Chesa

WTF people. I hope I’m wrong about him.

Posted Nov 6, 2019, 8:09 AM UTC

014
Chumsicles•

If RCV patterns stay the same as it did from the initial mail-in ballots, he is probably not winning. So relax!

10
junkmai1er•

I think 240 votes is still too close for comfort because Boudin supporters seem far more active and thus more likely to vote.

6
chengg•

It was a super low turnout election. Plus Boudin was endorsed by Bernie so he had energized supporters. Also like it or not the SF populace is super progressive.

4
reddaddictionDIVISADERO•

Kinda weird how many progressive politicians get voted in and have been getting voted in for years when the populace isn't progressive.

This subreddit isn't progressive, a lot of voters sure are, though.

5
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
axearm•

I think 240 votes is still too close for comfort

I agree.

because Boudin supporters seem far more active and thus more likely to vote.

I don't think how 'likely' they are to vote matters if there are less of them, and so far the votes show there are less of them.

Perhaps they are more likely to vote by mail but I have no basis to make that claim (and anecdotally I think highly motivated voters tend to show up to polls rather than mail in ballots)

0
bdeeeOP•

Ahhh thanks ok relaxing

4
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
junkmai1er•

I would not be surprised to see a huge percentage of Tung's votes go to Loftus.

9
Mega_Millions•

https://www.sfelections.org/results/20191105/data/20191105_4/da/20191105_4_da_detail.pdf

Really surprising to me that he got 8.5k of Tung’s votes vs. Loftus 10k. I expected him to get much less from Tung supporters and makes me wonder if voters are just filling in bubbles.

12
junkmai1er•

Maybe many of those Boudin votes from Tung were protest votes due to Breed's appointment of Loftus as acting DA.

4
Mega_Millions•

Yeah, good point. They were voting for any one but Loftus and first went with Tung.

1
shipdestroyer•

Excellent post. Do you care to elaborate?

6
WasteElk•

Wrong about him losing?

1
scoofyflair•

I voted against him for the reasons we’ve all discussed, but he may be right about prioritizing violent crime. If he is, we could have a broken-windows outcomes, but via reducing the violent offenders on the street.

This could disrupt networks of drugs and gang violence.

I am skeptical, but it’s not entirely implausible. That said, I’m very concerned that traffic violence will continue to grow because it’s caused by unsexy negligence.

1
bdeeeOP•

I hope you’re right! And at this point I think your attitude and optimism is the best strategy. Thanks!

1