Move to the Middle Killed Fletcher

Comments 4

1. 
   Red Grant

   November 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm

   Fletcher’s loss was more about a man who showed that he lacked character and principals…enough so that he came in third again in the mayor’s race…while starting with a huge lead in money raised and name recognition. Given those facts, it is pretty astounding that he came in third again if you think about it.

   And did he actually run for the middle? His labor questionnaire, his coziness with Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and others on left leave me believing otherwise.

   No, he didn’t lose because he was in the middle…it was because the voters didn’t trust him to be a good steward of our great city.

   While it is easy to be cynical about voters, this was one time when they saw through the phoney facade of a man whose narcissism, blind ambition and ability to lie convincingly to many were his defining characteristics. Good for San Diego.
2. 
   democrab

   November 22, 2013 at 1:42 pm

   Tell us what you really think, Red Grant.
3. 
   Richard Rider

   November 23, 2013 at 4:47 pm

   How much further to the Left could Fletcher get? Only in the delusional world of KPBS would Fletcher be seen as him “being in the middle.”

   Being in the middle often works. But wherever Nathan was perceived to be on the political spectrum, that wasn’t his problem.

   Fletcher’s problems were with how he was perceived (correctly perceived, I might add). They didn’t call him “flip-flop Fletcher” for nothing.

   He might have pulled it off if he had stayed an independent — he ruined his credibility when he switched a second time in such a short period — obviously to get Democrat and labor funding. It was an ill-advised gamble that cost him the election.

   Who were his consultants? Remind us, board mavens.
4. 
   Red Grant

   November 24, 2013 at 11:09 am

   Tom Shepard was hired by the independent group to throw mud at Faulconer, I believe.

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