local government or state assembly/senate level first to get some experience in how California goverment works.

[✗] Desmond Silveira (None/Solidarity)

Desmond Silveira (FB) is the candidate of the “Solidarity Party”.  What does that mean? From his webpage, “Desmond is pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, and supports freedom of religion from needless government intrusion. He is for social justice, pro-community, pro-human-dignity, pro-environment, and pro-peace. Last but not least, he supports localized government where communities can decide for themselves instead of being forced to accept state or federal values and decisions.”

Uh, hows that again?

He clarifies that he wants to “introduce laws that protect religious institutions, small businesses, and private individuals from civil or criminal liability for refusing to participate in activities contrary to their belief in marriage as a secure union of one man and one woman.” Translation: He wants to force his religion on me.

His experience? He is “a professional software engineer, a successful small business owner (real estate), a husband, and a father of eight children. Born in Zambia and of Indian (Goan) descent, he has lived in southern California since he was one-year-old.”

This is one of the folks I reject due to conflict with my core values.

[✗] Jeffery Edward Taylor (None)

Jeffery Edward Taylor (FB) lists himself on the ballot as a “marketplace minister”. That’s one knock against him.  His webpage states his slogan as “Faith Family Freedom”. That makes me nervous, as I sense dog whistles. Further, his get out the vote statement says, “25% of Christians are not registered to vote and 50% do not vote regularly.” This indicates he wants to bring faith-based politics into the Governor’s office, and I’m against that. In fact, he specifically states that in his mission statement: “How can the Church influence governance strategically in addition to prayer?” He has no elected experience other than the Monterey County Farm Bureau Board. He does not have detailed policy positions.

I don’t think he is the candidate for me.

[✗] Klement Tinaj (D)

Klement Tinaj (FB) advertises himself as “the youngest candidate for Governor of California in 2018”. Wikipedia says he “is an Albanian American actor, martial artist, stuntman, and producer. He is best known for his martial arts action films. He has since shifted his focus to politics, and is running for Governor of California in 2018.” I guess if it was good enough for Ahnold.

Seriously, his about page gives nothing about his history, but there are lots of promises. Without experience in state government, I don’t see how he would achieve them; further, it is unclear how this unknown actor could leap past the better known names in the field. Yes, Trump did it. But Trump is a fluke. Please, God, make Trump a fluke.

Seriously, if you read his platform, it seems like he is promising something to everyone. Want a progressive agenda? You got it. Want your guns? Keep em. Want more and more reservoirs? We’ll build them. How we’ll pay for all of this, and how we will balance things… not said.

Again, I think this kid is too green (in an inexperience sense) to get my vote.

[✗] Johnny Wattenburg (None)

Johnny Wattenburg (FB) has a candidate statement of “Why not?” On his FB page, he states that he is running because “I want to fix what’s broken in this great state of ours, Im not your normal politician, I’m an average blue-collar worker that cannot be bought and see things from a different perspective then a politician. I would be ending the high-speed rail Fiasco, repealing the gas tax that was recently imposed, California should not in my opinion become a sanctuary state, look into the housing issue especially for the elderly, veterans, and lower-income and reform our prison system.”

I’ve already indicated my support for SB1, so he’s got that strike against him.  With a candidate statement of “Why not?”, I can’t take him seriously.

[✗] Nickolas Wildstar (L)

Nickolas WIldstar (FB) is the third libertarian candidate on the ballot. He’s basically a street artist and musician with no elected experience, and a self-proclaimed protege of Ron Paul. I’ve noted before why I can’t subscribe to the Libertarian position.

💭 Conclusion

Now that I’ve gone through the candidates, my initial feelings were confirmed. I like both Delaine Eastin (FB) and John Chiang (FB). I’m giving Chiang the edge right now for three reasons. First, he uses a state highway shield as his campaign logo. Second, he has a better chance of breaking through to the top two than Eastin. Third, he’s got more of a Southern California connection.

 

Share

10 Replies to “June 2018 California Primary Analysis (I): Introduction and Gubernatorial”

  1. Thanks for the research…more than most will do. Still, you need to do a whole lot more. Desmond Silveira has my vote. He’s pro-life for the whole of life. That distinguishes him from the Democrats and the Republicans. BTW, do you argue, in any sustained way, for your “core values”? Are they pro-life for the whole of life?

    1. If you read my core values post, you would have seen the following:

      Does this mean that I think murder should be legal, or that rape should be legal? No. I do believe there is a distinction between crimes against others without their choice, and things we do to ourselves. Murder, rape, theft, and such, are non-consensual crimes against others. Things like drugs and such are choice we make to ourselves. This invariably leads to the question of whether abortion is murder, and that really devolves quickly into when there is an other to commit a crime against. Note that I did not say “when life begins”, for cell division arguably begins the mechanics of life. But living — existence — being — is something different. There is a time during gestation — quite likely not exact — when that begins. When that occurs is a matter of belief, and this then becomes a matter of not pushing your beliefs onto me. Legally we impose a compromise: a time when we believe that existence independent of the mother is possible. Recognize that is what it is: a compromise between differing beliefs, and one that — even though we might not like — it is what we can accept for society. Does that mean we should encourage abortion? Of course not, but it ultimately should be the mother’s choice, dictated by their beliefs and their relationship with God as they understand God. We must respect their beliefs. Does this mean some promising lives will be lost? Quite probably, but we seem to have no problem as a society when equally promising lives are lost on the battlefield or to poverty or to sickness. Argue with me about the sanctity of life and that we must value life when you demonstrably and through actions value it equally after birth. Then, and only then, will I respect your call for valuing the unborn life throughout its lifecycle.

      However, Silveira has other problems. He doesn’t have the experience or skillset to be governor, nor do I agree with his views regarding marriage and the ability of someone to enforce their religious views on me.

  2. James Hanink
    11:43 AM (2 hours ago)
    to Observations
    Well, I’m back. A day late, but not more (I hope) than half a dollar short.

    What kept me? Mostly a “robust” debate (to employ a euphemism) among American Solidarity Party members. We have a national convention coming up.

    I’ve looked over you Core Values statement. Seems to me that it shows lots of good will.

    Here are a few points to pursue, and perhaps a dialogue format would be best.

    You: People have different core values, and that’s fine.

    Me: That depends on what the values are, as you acknowledge in your discussion of respect.

    You: Nobody should impose his or her religion on another.

    Me: Of course not. But what about supporting legislation (e.g., sound civil rights legislation) ultimately on the basis of one’s religious belief? Didn’t MLK do so?

    You: Living–existence–being suggests the point at which X (the fetus, unborn baby) has moral standing.

    Me: Right, and that’s conception. See, for example, the work of Maureen Condic, Ph.D.

    You: We currently have a legal compromise: abortion restrictions begin with viability.

    Me: The US law allows for abortion, in practice, until the time of birth.

    All the best…looking forward to hearing from you.

    Jim

  3. I’ve looked over you Core Values statement. Seems to me that it shows lots of good will.
    Politics, we agree, ought not to float free of one’s core values. Plus, there’s nothing below about a******n.

    You: People have different core values, and that’s fine.
    Me: That depends on what the values are, as you acknowledge in your discussion of respect.
    You: Nobody should impose his or her religion on another.
    Me: Of course not. But what about supporting legislation (e.g., sound civil rights legislation) ultimately on the basis of one’s religious belief? Didn’t MLK do so?
    Hesitant? Why?

    1. Primarily, because this is my post, and hence my forum. The post is about the candidates for Governor. You are no longer talking about the candidates for Governor. If you want to talk about Core Values, there’s a different post for that. I respect people enough not to hijack discussions. So, for the third time, stop.

  4. On Gavin Newsom: “He had an affair with his chief of staff’s wife — not the greatest thing in this day and age.”
    REALLY!!? We have a pu&&y grabbin president who gets a free pass for everything he does. I think the Republicans and especially the Liar in Chief put the final nail in the coffin on a candidates personal life. We will always refer back to him when someone’s indiscretions come into play for the rest of history – because his pitchfork mentally defective Jonestown Kool-Aid drinking followers defended and excused him.

    And i’ll take a wild shot here and assume Gavin’s indiscretions were consensual. I bet he didn’t have to force himself on someone or hire a shady gangster “attorney” to hide and bury his disgusting personal life.

    1. A few thoughts:

      (1) Just because the President does it, and he’s hoodwinked his faction in the R party to accept it, does not make those actions acceptable.

      (2) I haven’t been that impressed with either Newsom or Villargrosa. As my wife likes to point out: Those down here in LA remember what the city was like under Tony V, and we wouldn’t reelect him dogcatcher, and the folks in the Bay Area have similar memories regarding Newsom. Both have had discretions that were consensual, but had the appearance of issues, and in today’s day and age, those distractions aren’t needed. California is better than that, and we needn’t add fuel to the fire of hatred from the rest of the country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.