Aside from (or in addition to) the facts of last night, as well as that the remaining ballots and the trends between mail ballots and polling place ballots might make at least a couple of area races still in play, please post your thoughts in the comments. In other words, use this space for a post election rehash and/or discussion as you see fit.

1. bill @ the county says:

   November 7, 2012 at 12:56 pm

   For what it’s worth, DeMaio had the best radio jingle I’ve ever heard.
2. Hypocrisy questioned says:

   November 7, 2012 at 2:14 pm

   Would we be having a completely different discussion today if the Party had endorsed Fletcher instead of DeMaio?
3. D. Morton says:

   November 7, 2012 at 4:10 pm

   Or not endorsed in the mayor’s race until the run-off, which would have been the right decision.

   No way to know for sure if Fletcher would have beaten Filner. But its pretty safe to say that the unnecessary endorsement led to drama and fallout that cost us Bilbray.
4. Mole says:

   November 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm

   Hypocrisy questioned:
   If the “party” had endorsed Fletcher and he had won then his supporters could crow that Socialist Party B really is better than Socialist Party A. If he had lost then they could lament that he had blown his opportunity by not offering adequate supplies of other peoples things and money to attract the voters they want to attract.
5. B-Daddy says:

   November 7, 2012 at 9:31 pm

   The trash collectors blared some tune that contained the words “We kicked Mitt’s ass” this morning; I believe that was related to seeing my DeMaio yard sign. Big problems for the nation and the city if the employees run the government. It turns us all into vassals, not citizens.

   I was truly surprised by Filner’s victory. I believe that the Republican party should remain neutral in the mayor’s race, at least officially. I believe DeMaio didn’t need the endorsement and it didn’t help in the general, because it tied him to the less popular party in California.
6. B-Daddy says:

   November 7, 2012 at 9:46 pm

   I was surprised and disappointed by state and local election results. Filner’s victory is really bad news for the city. I boldly predict he will undermine the implementation of Proposition B. Most likely, he will block the city’s defense of the legal assault on the initiative by the unions. His victory was not a landslide, but 3% is still substantial. He doesn’t care that the city will be bankrupt in a decade, he’ll be probably be addled or six feet under by then. We will see how well the real fiscal constraints he inherits inhibit his ability to reward his union supporters.

   Proposition 30′s victory also surprised me. It’s victory defied the trend of tax increases not passing when more than one is on the ballot. It passed well beyond what polling would have indicated. Make no mistake, these tax increases will not raise the revenue promised, will not be temporary and will hurt the poor more than the rich because of the sales tax hike. Hard to imagine that it won with 54% of the vote, but there you go. How soon will the state hit the fiscal wall?
7. Jack says:

   November 7, 2012 at 11:04 pm

   Wow is the GOP so stupid. You lost because you ran a Democrat as your GOP candidate, He supported Bill Clinton in the past, He implemented Romney Care, He is a trust fund baby that never had to really work, and for the way they treated the only true Republican Ron Paul. Hopefully you’ll learn and never turn away a candidate like Ron Paul. One good thing…. Your clearing all your dead wood, Like Jerry Stocks.
8. Hypocrisy questioned says:

   November 8, 2012 at 6:44 am

   B-Daddy,

   Do you really think a 1/4 of 1% sales tax increase is going to hurt the poor? There is no sales tax on food, no sales tax on rent or utilities. These are the items that take up the bulk of a poor (middle class as well) person’s expenses. I expect the increase will amount to less than $2 per month for the average poor person.
9. Jack says:

   November 8, 2012 at 7:21 am

   Hypocrisy,

   And they’ll even have less incentive to work than they already do….

   Have you ever read Animal Farm…. communism/socialism doesn’t work because you always have the fat pigs at the top (our bankers and politicians) sucking the life of the few willing to work and then you have the total deadbeats with no incentive to work…. the model doesn’t work.

   The GOP has to completely dump the existing leadership and implement true leadership following Ron Paul’s/the True Republican platform.

   Its the only way to move forward. The existing leadership has completely destroyed this once great party.

   Look for Kelly Slater to be the only hope the GOP has at winning in 2016.
10. Brian Brady says:

    November 8, 2012 at 8:04 am

    “I expect the increase will amount to less than $2 per month for the average poor person.”

    Which is funding a bankrupt monopoly with a horrible record of services delivery. Sooner or later, we’re going to realize that we’re punishing the poor, sawbuck by sawbuck at a time, for the privileged class in California.

    We tell poor people “it’s for their children” then require them to be chained to a failed neighborhood school. When they have the temerity to question “can I just send my kids to that good school, in your neighborhood?”, the privileged class says “sorry, you were redistricted”, snickers, and collects another sawbuck from the poor people.

    B-Daddy nailed it. This is nothing more than a wealth transfer payment.
11. Erik says:

    November 8, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Few observations.

    A) We do need to honestly think about if/how the Party can do better in high turnout elections. While 2008 and 2012 may have been historic we could be in for another high turn out scenario if, for example, Hillary is the D’s nominee in 2016. Better to plan than be sorry. I have no ideas right now on above but I do know that when turnout gets above 70% we are having problems.

    B) I would encourage the Central Committee to honestly (and dispassionately) think hard about the pros and cons about early endorsements. I get the pros. Makes sense to try to “clear the field” and avoid nasty primaries when D’s are doing that.

    But the Cons are pretty high. Primaries are low turnout events. Central committee processes are even MORE low turnout processes. It just isn’t clear to me that the CC members are able to think like low information voters. Not there fault – they are by definition and actions the very opposite of the voter that shows up at the poll without a clue who Carl or Bob was but sees “Congressman” vs. “City Council member”. It would have been a great counterfactual exercise to think what it would have meant if the choice had been “War Hero Veteran”. And I type that having supported Carl in the primary.

    PERHAPS a suggestion would be to raise the requirements to endorse in the primary in non-partisan races to 3/4′s? Maybe it is a two step process, where first you have a small group – as shielded as much as possible, opine whether there is a risk the field is so crowded that we could get two Dems running off?

    I am not sure that this time it matters. Got crushed by a wave. But I fear that we are looking for at least one or two MORE high turnout presidential elections in the near future. We have to plan accordingly.
12. Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters says:

    November 8, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Actually, I have to agree more with my OPPONENTS than my allies on the issue of the poor paying for Prop 30. The quarter percent will raise from ALL Californians “only” $1 billion. If the income tax component works as advertised (it won’t), the other $5 billion comes only from the wealthy.

    Naturally the poor and middle class bought into this. That 30% income tax increase won’t hurt them!

    Until they try to get a job. And until the projected tax revenue turns out to be far less than the figures used to sell the initiative to voters.

    Fewer wealthy folks (and less wealthy folks) in CA will not help our state economy. Au contraire. Much as most hate the wealthy, we DO want their economic boost to our state.

    This retroactive tax increase to ONE JANUARY of 2012 is a kick in the head for wealthy folks. The message is clear — “Get out! We don’t want ‘your kind’ in California.”

    The question now is only how many wealthy people (and their businesses) will leave, and how many FEWER will be coming to our “Golden State.”
13. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    November 8, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Richard nails it on the head concerning the problem with Prop 30 and it is not the 1/4 of 1% increase in sales tax. We were paying more than that and it didn’t stop the California economy from booming. The problem is on the income tax side and the fact that high wealth individuals certainly have the option of calling some other state home, thereby negating much, if not all, of the expected tax revenue gains while also potentially costing the state businesses and jobs.

    As for the problem with winning high turnout elections, how about coming up with policies that appeal to the majority of the population and not just a majority of the high propensity voters?
14. Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters says:

    November 8, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Perhaps a bigger long-term problem with the wealthy LEAVING the state is that they wealthy will not be moving TO this state.

    CEO’s won’t want to bring their firms here (well, will even LESS inclined to bring their firms here.

    One unintended consequence — good luck talking high value pro sports free agents into coming to CA to play. Florida and Texas beckon.

    Our pro sports teams can only decline in this scenario. You hear me — Lakers and Chargers fans?
15. Brian Brady says:

    November 8, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    “Richard nails it on the head concerning the problem with Prop 30 and it is not the 1/4 of 1% increase in sales tax”

    Then why do it all? If it collects less than 20% of the revenue, and is likely to hurt the poorest among us, why do it?
16. Patricia Madden says:

    November 8, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Chairman Tony’s 2012 Accomplishments:
    1, Drive a young Republican, war veteran and sitting Assemblyman from the party.
    2. Put into exile a leading San Diego County political consultant for speaking his mind.
    3. Fail to retain a Republican mayor’s seat in San Diego.
    4.Lose a Republican congressional district.
    5.The day after the election most Republican pundits are discussing ways to reach Latino voters. Tony can take pride of the fact he engineered the endorsement of Sherry Hodges over retired Marine Colonel Rocky Chavez for State Assembly.
    6. It is for those reasons a “Dump Tony” movement has begun.
17. Richard Rider, Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters says:

    November 8, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Brian, the token sales tax increase is to make it appear that this is not strictly a “soak the rich” proposition — which, of course, it is.

    Furthermore, Hypocrisy has a point — the poor pay little sales tax as a percent of their outlays. Most outlays are (well, should be) for non-restaurant food, utilities and shelter — all exempt from sales tax. Most of the sales tax will be paid by the middle class, though all will kick in.

    And let’s not forget that the state can always benefit from having an extra billion dollars to give away annually to buy votes!
18. B-Daddy says:

    November 8, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    With regards to the Prop 30 tax hurting the poor. Higher taxes always hurt the poor, because the rich either avoid the higher rates or pass along the increase to everyone else. Meanwhile the economy suffers from the changed behavior of those with the most wealth. As Richard Rider points out, the reduced job opportunities in California disproportionately impact those looking for work.
19. Hypocrisy questioned says:

    November 9, 2012 at 6:17 am

    We have all been told that sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation, but is it really? Most of the necessities of life (food, shelter, heat, even cable TV) are not subject to sales tax. It would seem to me that the wealthier you are, the higher percentage of your income you will spend on taxable goods. I think this would make an interesting study for a think tank and depending on the results, maybe even change the way we look at taxes.
20. D. Morton says:

    November 9, 2012 at 7:57 am

    This thread mirrors perfectly one of the most fundamental hurdles to running an effective party organization that the CAGOP, and SDGOP, have failed to clear. To move forward, the Party will need reform is structure and leadership in a way that facilitates creating a marketable strategy and messages. Some comments on this thread have been constructive to that end, yet they have been drowned out by an asinine policy discussion on the intricacies of Prop 30 – we all know it sucks and we just got curb-stomped by its passage – time to think forward about keeping up the good fight.

    Erik’s comments were the most productive, spot on to a great beginning for moving the party forward.