Earlier this month there was a poll for the all-important race for mayor of San Diego. It was financed by TV station KGTV, but it was not one of those bogus “call-in” surveys or Internet polls.
The results showed my favorite — San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio — with an early but encouraging lead over his opponents (some not yet declared).
Councilman Carl DeMaio 22%
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis 15%
Rep. Bob Filner 14%
State Senator Christine Kehoe 12%
State Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher 7%
http://www.10news.com/news/28176616/detail.html
Since the poll has come out, two points have been raised:
1. Christine Kehoe dropped in and then out of the race with breathtaking speed. A former San Diego City Council person, she would have faced devastating attacks for her past performance — and her considerable culpability for today’s city financial mess.
She quickly came to her senses. I was actually disappointed, as open season on Kehoe would have been a fun pastime for me (I’m easily entertained).
Now that Kehoe is gone, that leaves Bob Filner as the only Democrat in the race. Given that most of Kehoe’s “votes” in the survey would go to Filner, he is in fact the likely frontrunner TO MAKE THE RUNOFF. I emphasize that point because getting into the runoff is a far cry from winning the election.
Just ask Donna Frye. As the only credible Democrat in the 2005 special election for mayor, she handily won the primary. But then in the general election the voters for all the other candidates (including mine) went to the remaining candidate, Republican Jerry Sanders. Frye got waxed.
2. Legitimate objections have been raised about the methodology of the survey — challenging the DeMaio lead. The SurveyUSA effort used “registered voters,” which is not as accurate as using the more difficult to poll “likely voters.” But if one digs into the survey details online, there’s interesting data that helps better predict the voter preference.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=51ba4319-2bf1-41c5-99aa-3171a4f23e0c
First off, let me conjecture a bit: Pro-DeMaio registered voters are more likely to actually vote than registered voters who prefer the other candidates. DeMaio supporters are generally more informed — and more political aroused — than all but the public employees. Hence, if anything, the poll is likely UNDERstating the vote DeMaio currently could expect to get at that point in time (early June).
This is further borne out by the poll’s demographics. While DeMaio gets 22% of the poll, he gets 28% of the age 65+ voters, 27% of the 50-64 voters, 22% of the 35-49 voters and only 8% of the flaky 18-34 voters. And we all know who shows up to vote — especially in primaries.
Also note the relatively small number of undecided voters — 14%. This is remarkable for an election that is a year away. Obviously things could change, but at this point and with this field of candidates, I’d say that DeMaio is an odds-on favorite to make the runoff.
In a DeMaio-Filner runoff, we’d see a replay of the Prop D sales tax initiative. We’d see Filner, the Democrat faithful and the public employee unions vs. everyone else. I expect the outcome of the mayoral election would be similar — in DeMaio’s favor.
And the taxpayers.
Comments 55
Please don’t conjecture on a POLL Richard, it’s unbecoming of you. Conjecturing is defined as making judgement based on incomplete information. You are better than that.
Is it just me or did the DeMaio campaign make Richard Rider Propaganda Minister in Chief. His frequency in shilling has skyrocketed since his GOP Baptism.
Author
Mike, I think you’ll find my postings everywhere in this website — both before and after my switch to the GOP. Yes, I’m a BIG DeMaio fan — and have been LONG before my change in registration — dating back to his city budget reforms of 2004. So?
And gosh, am I not speaking ill of some of my new GOP brethren? How’s that square with me converting to the GOP?
Mike, man up and use your REAL FULL name when attacking me, you gutless wonder.
We should be wary of candidates who base strength in polls not ideas. Let’s be honest, polls are pointless before a campaign has been run. When Obama was beginning his campaign, he polled at 2%. Then he began to run, and the rest is history. That is why you run campaigns.
June 30th will be the real test. Contributions will be a very good indicator of support. If Carl and Bonnie are way ahead, then they should lead the pack in fundraising.
Author
Disappointed, I didn’t realize it was bad form to conjecture on this website. Thanks for pointing that out.
You’ll note the I LABELED my conjecture as such — not relying on the poll. Look around at the other posts, Bubba. Are not they filled with conjecture — and not labeled as such?
Too few people posting here provide (as I try to do) links for verification and further research. I’m entitled to conjecture as well, thank you very much.
To prove that R Rider was a DeMaio fan before he was a Republican, one only read his posts…
http://sdrostra.com/?cat=94
Author
Wrong Rider, Thorette. That URL links to the comments of my longtime son (and longtime Republican) Steve.
___
Thanks, fixed. I won’t say if you’ve seen one Rider, you’ve seen them all. Love the “Thorette.” — Thorette
Fletcher has too many hurdles to overcome. First off, lobbyist cannot give. they are prohibited from giving to state officials.
Also, he is used to large corporate dollars. he doesn’t have a strong base of people who can cut 500 checks. Most of his money will be non-San Diego anyways.
DeMaio and Dumanis started earlier, so they have grabbed a ton of early support. Dumanis’ downtown establishment support of Sanders (and his former CoS Kris Michelle) as well as Faulconer and Roberts gives her the edge. DeMaio will finish a strong second (not including his match, which doesn’t qualify as showing grassroots support). Fletcher in third.
Well we might as well pack it up and hand the crown to Carl, right? I mean every time a candidate was winning in the polls a year out they ended up winning the whole thing. That’s why Romney faced Hilary in 08… oh wait.
Look I wish it were the case… i would be working in the White House if polls this far out were meaningful.
But it turns out they are not. They are good for two things: A) allowing us blowhards to pontificate on websites (which is good fun) and B) making donors feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Based on this poll, Bonnie and Carl should clean house in the fundraising dept… which is not entirely unexpected. Both are tied in to city money, and have been raising it for quite some time. Nathan has been stuck in Sacto dealing with this nonsensical budget fiasco, and is largely raising money from untested waters.
But I guess that’s why they have campaigns right? Or should we just scrap that whole process and just handle the elections via WILDLY unscientific polls.
Author
“Why” — I don’t think one can say that Carl’s campaign is based on “polls and not ideas.” Agree or disagree, Carl has 10 times the ideas (a.k.a. needed reforms) of all his opponents combined. And indeed, quite a number of his ideas (many from his initially rejected 2004 budget reform report) have already (though often reluctantly) been implemented.
Furthermore, this mayoral race is quite different from the birth(er) of the Obama campaign, who was at that point a total unknown in the nation. ALL the major players in our mayoral campaign already are well known to San Diegans. And our battle over city reforms (or lack of same) has been raging for years in the press.
Yes, the election is almost a year away, so anything can happen. Expect HUGE anti-DeMaio smear campaigns by the labor unions — with some considerable national funding.
But unlike the normal political race, already all the candidates are household words (and perhaps curses) in “America’s Finest City.” That likely explains why there were only 14% “undecideds” in the poll.
I “conjecture” that DeMaio will NOT raise the most money in the 30 June reporting period — though his grassroots fundraising will be impressive. But, as we know from the last two mayoral races, money alone will not win such a contest. Just ask Steve Francis.
I thought Carl is gonna put $2 million into the race? Talk about Grassroots allright.
Since when did most voters know who their local elected officials were?
Good on you, Richard. Feh to the anonymous trolls.
Author
Vidosic, the SurveyUSA poll hardly qualifies as “WILDLY unscientific.” That political category is reserved for phone-in and Internet polls.
This was a decent poll, but NOT a great poll. Furthermore, the demographic data is available for limited further analysis.
“WILDLY unscientific” polling is what the UN delivers when it issues reports comparing the quality of health care worldwide, relying on governments to submit the data (Cuba excels at this exercise). “WILDLY unscientific” refers to the work by a bogus PhD CA bureaucrat whose biased work is STILL being used by CA to drive diesel-based firms out of business. And “WILDLY unscientific” refers to the Climategate-rigged “studies” emanating from formerly respected centers of learning.
I’m interested in seeing how many individual donors each candidate has. Total $ raised is most important but total # of donors can also be used to gauge momentum.
Richard you know I’m with you on the environmental stuff, as our Prop 23 scars will undoubtedly show.
I do, however, have a serious problem with “registered” voter (read: not LIKELY voter) polls in primaries. Plus, who knows what the turnout model is going to look like if AB 80 passes and the presidential primary is moved to June…
The reason I find it “WILDLY unscientific” is that I do not believe that in any way shape or form does it predict any results with any clarity or authority. Perhaps our definitions of this differs, but I was speaking from my perspective.
Carry on.
Richard, we suppose that if you rated your examples on a “wildly scientific scale” you could be accused of conjecture. We thus urge caution.
Author
Egad, Thorette, you’re right! I stand contrite before my peers.
Author
Vidosic, sounds like your beef is the EARLY nature of the poll. Good point.
But that does NOT make the methodology or results “WILDLY unscientific.” Such uncertainty is the makeup of all early polls.
They provide a point in time analysis — generally not a reliable predictor of who will win. I doubt anyone says such polls offer that outcome with any degree of certainty.
But the poll (and the demographic breakdown) DOES bode well for DeMaio. Certainly beats being Fletcher with 7%. Sure, Nathan can win, but it’s an upward battle, to put it mildly.
I think it’s fair to say that we are ALL conjecturing at this point. And why not? No entry fee, and everyone forgets when results prove one wrong.
Author
Here’s another conjecture on my part — the unions will spend at least TEN MILLION DOLLARS to beat DeMaio, regardless of his opponents. The union bosses don’t really care who (among this field of candidates) beats Carl.
The local unions don’t have that kind of money, but they will get it via the national unions. This is a bell weather election the unions across the country feel that they can’t afford to lose — and perhaps with good reason.
Put that in your calendar tickler file to check after all the financial reports are in.
Richard – that would be an OUTRAGOUS amount. Keep in mind how much you Saw Steve Francis on TV in 2008. That was 4 million. Now 2.5 times that to beat up Carl? My goodness. It would be EXTREME overkill and probably wouldn’t work. Negative ads drive people AWAY from the polls; not change voting behavior.
Polling – The problem with Survey USA is that they don’t weight for likely voters. The lower the turnout the more variance their methodology is GUARANTEED to create because we know that turnout levels vary according to pretty predictable variables (for example, voters who are older are more likely to vote).
Horseracing a year out – Meaningless. The only thing I think that matters at ALL in these polls is the “bad news” for Nathan – the lack of pop in his name ID among voters for Chelsee’s law. I think many in the pundit class thought it would be gold. I think it measures essentially the LACK of newspaper reading that he didn’t get a bigger boost…since his involvement in the legislation was not as extensively covered by the electronic media as it was in print.
BTW – of COURSE the unions care about getting Bob rather than Dumanis or Fletcher elected. Now the REALLY good news is that people like Richard and Carl have done a lot of spade work that I am not sure it matters. Like Antonio V up in LA, if Bob by some black spot on the sun way gets elected he is going to find this pesky thing called a balanced budget to contend with and some reasonibly solid, soon to be improved, taxpayer protections that limit revenues. Sometimes it really IS as simple as matching the $s that come in with the $s that come out.
Author
I hedge my above prediction — I’m assuming Carl makes the runoff and thus faces TWO union onslaughts.
A school of thought: Labor doesn’t want to face Dumanis or Fletcher in a general; they would much prefer a runoff against DeMaio. So, it could be no union money spent against Carl in June, but against one or both of the other two depending on how the tracking shows in the last six weeks.
Fletcher will raise the most money — but it will be virtually all non-San Diego. Bush and Arnold money from DC and Sacto. It will buy him ads, but it is meaningless.
Here’s why:
DeMaio will raise less money, but from more people. Shows grassroots strength. DeMaio will put his own money in. In the end, he can easily match whatever edge the lobbyist/DC/Sacto money barons give Fletcher.
Money isn’t what this race is about. It’s about leadership and clarity of positioning. There again DeMaio has the edge: DeMaio actually takes positions.
Fletcher? he doesn’t take any position, because he’s afraid he’ll wet his pants if anyone disagrees with him.
Carl,
Did you really write that “Fletcher…he’ll wet his pants if anyone disagrees with him?”
You do know that Fletcher led troops into battle where the enemy was shooting real (not verbal) bullets at him, don’t you? I doubt someone disagreeing with him on a particular policy is going to cause him a loss of bladder control.
Alger: I guess I can ask Fletch tonight when he’s at the big Comprehensive Pension Reform kickoff event…..
oh wait…
that’s right…
…he won’t be there.
Why?
He can’t tell us if he supports Pension reform or not. Says he needs to “study” whether moving to a 401(k) like the rest of the world is something he can support.
Alger you clearly don’t like Carl, but you at least have to give him credit for being courageous enough to go out on the battlefield of reform and take real and clear positions.
Fletch could learn a thing or 2 in that category.
Author
I like Barry’s scenario. Hopefully the unions will be that foolish. If DeMaio is in the general against Filner, DeMaio wins easily.
Sadly, a Dumanis-Filner runoff would be a win-win for the unions. Perhaps less so a Fletcher-Filner match-up, but not MUCH less so. Any runoff combo of two of those three is a labor victory — only the magnitude of the victory would be in question.
To me, one thing is clear — Filner simply can’t win. All three of the GOP candidates would win handily against him. Filner has spent his life running in (usually gerrymandered) district races — he has no idea how unpopular he will be in a citywide contest. And that’s a GOOD thing.
DeMaio is a man of ideas. Because he is, he is singularly different from the rest. He drives the issues. It seems that people (probable voters?) like that today. If he does not change that he is the man to beat. Bob Filner is much tougher than some give credit. Read the history on those gerrymandered districts. They were what he wanted and he has a way of getting his way. Ask Juan Vargas. Could be a classic battle between an old Democrat/socialist warrior and the new Republican/libertarian truth bearer. If one of them wins things around San Diego will get lively.
Carl,
How many times have we gotten ourselves in trouble pushing forward some “great idea” before fully analyzing it? There is a reason that “the devil is in the details” is such a common expression. I give Fletcher credit for not doing the easy thing (support a hugely popular measure) before there was a thorough analysis done.
As for DeMaio, I do give him credit for making pension reform a top priority. Changes were clearly needed and probably never would have happened without his leadership. However, I cannot support the way he constantly plays with numbers, at best twisting them and at worst flat out lying about them, to try to make his point more dramatically. The Pension Initiative is a perfect example:
In the chart that shows a $2.1 Billion savings, he assumes ta 4% average salary increase when computing what the cost of retaining the pension would be, but uses a 2% assumed average salary increase when salary when computing the new cost of adding a defined contribution plan.
When he uses 4% for both, he comes up with the $1 billion savings over 27 years. Still nothing to sneeze at, but almost all of that saving comes from the five-year pay freeze. The switch to a “401-K” actually costs the taxpayers money over the first few years, saves comparatively very little over 26 years and will start costing the taxpayers money every year after that.
You’ll need a new song, Alger. The hard and fast numbers on Pension Reform savings are now coming from the San Diego County Taxpayers Association and actuary Bill Sheffler.
So who are we going to believe on this dispute… the San Diego Taxpayers Association, or you? OK, it’s a tough call.
I’m sitting in a meeting right now laughing. I mean really laughing at your weak attempt to set expectations low for Fletcher.
How’s this for inside information: Fletcher had about 100k in hand by the end of the first week. The money came in just about as fast through the period in question. I’m putting him at 350k raised. Maybe more.
Jim,
With the possible exception of “The 401-K…will start costing the taxpayers money every year after that (year 26)” there is nothing I said in my most recent post that the Taxpayers Association would disagree with. As for what would happen after that, the Taxpayers didn’t do the analysis, but their own analysis did show that the 401-K costs more in year 27.
Also, you might want to read the Voice of San Diego (I assume a more credible source than yours truly):
“The $1.3 billion estimate shows city workers getting 4 percent annual raises after the freeze ends, which is the same as is currently projected. The $2.1 billion estimate trims raises under the 401(k) plan to 2 percent annually, but doesn’t change the current assumptions for the pension system.
“It’s a key difference. If salaries only increase by 2 percent, then the pension system would have seen major savings, too.”
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/government/thehall/article_d0544dd6-a38b-11e0-9bf6-001cc4c03286.html
Glad I could provide some amusement. Hope it isn’t an important meeting.
You also made me chuckle with your dastardly tales of “inside information” and inflated numbers.
I am not trying to set the bar low. I am merely stating that I believe that Carl and Bonnie will outraise Fletcher in the first filing period. They have much longer relationships with city donors than Nathan does. That is a fact. Nathan has also missed at least one fundraiser due to being stuck in Sacto working on the budget. That is also a fact.
But get back to your meeting, don’t let the musings of a teacher that’s off for the summer distract you. Sounds like you have real, important things to do…
Hmmmm sounds like enough of us on here have already picked a candidate.
To me it’s pretty clear.
Fletcher damn well better show strong. His people aren’t quiet about the fact that they believe one of his strengths is fundraising. If he doesn’t come in first the rest of the establishment goes to Dumanis.
DeMaio has split the center right finance base and walks away with the more ideological $ people. That being said I don’t know that this side of the center right has ever been able to fund a candidate before. But, of course, he can self fund. Or maybe he can’t. I guess we’ll finally see.
Dumanis at this point is the establishment candidate. She’s got Sanders on the phone for her. She’s got bi-partisan donors. She’s the sitting DA. She either comes in first or Fletcher is going to look like a much better choice to alot of people.
Carl DeMaio is a typical politician who is self-centered, party-oriented and contours data to fit DeMaio’s view of San Diego.
The cause of the pension problem were politicians like him, who funded sports teams, a republican convention, an expansion of the convention center and other projects that benefited a minority of citizens in San Diego while neglecting maintenance and our infra-structure. The line public employee in San Diego retire with a reasonable retirement plan, it is the politicians and the upper management within San Diego who are retiring with absurd montly reitrement payouts . . . I wish that the lying, greed and mis-representation of data would stop by Jerry Sanders, Carl DeMaio, Kevin Falconer supported by the corporate elite and some within the media because the lies do NOT wash well with this voter.
Most of the events Ms. Carney describes happened in the 1990s. Carl DeMaio joined the City Council in December 2008, and Kevin Faulconer in January 2006…… or a full Decade later.
And according to a Gerry Braun story in the U-T on 10/23/96, roughly 3/5 of the Republican convention costs of that year were funded either by private or corporate donations to the Host committee.
Jim,
Does that mean that the City paid for 2/5 of the cost of the Convention?
The previous comment left the impression that 5/5
of the bill was paid for by the City of SD.
In the interests of fairness, I filleted those fifths
down to a feasible flock of fifths.
A flow chart of the fifths fully furnishes the final
foundation of formatted fiscal findings.
Hope this fusillade of facts will fundamentally
facilitate further financial fluidity and fairness.
Friday, Friday, Friday, oh Frabjous Friday !
I pretty much agree with everything Kay Carney wrote.
I came to San Diego from Minnesota in 1987 and very quickly realized how greedy some businesses and the politicians in San Diego really were. Corporate welfare was alive and well with no reasonable controls or over-sight and the rate of return on the Cities’ tax-payer investment was dismal.
The elected and non-elected politicians, real estate developers, the owners of the 2 local sports teams and a handfull of companies have put San Diego into this mess and now all of these entities are blaming public employees in the form of fire, police, teachers and healthcare workers and also the unions that represent these employees.
Again, it is NOT the public employees but the politicians and their minions who are to blame, but the voters keep re-electing these corrupt, immoral and unethical politicians.
Isn’t it time for a change?
No surprise that Kent Hill agrees with Kay Carney. They are commenting from the same IP address. We know, CONJECTURE, but they could even be the same person!
The Kent/Kay entity is spouting the usual drivel from the standard San Diego labor union playbook — and it’s likely that “they” are a single paid union official doing his/her job, spreading disinformation.
These multiple personalities ignore the fact that the budget problems of San Diego are not LIMITED to San Diego. Quite the opposite.
Just about every city in the county — indeed almost all government agencies in the STATE — have experienced similar budget deficits and huge unfunded employee benefit obligations. They didn’t all build convention centers and pro sports stadiums.
What this universal budget problem DOES demonstrate is that politicians cannot resist giving “their” employees (and themselves) goodies today that don’t have to be paid for until much later. Perhaps the best prop we could pass in CA would be to outlaw defined benefit pensions, and any retiree health care benefit owed by the cities, counties or other government agencies.
Sure, it’s hard to do retroactively, but at the very least we should kill this giveaway off for future hires.
Not only government agencies are dealing with budget deficits, so too are most private businesses; that generally happens in a recession.
Alger, the difference is that most private companies don’t think they exist primarily as a Cadillac jobs program for their workers, so that few have defined benefit plans, and almost none provide retiree health insurance. Private companies quickly adjust spending and hiring to match economic conditions — governments are notoriously slow to make such adjustments.
Moreover, few private companies have deficits even approaching public agencies, and those that do, go out of business, as they should.
Although I know this will fall on deaf ears…
1. During a down economy, not only do government revenues drop, their need for services increase. A private business can cut costs during a downturn because there will generally be less demand for their product. Government, on the other hand, inevitably sees the need for its services go up during bad economic times.
2. A large percentage of the S&P 500 companies still have defined benefit plans; According to a study by Mercer (http://www.mercer.com/summary.htm?idContent=1349815), 2008 was the first year that these companies spent more money on their DC plans than on their DB plans. Likewise, many of these companies do provide retiree health care. My mother is the beneficiary of one such plan.
3. If insurance companies can provide guaranteed lifetime annuities and make a profit at it, then large employers, public and private can certainly provide defined benefit pensions.
Do Defined Benefit Pensions as run by most governmental bodies need to be modified? Absolutely! Some incredibly ridiculous decisions, predominantly giving retroactive benefit increases and intentionally not paying the necessary contributions have been made and must be avoided. However, do you really believe that eliminating some level of guaranteed security for retirees is a good idea? I truly hope not!
Alger, one of the MANY problems with govt pension plans is that they include COL increases. No private pension plans do (not any more, at any rate).
Furthermore, the accounting rules on properly reporting and accounting for private pension obligations are far stricter than for govt plans, where for years the unfunded liability has gone under-reported. As a result, private sector defined benefit pensions are FAR more modest as a percent of salary than government plans.
Insurance companies can offer guaranteed contracts, because they have no concern of retroactive changes being made to them later. You may wish that it didn’t happen with govt pensions, but almost ALL such pension plans have such retroactive benefits added later — including social security. It’s INHERENT in govt pensions — the temptation is too large for the politicians.
Nothing wrong with not having a guaranteed retirement plan. Such is the case for millions of self employed, and business owners — and the overwhelming majority of private sector workers. Not to mention investors. Even SS obligations are proving not to be guaranteed (it never was, actually).
Richard,
You have described a number of factors (and there are more) that need to be FIXED in the plan design of most government (and some private) pension plans, BUT THEY CAN BE FIXED. There simply is no reason to be completely scrap the idea of a guaranteed income in retirement. In this day and age, living in the greatest and richest country in the history of the world, there is no reason someone should have to worry they they will outlive their money if the stock (or bond) market doesn’t perform well or if they simply live longer than they assumed they would.
Alger:
I’ve meant to ask about your nick. To the best of my
knowledge, there has only ever been one famous
person in politics with that name. If you chose the
name for that reason (and it may have nothing to
do with that other person), would you be open to
a discussion about him on another thread?
Jim,
I picked the name because even though I consider myself self-reliant and I believe what little success I have had is due to hard work and determination, this doesn’t change the facts that:
1. I have had and continue to have help along the way.
2. If a couple of my life’s defining moments had not gone the way they did, I don’t know how my life would have turned out.
3. Gratitude, not guilt, allows me to have compassion for those who didn’t have some of the advantages I have had.
I am not sure that I am really an expert on Horatio Alger, but I would welcome a discussion on a how a “self-made man” would view today’s political climate.
Jim, I was hoping that Alger was the first name, not the last. I expect so were you.
Horatio Alger was the American author whose books recommended the virtues of hard work, honesty and Patriotism to his target audience of young men
I’m glad THAT is the Alger being honored by the Rostra commenter, rather than the convicted Perjurer. 🙂
Alger Hiss? Really? Does the belief that we are better off with SOME shared responsibilities make one a Communist?
Wow, Alger, usually other commenters are overreacting to you. No one said any such thing. There are some who believe Hiss was not a communist. There are many reasons someone may select a pseudonym. If it were Hiss, it might have been an interesting thread.
Thor’s Assistant, I, and Whittaker Chambers did the
Rostra “Alger” a favor by allowing him to clarify that
his nick is a tribute to an American ICON, Horatio Alger,
not to a convicted American perjurer, Alger Hiss.
And ‘Thanks’ ain’t necessary.
I guess I am just used to Richard Rider’s “socialist” comments. If I over-reacted To Mr. Whitaker’s comment, I apologize. And Jim, if anyone thought my pseudonym referred to Alger Hiss, I do thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight.
I wasn’t calling Alger a commie either, I too was simply interested in the discussion that could ensue if the nickname was for Alger Hiss!